OPINION  Sexual harassment in Academia: A Matter of Power  (Imbalance)    Today is the day Julia has been dreaming about since the first day of her PhD program – it’s                                      interview day at the American Economics Association (AAEA) Annual Conference. As her phone                          plays her familiar morning alarm, Julia jumps out of bed, bright-eyed and hopeful for the 10                                interviews she has scheduled for the day. She irons her power skirt and navy blouse carefully,                                ensuring she leaves no creases uncreased. She reviews her notes on each school, each committee                              member, and each job requirement, preparing her responses just enough to sound polished but not                              too much as to sound over rehearsed. She slips on her special interview heels that give her that extra                                      boost of confidence and height she likes and walks out of her hotel room – shutting the door behind                                      her and with it, imagining the start of her future as an assistant professor of economics.     Short title  Sexual harassment in Academia  Long title  Sexual harassment in Academia: A Matter of Power (Imbalance)  Authors  Kelsey Medeiros​1  Author  affiliation  1​ The University of Nebraska Omaha  Author bios    Kelsey Medeiros is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of Nebraska at                            Omaha where she researchers workplace troublemakers. She is also the co-founder of                        Whisper Coalition​, a research group focused on sexual harassment, and ​Ethics Advantage​,                        a consulting firm working on improving workplace ethics.  Author social  links  Kelsey Medeiros: ​Twitter​ – ​LinkedIn​ – ​Website  Date published  16 March 2021  DOI  10.5281/zenodo.4606740  Cite as  (APA)  Mederios, K. (2021). Sexual harassment in Academia: A Matter of Power (Imbalance).                        Elephant in the Lab​. DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740  http://www.elephantinthelab.org/ https://www.whisperco.org/about-us.html https://www.whisperco.org/about-us.html https://www.ethicsadvantageconsulting.com/ https://www.ethicsadvantageconsulting.com/ https://twitter.com/drkelc https://www.linkedin.com/in/kelsey-medeiros-7b597045/ https://www.kelseymedeiros.com/ https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740   OPINION  Julia walks straight to her first interview which she finds a few doors down from her own hotel                                    room. After a brief knock, a man opens the door to a hotel room identical to hers. He greets her and                                          she feels the butterflies of meeting a scholar whose research she cites regularly and who is                                considered a giant in the field of economics. She has admired his work since early in her PhD                                    training and has dreamed about the chance to discuss it with him.   As she enters, she scans the room and notices 1 chair which has been turned from the hotel desk to                                        face the edge of the bed. The committee member takes his seat and gestures toward the bed. Julia had                                      read about women who had been asked to sit on the hotel bed, and some even asked to lie down,                                        during their job interviews. She also read that some had been verbally and physically propositioned                              during their interviews! The stories were legendary whispers in her women in economics                          networking groups. But that was the “old days” she had told herself. She hadn’t expected to find                                  herself in this compromising position in 2018. #Metoo had been making headlines for some time                              now and university faculty would have surely been paying attention.   She took her seat on the bed. She instantly felt uncomfortable as she sat there, the man staring at her                                        from his char. Her thoughts became scrambled as she thought about the stories she had read about                                  and whether or not the same might happen to her – What will I do? How can I get out? I can’t make                                              a bad impression on this guy – this is my career. Breathe Julia.   She misses the interviewer’s question. “I’m sorry, could you repeat that?” she asks.   Looking slightly annoyed, the committee member repeats his question, but Julia still struggles to                            focus. She responds to the question, but fails to make her point clearly, jumbling her words and                                  forgetting key details. The mental notes she knew so well just minutes ago in her own hotel room,                                    now seem buried under anxieties and fear for her own wellbeing.   ***  Some may read Julia’s story and think she should have just rolled with the punches – a bed is just                                        a big, squishy chair with pillows. If anything, she should feel thankful that she was given such a                                    throne for her interview.   For others, the power dynamics in Julia’s story are palpable. Many will see that what some may                                  construe as a harmless situation, could quickly turn harmful. Indeed, stories and research on                            power dynamics in academia reveal that situations like Julia’s can and do turn precarious, at                              times resulting in sexual harassment and even assault.   Sexual harassment on its own is problematic and worth addressing. However, the issue                          compounds when one considers who the typical target of sexual harassment is. Research tells us                              that individuals who are lower in a status hierarchy and those that are unrepresented are more                                likely to be the targets of harassment behavior (e.g., Harned et al., 2002). In the academy, this                                  means that women in, or in contention for, junior faculty positions are disproportionately                          Elephant in the Lab | DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740​ | www.elephantinthelab.org  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740   OPINION  targeted when it comes to sexual harassment. From an intersectional lens, BIPOC and LGBTQIA+                            individuals in the academy may be particularly at risk of sexual harassment.   The research on sexual harassment and career trajectory is clear – when someone is harassed,                              they are more likely to leave an organization and with some leaving the field altogether                              (McLaughlin et al, 2017; Medeiros & Griffith, 2019). By failing to address sexual harassment among                              faculty in our institutions, we are systematically pushing these groups out of our institutions. We                              are pushing bright minds, new ideas, and critical perspectives out of our classrooms and out of                                our labs. In a time when universities are increasingly committing to creating inclusive spaces,                            they are undermining their efforts by not addressing the systemic issues within academia that                            perpetuate harassment.  Is Sexual Harassment in the Academy a Problem?   Yes. Research on sexual harassment in the academy suggests that it remains a prevalent problem.                              In a 2003 study examining incidences of sexual harassment in the workplace across private,                            public, academic, and military industries, Ilies et al (2003) found academia to have the second                              highest rates of harassment, second only to the military. More recently, ​a report by the The                                National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) summarized the persistent                      problem of sexual harassment in academia with regard to faculty-student harassment, as well as                            faculty-faculty harassment. To find more evidence of this issue, one can also turn to Twitter - as                                  Times Higher Education highlighted in their 2019 blog​.   There are several systemic reasons why sexual harassment may be particularly prevalent in                          academia. As recognized by the NASEM’s 2018 report on sexual harassment in the academy, these                              include academia’s gender imbalance and its hierarchical power structure. Research suggests                      that sexual harassment is more likely to occur in male-dominated organizations (e.g., Hegewisch                          & O’Farrell, 2015; Medeiros & Griffith, 2019). Although academia has made advances with regard                            to increasing the number of women in faculty positions, it largely remains a male-dominated                            industry, especially in more senior faculty positions (Bacchi, 1993; Diamond et al., 2016; O’Connor,                            2020; Zhuge et al., 2011 ). Additionally, the hierarchical nature of academia, as well as its over                                  emphasis on “star researchers” creates an environment in which sexual harassment by those in                            power may perpetuate.   Along these lines, safe reporting mechanisms must be put in place to encourage junior faculty                              members to bring forward issues that challenge the extant hierarchy. This requires clear policies                            and the communication of these policies. Research from business, however, also teaches us that                            comprehensive protections must be in place for those who do report. For example, in an                              experimental study, Hart (2019) found that women who self reported sexual harassment were less                            likely to be recommended for promotion compared to women with identical qualifications. The                          failure to set up systems that protect those that report sexual harassment and challenge                            academia’s hierarchy, enables a self-perpateuating cycle of power to flourish. Is it really such a                              Elephant in the Lab | DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740​ | www.elephantinthelab.org  https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/sexual-harassment-in-academia https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/sexual-harassment-in-academia https://www.timeshighereducation.com/blog/twitter-responses-show-sexual-harassment-rife-academic-conferences https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740   OPINION  surprise then that researchers such as Kirkner, Lorenz, and Mazar (2020) found that sexual                            harassment largely goes unreported?   What Constitutes Sexual Harassment?   Definitions of sexual harassment are similar across borders generally including both verbal and                          physical manifestations. See below for examples of how it is defined around the world:  The ​US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines sexual harassment as                      follows:   “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical                        conduct of a sexual nature.”   The ​UK government​ defines sexual harassment as:   “any unwanted conduct of sexual nature that makes you feel intimidated, degraded,                        humiliated, or offended.”   In ​Japan​, harassment is defined more broadly as “power harassment” or “pawa hara,” which                            includes:  “physical abuse, emotional abuse deliberately isolating an employee, overworking an                    employee, consistently assigning work below an employee’s skill level, and infringing on                        an employee’s privacy.   The ​South African government​ lists the following as their definition of sexual harassment:   “(1) Sexual harassment is unwanted conduct of a sexual nature. The unwanted nature                          of sexual harassment distinguishes it from behaviour that is welcome and mutual. (2)                          Sexual attention becomes sexual harassment if: (a) The behaviour is persisted in,                        although a single incident of harassment can constitute sexual harassment; and/or(b)                      The recipient has made it clear that the behaviour is considered offensive; and/or(c)                          The perpetrator should have known that the behaviour is regarded as unacceptable”  Cross culturally, it appears we can agree - sexual harassment invovles unwanted verbal and                            phsyical abuse.  Why Power Matters for Sexual Harassment  The role of power in perpetuating sexual harassment can be viewed through two perspectives.                            The dominant theory of power in sexual harassment is that of the vulnerable-victim, which                            argues that workers in more vulnerable positions or with less? power are more likely to be the                                  targets of sexual harassment behavior (e.g., Wilson & Thompson, 2001)   Elephant in the Lab | DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740​ | www.elephantinthelab.org  https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-sexual-harassment-in-the-workplace https://www.humanrightspulse.com/mastercontentblog/new-anti-harassment-law-introduced-in-japan https://www.labourguide.co.za/general/600-code-of-good-practice-on-sexual-harassment113 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740   OPINION  Emerging from this line of thought, a common solution touted to reduce sexual harassment is                              then to increase the number of women in power. However, one must also consider theories of                                power threat, which have received considerable support (e.g., De Coster, Estes, & Mueller, 1999).                            The power-threat model suggests that sexual harassment may be a reaction to an individual                            challenging their status position. For instance, there is evidence to suggest that women in                            leadership positions experience more sexual harassment compared to women in                    non-authoritative positions (McLaughlin Uggen, & Blackstone, 2012). This may be due, in part, to                            a greater understanding of what constitutes sexual harassment. However, as argued by                        McLaughlin et al (2012), sexual harassment may also “serve as an equalizer against women in                              power, motivated more by control and domination than sexual desire.” This was also an effect Dr.                                Jennifer Griffith and I observed in our analysis of women in surgery and their experiences with                                sexual harassment (Medeiros & Griffith, 2019).   With this in mind, women face a double-bind with regard to power and sexual harassment. They                                are at risk of harassment given their typically underrepresented nature in academia, but as more                              women enter the academy, their very presence challenges the hierarchy, which again, puts them                            at risk of sexual harassment.  How Academia Responds to Power Matters   How leaders in the academic community respond to power abuses / sexual harassment sends a                              signal to others as to what the culture will and will not tolerate. It is then logical that to reduce                                        sexual harassment in the academy, we must call on our leaders to take action against this                                behavior. The National Science Report (2018) noted the importance of these actions in creating a                              culture that others perceive to be intolerant of sexual harassment and thereby reducing the                            behavior.   While likely an obvious solution to many readers, the reality is that leaders often fail to take                                  action against perpetrators of sexual harassment in the workplace and specifically, the academy.                          One reason we often see these behaviors go unpunished is due to a perpetrator’s accumulated                              idiosyncrasy credits (Griffith & Medeiros, 2020). Hollander (1958) coined the term idiosyncrasy                        credits to refer to allowances made for deviating from the norm. Specifically, credits are                            accumulated through good performance and high status and spent by engaging in idiosyncratic                          behavior. When someone with little to no credit behaves idiosyncratically, the behavior will likely                            be viewed as unacceptable and are likely to face consequences. In contrast, when someone who                              has built up a substantial amount of credit behaves idiosyncratically, they are often given a “pass.”   When it comes to sexual harassment, the use of idiosyncratic credits has been widely cited, albeit                                through different terms. For instance, when Susan Fowler left Uber, she noted that her claims of                                sexual harassment were dismissed because the harasser was a “high performer” (Scheiber &                          Creswell, 2017). When considering the role of power in sexual harassment, it would be remiss of                                us to not consider the power of the perpetrator themselves. In academia, this power most likely                                Elephant in the Lab | DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740​ | www.elephantinthelab.org  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740   OPINION  comes from their “star” power as researchers or teachers. Theories of idiosyncrasy credits would                            suggest that when these academic stars sexually harass others, the academy is likely to dismiss                              accusations, “let them slide,” or respond with minimal punishments.   The trio of the vulnerable-victim model, the power threat model, and idiosyncrasy credits then                            suggests a cyclical pattern in which women are more likely to be targeted both for their lack of,                                    and for their possession of power, while their perpetrator may go unpunished for the very same                                possession of power. Academia’s hierarchical nature and gender imbalance is systematically                      increasing women’s likelihood of being harassed and ultimately, leaving the academy altogether.  What We Can Do   It’s always a soul crushing exercise to lay out just how systemic this issue is in our community.                                    But there is certainly hope if we are willing to see the complexity of the issue and to address it                                        head on. But this will take work and is certainly not something that will be solved by an annual                                      1-hour sexual harassment training. The system requires a complete overhaul.    It’s also worth noting that this is not something that can be fixed by teaching women, POC, and                                    LGBTQIA+ to avoid harassment or by “empowering” to fight back. Sure, defending and                          protecting yourself is great - but what if we created a space where groups of people didn’t have                                    to protect themselves from harassment on a regular basis? What if we created a space where we                                  could all use our cognitive resources to contribute to scientific innovation and student                          development instead of how to avoid being harassed?  I don’t know about you, but I prefer the latter.   So how do we do it? What can we do?   The National Academy of Sciences report notes 15 important recommendations for enacting                        change in our institutions. Although each are equally important and I encourage readers to                            review the report in full themselves, I want to raise 3 recommendations relevant to the preceding                                discussion on power.   1. Change the culture  An organization’s culture includes both tangible and intangible artifacts. With hierarchy                      in mind, the National Academy of Science recommends diffusing the traditional                      hierarchical cultural structures by creating mentoring networks and committee-based                  advising. Further, shifting reward structures away from those singularly focused on                      publications or grants may encourage a more holistic view of faculty that spreads                          rewards throughout as opposed to making the academic rich richer. With regard to the                            tangible, it is also important for academia to examine how practices, policies, and                          procedures hold up the hierarchy and promote sexual harassment. When it comes to                          Julia’s story, for instance, the practice of conducting interviews in hotel rooms created a                            Elephant in the Lab | DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740​ | www.elephantinthelab.org  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740   OPINION  space in which sexual harassment could more easily occur. Along these lines, recent work                            by Drs. Jennifer Hirsch and Shanus Khan (Sexual Citizens, 2020) on the role physical                            spaces play in establishing power dynamics and perpetuating sexual assault should be                        considered.    2. Actually listen to women  It is not enough to promote women. We must also listen to their viewpoints. Too often                                we see women placed in roles as tokens, or who are placed in roles and asked to conform                                    to the existing norms. Women should be placed in these roles to challenge the status quo                                and to raise important issues that we may otherwise go unnoticed. With regard to Julia’s                              example, for instance, men in higher status positions may fail to recognize the                          compromising experience of women interviewing in a hotel room. In fact, it was due to                              the actions of two women, Kathryn Holston and Anna Stansbury, that in 2019, the ASSA                              banned the use of hotel rooms for these meetings.   3. Hold people accountable  In any culture change initiative, it is imperative that leaders reward the desired behavior                            and punish the undesirable. In this instance, leaders must not fall prey to idiosyncrasy                            credits, and stand up against those who engage in sexual harassment – regardless of their                              performance. Of course, due process and appropriate investigative procedures should be                      followed. Once a conclusion has been reached, however, leaders must act and signal to                            the community that sexual harassment will not be tolerated in the academy.   If we want to truly make academia a physically safe space for all, we need to address the root                                      problem: power. What will you do?   Elephant in the Lab | DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740​ | www.elephantinthelab.org  https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740   OPINION  References  Bacchi, C. (1993). The brick wall: Why so few women become senior academics. Australian Universities’ Review,                                36(1), 36 - 41.   De Coster, S., Estes, S. B., & Mueller, C. W. (1999). Routine activities and sexual harassment in the workplace. Work                                        and Occupations, 26(1), 21 - 49. ​https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888499026001003  Diamond, S. J., Thomas, C. R., Desai, S., Holliday, E. B., Jagsi, R., Schmitt, C., & Enestvedt, B. K. (2016). Gender                                          differences in publication productivity, academic rank, and career duration among US academic                        gastroenterology faculty. Academic Medicine, 91(8), 1158 - 1163. ​https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001219  Griffith. J. A., & Medeiros, K. E. (2020). Expanding the footprint of sexual harassment prevention training: A power,                                    credit, and leadership perspective. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 137 - 141.                        https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.26  Harned, M. S., Ormerod, A. J., Palmieri, P. A., Collinsworth, L. L., & Reed, M. (2002). Sexual assault and other types                                          of sexual harassment by workplace personnel: A compariosn of antecedents and consequences. Journal of                            Occupational Health Psychology, 7(2), 174 - 188 doi:10.1037//1076-8998.7.2.174.  Hart, C. G. (2019). The penalties of self-reporting sexual harassment. Gender & Society, 33(4), 534 - 559.                                  https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243219842147  Hegewisch, A., & O’Farrell, B. (2015). Women in the construction trades. Institute for Women’s Policy Research.                                https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/C428-Women-in-Construction-Trades.pdf  Hollander, E. P. (1958). Conformity, status, and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review, 65(2), 117 - 127.                              https://doi.org/10.1037/h0042501  Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual                                harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology,                            56(3), 607 - 631. ​https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x  Kirkner, A.C., Lorenz, K., & Mazar, L. (2020). Faculty and staff reporting and disclosure of sexual harassment in                                    higher education. Gender and Education, 1-17. ​https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1763923  McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority and the paradox of                                power. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 625 - 647. ​https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412451728  McLaughlin, H., Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2017). The economic and career effects fo sexual harassment on                                  working women. Gender & Society, 31(3), 333 - 358. ​https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243217704631   Medeiros, K. E., & Griffith, J. A. (2019). Double-edged scalpels: The trials and triumphs of women surgeons.                                  Narrative Inquiry in Bioethics, 9(3), 221 - 227.​10.1353/nib.2019.0057  National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2018). Sexual harassment in academic science,                          engineering, and medicine. https://www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/sexual-harassment-in-academia  O’Connor, P. (2020). Why is it so difficult to reduce gender inequality in male-dominated higher educational                                organizations? A feminist institutional perspective. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 45(2), 207 - 228.                        https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1737903    Scheiber, N., & Creswell, J. (2017). Sexual harassment cases show the ineffectiveness of going to HR.                                https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/12/business/sexual-harassment-human-resources.html  Hirsch, J. S. & Khan, S. R. (2020). Sexual citizens: A landmark study of sex, pwoer, and assautl on campus.   Wilson, F., & Thompson, P. (2001). Sexual harassment as an exercise of power. Gender, Work, & Organization, 8(1),                                    61 - 83. ​https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00122  Zhuge, Y., Kaufman, J., Simeone, D. M., Chen, H., & Velazquez, O. C. (2011). Is there still a glass ceiling for women                                            in academic surgery? Annals of Surgery, 253(4), 637 - 643. 10.1097/SLA.0b013e3182111120  Elephant in the Lab | DOI: ​10.5281/zenodo.4606740​ | www.elephantinthelab.org  https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0730888499026001003 https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000001219 https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.26 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0891243219842147 https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/h0042501 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x https://doi.org/10.1080/09540253.2020.1763923 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0003122412451728 https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0891243217704631 https://doi.org/10.1353/nib.2019.0057 https://doi.org/10.1080/03080188.2020.1737903 https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0432.00122 https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4606740