2025 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition

Research demonstrates that majority populations have the agency and power to create cultural change, wielding a particular type of influence among those with whom they share identities. However, literature that explores allyship does not define the term clearly, with allyship often referenced as an identity as opposed to a set of practices. This ambiguous understanding of how allies may enact their support complicates attempts to evaluate effective allyship approaches. Yet, recent scholarship has identified that proactive, ongoing approaches to allyship result in positive outcomes by facilitating feelings of inclusion and respect for minoritized individuals. Reactive approaches, particularly confronting and disrupting bias and discrimination are an especially valuable tool for majority group members to leverage, as same-group peers are less likely to perceive allies as overreacting in situations that they intervene in on behalf of minoritized individuals.

The focus of this study is to better understand men faculty allies in STEM disciplines and the strategies that they utilize in gender equity efforts. I employed social identity theory to explore how men faculty allies make meaning of their own status as members of the majority while simultaneously advocating for minoritized students and colleagues in their departments. Data from this study comes from a larger project on 31 men faculty allies in STEM; however, the data used in this paper is centered on the experience of seven participants who leveraged one specific allyship strategy. I conducted semi-structured interviews that sought to understand the perceptions and behaviors of men faculty allies. To analyze the data, I engaged in both thematic and narrative analyses to highlight how participants interpreted their own experiences as majority-group members and gender equity advocates. I then crafted a composite narrative using data from seven participants to give voice to their experiences and demonstrate how they exhibited their allyship to those who are not in the majority within STEM (i.e., students of Color, women, and non-binary individuals).

The composite narrative presented in this WIP highlights “Brad’s” experience, as he attempts to minimize the effects of men in his department who exhibit language and behaviors that negatively impact minoritized individuals. Brad leans into “marginalizing” or “isolating” men in the discipline who actively harm those from underrepresented groups so that they no longer have opportunities to negatively influence the experience of the groups that he seeks to support through his allyship. These preliminary findings suggest that mitigation can be a particularly effective reactive strategy for containing harmful behaviors, especially when those who perpetuate actions that could be damaging to minoritized members of their community have some form of permanent appointment (i.e., tenure) and cannot simply be removed from their position or the academy. This narrative provides an example of one philosophy for supporting gender equity by managing harmful individuals in formal ways, which could be a valuable tool for individuals in positions of power, like chairs and deans. Future work includes additional analysis to examine how race and ethnicity, faculty rank, and institutional type may influence participants’ approaches to allyship.