Transformational change towards gender equality: An autobiographical reflection on resistance during participatory action research

Abstract

This article contributes to the academic debate about gender equality change by conceptualizing resistance to gender equality change as characteristic of a system where gendered organizations tend to move back to an equilibrium when confronted with change. It explores the role of change agents and change recipients in challenging this equilibrium using autobiographical reflections on three events of resistance during participatory action research aimed at gender equality in Dutch universities. It argues that resistance can be understood as stakeholders’ articulated defence of the organizational identity when research results threaten gendered organizational norms, beliefs and values. Organizational change cognitively and emotionally challenges not only change recipients but also change agents. Reflection on and sharing of personal experiences in groups of researchers may be sources of empowerment, enabling gender equality change agents to continue the conversation with change recipients. This conversation may transform not only change recipients but also change agents.

Benevolent discrimination: Explaining how human resources professionals can be blind to the harm of diversity initiatives

“…Our research approach is inspired by Meyerson and Scully’s (1995) notion of ‘tempered radicalism’; it insists on a critical edge – playing devil’s advocate – while engaging as an empathetic partner in the practical problems, agendas and concerns raised by the participants (see also Bleijenbergh, 2018; King and Learmonth, 2015). In this partnership, we adopt a critical, progressive agenda with the aim of obtaining (micro) emancipations.…”

“…Many diversity management scholars promote generalised and de-politicised diversity activities, which do not address structural discrimination and, thus, lead to little empirical evidence of promotion of workplace equality (Bleijenbergh, 2018; Dobbin et al, 2011; Janssens and Zanoni, 2014; Oswick and Noon, 2014). Studying the limitations of diversity management, critical diversity scholars often apply a discursive lens to expose how larger societal discourses regarding, for example, gender, sexuality or race/ethnicity obstruct organisational diversity initiatives (Holck and Muhr, 2017; Nkomo and Al Ariss, 2014; Oswick and Noon, 2014).…”

Context matters: Problematizing the policy‐practice interface in the enactment of gender equality action plans in universities

“…This contributes to the tendency in some organizations for equality policies to be accepted at a symbolic level but resisted or weakened in practice (Bagilhole, 2002; Powell et al., 2018). Bleijenbergh (2017) also finds that gender equality change proposals are resisted by institutional actors when such proposals challenge an organization's view of itself as, for example, a fair employer. Bagilhole (2002) suggests that in some universities, equal opportunities policies are accepted only insofar as they do not challenge existing power structures, a response she associates with older universities (in the British context), pointing to the significance of organizational context.…”

Seeing the system: Systemic gender knowledge to support transformational change towards gender equality in science

“…We acknowledge that cognitive knowledge is at most a necessary and certainly not a sufficient condition for transformational change (Bleijenbergh, 2018). Further research is needed to examine whether the increase of systemic gender knowledge enables participants to gender equality interventions to take further steps on the path of transformational change.…”

“…Cavaghan (2013Cavaghan ( , 2017, for instance, shows how new gender knowledge competes with dominant gender knowledge, which most often does not support transformational change. Other scholars report how expert gender knowledge is disregarded or disreputed (Bleijenbergh, 2018;Moss-Racusin, Molenda, & Cramer, 2015;Van den Brink, 2015). However, a focused view on the specific characteristics of this gender knowledge is as yet missing.…”