Wednesday, January 7, 2009

CSW group on Facebook

I've started a Facebook group for CSW. Already in just two days we have 23 people who have joined the group. I think that's great. In theory I thought the blog was a great idea. Now, in practice, I'm questioning that. It seems that no one visits it and I'm not motivated to write when no one is reading/responding. 

Lots of people check Facebook daily (or very regularly) so if they are members of CSW on Facebook they will be alerted of new content on our CSW group page.

We might even decide to move the blogging onto Facebook as it has a blogging feature. I see these avenues (blogging, Facebook) as experiments in creating a stronger CSW community and better means for communicating.

If you aren't a member of Facebook, consider joining. It's easy and there are lots of colleagues on the networking site. If you are on Facebook, please join the CSW group.

If you read this, please drop a quick comment and let us know that you've been here. Tell us what you think of blogging and Facebook. Are you interested in being a regular blogger? Part of the issue with the blog is that we need contributors willing to write regularly.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

WELCOME!

Thanks for visiting the new CSW blog. We hope this will be a place of diverse conversation and look forward to your feedback, suggestions, and posts. If you are interested in becoming a regular poster, please contact our chair, Dustin Harp. For now, we've added items from the most recent issue of Women's WORDS and invite your comments. 

In building this online community, we want it to reflect members' interests. Could you take a moment to respond to this post with your ideas, reactions, or suggestions? Are you a regular blogger? Are you a student? What would you like to see on this blog? We welcome your active participation and invite you to do something rare for this group - become a follower!

On behalf of all the officers - welcome! We look forward to hearing from you.

~Spring-Serenity Duvall
CSW Newsletter Editor

Saturday, November 22, 2008

The Bitch and the Ditz

New York magazine had an interesting article on "The Year of the Woman" that might interest some CSW members. The author argues that sexist stereotypes in campaign coverage of Clinton and Palin have set women back...

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Getting to Full Professor

By Therese Lueck

Professor Therese Lueck earned her Ph.D. from Bowling Green State University in 1989. She joined the faculty at the University of Akron that year, was promoted to associate professor there in 1994, and to full professor in 2000. Here are her experiences and advice for becoming full professor.

There are basics that you learned from your earlier tenure and promotion and decisions that are still good ideas for effectively scaling the ranks to professor: Let me do a quick review of some of these important concepts that I’m sure my colleagues will address in more depth: (1) find a mentor – someone who has experience in the system—and seek advice; (2) know the rules—particularly proper procedure; (3) be ready to play hardball; (4) document everything: Keep a log of the process and a file of all the letters and memos. These basics are still essential.

But let me also note: Promotion to Professor is not the same as your earlier promotion.

By now, you know the system, and your university knows you—whether you’re at the same institution at which you received promotion to associate professor, or you’ve transferred to remove yourself from another school’s prejudices.

As feminists, you’re probably still ruffling feathers, and this is the last chance colleagues, upper administration or middle management has to get rid of you. That may not be possible formally – after all, you have job security through your tenure – but it may turn into a last ditch attempt to thwart your feminist best.

Today’s discussion continues a conversation that Linda Steiner and I pursued a few years ago. When Kitty Endres was editor of the Commission on the Status of Women’s newsletter, she put out an issue on grievances that women educators had with their institutions.

She asked Linda and me to do an article on our promotion experiences. So, Linda and I emailed each other on the subject, and our back-and-forth conversation became the newsletter article.

Thinking back technologically, that was generations ago with regard to computers, the Internet and email, and technology has progressed light-years since then. But, unfortunately, problems for women, particularly feminists, persist in the halls of higher education.

In rereading that 2002 article—which I can make available to you at the end of this panel—I decided I wanted to revisit a specific remark I made.

During that discussion, Linda asked whether I had found a hero, someone who stepped into the madness and applied logic in a tongue that the institution would understand.

I said “No, I hadn’t,” which was true. No one person swooped in and righted the situation, but, thinking back, there were a number of people who performed acts of personal bravery, solely for my benefit.

Some of these people I consciously relied on: Kitty Endres was my mentor throughout the process, and Maurine Beasley assessed my research—as she has for so many of us.

These were senior women from whom I actively sought advice, and they allowed me to rely on them.

I also think of other people who gave me good advice: the woman who was the first head of women’s studies at my university told me that going up “early” could provide the necessary documentation to make the “on-schedule” bid successful, my husband, a former Teamsters union steward, grounded me with, “It’s only a promotion. If you’re denied, you’re not going to lose your job.”

There are three others whose roles I’d like to discuss today because they appeared unbidden during the promotion process or they were there when I had to reach out in unanticipated directions in the mid-process turmoil.

With the first whiff of controversy, the senior faculty member who was heading my committee excused himself. Another colleague, who had recently returned to our faculty after having served in upper administration, took over the duties as head of my promotion committee. He’s someone I admire as an educator and a professional, and I respect his judgment—I’ve seen him not support candidates whose research record he didn’t feel was substantive. He argued for my teaching and research and service in a manner that set the record up for success, even though the administration didn’t demonstrate a willingness to accept his reading of it. For example, my colleague argued that encyclopedia entries about women and media expanded under-researched areas of scholarship and made research-based findings available to new and wider audiences. My dean dismissed such chapters, actually calling them “morsels.” My colleague’s reading established a strong counter-argument to such arrogance—on the record.

I did go up “early,” and when I was denied promotion that first time, I took my case forward to the college appeals committee. The woman who headed that committee did me a tremendous service. She had her group do a thorough review of the process and my credentials. The committee circulated its findings, which did not directly contradict the dean’s denial, since we didn’t have a union contract on which to base such blatant opposition. Instead, the committee provided a detailed memorandum of the steps I needed to accomplish in order to be successful in a future bid for promotion to professor. I used this “to do” list as my template, completing it over the next two years, not realizing that adherence to this written agreement would provide perhaps the most effective argument for my eventual success.

When my second bid took an unanticipated hairpin turn into the gutter, I sought informal legal advice from a professor at another university. Distinguishing content from process, he made me aware that the state is hesitant to get involved in university affairs, unless there’s a provable procedural violation. So, I became a careful observer of the process, and my correspondence with the administration demonstrated my watchfulness over procedure as well as my willingness to go forward outside the university system, if necessary. I didn’t write the provost that I would sue, but, with the guidance from this off-campus colleague as well as my mentor, I kept a close eye on the procedure and demonstrated persistence in following the process through. I did not withdraw my bid, as the dean encouraged me to do at every juncture.

These dogged practices seemed to put the provost on notice: I just might go outside, in other words, sue the university, and the administration just might not have dotted all its “i’s.”

After all, I had done everything I was asked to do in the documentation from my “early” bid.

In the end, the possibility of my going outside the university turned out to be a chance that the provost didn’t want to take.

Winding down from the ordeal, I took my off-campus colleague out for a meal, and, for dessert, I was able to provide him with what he termed the “most bizarre” memo he’d ever seen: The final, brief memorandum from the provost stated that while he heartily agreed with the dean that I certainly did not deserve promotion to professor, he was going to grant it anyway. Did I happen to mention that this particular year, for no discernable reason, the salary bump for those achieving promotion to professor was three times what it normally is?

At the risk of wrapping this discussion in an adversarial frame, I wanted to show that, with help, obstacles can be overcome in the bid for promotion to professor. Yes, it’s essential that you seek advice, solicit mentoring, and get your ducks in order. But during the process, when you may be receiving mixed messages from a variety of sources, be open to the fact that you may very well encounter “heroes”—those who have experience and knowledge and who are brave enough to take your on your cause.

These people may be feminists; they may not. How do you recognize them? They demonstrate a respect for you and your work through their willingness to make visible a path through the maze of the institution. During the promotion process you have to trust someone – or in my case a number of someones -- because after a point, it’s out of your hands. It’s hard to ask you to trust someone you didn’t anticipate having to rely on, particularly if the process has turned hostile. But being ready to take advantage of what these “heroes” offer you may be the key to your success in achieving promotion to professor.

Getting to Full Professor

By Erika Engstrom

At the 2008 AEJMC Convention in Chicago, CSW and MAC (Minorities and Communication Division) co-sponsored “Wisdom from Senior Women Scholars: Getting to Full Professor,” a panel that featured women who achieved the rank of full professor in recent years. The panelists, Therese Lueck (University of Akron), Mary Beth Oliver (Penn State), Linda Steiner (Rutgers), and Julie Andsager (Iowa) offered their experiences and advice to a standing-room only audience.

To give context to the panel, consider the 2006 American Association of University Professors report titled, “Faculty Gender Equity Indicators” (http://www.aaup.org/AAUP/pubsres/research/geneq2006). Regarding gender parity in salary, in the academic year 2005-06 the average salary for women faculty was 81% of the amount earned by men across all ranks and institutions. The report’s authors attribute this difference to two reasons: (1) women are more likely to hold positions at institutions that pay lower salaries, and (2) women are less likely to hold senior faculty rank. For example, at doctoral universities, women make up a fourth of the tenured faculty. Regarding the most senior of senior faculty, among full professors at all institutions nationwide, 76% of them were men. At doctoral universities, 81% of full professors were men.

While more women are in full-time faculty positions today than just 30 years ago, as we look at the promotion ladder, we see women basically falling off: gender parity decreases drastically when we consider the rank of full professor, an achievement that requires an even more substantial record than that for tenure and promotion to associate.

Panelists in Chicago shared their own stories of success in the academic world to give us, both women and men, direction and advice on how, once tenure is earned, to move to the next step which serves as one measure of women’s progress not only in higher education, but in our society in general. 

[Note: Therese Lueck shares her comments from the panel in the following post. Check back in the coming months for comments from Mary Beth Oliver.]

Building Spaces and Places for Conversation

By Dustin Harp

Chair

As the final weeks of my semester fast approach, I’m finding it a little hard to believe that it was only a few months ago when we gathered in Chicago. Along with all the stimulating panels and research presentations, we had some great discussions about the future of the Commission. Many of us expressed wanting to find ways to build our community though we weren’t necessarily talking about doing this in a quantitative manner. We want to build spaces and places where members of the Commission can talk and listening to one another. In other words, places where we can have informal conversations–somewhere to mentor, to share ideas, problems and solutions, to find research partners and announce our successes.

Through these conversations we came up with the idea to create a CSW blog. Not only can we post announcements and keep the community updated on CSW issues and events, but we can discuss gender and media issues, university life, issues about working as an academic, our research and teaching, etc. In other words, the same topics we discuss during the convention panels and business meeting and our during our hotel hallway conversations. But rather than once a year, we can talk all year long and form a deeper sense of community.

We’re hoping this will be a web space you visit often and contribute to as well. We’re envisioning this as something that will grow to become what we want it to be. Blogs, after all, are community driven.

That brings me to my next point: blogs are participatory and without participation they aren’t successful. We need a team of bloggers who are committed to posting. We’re hoping to have a core team of bloggers who will post at least once a week. I’ve signed on for that duty along with our new reporter Spring-Serenity Duvall. Please think about joining us on this venture and email me if you’re interested. We really do need you to make this work. Plus, it’ll be fun. And remember, in true blog style these would not need to be long, well-edited essays, just short posts about what’s on our minds.

CSW members who aren’t ready to commit to weekly posts can still join the conversation, posting and commenting when they are inspired. CSW officers will post relevant information as it comes up.

We haven’t determined rules and boundaries for the blog. I think there are two reasons for this. As I stated, blogs are community driven. We want the CSW community to help shape it, not a few members that happen to be officers this year. Also, we’re not exactly sure how the blog will develop and what boundaries and rules might be needed. We’re going to kick it off and then watch closely. As a community we’ll deal with issues as they arise.

That said, we could use a community leader in this area. So along with the blogging team, we would like a CSW member willing to take the lead on organizing and maintaining the blog. A sort of blogger-in-chief, if you will. If you’re interested, please email me. 

2009 AEJMC conference program update

By Jennifer Rauch

CSW Vice Chair/Program Chair

The Commission on the Status of Women will be working at the mid-winter meeting next month to assemble a program of diverse, stimulating panel sessions for AEJMC's 2009 national conference in Boston. More than a dozen CSW members have submitted proposals on an impressive array of topics. As usual, the program will include sessions focused on teaching, on research, and on professional freedom and responsibility.

Some panel themes currently under consideration are: the challenge of isolating gender in media research, creative techniques for teaching gender in journalism classes, the place of gender in global media studies, forging interdisciplinary partnerships in the academy, the status of female anchors in TV news, coverage of women in the presidential campaign, bringing feminism into the journalism curriculum, organizations that empower women journalists, and how to make classrooms and internships more inclusive.

In December, CSW officers will meet in Louisville, Ky., with representatives of other AEJMC divisions and interests groups to plan the program and discuss co-sponsorship opportunities. Since time and attention are scarce resources during the conference, joint sessions make the best sense. Thus, panel ideas with cross-disciplinary appeal generally have the best chance of getting scheduled.

Program planning is a somewhat daunting process to those (like myself) who haven't participated in it before. Timeslots for sessions are allocated through an event known as the "chip auction." CSW has programming rights for around a dozen panel sessions next year, which we aim to take full advantage of. Keep an eye on the next issue of Women's Words to get details about CSW's program for the August 2009 conference.