This page provides references to several online videos that can be usefull to explore the harassment and discriminations subjets.

For each video, its link and length are provided. In addition, some “dirty notes” are also provided, but are meaningless as a standalone ressource, they are only useful as a later reminder.

Most recommended videos

Generic sensibilization videos:

“Research like” talk:

⚠ Warning

I don’t recommend to watch all video listed below! There is many redundancy, but also some are of low audio quality and difficult to watch, or have sometimes outdated sources, or an overall approach I don’t agree with. This is just part of a project of building both a wide array of references, and extracting a few good recomentations to give out.

Exhaustive list

COMPA

Link: https://www.youtube.com/COMPA-IRD/videos?

Length: mini serie of 10, videos, for a total of 40 minutes

Author: IRD (Research Institute for Development)

Notes

1 - définir pour déconstruire - Définit plusieurs termes

violences VSS environnement patriarchale culture du viol agissements sexistes sexisme ordinaire harcélement sexuel corruption sexuel

2- vox pop - doctorantes “il s’approcher trop près de moi, et moi ça me faisait peur” “comment savoir que le consentement est éclairé” Pouvoir parler, avant/prévention, pendant, après/réparation

3- la pieuvre VSS. pb de tous les endroits où y a trop de pouvoir concentrer sur une personne (eg sport, politique, cinéma, star). Evidemment dans la recherche aussi les encadrants ont un pouvoir sur les doctorant. <!> Domination.

-> il faut généraliser les enquêtes internes -> il faut créer des cadres, AVANT, les pb graves.

-> mais, pour les univs/labos, en parler = mauvaise pub. C’est l’inverse ! ICI, c’est safe.

4- Avancer
conséquence globale, sur vie pro et vie perso honte, culpabilité, peur de pas être cru, peur des représailles “survivantes” vs “victimes”, pour être dans un mouvement, être victime ne nous définit pas toute notre vie. soins : thérapie, être écouter, l’art récits de vie: permets de comprendre les méchanismes “traumatisme vicariant” = traumatisme des gens qui accompagnent le collectif -> analyser ensemble nos pratiques avoir conscience de la violence qu’on peut générer ou recevoir

5 - vitcime ou témoin, que faire porter plainte, accompagnement cellule univ ou assos réagir au VSS: sidération, colère, maletre, dénis, peur. agir pour soi et pour les autres, ne pas rester seul. peurs de se sentir coupable, du regard de l’autre, de pas être cru, de perdre son financement, sa carrière. Vous n’êtes pas resonsable

témoin: faire semblant de connaitre la victime. qualifier la situation. accompagner la personne et être à l’écoute. Rassurer, proposer d’appeler un proche.

a faire: Briser la loi du silence Que les personnes en positions de management interviennent directement L’entourage doit prendre conscience de la posture d’allié (soutient, accompagnement, croire) Action de prévention, formation et sensibiliations

6 - le dispositif à Aix Marseille Uni

7 - enjeu instituionnel et biais inconscient stéréotype : croyance sur des charactérisques propre à X vs Y. (compétences/incompétences souvent) biais cognitif : erreurs de perception jugement, via simplification, sur généralisation -> test de Stroop: incongruence mot de la couleur/couleur de l’écriture, pour voir la force des automatismes

stéréotype = omniprésent (et la parité ne suffit pas)

reco aux uni: avoir des services de pro à part entière - des gens dédiés à recuillir, traiter reco aux encadrantes/directions: suivr des formations (reconnaitre les pressions), faire suivre des formations

responsabilité de tout le monde. l’égalité FH n’est pas du tout établie, sous-représentation dans les filiaires ET position de pouvoir. C’est une question politique.

résistance sont fortes.

8 - enjeu de recherche q* de la pratique responsable de la recherche: parle de mauvaise pratique, mais pas des VSS/discrimnations.

9 - enjeu mondial : la C-190 organisation internationdu travail, orga de l’ONU convetion 190 définit disrimination et harcélement de manière général, et fait des recommandations, (alors que def <> ds plein de pays) besoin de recherche. dans le monde 1/5 personnes avec emplois subi violence/harcélement d’ordre physique/psy/sexu, (et femme particulièrement concerné par sexistes). Violences universelles et omniprésente dans le monde.

10 - Vox pop: deesse Ngone un slam qui résume tout

Preventing Sexual Harassment in Academia

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21H8YdMCIV8

Length: 2m10

Author: National Academies of Sciences Engineering and Medicine (US)

Notes

What is the problem, what should be done. quick summary of the fundamentals. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/sexual-harassment-in-academia

Transforming Silence

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLstGU-2v0Q

Length: 22m55

Author: Kaelyn Grace Apple

Notes

A Symposium on Sexual Violence in Higher Education at Oxford Uni. A first person presentation, experience feedback from being a victim at oxford, and then attending a symposium to testify at oxford.

Ressources from https://www.transformingsilence.org/resources https://interactive.aljazeera.com/aje/2021/degrees-of-abuse/index.html

Bullying and Harassment in Academia

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFhzX1VVd4Q

Length: 18m

Author: Lucy Bowes

Notes

A research like presentation.

defs, bullying Harassment within academia, it includes : interference with carrer progress, funding, falsely negative recommendation letters, taking credit for others work, threatening to cancel visa

in essence, a misuse of power. (nice drawing, types of power julianstodd) people who forget they are in a power position can cause unintential harm. It is not just about being evil.

can occasionaly go in the other way, where a group of students can start gossip.

Workplace Bullying, Mobbing and Harassment in Academe: Faculty Experience https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-981-10-5154-8_13-1 nature 575, 403-403; 2019 (phd survey)

-> https://bulliedacademics.blogspot.com/

understand the difference being disagreeing, academic debate, academic freedom, criticism, and BULLYING

most harassment flowchart advice to speak up. if victim: find a support group, talk it through, keep a log, make a formal complaint.

change culture: be an active bystander. (otherwise, it feels like the the audience agrees with whatever is going on Responsible bystanders 4D Direct (challenge the behaviour, offer support), Distract (interupt to derail, de escalate), Delegate (seek help from others), Delay (never too late to act, even if we froze at the time) [cf aussi https://disbonjoursalepute.com/methode-5-d/]

LGBTQIA Student Engagement & Intersectionality in Higher Education

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxNVa3ub2A

Length: 50m

Author: Brent Lewis

Notes

A research like presentation.

“Build a culture that is inclusive, affirming, equitable and accessible for all” define DEI (equity requires an understanding of the root causes of dispariteis in society) LGBTQ working definitions, glossary gender pronous (what is your preferred/chosen pronouns?) gender identity <> gender expression <> sexual orientation campus ressources -> also need to think about what goes on in the curriculum intersectionality: Have you considerer how the intersections of your identities havec impacted your lived experiences? man/white/able people are not aware of their maleness, whiteness,

Self questions:

A small experience feedback? (hard to pick only one, makes me think of what hurts me)

safe spaces && allies: visible support some best practices some dont’s “I didn’t mean anything byt it”, don’t use insults linked to LGBT, deadname, do not “out” someone
intersectionality at the margins (queers & religions, first gen LGBT, …)

Self questions:

Beyond Bias Fair and Inclusive Hiring Strategies for University Search Committees

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IgcGhCYcYY

Length: 19m13

Author: Shelley Correll

Notes

From uni, but a bit “TED like”.

“small wins” approach barriers? ~70/80, 5% of musician in orchestra in USA. made the first round blind, women success rates widly went up bias is an error in judgment -> perceived gender implied a lower estimate of abilities stereotypes are processing shortcuts biases are worse under 4 conditions (overwhelemed with information + in a hurry to make decisions + criteria are unclear + no consistent process to guide group decision-making)

-> hiring bias for tenure tracks in psy faculty demonstrated, (Steinpreis, Anders and Ritzke, 1999), Brian Miller 72% succes rate, Karen Miller 44%. Same magnitude of bias independent of gender of personn doing the hiring. many similar -> interstingly, for tenure positions, bigger CV = more info => reduced differences in success rate. BUT still many more doubts for women “I would need to see evidence that she had gotten these grands on her own” “I would need to see teaching evaluation”

Mechanisms leading to bias (gender, but also race, etc): Higher bar Extra scrutiny

Tools for change:

  1. create a diverse applicant pool (describe positions broadly in job ads, avoid laundry lists of requirments, beware of narrow searches -> makes run away people that already not feel super welcome

  2. Before evaluating, discuss and align on critera before evaluating applicants then, reexamine them, question criteria
    do they contain gender biases? are ones based on style/personnality relevant? -> at US stem faculty, implicit template for hiring faculty was you need to be a forward person, almost agressive. Of course, such behaviour is hugely criticed for people of colour.

move from experiences to skills/competencies (caring about award implies you inherits biases from the previous jury) read paper/research statement BEFORE looking at CV

  1. screening applicants slow down, have a consistent systematic approach to discuss candidates. Consider a rubric encourage criteria monitoring to catch new criteria (e.g “Is she moveable?”, questions most often asked about women), or disappearing criteria “we have no evidence but it is clear he can teach” be alert on bias in recommendation letters, teaching evaluations letters (language in those is different based on gender, psychology: agentic for men, communal (helpful, warm, tactfull) for women, chemistry: more standout adjectives for men, medicine: shorter letters for women with more doubts)

  2. in one-on-one meetings have consisten interview process, to avoid bias be alert to whom is being interrupted in job talks. (from several ingeeniring univ, female applicant are more interrupted, and have more follow up questions) structur discussions to get input from everyone.

Case study from stanford 2016: created a rubric with all criterions, evaluation sheet. developed interview questions based on those questions. search chair collected faculty feedback, summarized and reshare it anonymously. Facutly discussion started with the most supportive faculty. Finished with two diverse proposals.

Sexual Assault and Harassment - Prevention and Support at University of Mastricht

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfZESnQDa0E

Length: 45m presentation + 45m panel session

Author: University of Mastricht

Notes

<!> TW: first part on rape

  1. Amnesty international netherlands, report on seuxal violence in the netherlands. law on rape in the netherlands not in line with istanbul convention rape does not always implies force/violence. Majority of cases=agressor is known. 70% of raped people freeze. police interview focus on violence. Victim blaming. Amnesty campaign “Let’s ask for yes”. Stop asking victims “Did you say no?”, say to perpetrators “Did you ask for yes?”. 30% of students raped at uni keep silent, often out of shame. 60k students in the netherlands carry this burden. bystanders? hard to find the right words. Yet, important to respond in a sensitive way, when people share for the first time (will they share again?) 11% of female netherland students experience rape, 1% of male, during their time at uni . Don’t know where to go. 68% of male student believe their partner should say no if they don’t want to. only yes means yes.

  2. local student activist on the campaign scale of the issue -> systemic issue. 2/3 of survivors suffers from long term consequence (socio economics, psychological). Sexual harrassment must not be a part of getting a diploma. present manifesto latter

  3. sexual assault center many survivors minimize. “it was just an assaul” “it was misscommunication” don’t share, try to avoid memories, but have stress. share with people that you trust. good options of treatments exists. description of a local ressource

  4. result of a local research study at UM Research questions how extensive is sexual violence/harassment? ~similar to national results proportion stable w.r.t disciplines who are the perpetrators 85% male, 61% associated with UM, 70% knew the perpetrator. aquaintance 40%, romantic 21%, friend 18%, superordinate 1% acamedic 1%
    consequences
    73% experience at least one adverse consequence 70% personnal consequences 30% acadmeic conseuqnces 6% personnal consequences
    do students know about UM resources?
    93% aware of at least one UM resource 52% not at all know where to get help, 27% a little 15 somewhat. 70% not at all where to report
    reasons for not contacting a UM resource 90% personnal (shame, embarassment…), 30% lack of trust, 20% lack of info

  5. Panel

consent does not come in every days discussion, a training would allow it to come up, be discussed. <!> danger in training that makes it worse, just giving litterature or online course, problematic people can stay in their groups and stay negative about it.

<!> teaching consent training does not work, it is a placebo effect. [Not sure I understand precisely what does not work. REF?]

Bullying as a career tool in academia

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UU11E_SKn8

Length: 28m34

Author: Susanne Täuber

Notes

harrassment and inequality are in a vicious circle Historical intervention and anti-harassment policy have had little discernible effect over the last 30 years.

focus on bias and stereotypes contributes to ineffectiveness ++ we neglect that some people benefit from all that, and use their power to maintaint everything

bullying: repeated attempt to discredit distabilize and instil fear in target subtle acts that erode people confidence here, bullying includes harassment discriminations

in academia, specific kinds of bullying: refuse promotions, refuse to give tasks needed to get promotions , invisibilisations, labeling as incompetent, financial obstruction

very often, perpetrators are seen as two parts good scientist vs bad person. BUT, perpetrators are perceived as good scientists thanks to being a bad person. example of uni communication on a perpetrator “[did very bad things] … But the comitee also found that the acadmeic integrity of this professor is indisputable, he cannot be stripped of his professorship”.

people are saying people can be both great scientists and very bad person. BUT bullying is a mean for mediocre scientists to rise to the top. when mal hierarchies are disrupted by women, it incites hostile behaviours specifically from poorly performing men (because they stand to lose the most).

“Hire” Education: Exploring the Role of Unconscious Bias and Search Committee Preparedness (56m research webinar) by A, research & HR

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNx6_3LIXGs

Length: 56m

Author: ntoinette M. Boyd

Notes

Bias in hiring process, affect most culturally. Steinpreis, Andders, Ritzke, 1999 -> similar qualifications but different gendered names impact decisions in faculty hiring Wood, Hales, Purdon, Sejersen and Hayllar, 2009 white seen more favorable. (not in academia)

managing bias: recognize, learn more about the group memebres, memory juggers (to stay vigilant), pressure or uncertainty increases bias, uncounscious biases does not mean you are a bad person. (Nichols 2013)

Common errors in hiring: judge personal factors/identity > qualification, job descriptions without clear objectives and not inclusive, untrained committes with poor structure

Litterature review: higher education reflect broader society issues. students often cite concerns with faculty/staff diversity to improve student demographics becomes increasingly diverse, but not faculty -> 16% of professors are minorities, most confined to historically black colleges and universties. role of search committes often overlooked uncounscious bias makes us favour our group. Uncounscias bias affect evrything, strategy policies procedures. Makes people feel exclueded.

Schneider (1987) framework “The people make the place”

results from a qualitative study over nine participants deans, and HR.

Current hiring practices: sometimes focus factors not related to ability to perform. different standards for different people. search committe composition: too homogenous -> candidate not ill at ease. the “fit” factor -> in an homogenous committe, somebody asks whether “the personne vould be a good fit”, which actually means is the person gonna be just like us. very common Effects of bias: can guide the decisions making. implies hyper scrutinity of women’s candidates credentials. improving hiring process: do a self evaluation as institution.

Recommendations: greater involvment from HR professionals who know best practices, behavior modification training focused on overcomming individual bias in committes shift the focus to clear and timely positition description, increased transparency and better strcuture for assembling search commites, develop a well-constructed recruitment and selection process.

take action: ban the “fit”world. use inclusivie language. create processes, for building sea4rch commites, include hr experet on each search committe, implement annual bias training for employes on committes, include a diverse group of students in the hiring process, use anonymization when possible, in-depth assement of current hiring practices, train people who can train committe members, have 3-5 clear priorities for each committe

the goal of hiring is not to find friends.

Hiring Diverse Faculty: Promising Practice (!very bad audio)

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxFzTicy__o

Length: 1 hour

Author: HERC consortium (https://www.hercjobs.org/)

Notes

Why diversity? (<!> some old sources, not clearly decisive, e.g. Van Harstesveldt & Giordan is discussion during a workshop) Enriches teaching and learning environment for ALL students, Piercy et al 2005; Milem 2003; Hurtado, Milem, Clayton-Perderson & Allen, 1998 higher quality research outcomes Van Hartesveldt & Giordan, 2008; Milem, 2001) Aids retention of minority faculty O’Mear, Lounder & Campbell 2014, Price et al, 2005

In health/biomedical science fields, reduces health disparities and bias in clinical tirals. Ford et al 2008; Noah, 2003; Whitla et al, 2003 ++ Higher journal impact factor and number of citations if co-authors are ethnically diverse. (Campbell, Mehtani, Dozier & Rinehart, 2013 ( https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0079147, empircal study) ; – Freemman & Huand, 2014 (https://www.nature.com/articles/513305a, just a “reflection”))

include diversity advocates on committes

invite applicatans to submit a diversity statement describing their past contributions to diversity? (Columbia universtity 2017; UC Irvine, 2016, UC San Diego 2010)

Identifying & Reducing Potential Sources of Bias in Promotion & Tenure Process of University Faculty

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vbvejnRWvs

Length: 50m

Author: Cynthia Werner

Notes

Four illustrations of tenure track denials, with often, let’s say surprising decisions and reports (e.g. errors on citation count or impact factor journals, or denied based on probably mysoginist reports from students)

In all cases, candidates perceived bias in the situation. * bias on disciplines, on distinct publishing norms, bias in assessing an individual scholaor contributions tot ocllaborative project, bias in student evaluations

https://www.chronicle.com/article/promotion-rejected-your-record-may-not-be-the-problem https://www.academia.edu/126946386/Promotion_Rejected_Your_Record_May_Not_Be_the_Problem study of 2000 promotions in 10 universities: women and faculty of color are much less likely to receive unanimously positive promotion votes.

potiential source of bias: external review letters, committe composition, metrics for evaulating teaching/students evalutions of teaching, metrics for eavaluating reserach (citation counts, journal impact factir)

issues when recruiting criterations are not shared evenly

best practice for external reviewers (not free of bias, aura effec from high profile scholars, refusing to give a letter may come from many reasons, do not let a single “doubt” raiser decide the case.

best practice on committe -> a single toxic faculty member can ruin everything (especially if senior).

student evaluation: * both make and female student rate female instructors lower (Mengel et al 2019) * even if study is online and gender is a lie (MacNell et al 2015) * women are 11% less likely to make the cutoff at some uni (Wagner et al 2016) * Reid 2010 and Aruguete et al (2017), faculty from underrepresented racial groups rated more negatively than white * Smith and hawkins 2011, lowest result for black faculty * wang and gonzales (2022), white professor receives best student evaluation, even when controling for course difficulty

Bias in scholarly metrics

Many study suggest that journal impact factor and publication indices can be problematic (Conroy 2020; Hirsch 2005; McKiernan et al 2019; Moher et al 2018; Zare 2012)

Zare 2012 “Some rough correlations do exist, but juding researchers early in their careerm the H index seems to be a poor measure”

Sexual Harassment within Higher Education

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4exZre_0zlU

Length: 50m prez + 30m questions (start at ~8m30)

Author: Frazier Benya

Notes

on the report of https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/24994/sexual-harassment-of-women-climate-culture-and-consequences-in-academic

consensus report on sexual harassment in higher education (science engineering medicine) prevalence?, impact on recruitment?, successful practices?

Summary: extensive sexual harassment, gender harassment is most common. It undermins research integrity, reduces the talent pool, harms target and bystanders. Legal compliance is necessary but not sufficient. Changing climate and culture can prevent and adress it.

sexual harassment (sexual coercion, unwanted sexual attention, gender harassment=putdown, hostility,)

Iceberg image with public consciouness (but no a clear hierarchy of consequences): picture

report highlights https://nap.nationalacademies.org/resource/24994/Sexual%20Harassment%20of%20Women%20ReportHighlights.pdf

best analsis to date: 50% of women faculty experience sexual harassment 20-50% of students experience SH from faculty.

even the “small” harassment is harmful.

most targets just want to be able to go back to work, not go inside a complicated procedure. they are unlikely to report it. We must adress the system, and not just have ideas of legalize and training on the most obvious things.

sexual harassment is most likely to take place in male dominated in number, leaders and culture, and where there is organizational tolerance of sexual harassment (reporting is perceived as risky, reports not taken seriously, offenders escape sanction)

Recommendations: 1) create diverse inclusive and respectful environments take explicit actions for hiring, promote civility (in the social science sense), develop skills to interrupt and intervene (<!> backslash), training that aims to change behavior, not beliefs. 2) diffuse the hierarchichal and dependant relationship between traines and faculty mentoring networks + independent research funding (attached to the trainee, not PI) 3) provide support for targets access to support services without the need of fomal report, alternative informal reporting, prevent retaliation 4) improve transparency and accountability develop clear accessible polices, standard of behaviour. transparency about handling reports, assess climate 5) strive for strong and diverse leadership

action collaborative, joint university group to work together and avoid reinventing the wheel. Many actions taken, e,g, cross reference check applicants, shift from mandatory reporting to mandatory suporting, restorative/transformative justice, 360 degress reviews of faculty, evaluate mentors for graduate students, easing switching advisors.

https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/action-collaborative-on-preventing-sexual-harassment-in-higher-education/resources

environments can create sexual harassment (even from people who did not have strong bad beliefs), see 2018 reports, chapter impact

anonymous sytem: https://www.projectcallisto.org/ interest of standardized systems (sometimes, old report are lost, and people reput into position of responsabilities)

Sexual Harassment in Sciences

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy7aDhm4AcI

Length: 15 minutes presentation (from 6m to 22m), and then panel

Author:

Notes

(summary of the same report as previous video, by different person)

gender harassment, “conduct that convey hostility, exclusion or second class status about women” contempt consider law as a floor, not a ceiling even when sexual harassment entails nothing but sexist insult, it takes a toll. in fact frequent and pervasive gender harassment does the same professional domage as sexual coercion.

Figure 3-2 from report Faculty/staff-on-student sexual harassment incidence rates for female students by type/level of student and by type of sexual harassment (Penn State University). NOTE: The survey was given to 11,023 undergraduate students (2,945 responses), 4,000 graduate/professional (law) students (1,637 responses) at the University Park campus, and to 889 medical and graduate school students in the College of Medicine at the Hershey campus (411 responses). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994.

Faculty/staff-on-student sexual harassment incidence rates for female students, by type of sexual harassment (University of Texas System). National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018. Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994.

<!> All worsened when LGBT or non-white woman.

In europe, see -> https://unisafe-gbv.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/UniSAFE-press-release_survey-results_FR.pdf

https://observatoire-vss.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Dossier-de-presse-Barometre-2023-des-violences-sexistes-et-sexuelles-dans-lEnseignement-superieur-1.pdf

many intervention assume that it is safe and useful to do report -> IT IS NOT THE CASE go beyond law

star culture? interrupt speakers to show your own value?

panel

we tend to think about sicence as objective. But science are not. And we don’t eflect competition, agression, upmanship, macho behaviours (testing bejaviour to see if you can thrive within the competition)

Quotations - Appendix C from report:

-> quote on normalization I would tell [friends] outside this profession who would be like, “Are you kid- ding me, what?” But the people who work for this institution were like, “Can’t you just suck it up? This is not going to go well for you if you report. You don’t want to make a fuss.” I knew they were right, but at the same time, I really was like, “This is just too much. I shouldn’t have to be preparing to get raped when I go into work.” (Nontenure-track faculty member in medicine)

-> quote on the importance of support group: I happen to be in a department that is well above the national average for women faculty in [predominantly male fi ld]. Because of that, we have a really strong network of women who—I mean, we go out to coffee once a month just to talk about being female faculty from the full professor level all the way down to fi st-year assistant professors or instructors. Because of that, it’s easier to face some of these issues when you kind of have a team behind you. I know I’m lucky in having that kind of network here; most women faculty don’t. (Assistant professor of engineering)

sometimes, we believe that data is more important than the people who produce it…

Consequence of harassment: Prior to the event I had hoped to be a number one scientist and go for a tenure professor position, or main research scientist, whereas now that is not in my scope. . . . So, I feel like I have refocused to more menial roles, perhaps staying as assistant research scientist as I have been doing, and now not stretching for anything greater. (Nontenure-track faculty member in geosciences)

harassment change relation to work and science. The way we conduct our science is leading to the best science, or do we get impoverished science, because of the way we enable this behaviour

need to change award system (nobel price to 3 people, for a thousand people who discovered gravity thingy)

harassment IS scioentific miss conduct.

appendix C, interviews from qualitative study is very powerful

++ story in a lab: a man was superly bragging “look at how many women I got into the lab” WTF, women don’t belong, and they are here thanks to you? you want a cookie for that?

++ when you take the time to see how gender harassments stems from misogeny, and see the harm it causes to everybody. Until you gave this talk, I did not have a name for what I was living.

we can’t just have a checklist of todos to take to the dean, we need people pushing for this.

bystandard intervention: many steps, be able to identify the behaviour, be able to interpret it is a problem, decide to intervene, take responsability, the act. there are witness for most gender harassment

in hiring, we don’t really need to have a tool to check if people are willing to participate in a building a good culture. We sometimes already know, but the quality of the scientific work overwrite this. clarify the rules for hiring! OoO take inspiration from questions from CAPES for MCF interviews?

how to shutdown a conversation? Natural response, to hide. Learn ways to press conversation. People in power position can force discussions on this.

BIG shift, don’t wait for people to come forward. we are delegating responsability to the law. We must take responsability, indivudally, collectively.

pb: affraid of losing recommendations letters, pb bystander vulnerability

focus on graduate students to graduate students: reminders, unions were the first organizations to develop harassment issues reporting. Think about the organization of your work. There are things you can do because you are still part of the power structure.

Dénoncer ou ne pas dénoncer les violences sexuelles en milieu universitaire ?

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfFfHAlv8O8

Length: 44m10

Author: Ihssane Fethi, Manon Bergeron

Notes

ESSIMU: grosse enquête en 2016 sur les VSS, 6 uni Quebéquois, >9000 réponses. https://constellation.uqac.ca/id/eprint/4098/1/Rapport_ESSIMU_FINAL.pdf

2000 récits de victime. 230 mentionne la notion de signalement (non) dénonciation. 33 exclus car trop court, ou signalement exterieur à la police.

197 corpus, 55% signal, 45% non signal. (sur 2000, 90% de non dénonciation) 86% femmes. 21% 1er cycle, 29% deuxième/troisième cycle, 21% prof, 24% employé. Moins de signalements dans le 1er cycle/chez les plus jeunes.

Motifs de signalement: 1) mettre fin au comportement 2) peur, malaise extremene, menace 3) incitation de l’entourage 4) prise de conscience de l’experience de victimisation

Non-signalement: 1) crainte de récpercussion négatives sociales “craintes de rumeurs, de jugements” professionelle, perdre mon emploi parcours académique “peur d’échouer à un cours” peur des conséquences pour l’agresseur “je ne voulais pas lui nuire” peur de représailles physiques “j’avais peur qu’il s’en prenne à moi” 2) recours à des stratégies de défense et de mode de protection stratégie d’évitement confrontation/menace de dénoncer “je l’ai menacé de porter plaine pour qu’il arrête”

  1. croyance que les gestes sont pas suffisament grave “ce n’était pas du harcélement grave” “une situation grise” “c’était anecdotique, banal, bénin, ordinaire” “ça n’est arrivé qu’une fois, je n’allais plus jamais le revoir”

  2. perception négative de la réponse institutionnel la necessité d’avoir des preuves “c’était parole contre parole” manque d’impartialité et de fiabilité “j’ai entendu des histoires d’horreur sur le traitement des plaintes d’agessions sexuelles” manque d’information “à qui signaler à l’université ?”
    compliqué et exigeantes

-> les rapports de pouvoir ajoutent des obstacles à la dénonciation (jeunes, statuts + précaire) -> enjeux indiv et collectif : tension entre la préservation de soi et la prévention d’autres situations -> ne pas dénoncer, c’est aussi prendre action (ne pas sur estimer la valeur de la dénonciaiton, vs sécurité physique, émotionelle, cadémique) -> normalisation des violences sexuelles (influence de la culture du viol)

ccl, très important de rendre les informations disponibles, apporter plus de transparences. Centrer les efforts sur les personnes victimes.

Harcèlement sexuel et doctorat avec le CLASCHES (podcast)

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rM-hXQD4ZmA

Length: 56m18

Author: CLASCHES

Notes

CLASCHES - Collectif de Lutte contre le harcélement sexuel dans l’enseignement supérieur - since 2002…

diffusion d’infos, playdoyé, formation, orientation/accompagnement des victimes (non juridique)

les blaques lourdes (sur le physique, la tenue, ) sont du harcélement. à partir du moment où une personne se sent mal à cause de propos, même indirect/globaux.

enseignant jugé que par leur pair, pas d’étudiant relation spécifique direction de thèse, privilégié, sur le long terme, rdv souvent individuel, (+ en science humaine petite univ sans bureau), asymmétrie de pouvoir (pas de soutien pour publication, ou recommendation, ou envoi conférence, pas intégré dans la sociabilité du labo, pas intégrer dans tel projet), potentiel d’admiration Asymmétrie de pouvoir entre homme blanc bien installé et pŕecaire qui font tourner la machine, souvent des femmes.

relation de domination et pouvoir

Dans plein d’etab, il y a encore l’envie de préserver l’image, de “l’excellence”, et donc intérêt de faire taire les victimes, ou à ne pas publier les résultats des affaires. Recours à l’enquete administrative permet de faire jouer la montre, et de pouvoir faire disparaitre le problème via une enquete opaque, et pour éviter la saisine du conseil disciplinaire. Même si procédure abouti avec sanction, on a tendance à minimiser les aspects sexuels du harcélements.

clasches gère plein de cas différents, etudiant/étudiante, enseignant/enseignante, direction/thésarde. Agresseur qui souvent mète en avant une impression de malêtre et se confie, pour donner l’impression à la cible qu’elle est privilégié/intimité. Agresseur travail à isoler les victimes, faut pas trop en parler autour. Insidieux. Fort risque de représailles si la victime refuse/veut mettre fin à la relation.

Pour agir, on demande et respecte toujours ce que veulent les victimes. Beaucoup disent, là je veux rien faire, je veux finir mes études.

écrire des récits circonstancié, reprendre tous les évènements, dès le début où tout était normal. Aide à comprendre où ça a basculé. déjà une forme de preuve, avec description précise des faits et des conséquences. SMS, journal d’appel, mails. Certificat médicale sur état de la personne aussi preuve possibilité de faire appel à des témoins, à la fois sur les situations d’agressions, mais aussi sur la dégradation de la santé des personnes.

se protéger, s’écouter. Reconnaitre que la situation est pas normale. Essayer de ne plus se retrouver seule avec l’agresseur. Accepter de demander un arrêt de travail si nécessaire. Rassembler les pièces pouvant potentiellement mener à des procédures, même si on veut pas forcément le faire de suite. Rompre l’isolement dans lequel la situation nous a surement plongé.

Responsabilité collective de surveiller cela, rôle du comité de suivi, si une personne avance plus dans sa recherche, a pris ou perdu beaucoup de poids. Créer du lien, entre doctorantes, ou à l’échelle du labo. Pour les témoins indirect: 1) croire la victime, pour redonner du soutien et pour créer un environnement 2) ne pas remettre en question les paroles et le ressenti de la victime (“t’es sûr que”, “je trouve ça fou que…”, “mais il est si gentils”, …) car c’est remettre la victime dans une position de doute 3) être là, selon ce que la personne souhaite faire et en respectant son accord (sinon, on la dépossède encore de son vécu, de sa liberté d’action), témoins directs: ne pas se mettre en danger, venir en soutien de la cible, interrompre l’interaction de un à un, ne pas mettre la victime en difficulté (elle pourrait subir les représailles de votre intervention)

exemples de deux dernier cas intéressant: Univ Paris est Créteil, sanction de trois ans sans enseignements, il en a profité pour trouver un poste ailleurs, la sanction efface la portion VSS. Sanction importante par rapport à d’habitude, mais au final, il en profite presque. Lyon 2, sanction au niveau de l’uni, appel au CNESER qui a annulé la sanction, situation de harcélement sexuel avec de nombreuses preuves dont enregistrement téléphonique.

Trouver des exemples de sanctions est pas si évident -> procédure très longue, avec appel, déqualification des faits et invisibilisation de la part de harcélement sexuel, et le cneser casse souvent les décisions e.g. sur des vis de procédures (car dossier parfois mené par des gens non suffisament formés ou pas avec assez de temps).

sans trop se mouiller, écrire à clashes pour demander du matos de com’ (affiche stickers guide)

inviter clashes à faire des formations (facturé selon les lieux), adapté aux public cible

reco ressources : docu “The Hunting Ground” (terrain de chasse), université américaine

Prof Celeste Kidd speaks on How Sexual Harassment Creates Inequality in Academia

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leQ2SlkASbg

Length: 1h18

Author: Celeste Kidd

Notes

Intro by Senator Ivana Bacik:

suvery from univ in Ireland, 11% of students reveice unwanted sexual contact, 5% survivors of rape.

https://www.sfi.ie/research-news/news/irish-funding-bodies-to-require-athena-swan-gender-equality-accreditation-for-higher-education-institutions/ In Ireland, Science Foundation Ireland, the Irish Research Council and the Health Research Board will Require Higher Education Institutions to Have Athena SWAN Gender Equality Accreditation in Order to be Eligible for Research Funding. – bronze levels require climate survey as everywhere else, SH underreported most prevalent kind of SH might not be criminalizable, but it is still a very big point of focus.

any relection must focus on intersectionnality and power relations. Those in power have more opportunties to harass.

Chairing by Clare Kelly. Celeste Kidd, whistleblower and harassment survivor University or Rochester

17m42 Celest Kidd state

SH = gender harassment + unwanted sexual attention + sexual coercion From university Rochester, filed with 8 other faculty (who all left the uni because of this) a lawsuit for the university misshandling harassment case Celeste lived through as a graduate student unrelenting and demoralizing sexual harrassment from a professor Florian Jaeger, still employed by university. -> https://academic-sexual-misconduct-database.org/person/t-florian-jaeger The professor, based on the official inquiry of the university: talked about his lust for some students, + calling them dumbs. sent dickpicked, 4 sexual relationships with students mentored and wrote recommandation for a student while having sex

non exhaustive list, use threats to keep silent, and sometimes did destroy reputation

“Harassment is targeted at those who lack the power to stop it” NASEM report 2018, Clancy, Nelson, Rutherford & Hind, PLOS ONE, 2014

fieldwork increase risk, and trainees are the most widly targeted Worst place is medicine (NASEM)

Celeste personal solution: drop all projects with Florian, and was able completely changed subject (a luxury many people don’t have).

Says she was very lucky to be able to change field like that.

US EEOC (equal employement opportunity commision) report on workplace harassment, 2016 -> reporting SHtriggers retaliation 75% of the time.
- probably worse in academia because of more opportunities to destroy the carreer of somebody compared to companies (a professor can ban you from all universities)

Professors controls what trainees work on, where, who gets credits for the workm who get access to expensive lab equipment/grant money. Professors entirely and anonymously control if a student gets their degree. Word of mouth carries a lot of weight. Established professors can even control who gets job or grants. Anonymous feedback from professors makes it easier to retaliate, and victims can’t even know it is happening … !!!

The less powerful the victim, the stronger the retaliation.

Lack of data in academia, but newspaper journey are worrysome -> dramatic need for more reserach

University investagtions have bias toward finding nothing (otherwise, they have legal liability)

External firms have the same issue, who would pay a firm a lot of money to create a liability

Faced with eleven women making complaints, university first reflex was to mention a single false accusation story (which was at first an anonymous online report, and had nothing to do with the situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rape_on_Campus)

Then, investigation confirm a lot of the claims. So, change of tactic, now say that such behaviours were not SH. UR statement: “We cannot unravel the degree to which women avoided Jaeger because of the sexual elements in his conduct,as opposed to other simply offensive or unappealing aspects of his personality” UR promoted Florian Jaeger in the middle of the first investigation

UR Investigation deanonymized unwilling complainers

More generally, Celeste Kidd heard many testimonies of undergruate student that were crushed and betrayed by uni investigators. The systems are not there to protect people, but to protect the uni from prosecutions. e.g. “Case dismissed because a classmate defined her as a slute”

Schneider, Swan & Fitzgerald, J of Applied Pshy, 1997 - 2 out of 3 women faculty experience SH

Cascading effects beyond victims, we lose valuable contributions.

SH causes women and minorities leave domains where they are already under represented.

What do we do ?

  1. People who report need support Need for allies in faculty

  2. People who report need options for how and when
    not always possible to come forward right away (need to protect oneselves first) side comment, many cases have in fact a lot of evidence (email, text messages), so there are not that many “he said, she said” things.

  3. Institutions can’t police themselves they face a conflict of interest! mechanisms need to provide powerless with actual independent investigations options

  4. Entities without liability and Conflict Of Interst issues need to step up e.g funding bodies, publishers, …

  5. Power abusers need to lose that power

  6. We need to keep talking. things have been horrible for a long time, but all people did not know it.

To conclude, many examples of student protests at UR, that recognized their own stories in Celeste Kidd and the other stories.

55m -> Chair and questions

Violence sexuelle en milieu d’enseignement supérieur et diversité sexuelle et de genre

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVsDDRV2JYY

Length: 55m38

Author: Geneviève Paquette

Notes

https://www.couragetoact.ca/ https://possibilityseeds.ca/experiential-learning-project/

Canada -> violence sur le genre aussi outils de colonisation Rappel attention malêtre pendant la conférence.

  1. Intro

  2. Def Violence sexuel “acte sexuel commis par une personne envers une autre sans le consentement libre et éclairé …”. similar to SH
    minorités de genre “pers s’idnetifiant à un genre qui ne correspond par à celui qui leur a été assigné à la naissance”. minorités sexuel “personnes avec orientation sexuel diff d’hétéro”

  3. Enjeu LGBTQ+ en matière de VS dans l’enseignement supérieur

exemples de récits.

pourquoi plus ciblé ? théorie féministe -> la fonction de la VS est d’établir et de maintenir les rapports de pouvoir en regard du genre, de l’expression de genre et du comportement sexuel. -> moins on a de pouvoir plus on est à risque -> les hommes sont plus souvents auteurs et les femmes vitcitmes

théorie objectification sexuelle objectification: la valeur d’une personne est réduite à son utilié pour les autres sexualisation : réduite à ses comportements sexuels. pers issu de minorité sexuelle/de genre sont plus objectivé

les réactions des personnes confidente pas toujours aidante. Pourtant, large consensus, les reáctions influe les conséquences, dont PTSD (constation sans soutien, et accusation/exclusion augment PTSTD, et aussi surprenament les réactions positives “m’ont fournit de línformation et ont discuté des options avec moi” sont associé à plus de PTSD que juste celle qui offrent strictement du réconfort.

comment expliquer les conséquences ? théorie du stress minoritaire: être minoritaite => + de victimisation, + d’observation de la victimisation, interiorisation des discriminsations, + anticipation de la victimisation => conséquence négative sur la santé mentale

théorie de la médiation psychologique: modèle de sensibilité au rejet: plus on est exposé tôt au rejet, plus on va y devenir sensible. peu expliquer pq réaction dáidant qui pousse à láction peut augmeneter le PTSD, car les personnes pourraient anticipé les difficultés dans les étapes futurs

  1. enjeu relativ à láccompagnement des victimes + préventation

  1. recension pratiques existantes au quebec sur les questions spécifiques LGBTQ+ prévention et sensibiliation 26/33 univs (33 = la moitié des milieux univ) action concrète pour env inclusif (e.g. toilette, utilisation du prénom choisi) 22/33 éducation de la population en milieu académique 18/33 groupe de soutien dans 16/33 univs formation des interventaes et intervenants spécialisé sur les plans VS ET LGTBQ  9/33 programmes ou interventions pour les victimes 4/33

  2. recommentations pratiques

utilisation de matériel pedago avec langage épicène et images inclusifs accès à des services psychosociaux internes et externes adaptés à la div sex/genre

impliquer et former tous les membres (etud, ens, BIATSS) de la communauté de l’établissement
bystander training

mise en place d’une approche d’intervention sensible au trama (e.g la personne présente probablement déjà des traumas passés, dans le doute, on en prend compte)

examples de prorgamme: 
Know your power ->  campagne de sensibilisation, avec images inclusives.  Efficacité démontré sur la sensibilisation et le bystander action


ThinkLuv: formation de 30 minutes sur la prév VS, mais adapté au caractéristiques des personnes. Juste prometteur.

(BERA) Bonifé évalié reconnaitre agir, 12h formation en petit groupe ciblant les nouvelles étudiantes au 1er cycleu universitaire. Vise à augmenter le pouvoir dágir. Diminue le risque de subir un viol ou autre VS dans la 1 ere anné d'étude

plateforme ALIX, soutien spécialisé, permet de dénoncer de manière anonyme

Conc: stigma spécitifuqes, qui doit être pris en compte dans toutes les actions de prév/intervention

Q: comment intervenir? on peut commencer sur les trucs pratiques et simples: * ne pas avoir accès à des toilette non géré crée des pbs pour les minorités. * Pareille sur l’utilisation des pronoms, c’est bien de déclarer ses pronoms, pour rompre le cisgenre centrisme

Q: pour se former, quelles ressources ? le mieux c’les organismes qui interviennent dans les milieux concernées. Victimes sont notamment plus à l’aise pour leur parler (pas besoin d’expliquer milles trucs)

q: faut-il plus intégrer dans les pres existantes les aspects LGBTQ+, ou crée des formations ciblés ?

il faut faire les deux, de la prévention universelle qui parle des réalités des communautés LGBTQ+, mais également de la prévention ciblé, e.g. groupe de soutien (cf BERA).

Egalité femme / homme dans l’Enseignement Supérieur et la Recherche : a-t-on vraiment évolué ?

Link: https://www.canal-u.tv/chaines/inria/egalite-femme-homme-dans-l-enseignement-superieur-et-la-recherche-a-t-on-vraiment

Length: 1h20

Author: Isabelle Vauglin

Notes

bilan social CNRS 2021, fier d’annoncer 43% de femme, mais permanent.es 34.4% et doctorant.es 36,4%. Femmes + présentes dans les rangs les plus bas. (61% des C vs 34,3% des A+) split par domaine, technique vs gestion -> inégalité de salaire partout, e.g. 4,7% pour H dans les chercheurs Temps partiel toujours plus de femmes

(cf prez de Laurence Broze) Prof section 26, parité atteinte en 2270, et en section 25, plus de femmes prof en section 25 section 25, la période de bosse de recrutement (1996 à 2006) a favorisé que aux hommes

En astro, confirmation de tous les points précédents (+, + de F en postes temporaires) (55% des chercheuses sont permanentes, vs 66% des chercheurs)

Question de volonté : https://www.nature.com/articles/s41550-023-02079-6 “The achievement of gender parity in a large astrophysics research centre” Entre 2017 et 2022, le centre Astro3d a atteint la parité, de 38% à 50%

Mesures: - objectifs claires en matière de diversité - selection d’un ensemble diversifié de cheff.es d’équipes - une formation (2j) sur la diversité pour les jury pour tlm, tous les ans - garantir 50% de femmes dans les comités de selection post-doc - garantir 50% de femmes sur les listes restreintes de recrutement post-doc

Effet cascades (+ de femme leader -> + de femme postdoc -> + de femme PhD),

Il faut recruter ET garder -> les femmes restent plus dans des équipes dirigés par des femmes

Mesures: - implicit bias training, members also took cultural, LGBTQIA+, and Indigenous awareness training in subsequent annual retreats, and held monthly seminars on diversity and inclusion - The center’s code of conduct clearly established actions against sexism, insults, microaggressions, and behaviors that excluded other members, and the center had multiple ways of filing misconduct complaints.

Des espoirs?

sondage france info 12/01/23~: - de moins en moins de jeunes (18-24 ans) pensent que la science apportent plus de bien que de mal (55% en 72, 33% en 2023) - 19% des jeunes pensent que les pyramides viennent des pyramides

2022 - les filles réussisent mieux que les garçons dans toutes les filièrs aux bacs

Effet de la réforme 2019 -> En 2022, la part de bachelière scientifique est la plus basse atteinte depuis 1965, alors qu’on arrivait presque à la parité. Chute aussi pour l’info, de 23% en 2019 à 13% en 2020 Cf figure

les filles réussisent mieux, mais choisissent des filières moins valorisés, et donc les “choix” d’orientation entretiennent les inégalités.

<!> ce n’est pas de l’autocensure -> c’est le résultat de stéréotype depuis l’enfance. La société censure les filles. -> plusieurs exemples médias, jouet (produit scientifique, en blue pour les garçons, mais déguisé en princesse et rose pour les filles), habit enfant, exercices à l’école.

MAIS Il n’existe aucune diff biologique entre les cerveaux H/F

Il y a eu une défiminisation de l’informatique en occident, autour de 1984 (augmentation progressive de la part de femme dans les majors d’informatique depuis 1960, puis soudaine rechute)

Importance de diversité sciences, exemples de pbs : - système d’airbag historiquement conçu pour corpulence H - médicament dosé pour les H (peu de femmes dans les cohortes, 19% pour les antiviraux, 38% pour les vaccins, 11% pour le remède du sida) - symptomes différents-syndrome de yentl pour maladies cardiaques (10% de changes de plus de mourrir en arrivant à l’hopital) - Les dimensions des smartpgones inadaptés aux mains plus petites.

mais aussi, e.g. design des chaussures de sports, shrink it and pink it, while shapes are different (more triangular foot for women) https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/oct/14/ditch-shrink-it-and-pink-it-womens-trainer-design-say-experts

Femmes & sciences, importance des roles models (mais attention aux trop exceptionnel, Marie Curie n’en est pas un), séance en non mixité (et aucunes concernées a jamais dit, c’est dommage que les garçons soient pas là, par contre, on dit, il faudrait que les garçons aient la même chose), stage de 3ème.

GENDER BIAS: SCIENCES & PRACTICES - one day workshop in neuroscience

Link: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpupy7iBJC31Uuv_oPtKgpImnSVBb0WA3

Length: 13 videos of around 20 minutes each

Author: Paris Brain Institute

Notes

welcome

practical tool sex = biological differences gender = role & responsabilities, social construct bias = disproportionate wqieght in favor or against an idea, individual or group, systematic error

The “default male”, “invisible women” by Caroline Criado Perez -> this is a scientific fact article: Based on billions of words on the internet, people=men https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abm2463

appear very early, impact early development of children (for same exercice, presented as geometry, men perform better, vs drawing exercise, women perform better)

‘Why don’t we all see the same world’ - Albert Moukheiber

our brain can be very convinced, based on limited information

live experiment demonstrating our limited scope attention -> small blinking test between two very similar images, but super hard to find the difference.

how do we acquire knowledge? c-e of using blood letting in historical medecine

fun with correlation, Nicolas Cage #movies/#drowning

in the 50s, there was a pollio outbreak, correlated with ice cream sales, so they thought it was ice cream and recalled a lot of it. But, it was in fact temperature. (AN: ok, the story is not 100% accurate, see https://eu.poconorecord.com/story/news/crime/2011/08/12/vaccinations-old-ice-cream-scare/49937426007/, it was not as dumb as temperature, because temperature shift had always existed… So they loooked for other things, thought it was suger based on one experiment on mouses, so said no ice cream, but it was in fact flush toilets and the improvment in sanitations, leading to a lack of early immunizing childhood diseases)

Our brain makes map based on our perceptions, incomplete maps. How?

new illusion, rotating dancer -> missing depth, so our brains invents it. Two variant with additional line giving the depth, looking at one gives us a “prior”, which carries over to the original one.

“The more a situation is incertain/ambiguous, the more we are likely to interpret it” “Our brain is a predictive and approximative story teller” -> heuristics

Stereotyping, social norms, statu quo, anchoring, loss aversion, halo effect, optimism bias, social norms.

Trimming: colgate, made an error in a ads, show ad, what is the error? (tooth, or who does the hand belongs to?) framing: on sell, small popcorn, 3€, big one 7€. Nobody buys a 7 one, add a 6,5€ one, people don’t buy anymore the small one, but pay 50cts more for the 7 one.

stereotypes: “we reduce complexity to manage the world”.

cognitive bias, fast and slow

Biased judgment? “Who looks”more like a black person”? famous experiment from jennifer eberhardt at stanford, showing pictures and asking this question. (but pictures were from tribunal) Turns out the more somebody “looks like a black person”, the likelier they are to get death penalty.

Base rate neglect problem -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy Did psychological research demonstrated that we are stupid? Noop, but even very smart people can sometime do stupid things.

“Dual process theory” fast (intuitive) and slow (logical) Super popular (simple and accessible theory), but criticized see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_process_theory#Issues_with_the_dual-process_account_of_reasoning

Is a bias a detection failure (as argued by dual process theory), or a correction failure? Why do we keep smoking?

Do “biased” reasoners detect error?

-> redo a base rate neglect problem, but also introduce a control version (without a conflict between the intuitive answer and the logicalk answer). If people fully drop (as fast and slow) logical part when answering, answers should be the same. Summary of findings: when solving a conflict problem, response time is longer, eye fixate longer on the logically critical problem part, they recall logically critical problem part better, they are less confident their response ic correct, and error detection region in the brain is activated.

-> a lot of evidence for bias detection

Potential de-bias interventions.

Categorisation bias in social impression formation

(difficult to watch, double layered audio)

Rapid impression formation: from person perception (visible information) we draw inference to invisble states (emotional states, attention, intentions,…)

This is a complex feat, with at least two networks one very good at visual processing, and one on mentalizing.

Beware, not everying which is rapid is implicit.

Common categorization bias: categorization of other into groups imply that identical behaviour is interpreted/evaluated/attributed differently. Most “visible” categories (allegidly) age (<> of lifespan in years); race (<> biological ancestry); sex (<> gender identity)

When displaying postivie/negative words with stereotype consistent or inconsisten pictures (work related pictures). Preferential mapping of negative words with stereotype-inconsistent targets, especially when male!

-> categories matter = identical occupations elicit different evaluative responses for men and women.

With pictures of either same-race or cross-race interactions, people are quicker to associate negative words to cross race interactions

Stand up to stereotypes! How a gendered world can make a gendered brain

from Gina Rippon, author of “the gendered brain”.

Original story: two types of body = two types of brains = two types of skillsets = two types of social roles.

are there any consistent difference between the two brains: a broad no, but a cautious no (answer depends on why are you asking the question, are you asking)

Your brain’s 3 Ps: they are Predictive texters, they are Plastic, and they are Permeable (negative message impacts task performance, not same regions are activated)

What is your brain for? we are wired to be social, sens of self/others/belonging/norms/scripts/rules newest most evolutionnary recent part of the brain appears to be focused on this. (but older part like fear might make us avoid a social situation in which we experienced once something negative) Bad social experience turns on the same brain part as pain. Bias, and thus bad social experience, also leads to poor self image, high rejection sensitivity, high self criticism, self silencing. And then with high diversity effort, people from discriminated groups will have integrated all this, and will not feel included, and will leave. We integrate stereotypes and act according to them.

Diversity is not enough, inclusion is important

Very young children behaviors/self beliefs is altered by stereotypes, impact on creativity. What kind of beliefs there are on science?

Field-specific ability belief picture, “brillance”-focused field (math, cs, physics) lead to less women in them. we are flatlining on diversity recruitment

sexist gender harassment a signifcant predicator of a negative sense of belonging sexist gender harassment a signifcant predicator of imposter phenomenon

are there cerebral sex differences

gender (socially constructed) vs sex (XX vs XY chromosome)

Why study such differences? there are observanble differences in behaviors, do those come from internal factors or external factors.

(to note, only recent research was with large enough samples to study the small)

= Internal factor: sex determination occurs on 7th week, gonads become ovaries or tests, sex differentuatuib keas ti hirmin, Hormons distrubution: High peak for males at birth, not for femals,, then juvenil hiatus then stable plateau for males, and up and downs for females

= External factor

Science backgroung estimating the size of the difference: case study with size: Men are 12 cn taller than women on average at 18 years old in the world. Cohen’s d : standardized measure of a group difference. 98% of men will be taller than the average woman. 32% overlap. The biggest gender difference is in sexual behaviours (d=6.67), same sex vs different sex partner. Autism is 4/5 times more likely in boys, depression 2 times more likely in women

Cognitive abilites: Women and men have similar cognitive abilities. men advantage of d=0.57 for spatial rotation (but studies depend on parameter) female dadvantage of d-0.18 for verbal fluency.

Big five model: personality divided into 5 dimensions (openness, conscioutsness, neuroticism, agreeablenesse, extraversions). Female more neuroticism d=0,39, slighlty more agreeable d=0.17 (over 100 countries, a million people) Toy preferences by gender, consistent gender preferences d=1.6

Where does this toy pref diff comes from? could it be prenal hormonal exposure? use girls with a specific overproduction of androgens (testosterone) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congenital_adrenal_hyperplasia) slight evidence that yes. BUT girls with CAH are more encouraged to play with boy toys. AND girls with CAH play less with boys toys than boys.

= Sex diff in the brain. small effects d=0.7 for gender diff in total brain volume. (male advantage) at equal brian volumes, are their sex diff in regions. yes, d=0.5 max, but no bimodl no femal vs male brain.

white matter tracts and microstructurs, also have sex diff (d=1.25) sex diff in functional activity at rest, some regions get more blood.

Can’t answer yet how those small diff impact large diff in behaviour (e.g toy preference). Crucial to look at external factors.

Sex diff in the brain are generally small (d<0,2), no female vs male brain.

effect of gender bias in organisations

= Denial of discrimination many gendered stereotypes, act differente, are differnet, but also should be different. With many examples of impact of stereotype in academic: Creativity is associated with masculinity Proudfoot et al, 2015, Psychological science

 Women are less talented researchers
 Leslie et al, 2015, Science, 347, 262-265
 
 Gender ias in language use impairs selection of women
 Gaucher et al, 2011, JPSP, 101, 109-128
 
 Men are more likely to be first authors
 Broderick & Casadevall, eLIFE, 2019
 
 Women are less likely to be promoted
 Regner, Thinus-Blanc, Netter, Schmader & Hughuet, Nature Human Behaviours, 2019

Not so easy, even with this evidence, to convince people. Responses received when doing such research: male criticize it more, with many more words. Male trying to say : “there is no bias against women, there is one against men!”

Male have strong motivation to believe the system is just and fair!

People feel particularly threatened when they are criticized for their moral behaviours (far more strongly than for e.g. competence criticism). Which occurs when saying people are biased.

If we present fairness as an obligation this is very threatening to people, if we present it as an ideal, it becomes a challenge. (Does, Derks, Ellemers & Scheepers, SPPS, 2012)

While old fashioned sexism does not receive so much agreement, modern sexism (beliefs like women have equal chances, men and women are treated equally, discrimination is no longer a problem) stills receives a lot.

This denial of discrimination leads to belief that inequalities come from lack individual competence, ambition, priorities.

= Equal opportunies?

Gender contributes to personal research funding success in the Netherlands (Romy van der lee and Naomi elements).

Succes rates are lower at every step of the process
The only criterion where women are less favoribly judged is "quality of researcher", not "quality of study"

Reproducible.

The language of success: most positive worlds are masculine gendered wording

What are popular explanations for career gender disparities? Most popular answer: work life issues, then choices of women, then unrelated to gender, and the least mentionned one “lack of organizational support”.

Do you think men and women are treated equally in this orgnization? (Male say Yes, women say no) But on personal experience w.r.t ambition, no difference in self perception.

In 14 Dutch uni. Women more likely to have temporary/part time contract/more teaching time, have less time for research, less budget for research/traval and less support. If you teach women to act like men in negociation and contract and such, they get perceived badly. And further, women makes more attempts to negotiate and discuss contract, but they are less satisfied.

= Fitting in or opting out

Self-perceived masculinity: in Junior academic level, women see themselves as less masculine. In senior academic, they see themselves as similarly masculine. - solid result, wihtout change from 2004 to 2021.

What natters is not the surface/visible level disssimilarity, What matters is whether we feel included.

= Practical ways to adress

Make a systematic evaluation of policy and climate survey.

Most policies only focus on getting more diverse people (on the influx). But lack of attention on inclusion/advancement/people leaving.

Anti-bias training programs don’t solve everything! (some programs have adverse effects, with false sense of security)

gender and power in young children representation

(when) do gender expect gender hierarchy?

-> many things are linked with hierarchy Beliefs: personality steroeotypes (boy=smart, strong; girl=shy, soft). Bian et al, 2017. After 6, children think men are smart, and women are nice. Before 6, children attributes both to their own-gender bias. Then, the shift plays on the choice of activites (girl start avoiding “hard” activities at 6)

12 y-o but not 6-y o attribute higher status to masculine jobs. (Liben at al 2001) own gender bias in elections at 5-6 y o, but only for boys as 7-8. (Santhanagopalan et al, 2022)

But, do 5-6 years old understand power relations? Yes! Many studies, they understand w,r,t physical cues (size Thomsen et al 2011, posture Mascaro &Csibra 2012, Terrizi et al 2019, strength, Charafeddine et al 2015), and social cues (history of interactions)

But all studies on representation of power disreguard gender!

Experiments: where we first show children gender neutral pictures but with clear power relation, and then ask children to assign gender to the people.

children assign power position to boy (How Preschoolers Associate Power with Gender in Male-Female Interactions: A Cross-Cultural Investigation)

experiment “2 minutes to draw a leader!” 5-10 y-o, 69% of children drew a man, not one boy drew a women (santhanagopalan et al 2022)

conc: powerful=male for third party relations since 4 y-i, no own gender bias in three cultures.

pay attention to how children self stereotype when they enter relationships, don’t act the same when interacting with boy or girl.

deconstructing gender biases in tv and radio

many factirs ti look at: presence rate, expression rate, identification rate, roles, interruptions. Hard to do, trade-off between manual vs automatic methods

sample bias: amount of women depicted during first covid pandemic varies between 10 and 55% depending on the day on france 2

development of automated softwate for gender detection in speech/face. (to note, hard to do ML because underrepresented people we want to detect are also underrepresented in ML data sets)

gender imbalance in editorial process of scientific publishing

Children associate “Scientist” with “men”.

Illustration of leaky pipeline for women in science research. (from 50% at bachelor degree to ~30% as researchers, where women drop out/are pushed out)

In this talk, focus on scientific publishing.

Peer reviewed publication mattesL For scientits, the most common metric of scientific excellence. Editorial role = a mark of esteem, networking. for science also: resgitrstation, certification, dissemniation, preservation.

skewed representation of women in publishing: underepresetend as senior authors, in editorial boards, and invited to do peer-reviews.

gender imbalance in editorial interactions in the journal eLife, between senior editor and reviewing editors. In triage, women respond slightly less often and later (7 hours later) -> men reviewing ediots provide their opinion first and set the tone. women reviewing editors handl 9% less manuscripts.

Same gebnder editor effect: (homophily) women senior editors assign more manuscripts to women reviewing editors, and similar for men. (replicable accross all eLife scientific domains)

Conc: Women’s participation in editorial process is smaller than actual numbers tell.

All-men reviewing teams tend to accept more men-led manuscript. Murray et al 2019.

Risk of homophilly in how we conduct research, similar people think alike

How to do better

Increase representation, but also increase inclusion (make sure that women who are there can actually be active).

gender quotes in hiring committes

in place for long times, many debates 2 q: are gender quotas efficient, and do they trickle down?

efficient?

in general yes. for board gender quotas, no effect on firm performances or returns. (Eckbo et al 2018, Ferrari et al, Burrow et al, Norway, Italy, Germany) political gnder quotas: they drive out mediocre male politicians (Besley et al.), but don’t lead to more electoral success (Bagues-Campa)

trickle down? rather mixed result do gender quotas hel women, beyond those who benefit from them? In general, no. (Bertrand et al, board gender quotas don’t impact women lower down)

=In Academia?

two dimensions, vertical and horizontal segragation, quotas in hiring committes are better?

picture: gender gaps, SHE data, all disciplines. (leaky pipeline everywhere, with the rank increasing) High amount of vertical segregation

the gap start earlier for STEM.

French hiring committees, since 2015, 40% gender quotas.

Data from 3 univ, 2009 to 2028, 455 committees with detailled data, complemented with scrapeed data.

Effect of the reform: the share of women in recruitment committees clearly increased. (share actually closer to ~50%)

Effects summary: Negative effect on how women are evaluated in committees, their ranking and hiring (around 7%). no change in applicant pool more admin work for women change in the “quality” of jury no no more women committee presidents

Queen Bee effect? NO entire effect is driven by male jury presidents men must have changed their behaviour as a result of the reform. (similar result in Bagues et al 2017 who looked at randomly assigned hiring committees, where men became more negative toward women with too many women in the room.)

rk: tenure clock stopping policites have a positive effect only if gender based, negative if gender neutral ! (Antecol et al 2018)

difference in recognition of work (Hengel & Moon 2021, paper written with men are counted as 0 because must have been written by men Sarson 2017, Koffi 2021),

some success: role model in highschool/undergrade works (Breda et al 2021, Porter & Serra 2020),

and on improving publication prospects and in turn tenure. (Ginther et al 2020), a recruit worked

fixing the leaky pipeline

= what doesn’t work?

Most diversity initiatives. in the private sector, companies have experimented with implicit bias training, diversity programs, job tests, performance reviews, grievance systems. Dobbin and Kalev, 2016, most type of training have negative impact?

-> Why?

People in managing positions don’t like to be told what to do, nor that what they have been doing is wrong.

positive effects of implicit bias training usually last a day or two. Mandatory effects often result in anger and backlash. Job testing tends to penalize women and minorities. People using grievance systems are punished.

Emphasis on diversity increases saliance of gender and group boundaries, and evokes identity-based threat: to minorities who start under performing, and for majorities who start fighting back. the more we talk about diversity, the more we start seeing people as member of a group

= what works?

What is inclusion? “the individual’s sense of being part of the organizational system in both formal and informal processes”. In theory, should work better as puts focus on individuals, broader change in norms/values: permanent shift, and target everybody.

Masculinity norms:

a masculinity contest culture value 4 attributes (Glick et al, 2018) no weakness, strengh and stamina, work over family, ruthless competition

adaemica as dominant “masculine” norms. (Dupas et al 2020, Wu 2021)

Retaining talent in organizations Masculinity, Inclusion and Norms, Maria Guadalupe, Daisy Pollenne, Kaisa Snellman INSEAD PRELIMINARY AND INCOMPLETE Please do not cite, post or circulat

“We find that women perceive their environments as being more stereotypically masculine, less inclusive and less supportive of gender equality than men. Similarly, faculty perceive their work environment as more masculine, less inclusive and less supportive of gender equality. Moreover, we find that women and faculty have a higher turnover intention on average. However, both gaps disappear when controlling for perceptions of norms in the workplace. Importantly, we find that a masculinity contest culture generates no beneficial outcomes for anyone; it consistently lowers well-being and increase turnover intentions for both men and women. Similarly, perceptions of inclusion increases well-being and lowers turnover intentions for both men and women, suggesting that there are no trade-offs for promoting a less masculine and more inclusive workplace climate. Our findings suggest, however, that promoting equality might have unintended consequences: the focus on gender equality benefits men more than women in terms of their workplace well-being”

emphasis on brilliance fosters masculinity-contest cultures (Vial et al 2022)

behavioral insights & gender equality

Our brain lies to us, optical illusions. square A and B same color. Of course, gender stereotypes are not as simple as such illusions, but it is a good metaphore.

nudge: slight change in possible choices to change behaviour without coercion

examples of nudge: too many accidents on chicago lake shore drive -> make it look like people are going faster than they are by putting line on the ground becoming closer and closer, reduced accidents by 36%

-> by addind a line reminding the norm “nine out of ten people pay their tax on time” in a tax query letter (so, reminding that a behaviour is a minority), increased the number of payments. -> giving feedback on their own electric consumption compared to neighbours help reduce it (but also increase the consumption of the lowerest one, need to tailor the thing) -> sending feedback to doctors on where they are compared to others in term of antibiotic prescription helps

in public policies, research on bejaviour is not often used. e.g. putting a fine on late-coming parent at school pick up, increased lateness, make the shame disappear, and make it seem like it is a payed service.

in sweden, starting giving money to blood donors reduce the number of donors.

The speaker: part of a inter ministerial unit trying to apply and make research on such behavioral insights, help public decisions.

Produced a report on mixity in workplaces.

To counter gender bias, the devil is in the details: have to work on representation in scientific manuals, in algorithms, “it’s crazy that women are number 2 in French carte vitale”. Beware of counter intuitive effects.

Two examples: How to improve gender equality in the workplace (BIT Behaviourial insight team GABI program) Iris Bonnet What works gender equality by design

BIT: On CVs, having unexplained gap reduces chances. Presenting previous roles in numbers of years of experience rather than dates increased positive callbacks by 14.6%

Anonymous CVs prevent discrimination in early stages. (but mostly works in high discrimination context, may simply postpone discrimnation to later stages, + disadventageous if recruiter cannot correct things like load from having children, or use migration status to explain and ignore weak language skills)

⚙ WIP/TODO

A few more videos planned to watch

Discriminations systémiques et universités https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThubIS0JU_k

Round Table Discussion: “Sexual Violence and Harassment in Higher Education Institutions” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwAKqMPFu2A

Combattre la violence à caractère sexuel en milieu universitaire - Chaire publique 2017-18 2/5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHGGGaDG1Jw

VSST 1/3 - Culture sexiste : de l’enseignement supérieur à l’entreprise, un continuum des violences https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVH7xRdW-Zc

Keynote: Dr. Susanne Täuber https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VYgdfnFXUXE

 
Top