Nice At Work
Proposal Title: Nice at Work: A Qualitative Exploration of the Understandings and Operation of “Nice” in a Research Extensive University STEM Context
PI: Pam Bettis, Associate Professor, Department of Teaching and Learning, WSU
Funded: 2009
Project Overview
This project examines the meaning and operation of “nice”, a common sense gendered attribute, for 3 women and 3 men who work in WSU STEM environment. Questions included: What role has “nice” often framed as part of collegiality played in women’s entrance, achievement, retention, and personal work satisfaction? How do men understand the role that “nice” has played in their faculty lives and what are their expectations for women? How do policies, practices, and institutional structures in STEM work environments address collegiality and consequently the concept of nice?
Findings: The complications of intellectual exchange:
- Women and men desire a relaxed yet stimulating intellectual dynamic yet they looked elsewhere for those pleasures. Departmental work was understood as an intellectual drain that only focused on procedures, routines.
- Women collaborated with colleagues across the university/state/nation but not the department. Sometimes women were critiqued for not working with colleagues in the department.
- Women face communication critique during these exchanges. Stream of consciousness style of talk is critiqued by men while women critique other women for too critical comments.
- Women claimed that they were competitive and smart and that being nice was not important to their careers. However, they all admitted that they had struggled professionally and departmental perceptions of them ranged from bitch to invisible.
- Men enjoyed women on research projects because they changed the “good old boy” dynamic.
The complications of creating collegiality in the workplace:
- Departmental collegiality was conceptualized in two different ways: Intentional outside of work day socials versus unnoted daily relational work within the work day. Men considered drinking beer after work collegial and women with childcare responsibilities desired collegiality during the work day.
Institutional language:
Comparison of mission statements reveals gendered language. For example, the College of Veterinary Medicine uses phrases such as “collaborative success” “nurturing intellectual excitement and creativity” “encouraging interactions” while the College of Science “unsurpassed environment” “faculty conduct world-class cutting edge scientific research”.
Recommendations:
- Departments should be more intentional about including intellectual exchanges as part of departmental meetings and life.
- Departments need to be more welcoming for various styles of communication in the workplace, particularly gendered styles.
- Department members need to be more explicit and intentional about how they can foster collegiality.
- Colleges should be intentional about the institutional language they use.
