Claiming leadership to advance gender equity

Last week I was fortunate to co-present a webinar with Gail Crimmins and Marina Harvey for the Council of Australasian University Leaders of Learning and Teaching (CAULLT) – Gender equity is everybody’s business.

Gail Crimmins shared her research in progress about work experiences and career trajectories in universities across the UK which received an Athena Swan Charter between 2015 and 2020. Athena Swan is an accreditation and awards program for gender equity, diversity and inclusion in higher education.

In other words, these are universities that have been recognised for good practice in gender equity.

It’s not great news.

The findings reveal intersecting barriers to women’s (inclusively defined) career success in higher education, despite the implementation of organisation based gender equity plans.

Men are more likely to be:

  • promoted
  • encouraged to apply for promotion
  • in ongoing positions (rather than on fixed term contracts or casually)
  • academics (rather than professional or administrative staff)
  • in balanced research and teaching roles
  • managers.

For Australian figures showing similar results, the opening chapters of Marcia Devlin’s book Beating the Odds: A practical guide to navigating sexism in Australian universities (available on her website) offer sobering reading. Did you know that men are 86% more likely to to be in the professoriate? At the top of the hierarchy, men are 189% more likely to be a Vice-Chancellor or Chancellor of an Australian university. After a depressing start, the later chapters provide invaluable advice on how to get ahead despite the odds. I would describe the book as akin to having the voice of a mentor in your handbag.

In our webinar, Gail’s research findings were particularly interesting when it came to the extensive formal and informal encouragement and mentoring that men reported receiving for promotion. This was in stark contrast to the experiences reported by women. I look forward to seeing this research published so I can share it here.

In the second half of the session, Marina Harvey presented a strategy to address gender equity — claim leadership! — with resources that help staff to claim leadership in university contexts. This is based on the 6Es of distributed leadership (Jones and Harvey, 2017):

  1. Engage with a broad range of experts as well as positional leaders.
  2. Enable a context and culture of respect for and trust in individual contributions to develop in order to nurture collaborative relationships.
  3. Enact through processes, support and systems that encourage involvement.
  4. Encourage through activities that raise awareness through a range of supportive actions.
  5. Evaluate through a process that encourages engagement and collaboration.
  6. Support ever Emergent change.

In a recent paper, Challenge Accepted: Women claiming leadership in higher education learning and teaching, Sandra Jones and Marina Harvey (2022) extend this work to provide a roadmap for claiming leadership (in applications for jobs, promotions, awards, grants and fellowships).

How do you…

I will be reflecting on the following questions:

  • How do I build and maintain collaborative and collegial relationships?
  • How do I plan to assess the impact of collaboration?
  • How do I encourage reflective practice and actions?
  • How do I involve students in learning and teaching initiatives? (enable)
  • How have I engaged formal leaders in learning and teaching initiatives? (encourage)
  • How have I encouraged the engagement of external stakeholders and partners in my work?

Here are the slides from the session (other than Gail’s research in progress):

You can watch the 30 minute presentation here (note this ends abruptly as the workshop activity is not included):

What economics can tell us about teaching in higher education

This is the second post in a series which looks at higher education learning and teaching through a disciplinary lens. What can the knowledges, theories, methods and practices of particular disciplines tell us about learning and teaching at a university level? In each post, I will be speaking to disciplinary experts from my university and seeking their insights to inform the teaching practices of colleagues in other disciplines. Cross-posted at Teche.

You can read the first post in the series What psychology can tell us about teaching in higher education here.

Today’s post comes from Behavioural Economics, which offers insights into why people do – or don’t do – certain things in the economic sphere.

I spoke with discipline expert Wylie Bradford. Wylie is an Associate Professor of Economics and a Teaching & Leadership academic with significant experience in University governance and policy work.

He is also Macquarie University’s longest-serving Indigenous staff member having been at the university for 26 years. He currently teaches history of economic thought, behavioural economics and environmental economics.

Our conversation taught me some fascinating concepts, such as choice architecture, gain-loss framing and hyperbolic discounting. Wylie uses these ideas to design learning activities and assessment tasks that engage students.

What is behavioural economics?

Simply put, economics analyses the choices that people make and the consequences of choices, especially things like consumption, saving and investment. Traditional models and theories to explain economic choices make assumptions that people are consistent, well-informed, rational, and make decisions based on their best interests.

Unfortunately this is not the case! Behavioural economics takes what we know from social psychology to challenge these assumptions.

The reality is that humans do not make choices by taking into account all available information, evaluating the costs and benefits, and deciding on the best outcome. Humans are inconsistent. We are subject to various heuristics and biases which mean that we don’t behave in textbook ways.

What does behavioural economics tell us about making choices?

We tend to understand making a choice as a change – a movement from one point to another – and we ask ourselves: ‘where do I go from here?’ ‘Here’ is a reference point for evaluating our options and making a choice. The reference point is subjective and varies from person to person.

We know that choice architecture matters. That’s a fancy way of saying that how a choice is presented to someone has an impact on their decision-making. That’s probably the ultimate message of behavioural economics – choice architecture matters because humans make decisions in context. They are not context-free. We make choices that are inconsistent, subjective, and influenced by multiple factors.

What insights can behavioural economics offer about student behaviour?

A key concept is framing, and loss aversion in particular. Loss aversion is the idea that humans put more weight on negative outcomes than they do on positive outcomes. That is, we would be prepared to do more to avoid a given loss than we would to get the equivalent gain. That’s where the reference point comes in. It really matters whether or not people see things as a loss frame or whether they see them as a gain.

Where people see a situation as a loss – so they’ve set a reference point and the see the outcome as being a loss from that – they tend to behave in a more risky fashion. In a gain frame – where the reference point is lower and the outcome is an improvement – then people tend to play it safe.

Wylie describes loss aversion using the analogy of the half-full or half-empty glass in this one minute audio excerpt:

For university students, loss aversion can offer insights into the decision about whether or not to come to campus for a lecture. Images of empty lecture theatres have been doing the rounds on social media. With the option of listening to or watching lectures online, being in the room at university doesn’t hold value for accessing learning materials. If a student applies a loss frame, they a more likely to take the risk of not engaging with the lecture on campus.

In this 45 second audio excerpt, Wylie suggests that coming to campus to attend a lecture is like a half-empty glass:

From a behavioural economics perspective, studying at university is challenging. A student has to decide to spend time doing something now that will pay off at some point in the future. In deciding that is worth doing, they need to consider how they value the future relative to the present. This is where they idea of discounting is relevant.

What is hyperbolic discounting and how does it relate to procrastination?

Hyperbolic discounting is that idea that humans do not evaluate the future in a consistent way.

Wylie explains the concept of hyperbolic discounting in this two minute audio excerpt:

Procrastination is a kind of time inconsistency.

Think about it: imagine you are a student with an assignment due next week on Friday. You plan to work on it on Monday. You make a judgement that this will be enough time. On Monday, you don’t want to start work on the assessment so you tell yourself you will do it on Wednesday.

In other words, the way you envisaged how much it was worth doing the assignment last week no longer applies. You are applying a higher discount rate. The closer you get, the more painful it is to give up your time and the greater the risk you are willing to take. If an assessment task is due at midnight on Friday, teachers will see lots of submissions coming in at 11.59pm.

That’s procrastination. We all do it. Humans are not good at planning over time. We don’t use a consistent discount rate. We are always using a reference point of where we are now compared with a future point. Remember you only ever make decisions in the present, and the reference point for evaluating those decisions is constantly changing.

So hyperbolic discounting is that idea that humans do not evaluate the future in a consistent way. Their evaluation changes the closer they get to a given event in the future. This makes holding on to a plan difficult. This is not a character failing. It is a consequence of being a human moving through time.

How can teachers design assessment with these behaviours in mind?

The way in which assessment is set up will affect the way in which students allocate effort. Assessment should not push students into the path of behaviour that is not going to be in their best interests.

Progressive assessment helps cut across hyperbolic discounting, as does minimising high stakes exams at the end of a unit. Students are not left to make big decisions about how to allocate their time over long stretches of time.

Wylie includes a weekly blog activity in his Behavioural Economics unit. Following an interactive class discussion, students write a reflection on what they think is the most important idea and why. In evaluations of the unit, students say that the weekly blogs are beneficial as a type of assessment for learning. They agree that the progressive approach cuts through the time inconsistency problems they would otherwise face.

This post is just a snapshot of our conversation. Wylie experiments with assessment design based on principles of behavioural economics, such as starting students with a mark of 100% to trigger loss aversion with each assessment task. Many of Wylie’s suggestions run counter to common higher education teaching practice – the problems with practice exam papers, why students don’t turn up for final exams or complete MOOCs, and why exam results should be released before final grades.

Listen to the full 48 minute conversation:

Download a pdf transcript of the full conversation.

Further reading

Arkes, H.R. and Blumer, C. (1985) “The psychology of sunk cost”, Organisational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124-140.

Fryer, R,G. et.al. (2012) “Enhancing the Efficacy of Teacher Incentives through Loss Aversion: A Field Experiment”, NBER Working Paper 18237 (http://www.nber.org/papers/w18237)

Hsee, C.K. et.al. (2003) “Medium Maximisation”, Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 1-14.

Kahneman, D. (2011) Thinking Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk”, Econometrica, 47, 263-291.

Lowenstein, G. and Thaler, R.H. (1989) “Anomalies: Intertemporal Choice”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 3, 181-193.

Thaler, R.H. (1999) “Mental Accounting Matters”, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12, 183-206.

Image sources: Hyperbolic discounting. Banner image by Shutterstock.

Invitation to participate (academics in NSW, Australia): Impacts of COVID-19 on work and wellbeing

My co-researchers and I are inviting academics from NSW universities to respond to an anonymous online survey (link at the end of this post).

Are you a casual, fixed term or permanent early, mid or late career aademic working at a NSW university?

What have been the impacts of the pandemic on your work, wellbeing, job satisfaction and career development?

Please share this call with colleagues.

Researchers from the University of Wollongong and Macquarie University are inviting academics and researchers working in Universities across New South Wales, Australia to participate in an anonymous survey study investigating the perceived impacts of COVID-19 on core workplace responsibilities (i.e., teaching, research, governance), wellbeing, job satisfaction and career development. The research team includes: Dr Elena Vasseleu (elenav@uow.edu.au), Dr Amanda Rita Gigliotti (agigliot@uow.edu.au), A/Prof Agnes Bosanquet (agnes.bosanquet@mq.edu.au) and, A/Prof Steven Howard (stevenh@uow.edu.au).

Disruptions resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic continue to have lasting impacts on Australian Universities. While an emerging international literature base has sought to examine and highlight the nature and extent of impacts experienced by academics and researchers working within these institutions, there remains a need to better understand considerable and often disparate impacts to academics and researchers with diverse personal and professional circumstances. Collection of these data from a broad sample of academics will provide the opportunity to further examine whether and to what extent such impacts may differ by gender, academic discipline and career stage. Findings from this study may serve to replicate and reinforce findings from other interdisciplinary or international samples and may yield unique insights into the impacts experienced by academics and researchers working in Australian contexts.

This research project has been approved by the University of Wollongong Social Sciences Human Research Ethics Committee (2022/298).

For further information and to participate in this study please click the link:

COVID-19 Impact Survey