Results of a National Survey of Instructors

• Date: 01 October 1994
• Author: Stephanie L. Witt
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X9401400409
• Published date: 01 October 1994
• Subject Matter: Articles

Investigating Gender Differences in
Teaching the Public Personnel Course
RESULTS OF A
NATIONAL SURVEY
OF INSTRUCTORS
STEPHANIE L. WITT
here
has been much
T interest
ing&dquo; (Guy, 1993; Bullard
in the last
and Wright, 1993) and
two decades on issues
sexual
harassment
involving gender and
(Kelly and Stambaugh,
public administration.
1994; Mezey, 1992). A
This
research
has
recent review article
ranged from theoretical
documents that the Pub-
analyses of the impact
licAdministration Review
of gender-bias in our
has published 43 articles
theory (see for example,
addressing women or
Stivers, 1993), to empiri-
women’s issues since
cal analysis of the
1940. This is one of the
progress, or lack thereof,
highest number of such
in advancing the for-
gender-focused articles
tunes of women in ad-
published among all the
ministrative positions
leading journals in po-
(Kelly, et al., 1991;
litical science (see Kelly
Kellough, 1990; Rehfuss,
and Fisher, 1993).
1986). Other studies have focused on
Given the importance of gender
differences in managerial or leader-
and gender differences as a topic in
ship styles between men and women
public administration, this article will
(Thomas, 1991; Flammang, 1985; Van
examine
gender differences in the teach-
Wagner and Swanson, 1979), or on
ing and content of the basic public
gender as it relates to policies such as
personnel administration/human re-
affirmative action or sexual discrimi-
source management course. After re-
nation (Lee, 1989; Slack, 1987; Dometius
viewing the differences that have been
and Sigelman, 1984). Two areas of
hypothesized to hold between male
recent interest include the &dquo;glass ceil-
and female approaches to teaching and
82

---

instruction, the article will examine
as a
&dquo;feminist&dquo; orientation. Either ap-
responses from a national sample of
proach results in the expectation that
public personnel course instructors to
men and women might be likely to
see if there are indeed gender-based
teach in different ways.
differences in teaching and grading
Research and essays on feminist
methods used by male and female fac-
approaches to teaching suggest that
ulty and differences in course content
feminist teachers tend to reject the tra-
attributable to gender.
ditional professor-student relationship
in which the professor is seen to pos-
sess nearly all the relevant knowledge,
in favor of techniques that transfer
IS THERE A
FEMINIST PEDAGOGY?
greater responsibility to the student for
the exploration of subjects of study
Concurrent with the entry of more
(Ryan, 1993). This would include use
women into the professoriate-and
of techniques such as &dquo;student led
with the development of courses dedi-
group discussion, small
cated
group work,
to the study of women and
collaborative projects, journal writing,
women’s issues-has come an interest
and peer tutoring&dquo; (Brown, 1992:54).
in the way that women characteristi-
Ryan summarizes the more student-
cally teach their students (Langland
centered approach in the following
and Gove, 1983; Hartman, 1991). This
terms:
interest in women’s pedagogical incli-
nations is rooted in two slightly differ-
Feminist scholars and teachers
ent approaches to the study of gender
are exploring research and teaching
differences. The first approach draws
methods that reject certainty, that
upon the well-developed body of lit-
emphasize process over product.
erature documenting the impacts of
They are forgoing traditional lec-
sex-role socialization on the adult be-
tures with facts and statistics and
havior of men and women. These
statements that imply that the
studies document
pro-
male / female differ-
fessor has the answers to impart to
ences in communication styles (Bate,
passive students. Instead they imple-
1988; Stewart et al., 1990), leadership
ment a pedagogy that teaches
styles (Kanter, 1977), approaches to
through collaborative learning and
conflict (Womack, 1987), and other ar-
creates a learning environment that
eas of social conduct which represent
values questions rather than asser-
learned behaviors. The second approach,
tions, cooperation rather than com-
drawing upon the works of theorists
petition (Ryan, 1993:27).
such as Carol Gilligan (1982) and
Cynthia Enloe (1993), point not only to
In addition to the way in which a
the learned behavior pattern differ-
particular course may be taught, some
ences between men and women, but
scholars maintain that a feminist per-
describe those differences as reflecting
spective will result in quite different
a fundamentally gender-distinct ap-
course content. This difference in topi-
proach to communication, use of
cal coverage not only means including
power, and organization of knowledge.
a discussion of women and women’s
s
This approach is sometimes referred to
issues within the course, but often en-
83

---

tails rejection of materials traditionally
gests that there will be differences in
considered part of the established
the way that men and women teach the
&dquo;canon&dquo; in favor of new, experimental,
commonly taught public personnel
unconventional or non-traditional sub-
administration / human resource man-
ject matter (Anderson, 1987; Langlund
agement course. This article will test
and Gove, 1983).
that notion by examining the teaching
There are several...