University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A feminist model of institutional transformation: a case study of one campus-based women's center

(USC Thesis Other)

A feminist model of institutional transformation: a case study of one campus-based women's center

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 1

A Feminist Model of Institutional Transformation:
A Case Study of One Campus-Based Women’s Center
by
Candace Rypisi

___________________________________________________________

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May 2015

Copyright 2015 Candace Rypisi
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 2

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the following people for their support and
guidance:
 My advisor and mentor, Dr. Adrianna Kezar, for your years of patience,
encouragement, and commitment to my academic success. You never gave up on me,
even when I gave up on myself. Thank you.
 My committee members, Drs. Melora Sundt, Tracy Poon Tambascia, and Elizabeth
Davenport. Your commitment to gender equity, social justice, and education has served
as a source of on-going inspiration.
 My family, especially my Mom and Dad, who were my first and most important
teachers, and my sister, Carole, who without her time and love this would not have been
possible.
 My friends, Felicia Hunt, Kim West, Susan Conner, Carol Casey, Jill Wells, Karen
Carmichael, Susan Sims, and Jeff Hoffman. Your loving-kindness is what got me through
this.
 My son, Oliver Miles Devald Rypisi, who inspired me to finish this project. Always
remember: “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the
world.”-- Nelson Mandela
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 3

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................... 2
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 10
Statement of Problem ................................................................................................................ 11
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................................. 16
Research Questions ................................................................................................................... 16
Significance of Study ................................................................................................................ 17
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 17
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 19
The Changing Landscape for Women in Higher Education ..................................................... 20
Pre-1970................................................................................................................................. 21
Feminism in the 1960s and 70s ............................................................................................. 22
Legal influences ................................................................................................................ 23
Student movements ........................................................................................................... 25
Women’s movement ......................................................................................................... 26
The Role of Campus-Based Women’s Centers ......................................................................... 27
History and development ....................................................................................................... 28
Typology ................................................................................................................................ 29
Mission .................................................................................................................................. 32
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 4

Commitment to transformation ............................................................................................. 34
A Feminist Model of Institutional Transformation ................................................................... 34
Keeping the innovative culture vital through dialogism ....................................................... 35
Table 1: A Synthesis of Wilbur’s (1998) Model of Social Reality and Safarik’s (2003)
Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation ................................................................... 38
Assessing progress in multiple contexts ................................................................................ 40
Interpreting paradoxes of progress ........................................................................................ 41
Creating the evolving, innovative structure ........................................................................... 42
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................... 44
Research Design ........................................................................................................................ 44
Research Site and Sample ......................................................................................................... 46
Data Collection .......................................................................................................................... 49
Interviews .............................................................................................................................. 49
Focus groups .......................................................................................................................... 50
Document analysis ................................................................................................................. 51
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 52
Reliability and Validity ............................................................................................................. 52
Researcher’s subjectivity ....................................................................................................... 53
Triangulation ......................................................................................................................... 54
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 5

Limitations of the Study ............................................................................................................ 54
Ethical Considerations............................................................................................................... 55
Summary ................................................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 57
Contextualizing the Research Site: Citrus University and the Women’s Center ...................... 58
Women’s Center Staff ............................................................................................................... 62
The Director ........................................................................................................................... 63
The Assistant Director ........................................................................................................... 64
The Administrative Assistant ................................................................................................ 65
The Sexual Assault Prevention Coordinator ......................................................................... 66
The Program Coordinator ...................................................................................................... 66
The Adult Reentry Coordinator ............................................................................................. 67
The Interns ............................................................................................................................. 67
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 68
Mission, Programs, and Services .............................................................................................. 68
Information and education ..................................................................................................... 71
Safe space .............................................................................................................................. 72
The Adult Reentry Center ...................................................................................................... 74
Improving interpersonal communication ............................................................................... 75
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 6

The Men’s Center .................................................................................................................. 77
Women’s Cultural Resource Centers .................................................................................... 80
Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 83
Findings by Theme .................................................................................................................... 84
Individual and Institutional Change ...................................................................................... 85
Challenges to Making Change ............................................................................................... 87
Leadership and Impact on the Change Process ..................................................................... 89
Feminism and Approach to Change ...................................................................................... 92
Strengths and Challenges of Multiple Campus Feminist Communities .............................. 101
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 107
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 111
Major Findings by Research Questions .................................................................................. 112
How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation? .................................................................................................................... 112
Personal Growth vs. Institutional Change ...................................................................... 112
Mission. ........................................................................................................................... 114
Focus on Diversity. ......................................................................................................... 115
How does women’s center staff describe their perceptions and experiences in institutional
transformation? .................................................................................................................... 116
Faculty privilege. ............................................................................................................ 116
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 7

Impact of being at a state school. .................................................................................... 117
Campus relationships. ..................................................................................................... 118
How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective feminist
ideologies? ........................................................................................................................... 120
Safarik’s Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation ..................................................... 121
Individual-Interior: Staying innovative through dialogism ................................................. 122
Group-Interior: Assessing progress in multiple areas ......................................................... 124
Individual-Exterior: Interpreting the paradoxes of progress ............................................... 126
Group-Exterior: Creating an evolving, innovative structure ............................................... 127
Limitations of Safarik’s Model ............................................................................................ 128
Implications for Practice ......................................................................................................... 129
Future Research ....................................................................................................................... 134
Final Thoughts......................................................................................................................... 135
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 137
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................. 144
APPENDIX B ............................................................................................................................. 147
APPENDIX C ............................................................................................................................. 148
APPENDIX D ............................................................................................................................. 150
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 8

Abstract
Over the past twenty years, women have made tremendous gains in accessing higher
education, especially at the undergraduate level. However, this alone does not mean that gender
equity has been achieved. Women are not represented equally across the academic disciplines;
they are less likely to pursue advanced degrees at the same level of men; and women’s
experience, at all levels, still points to inequities on our college campuses.
This study examined the role of one campus-based women’s center in advancing
institutional transformation on gender equity and the perceptions and experiences of women’s
center staff in the transformation process. The participants included Women’s Center staff
members, key administrators and faculty, and student interns at the Women’s Center. Based on a
descriptive, case-study approach multiple methods were used including interviews, focus groups,
and document analysis. The interview protocol was based on Safarik’s (2003) Model of
Feminist Institutional Transformation, to better understand the dynamic process and experience
of institutional transformation.
This study found that the mission and activities of the Women’s Center focused on the
personal development and support of individual students, rather than on institutional
transformation. Furthermore, the staff perceived institutional transformation as something best
initiated at the faculty level. This study’s findings also suggest that the Women’s Center
leadership has to negotiate an insider/outsider role when addressing issues of transformation.
A significant finding was that the process of institutional transformation may be
negatively impacted by a lack of different feminist philosophies represented at the Women’s
Center. This supports Safarik’s model, which suggests that by having multiple feminist
philosophies represented, transformation efforts are better supported and sustained over time.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 9

This study raises several implications for practice. First, campus goals related to
institutional transformation on issues of gender equity should be reflected in the mission and
programs of the women’s center. Second, campus leadership should consider having the
women’s center report to an academic affairs unit, where there may be more ability to impact
change at the institutional level. Next, women’s center leadership and staff need to be prepared
for the challenges, and opportunities, that come with being both an insider and outsider at the
university. This may mean having to be a voice for important gender-related issues and
navigating the associated campus response. Forth, campus leadership and women’s center staff
should work toward a common understanding of the role that feminism plays in informing the
women’s center’s mission, programs, and approaches to institutional change. And finally,
women’s centers should be professionally staffed by more than one person and should aim to
represent a diversity of feminist philosophies and approaches to change.

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 10

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
In 1973, scholar Adrienne Rich wrote the seminal article, Toward a Woman-Centered
University. In it she imagined an equitable and more “humane” kind of university, a university
that acknowledges and values women through its structure and the curriculum. Rich asserted
that unless women actively resist the male-dominated structure of higher education, they will
serve to reinforce traditional structures and ways of thinking, and as a result remain marginalized
in the academy. The male-centered academy, Rich argued, ignores women’s history, women’s
ways of thinking, and women’s needs within the institution.
According to Rich (1979), the university needs to be transformed by women, and for
women, to create a woman-centered university. To do so, Rich envisioned a curriculum that
would make women visible in all subjects of inquiry and disciplines in which women would be
the creators of knowledge and not only the objects of research. There is no doubt that Rich’s
vision has, to some degree, become a reality. One of feminism’s main influences on higher
education has been through the development of Women’s Studies as an academic discipline.
Women’s Studies challenges the traditional notions of disciplines by drawing on multiple fields
such as history, literature, psychology, and human development, and by developing new, critical
theories and models of analysis that could explore the wholeness of women’s reality.
Rich’s (1979) second requirement for a woman-centered university was to address the
“institutionalized obstacles that effectively screen out large numbers of able women from full or
partial engagement in higher education” (p. 7). These barriers included a lack of childcare,
limited access for non-traditional and adult students, and an expectation that all students would
be full-time degree earners. Such barriers serve to limit education to only a certain population of
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 11

women and Rich strongly argued that unless all women have access to education, the university
will never truly be woman-centered.
Nearly forty years later, Rich’s (1979) argument and recommendations may not seem
visionary to the contemporary student or to the new higher education practitioner. After all,
progress toward gender equity has already changed the landscape of higher education in
substantive ways. Today women comprise well over 50 percent of the undergraduate student
population (Freeman, 2004). However, there are still a disproportionate number of women in
certain disciplines, such as engineering and the sciences (Allen, 2011). The progress that has
been made cannot be attributed to a few select programs or efforts. Rather it can be viewed as a
cultural shift in regards to expectations, attitudes, and beliefs about women’s worth in society
and the academy. Largely due to the efforts of the Women’s Movement and other allied social
justice movements, women began to demand more from social institutions and in turn those
institutions began to address the needs of women. The development of women’s centers,
childcare centers, sexual health services, Women’s Studies programs, and women’s athletic
teams are just a few ways in which the academy has changed.
Statement of Problem
Despite the progress, gender equity has yet to be achieved on campus. Consider for
instance:
 Nationally, while women earn 57 percent of all bachelor’s degrees, they constitute only
39 percent of those awarded in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields
(National Science Foundation [NSF], 2004). Research indicates that women at all levels
of STEM fields are underrepresented (NSF, 2004). Additionally, STEM disciplines
remain severely stratified, with large gender disparities in specific sub-fields. For
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 12

example, although women have reached parity with men at the undergraduate level in the
biological and agricultural sciences, they remain underrepresented in the physical
sciences and engineering (NSF, 2004). In 2001, while women earned 60 percent of
undergraduate degrees in biology, only 22 percent of physics degrees, 28 percent of
computer science degrees, and 20 percent of engineering degrees were awarded to
women (NSF, 2004). Furthermore, men still outnumber women across all Ph.D. and
M.D. programs (Allen, 2011).
 Enrollment and graduation rates for women of color demonstrate an even wider gap. A
2011 report by Association for the Study of Higher Education, noted that in 2005 “White
women earned 39% of the associate and bachelor’s degrees; minority women earned 18
and 14%, respectively” (Allen, 2011). This disparity grows as women progress up the
pipeline. White women earn 37% of master’s degrees and 33% of professional degrees;
whereas women of color only earn 12 and 13 percent, respectively (Allen, 2001).
 Violence against women on college campuses has grown to epidemic proportions.
Studies consistently indicate that one in four to five women will be sexually assaulted
while in college (White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault,
2014; Fisher, Cullen, and Turner, 2000; Warshaw, 1994). Nationally, only 36.5 percent
of colleges and universities are in full compliance with legislative mandates, such as
Title IX and the Jeanne Cleary Act, both of which address campus reporting, services,
and prevention education efforts (Karjane, Fisher, and Cullen, 2000).
 Intellectually gifted women students often feel as if they must choose between being
academically strong and socially relevant (Kerr, 1994; Lisker, 2005).
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 13

 A wage gap is still alive and well in higher education (Snyder and Dillow, 2010).
According to the American Association of University Professors for all institutional types
combined, female faculty at the rank of full professor earn 88 percent of what men earn
(Curtis, 2004). The wage gap is highest at private institutions where female faculty
members are paid 70 percent of what their male colleagues earn (Curtis, 2004).
 Women comprise 21.1 percent of all university and college presidents; however, only
12 percent of the presidencies at doctoral-granting institutions are held by women
(Rivard, 2003).
These data suggest that issues of equity should not be examined solely through the lens of
enrollment data. Instead, an analysis of gender inequity needs to consider the experiences of
women inside and outside the classroom and how such experiences impact women’s academic,
professional, and personal success.
Arlton, Lewellen, and Grissett (1999) suggested that there are five social conditions that
continue to impact women’s full participation in higher education. The first are historical socio-
cultural forces that have restricted women to defined, and limited, roles. Today such forces still
impact women’s full participation in professions such as science and politics. Second, family
and societal expectations of women are as mothers and primary care givers. This deeply
embedded belief still affects the way women and men think about women’s educational pursuits
and professional choices. In their study on the impact of having children on one’s academic
career, Mason and Goulden (2002) determined that the academic workplace is not a supportive
place for women with children. Using over 25 years of data from the Survey of Doctorate
Recipients (SDR) conducted biennially by the National Science Foundation, Mason and Goulden
found a “consistent and large gap” in the tenure rates between women and men who started
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 14

families soon after completing their doctorate. Furthermore, the majority of women who
attained tenure were unlikely to have children. Interestingly, male academics fare better by
being married and having children than those who do not (Mason, Wolfinger, and Goulden,
2013).
The third social condition is that of institutional biases that negatively impact the
professional success of academic women. Such biases include salary inequities (as noted above),
disproportionate teaching and research loads, and inequitable tenure evaluations. In the STEM
fields, such biases have been uncovered by gender equity reports at MIT (1999), Princeton
(2003), Stanford (2000), and Caltech (2001). The fourth social condition is the tracking of
women into traditional roles within the academy. In reviewing the literature on women’s roles in
higher education administration, Arlton et al. (1999) found that women are more represented
than men in areas such as student affairs and external affairs. In comparison, men are more likely
to occupy administrative positions within academic affairs and serve as academic deans.
The final social condition which continues to impact gender equity in the academy is that
career ladders favor male-dominated positions and disciplines. Reviewing the first four
conditions indicates that women are less likely to be in the position for advancement. Arlton
et al. (1999) argued that “faculty experience is the principle entry point for administrative
futures” (p. 68). In 2003-04, women constituted 38 percent of faculty in the United States;
however, among full-time faculty, women were disproportionately represented in lower non-
tenure track ranks. Women comprised 58 percent of instructors; 54 percent of lecturers; 46
percent of assistant professors, 38 percent of associate professors, and 23 percent of full
professors (Curtis, 2004).
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 15

Rich’s (1979) vision for institutional transformation must continue to serve as a call to
action for feminist “change agents” in the academy. One such change agent is the campus-based
women’s center. Women’s centers were founded on college campuses in the late 1960s and
1970s. A commitment to transformation is a common theme found across the work of campus-
based women’s centers (Bengiveno, 2000; Brooks, 1988; Churgin, 1978; Clevenger, 1988;
Davie, 2002; Kunkel, 2002). Women’s centers perceive transformation in terms of individual
consciousness-raising and institutional change (Davie, 2002). In her 1989 article, Women’s
Centers as Agents of Change, Jane Gould wrote:
For the most part the centers played a crucial, catalytic role on many campuses.
Individually and collectively, women’s centers raised the general level of consciousness
and concern about issues of women’s equity while providing a safe haven for women to
clarify their own ideas and positions. By providing this place, they enabled women to
discover the power they had collectively to make change within the institution as well as
in the larger society (p. 222).
On the individual level, women’s centers provide support, advocacy, education, empowerment,
and encouragement. Institutionally, the women’s center challenges the traditional culture of
higher education by its mere existence. Over the past three decades the focus of many women’s
centers has shifted from “personal support to institutional change” (Bengiveno, 2000). Davie
(2002) wrote: “What the center may have is the ability to create forms that disrupt, even
momentarily, standard cultural modes of perception in a particular environment” (p.22). From
this perspective, campus-based women’s centers exist as a potential model for understanding
how the process of institutional transformation occurs over time and how the campus and the
change agents are impacted.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 16

Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation offers a conceptual
framework for understanding the process of institutional transformation. Safarik proposed that
the process of transformation can best be understood by how an innovative culture “decenters” a
traditional culture. Safarik’s study examined the role of academic feminism, vis-à-vis Women’s
Studies in transforming traditional notions of academic disciplines, research, and institutional
structure. The resulting model might also help to understand the role of campus-based women’s
centers as sites of institutional transformation on gender equity. Safarik’s model explores the
process of transformation through four interrelated themes: 1) keeping the innovative culture
vital through dialogism; 2) assessing progress in multiple contexts; 3) interpreting paradoxes of
progress; and 4) creating the evolving, innovative structure.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this case study was to understand how one campus-based women’s center
serves as a site for institutional transformation on issues of gender equity. This qualitative case
study explores the role of a campus-based women’s center in advancing transformative efforts as
well as the perceptions and experiences of women’s center leaders in shaping institutional
transformation.
Research Questions
The main question that guides this study is: What is the role of one campus-based
women’s center in institutional transformation efforts on gender equity?
Additionally, the following sub-questions are addressed:
A. How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation?
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 17

B. How do women’s center staff members describe their perceptions and experiences in
institutional transformation?
C. How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective
feminist ideologies?
Significance of Study
Although there have been women’s centers on college and university campuses for nearly
five decades, there has not been adequate research to understand their impact on the culture,
climate, and practices of higher education. A literature search through databases such as ERIC
and JSTOR revealed approximately twelve dissertations and fewer than twenty published articles
on the work of women’s centers. Furthermore, the majority of these resources were published
before 1995. Most of the articles are not empirical and focus on describing the operational
aspects of running a women’s center (i.e. staffing, reporting structures, programs and services,
budgeting, etc.).
Consequently, little is known about the impact, relevance, and role of women’s centers in
higher education. This study adds to the existing literature and expands it in order to better
understand the role of women’s centers in the process of institutional transformation.
Additionally, using Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation, this study
contributes to the body of literature on organizational change and the role of leaders in the
change process.
Summary
This chapter outlines the background, purpose, and significance of this research study on
the role and experiences of campus-based women’s centers as sites for institutional
transformation on issues of gender equity. Chapter Two presents a literature review on the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 18

historical landscape for women in higher education; the role of campus-based women’s centers;
and feminist models of institutional transformation. Chapter Three provides the research design
and methodology used for this study. In Chapter Four the findings are presented along with a
discussion of five themes that emerged from the data. And, finally, Chapter Five presents the
major findings by research question and considerations for practice.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
As colleges and universities strive to address issues of gender equity, it is increasingly
important that higher education professionals understand the challenges, experiences, and
practices that come with trying to transform an organizational culture. Women’s centers exist as
a potential model for understanding how institutional transformation is initiated and how it
impacts the campus as well as the change agents involved. This study sought to understand how
one campus-based women’s center served as a site for institutional transformation on issues of
gender equity. Additionally, this study explored the role of a campus-based women’s center in
advancing transformative efforts and the perceptions and experiences of women’s center leaders
in shaping institutional transformation.
This literature review is organized into three sections: 1) the changing landscape for
women in higher education; 2) elements of campus-based women’s center work; and 3) models
of feminist institutional transformation. This chapter begins with a historical look at the
changing landscape for women in higher education. Placing the development and work of
campus-based women’s centers within the historical, cultural, and political context of higher
education is critical to understanding their potential impact and change-making strategies. Next
is a review of the existing research on campus-based women’s centers. While this literature is
sparse it illuminates women’s centers’ histories and development, typologies, missions, and
commitment to transformation. And finally, there is a review of Safarik’s (2003) Model of
Feminist Institutional Transformation to better understand how women’s centers might serve as
sites for institutional transformation.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 20

The Changing Landscape for Women in Higher Education
Since the earliest of colleges sprang up in the newly formed American colonies, women
have been fighting for access to higher education. This fight was met with arguments designed to
justify keeping women out of colleges and universities. Should women be educated? Do they
have the intellectual and moral capacity to reason? How will thinking affect their ability to
reproduce and raise children? To what use will education be to her, the family, and the men of
the nation? These questions have changed with the times to reflect current cultural mores and
values, but until the mid-20
th
century the overall sentiment remained the same: higher education
was created by men and for men, and women were going to face opposition and struggle for
access and equity (Solomon, 1985).
By the mid-20
th
century, however, several factors converged to usher in a new era for
women in higher education. In the 1960s and 70s, new laws and federal policies, burgeoning
student activism, and the emerging women’s movement coincided and as a result a new set of
questions regarding women’s education was being asked: How do we improve women’s access
to the university? How will the academy change in response to women’s participation and needs?
How will women’s presence inside the university affect curriculum, campus life, and student
services? And finally, as asked by scholar Adrienne Rich, is the structure even capable of
“serving the humanism and freedom it professes?” (1979, p.4).
In order to place the emergence of campus-based women’s centers in context and perhaps
more importantly, to understand their role in institutional transformation, it is first necessary to
understand the historical, cultural, and political experiences of women in higher education.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 21

Pre-1970
The purpose of colonial colleges was to educate young, privileged men so that they could
become the religious and political leaders of the new world. Women did not yet have access to
higher education. The prevailing view of women was that they were "intellectually inferior—
incapable, merely by reason of being a woman, of great thoughts" (Rudolf, 1990, p. 307). By
the early 19
th
century, views on women’s education began to shift. A new ideal of womanhood,
or the “cult of domesticity,” emerged. This strict ideal defined the “True Woman” as adhering to
four key characteristics: piety, purity, domesticity, and submissiveness. Logistically women’s
place was in the home and she became responsible for all matters related to the home.
Philosophically women’s place dealt with the private sphere of life—anything dealing with
morality, sin, and justice as it affected the family and home. As such she was able to wield
power and control in any related matters. In other words, while the cult of domesticity imposed
highly restrictive demands on what a woman could do and should be, it also allowed women to
get involved in social or political arenas that were associated with the private sphere.
Within this ideal of womanhood, women’s organizations could be “used to subvert the
patriarchal, political, social, and domestic order it sought to erect” (Smith-Rosenberg, 1998, ¶3).
It was through this avenue that an argument supporting women’s education began to grow. Key
Enlightenment thinkers such as Benjamin Rush argued that the education of women, more
specifically White, privileged women, was important for two reasons: to ensure the
“Americanization” of women and to be able to educate her sons (Rudolf, 1990). Educational
leaders such as Emma Willard drew upon these arguments in order to defend the necessity of
educating women.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 22

By the early 20
th
century it was no longer argued whether or not women had the
intellectual capacity or physical fortitude for education. Well-respected women’s colleges such
as Vassar, Smith, and Wellesley, and groundbreaking coeducational institutions such as Cornell,
gave women the “standard fare at the men’s colleges” so that it could be proved that women
could undertake a serious course of study (Rudolf, 1990, p. 317). However women could not
escape the cultural milieu of the time. For many women, education was a means to an end, and
not an intellectual beginning. It was commonly believed that “education was ‘wasted’ on
women who married, had families, and effectively retired from intellectual life” (Rich, 1979,
p. 3). After all, for most women, a college education was still viewed as preparing them for the
all-important “MRS.” degree.
This historical glance is critical in understanding the formative influences on American
higher education and evolving values as they relate to the education of women. As higher
education evolved and transformed, so did women’s role in society and their relationship to the
academy. By the time the mid-20
th
century arrived, women had already formed an
insider/outsider relationship to higher education. In other words, while they had gained access to
the academy they were still marginalized within it. Women were now positioned to respond to
and lead what happened next.
Feminism in the 1960s and 70s
Several factors converged in the 1960s and 1970s that would radically alter women’s
relationship with higher education. It is also the period when campus-based women’s centers
emerged as a way to serve and advocate for women in the academy. This section will explore
three main societal, political, and cultural influences of this period: legal influences, the student
movements, and the women’s movement.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 23

Legal influences. The 1960s and 70s were a time of tremendous legal gains for women.
Title VII, Title IX, and Affirmative Action policies created a legal right for women’s access and
equitable experience in higher education. But, perhaps more importantly, these new laws created
a requirement that colleges and universities provide access, an equitable work and learning
environment, and comparable resources and services for women in higher education.
Collectively, these policies have altered the landscape of higher education for women students,
faculty, and staff.
The 1960s were a decade marked by a deeply rooted racial divide and great civil unrest.
In an effort to repeal Jim Crow laws in the South and provide equal protection under the law for
African Americans, President John F. Kennedy introduced the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Originally the Act did not include protection for the civil rights of women. It was only when it
looked like the bill would pass that those who opposed the legislation added protection for
women, believing people would not support the legislation if women were included (Freeman,
1991). This speaks volumes to the cultural attitudes of the time: the country may have been
ready to support the equal rights of African American men, but we were not yet ready to support
the equal rights of women. However, the Civil Rights Act passed and Title VII, which forbade
discrimination on the basis of sex in employment, was applied to hiring practices, the distribution
of federal grants, sexual harassment law, and tenure policies.
A few years later, new affirmative action policies strengthened the enforcement of the
Civil Rights Act. In 1966, President Lyndon Johnson signed Executive Order 11246, which
“required that all companies wishing to do business with the federal government not only
provide equal opportunity for all but also take affirmative action to bring their hiring in line with
the available labor pools by race” (Tobias, 1997, p. 104). Again, “sex” was not included in the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 24

original policy. However, women’s organizations, and in particular, the President’s Commission
on the Status of Women, fought for a strengthening of laws and federal action on behalf of
women’s rights. Signed in 1967, Executive Order 11375 added “sex” as a protected category.
It was not until the following year that the Women’s Equity Action League (WEAL) sued
250 universities and research institutions over whether or not higher education was mandated to
comply with these new policies. At the helm of WEAL was a faculty member from the
University of Maryland, Bernice Sandler. During her early career Sandler had encountered
several instances of sex discrimination. After hearing about the new affirmative action policies,
Sandler challenged that universities, and other not-for-profit institutions, which received federal
funding should also be required to comply with affirmative action plans and equitable hiring
practices. The courts agreed with Sandler and soon affirmative action policies would become a
cornerstone of higher education hiring, tenure, and admission policies. The University of
Michigan became the first university to adopt a detailed affirmative action plan for female
faculty (Schneir, 1994).
While Title VII addressed issues of discrimination in the workplace, it was Title IX of the
1973 Civil Rights Act that addressed issues of equity in education. Title IX mandated that “if
any educational institutional was found to discriminate in any of its programs—including
admissions, athletics, financial aid, counseling, facilities, and employment practices—federal
funds would be cut off” (Tobias, 1997, p. 123). As research universities became more and more
tied to federal grants and federal financial aid, the threat of Title IX became real. Schools hired
equal opportunity officers to review and monitor campus practices and employed general counsel
to help litigate the flurry of resulting lawsuits (Tobias, 1997).
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 25

Student movements. While activists, judges, and politicians were affecting change in
Washington, D.C., on campuses students were busy mobilizing. Like their male counterparts,
women participated en masse in the student movements of the 1960s: the Civil Rights
movement, anti-Vietnam War movement, and Free Speech Movement. Just as their first-wave
predecessors, women were brought to action by working on issues of social justice that had
nothing to do with gender.
Participation in these movements allowed women to gain first-hand experience in
organizing, strategizing, protesting, and forming collectives across issues. In their article,
Feminism and Antifeminism: From Civil Rights to Culture Wars, Moira Ferguson, Ketu H.
Katrak, and Valerie Miner (1996), explore how the feminist movement, as well as an anti-
feminist response, emerged out of the activism of the student movements of the 1960s.
Organizations like the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) were founded on
the basis of “radical equality.” Ferguson et al. write: “Everyone’s opinion was considered
equally in making decisions, and meetings did not end until consensus was reached. Though
frustrating at times, this lack of hierarchy and structure generated a keen sense of community and
idyllic democracy” (p. 54). Drawn to the issues and by a democratic, participatory approach,
women involved in the student movements were able to learn valuable political skills and gain a
level of self-awareness that eventually would lead them to critique the movements themselves.
Over time sexism within the movements became apparent and women began to organize
around issues of gender equity. In her book, Campus Life, Helen Lefkowitz Horowitz (1987)
wrote: “The ranks of college rebels had always included women, and early collegiate iconoclasm
contained a healthy dose of feminism. But many women who joined the Movement in the 1960s
found themselves more camp followers than full participants” (p. 242). As women in SNCC
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 26

began to complain that most of the organizational leaders were men, the women in Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS) were realizing that it was the women who provided the support work,
such as secretarial and cooking duties, that allowed for the more visible male leaders to be
successful.
For many women, this was a time of cognitive dissonance. In SNCC and SDS, women
started organizing women’s workshops at staff retreats, conferences, and conventions. Often
times these efforts were met with jeers and mockery, and sometimes with hostility. When asked
about what he thought about women in the Movement, Stokely Carmichael’s now infamous
quote sums it up: “The only position for women in our movement is prone!” (Tobias, 1997,
p. 78). At this point many White women began to embrace the emerging women’s movement,
while women of color, mainly African-American women, continued working on the front lines
of the Civil Rights movement.
Women’s movement. In 1963, a relatively unknown journalist published a book that
would change the lives of American women for generations to come. When Betty Friedan
(1963) was asked to write a magazine article chronicling the lives of her Smith College
classmates, fifteen years post-graduation, few could have guessed what would have emerged. A
decade after the end of World War II, American women assumed roles as wives, mothers, and
perhaps, community volunteers. The proverbial icon, Rosie the Riveter, left the factory lines and
went home to cook, clean, and raise children. Post-war America was thriving and the rise of the
middle-class suburb created a new lifestyle for women. Friedan–college educated, ambitious,
and smart–was not fulfilled in her life and she suspected that maybe her classmates were not
either. In order to prepare for her article Friedan sent a questionnaire to her former classmates.
When her findings appeared to confirm her suspicions she began to conduct more in-depth
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 27

interviews, meet with leading psychologists, and write the chapters for her book, The Feminine
Mystique.
The Feminine Mystique was a lightning rod that propelled the new wave of feminism into
action. For the first time in decades, middle-class, educated, and mainly White women began to
critically examine their lives and the culture around them. The book confirmed that they were
not alone in their feelings and soon women began to meet to discuss the issues. Consciousness-
raising groups met at homes in the middle of the day, in church basements, and at local PTA
meetings. While women in the academy were joining the student activist movements to protest
for the rights of others, women outside were organizing to discuss their own rights.
By 1966, Friedan founded the National Organization for Women with 28 other women.
Many of the initial members were active in the campus student movements and after graduation
became the leaders of allied organizations that addressed racial and gender inequity. By 1967,
membership grew to more than 1200 women (“Founding,” 2014). The women’s liberation
movement had begun.
The Role of Campus-Based Women’s Centers
It was in this historical, social, and political climate that campus-based women’s centers
were born. Although women’s centers have been on college and university campuses for over
forty years, there has not been adequate research to understand their impact on the culture,
climate, and practices of higher education. As noted in Chapter One, a literature search revealed
approximately twelve dissertations and less than twenty published articles on the work of
campus-based women’s centers. Four main themes emerged from the literature on campus-
based women’s centers: 1) history and development; 2) typology; 3) mission; and 4)
commitment to transformation.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 28

History and development
In the late 1960s and 1970s women’s centers began to emerge on campuses all across the
United States. Several internal and external factors converged during this period which
contributed to this development: the growing numbers of women entering higher education; the
demise of the Dean of Women position; the push for continuing education services for women
and displaced homemakers (Bengiveno, 2000; Kunkel, 2002; Wetzel, 1988); the increased
awareness about the changing needs of women in society; and the new legislation that affected
the ways in which colleges and universities addressed the needs of women students (Gould,
1989).
For many decades the Dean of Women served as the campus point person on women’s
issues. The first Dean of Women, Alice Freeman Palmer, was appointed in 1892 at the
University of Chicago (Chavez, 2003). Not long after that the National Association of Deans of
Women was established in 1916. In the early years, under the culture of in locos parentis, the
Dean of Women served as chaperone, disciplinarian, and house mother (Brooks, 1988).
However, as women’s role in society changed and female students demanded more freedom and
less oversight, the Dean’s role also shifted. The Dean of Women’s role became that of educator
and counselor (Brooks, 1988). In other words, they served as an early predecessor to the
women’s center director. In the 1960s, schools began to merge the Dean of Men and the Dean of
Women to create the new Dean of Students. In many scenarios the Dean of Men became the
Dean of Students, and Deans of Women either became the associate or assistant dean or moved
into new positions which directly addressed the growing needs of women on campus (Brooks,
1988).
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 29

One such position was in the new continuing education for women (CEW) programs. These
programs began as a way to assist the large number of older, re-entry women returning to the
academy. According to Griggs (1990), these programs focused on helping the women adjust to
higher education rather than helping campuses adjust to meeting the needs of women students.
By the early 1970s, CEW programs began to move off campus as centers for displaced
homemakers were established in local communities. On campus these services shifted to a focus
on non-traditional students—both women and men. This shift, along with a growing
consciousness of the changing roles of women in society and the unmet needs of women in
higher education, led to the emergence of the campus-based women’s center (Gould, 1989;
Kunkel, 2002; Willinger, 2002).
Women’s centers brought to campus a new feminist consciousness. In Women’s Centers as
Agents of Change, Jane Gould (1989) wrote:
Acknowledging the extent and the depth of discrimination against all women, campus
women’s centers were created to raise and examine new questions about women’s lives,
roles, and expectations; to help women develop a feminist consciousness; to combat
feelings of isolation; and to establish a sense of community among women (p. 219).
Typology
While there may be some common threads to how campus-based women’s centers began,
there is a wide diversity of what these centers look like. Much of the early research on campus-
based women’s centers focused on defining a typology, or map, of the various organizational and
structural models.
Wetzel (1988) suggested that four models of women’s centers emerged in the 1970s:
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 30

 The “demand-for-service center,” which provides programs and services designed to
meet community need. Of these centers some are funded and supported by campus
administration, while others marginally exist with few resources and institutional
support.
 The “multi-purpose center,” which is primarily funded by student fees allocated by
student government. This funding structure opens up the center for a lot of criticism and
forces the center to respond to the needs of many different groups, often rendering
nothing more than a general campus resource, or according to Wetzel, a “people’s
center.”
 The “center which is not really a center,” may exist in name, but is not funded,
autonomous or free-standing. Wetzel asserted that this type of center is often a result of
two different occurrences. The first is that an administratively supported women’s
center, through a series of funding cutbacks and restructuring, finds itself nothing more
than a “women’s desk” within a larger unit. The second occurrence is when a campus,
in response to community demands, assigns the responsibilities of a women’s center to
an existing position.
 The “student-run center,” which is staffed by feminist students, funded by student fees
and other fundraising efforts, and is highly vulnerable to the commitment of a few
students to keep services and programs operational.
In 2001, Willinger (2002) reviewed the mission, services, and stakeholder information for
122 campus-based women’s centers in an effort to create an updated typology. She suggested
that there are two main types of women’s centers: a resource center and a research center.
Resource centers provide programs and services that address the professional and personal
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 31

concerns of women; serve as an institutional advocate for gender equity; and develop
connections beyond the university that support the empowerment of all women (Willinger,
2002). The four models suggested by Wetzel (1988) fit into the resource center typology. Today
there are approximately 460 campus-based women’s centers which fit into Willinger’s resource
center classification (Gribi, 2002).
The second typology suggested by Willinger (2002) is that of a research center. Research
centers “support and sponsor feminist research, policy analysis, educational programming, and
activist organizing” (Willinger, 2002, p. 49). The main focus of research centers is the
production and dissemination of knowledge by, for, and about women. These centers may be
freestanding or may be connected to a campus Women’s Studies program. It is also important to
note that these two types of centers on a single campus are not mutually exclusive. For example,
the University of California, Los Angeles has both a Center for Women and Men (a resource
center) and a Center for the Study of Women (a research center).
Two additional studies further examine the characteristics of the institutions in which
campus-based women’s centers are located. Clevenger (1988) surveyed 124 administratively
funded and professionally staffed campus-based women’s centers. The data indicate that research
universities, doctorate-granting universities, and large community colleges are more likely to
have women’s centers than other types of colleges and universities. Of the 124 women’s centers
nationally, 83.9 percent were located in public institutions and 16.1 percent at private
institutions. Structurally, Clevenger (1988) found that most women’s center directors reported to
a dean or vice president of student affairs. Not surprising, directors who were positioned two or
more levels from the president were more likely to express dissatisfaction in the “lack of
institutional commitment” (p.5) than those directors who had a higher reporting line.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 32

Kasper (2004) conducted a study of 75 women’s centers located at private or public, 4-year
colleges and universities. Data revealed that only 91 percent of the directors of these women’s
centers were in paid positions. Of those, 42 percent reported to either the vice president of
student affairs, dean of students, or director of student life; 22 percent to the provost; and
2 percent reported to the director of Women’s Studies. Similarly to their 1987 counterparts, the
respondents in Kasper’s study also worried about institutional commitment. Many of these
directors reported having to constantly justify the need for the existence of the center and
16 percent perceived a low level of support from the campus administration.
Mission
Campus-based women’s centers often have missions that reach far beyond where their
limited resources and organizational placement would indicate. With a core commitment to
gender equity in education, the mission statements of women’s centers highlight how these
offices set about their work. The Council for the Advancement of Standards in Higher Education
(1998) created standards and guidelines for women student programs in higher education. The
mission of campus-based women’s centers, they asserted,
is to promote unrestricted access and full involvement of women students in all aspects of
the college or university experience. Women student programs and services must
consider and respond to the diverse needs of women students and must help these
students benefit from the institution’s total educational process (CAS, 1998, p. 2).
Stineman (1985) reviewed 52 campus-based women’s centers to determine what they identified
as the main needs of women in higher education. The data indicated four key areas of focus:
 Counseling: which includes personal support, career advice, and academic assistance
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 33

 Education: spanning from first-year orientation programs to sexual harassment and rape
prevention to professional development topics
 Support: services focused on financial aid, day care, and providing campus and local
referrals
 Advocacy: at the individual and institutional levels.
Several years later, Kunkel (2002) defined five areas of women’s needs that are addressed by
campus-based women’s centers. They are: 1) safety; 2) education; 3) support and advocacy;
4) equity; and 5) community. The newer focus on safety may be explained by the proliferation
of national attention, research, and funding on issues of sexual violence against women on
college campuses that emerged in the late 1990s.
Studies have further illustrated three major commonalities throughout women’s centers’
mission statements: advocacy and support, education, and transformation (Bengiveno, 2000;
Brooks, 1988; Churgin, 1978; Clevenger, 1988; Davie, 2002; Kunkel, 2002). Providing
advocacy and support to individual women, as well as to campus constituents, is at the heart of
many campus-based women’s centers. Services such as counseling, information and referral,
and crisis response are created to meet the immediate needs of women students, staff, and faculty
(CAS, 1998; Kunkel, 2002).
Women’s centers provide rich co-curricular educational opportunities. Educational
programming is aimed at increasing individual and campus awareness on issues affecting women
in society. Davie (2002) wrote: “Along with teaching women what they ‘need to know,’ this
educational strand also aims at enlightening men and at shaping the institution itself, its culture,
and its commitment to genuine inclusiveness of women in the enterprise of education” (p. 20).
Programs may range in nature from general consciousness-raising, to sexual assault prevention
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 34

efforts, to curriculum integration projects. According to Byrne (2000), campus-based women’s
centers can also be viewed as “centers of feminist pedagogy” (p. 48) where students put into
practice what they are learning in the Women’s Studies classroom. Additionally, women’s
centers provide a model of learning that breaks down hierarchal barriers, promotes social action,
and provides a space for women to become agents of change rather than subjects of study
(Byrne, 2000).
Commitment to transformation
Fundamentally, campus-based women’s centers are about change: individual growth and
institutional transformation (Davie, 2002; Gould, 1989). Through support, advocacy, and
education, campus-based women’s centers strive to push along, and enact, change. Davie (2002)
described the process of change using Margaret Atwood’s term, surfacing. By providing space
and giving voice to women’s experience, women’s centers engage in “surfacing the hidden, the
conflictual, the contradictory, the poetic, within ourselves and within organizations, on the
intrapersonal and interpersonal levels” (Davie, 2002, p. 22). Wetzel (1988) added that the very
existence of women’s centers on a college campus “indicates a shift in tone for the institution…a
clear and visible feminization of the campus” (p. 11).
A Feminist Model of Institutional Transformation
While a number of organizational change models address the process of institutional
transformation, very few explore the process of transformation from a feminist perspective or
explore the impact of a feminist culture on the process of transformation. For these reasons, the
work of Safarik (2003) is particularly relevant for this case study. Safarik examined the
transformative role that academic feminism, vis-à-vis Women’s Studies, has had on traditional
notions of disciplinary knowledge, knowledge production, and institutional structure.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 35

Drawing upon Wilbur’s (1998) Model of Social Reality, Safarik (2003) developed a
grounded theory and conceptual framework for understanding how “individual consciousness
interacts with discourse, social processes, and institutions over time” to create institutional
transformation (p. 421). According to Safarik, the process of transformation can best be
understood by how an innovative culture decenters a traditional culture. Transformation, since it
involves a shift in cultural values, beliefs, and actions, does not happen quickly, but rather over a
period of time. Safarik’s model explored how an innovative culture stays innovative and
dynamic over the period of a culture shift through four interrelated themes: 1) keeping the
innovative culture vital through dialogism; 2) assessing progress in multiple contexts; 3)
interpreting paradoxes of progress, and 4) creating the evolving, innovative structure. Not only
does this model provide a theoretical framework for understanding transformation, it can also be
used as a “diagnostic tool” to examine the dynamic process and experience of transformation.
Keeping the innovative culture vital through dialogism
Academic feminism is an innovative culture in higher education because it challenges, or
decenters, the traditional norms, values, and assumptions of academic disciplines as well as the
academy itself. However, academic feminism is not monolithic and cannot be summed up by a
common set of beliefs or values. Therefore, it is important to understand how various individual
experiences, views, and approaches shape one’s feminist consciousness, and by extension, one’s
approach to the transformation process. Safarik (2002) argued that differentiation exemplified by
multiple feminist philosophies helps to keep the culture dynamic and vital. Rather than a sign of
internal fragmentation, diverse feminist philosophies strengthen the transformation process and
sustain it over a period of time.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 36

Dialogism, in particular, has emerged among younger academic feminists as a sense
making process and a transformative strategy. Dialogism refers to “an inclusive, rather than
hierarchical worldview which uses both/and instead of either/or modes of thinking” (Safarik,
2003, p. 426). Safarik (2002; 2003) suggested that there are three defining characteristics of the
dialogic feminists she interviewed. The first is that they positioned issues of gender equity
within a broader framework of social justice. The oppression of women was not seen as more
important than other forms of oppression and inequality. Second, these academics view
differences of feminist philosophies as “natural and intellectually necessary” (Safarik, 2002,
p. 1745). And finally, they held an equal appreciation for academic and activist approaches to
effecting change. Pedagogically, dialogic feminists worked to eliminate or balance power
dynamics in the learning process. They strove to enhance critical thinking skills of their students
and to see the classroom as a place to raise students’ consciousness around issues of social
justice.
Dialogism emerges as a result of bridging multiple feminist ideologies. Safarik (2002)
found that two feminist philosophies emerged from her interviews. These philosophies were not
mutually exclusive and they each exhibited specific views of feminism that were shaped by
generational experiences with gender equity. The first philosophy, liberal feminists, “held the
classic equal rights view of feminism” (Safarik, 2003, p. 426) in which differences between men
and women were acknowledged but believed that both should be equally valued and given equal
opportunities for success. These women were adults during the second wave of the Women’s
Movement and had more traditional career paths than the other feminists. As academics, they
viewed feminist scholarship as a tool for empowerment and inclusion. Their approach to
teaching, research, and professional development were traditional. In terms of institutional
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 37

transformation, these feminists approached change by adding on to academic structures and
traditional higher education values. According to Safarik, they “assimilated feminist values as
an extension, rather than as a disruption of the culture” (2002, p. 1745).
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 38

Table 1: A Synthesis of Wilbur’s (1998) Model of Social Reality and Safarik’s (2003) Model
of Feminist Institutional Transformation

Interior Exterior
Individual
Methodology based on Wilbur:
(Who am I?)
 Dialogic self
 Values, assumptions, beliefs
 Dual identity:
feminist/disciplinary scholar

Safarik’s theory:
Difference, dialogism, vitality

Model of Feminist Transformation:
Keeping innovative culture vital
through dialogism
Methodology based on Wilbur:
(What is my experience within a
department? Discipline? The center?)
 Leadership
 Socialization
 Research Opportunities
 Communication
 Services
 Support
 Community Building

Safarik’s theory:
Values shift and relativity

Model of Feminist Transformation:
Assessing progress in multiple contexts

Group
Methodology based on Wilbur:
(Who are we?)
 Internal changes in the feminist
community on campus
 Shifts in priorities (department,
discipline, center)

Safarik’s theory:
Evolutionary nature of transformation

Model of Feminist Transformation:
Interpreting paradoxes of progress
Methodology based on Wilbur:
(What is the role of the center on
campus? What progress have we made?)
 How is the center perceived by
non-feminist colleagues?
 What structural issues/changes
has it promoted?
 How does it contribute to career
development for faculty?
 Visibility
 Relations with society
 Administrative support

Safarik’s theory:
Dialectic relationship between structures
and values

Model of Feminist Transformation:
Creating an evolving, innovative
structure

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 39

Critical feminists were the second group of academics that Safarik (2002) identified. As
change agents, this group sought to challenge and deconstruct the very notion of knowledge,
disciplines, structures, policies, and practices that kept women marginalized. These women
viewed feminism as a way to acknowledge and disrupt deeply embedded systems of power
within higher education. Using a postmodern approach of deconstruction, critical feminists
challenge fundamental concepts such as masculinity and femininity, rationality and positivism,
and disciplinary boundaries. Scholarship, pedagogy, and research were all tools for activism and
opportunities to “subvert” traditional ways of knowing and thinking.
The literature on campus-based women’s centers suggests that there are also differing
feminist philosophies that shape how women’s center leaders view and enact transformational
efforts. Chavez (2003) examined the influence of feminist ideology on women’s center and
Women’s Studies leadership. She found that 91.3 percent of the women’s center directors
questioned identified as strong or very strong feminists. Of those, 8.7 percent defined
themselves as liberal feminists, 8.7 percent as socialist feminists, 47.8 percent as general
feminists (which was defined as a blending of various feminist philosophies); and 34 percent as
other. What is hard to determine from Chavez’s study is whether or not those who identified as
general feminists actually exhibited qualities of dialogism. When asked the extent to which
feminist philosophy influenced their leadership and practice, 65.2 percent answered all or most
of the time, 26.1 percent some of the time, and 8.7 percent said rarely.
Safarik (2002) suggested that dialogic feminism is cross-generational and so it is a
critical strategy for building connections between the liberal and critical feminists and for
sustaining transformative efforts. She wrote: “advanced stages of transformation are evidenced
by the degree to which dialogism permeates the discourse of the newest generation of change
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 40

agents” (2002, p. 1756). Therefore, the more dialogic a community the more advanced the
transformation. Safarik argued that the effectiveness of transformation efforts can be better
understood more in terms of the vitality of dialogism, than in terms of measurable outcomes.
Assessing progress in multiple contexts
Safarik’s (2003) model also addressed the shifting values and relative nature of
transformation. As a cultural change, institutional transformation challenges the values, belief
systems, and assumptions that are deeply embedded into the culture of an organization or
community. However, since the innovative culture is not monolithic both the innovative culture
and the traditional culture experience a shift in values over time. More importantly, Safarik
argued that it is important to understand how context shapes the way in which a shift in values is
experienced and perceived.
Four salient contexts emerged among the academic feminists in Safarik’s (2003) study.
The context of disciplines and academic departments can either support or stifle the
transformation process. Academic feminists “who viewed their department as ‘progressive,’
(values diversity, is egalitarian) saw academic feminism as part of that progressive culture”
(Safarik, 2003, p. 428). Others felt that in order for feminist scholarship to be embraced they had
to first establish success in more traditional ways such as publishing in prestigious journals.
These perceptions, and as a result how transformation was viewed, were also deeply impacted by
the feminist philosophies of the academic. In the study, the liberal feminists viewed departments
to be “wholly supportive” of feminist scholarship and as a result were optimistic about the
transformation process. On the other hand, critical feminists were more reticent to acknowledge
that the transformation process and support of feminist values were anything more than “political
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 41

correctness.” And finally, the dialogic feminists viewed change as possible in the middle ground
between these two views.
Ultimately, the academic feminists expressed concern about the depth of transformation.
The participants had become savvy at what Safarik (2003) called “reading the signs” or
“differentiating between deep level transformation, in which there has been a genuine
consciousness-raising, and surface level transformation, in which social pressure to be
‘politically correct’ drives behaviors” (p. 434). This is coupled with a concern that disciplines,
departments, and the institution pay “lip service” to equity while subtle forms of discrimination
and sexism continue to exist in deep-level cultural structures and behaviors (Safarik, 2003,
p. 431).
Where transformation is conceived of as a cultural shift in which an innovative culture
decenters a traditional culture, then understanding the progress of transformation through the
lens of multiple contexts is critical. Perceptions and experience of the transformation process
will be impacted by the extent of the shift in values and by one’s location within the traditional
culture. Furthermore, since transformation occurs over time, values also shift and change. Over
time the traditional culture will become more like the innovative culture, and perhaps more
subtly, the innovative culture will become like the traditional culture. In order for innovation,
and thereby transformation, to be sustained the innovative culture must always be changing.
Safarik (2003) suggested that the innovative culture needs to become more radical or more
dialogic in order to keep the transformative process moving forward.
Interpreting paradoxes of progress
Institutional transformation is a process that happens over the course of many years and is
related to the vitality of the innovative culture. As a result, multiple generations or reiterations of
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 42

an innovative culture may co-exist. Safarik (2000) suggested that this evolutionary nature of
transformation may result in what she called a “paradox of progress” or the “disjuncture between
the intellectual transformation that has transpired and the daily lives of the feminist scholars”
(Safarik, 2000, p.210). Feminist transformative efforts in the academy have resulted in many
perceived successes such as increased support for working mothers and feminist scholarship.
However, these successes come with a new set of challenges. For example, while there is more
support for working mothers in terms of policies and on-site childcare, there is less time for these
academic women to participate in community building, activism, and leadership roles. And,
while feminist scholarship is more accepted within traditional disciplines, men doing feminist
research and certain research areas (i.e. women and war) are still marginalized in the academy
and among other feminist academics.
Dialogism, as noted above, appears to mitigate the potentially disruptive quality of these
paradoxes. Safarik (2002) argued that to the extent to which an innovative culture can sustain a
dialogic approach and retain a quality of inclusiveness, the transformation will continue.
Additionally, Safarik (2000) warned that centers of innovative culture cannot “succumb[ing] to a
new kind of oppression” (p. 291) by privileging one kind of scholarship, feminist ideology, or
transformative approach over another. In order to “function most effectively as a structural
embodiment of feminist culture,” sites of feminist transformation must retain these qualities
(Safarik, 2000, p. 291).
Creating the evolving, innovative structure
In order for innovative cultures to impact the deep-level cultural change necessary for
transformation, they must be represented in the structures, policies, and practices of an
institution. In contemporary higher education the institutionalization of women’s studies through
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 43

departments, interdisciplinary majors, and faculty appointments is one “structural embodiment”
of feminist values. Examples of feminist values can be seen in the establishment of parental
leave policies, stop-the-clock tenure policies, on-site child care centers, and the establishment of
women’s centers.
In the case of campus-based women’s centers, structures provide a location for
innovative (i.e. feminist) culture to be enacted and re-enacted. As an ontological being, the center
itself takes on an ideology and can help facilitate the dialogic process. However, the structures
themselves also need to respond to changing values—both within the innovative culture and the
traditional culture. Safarik (2000) suggested that as the feminist community at UCLA reaches
key points of transition, they will need to reevaluate and possible realign the structure of the
Center for the Study of Women to meet the transformative goals of the moment.
Summary
This literature review examined the changing landscape for women in higher education.
The historical, cultural, and political growth of gender equity initiatives in society and in higher
education places the emergence of campus-based women’s centers in context. Secondly, this
review examined research on the role of campus-based women’s centers. This section explored
the typologies, missions, services, and commitment to transformation of these centers. And
finally, the review presented Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation as
a way to examine and best understand how campus-based women’s centers serve as sites of
institutional transformation on issues of gender equity.

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 44

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research design and methodology of this study. The purpose of
this case study is to understand how one campus-based women’s center serves as a site for
institutional transformation on issues of gender equity. More specifically, this study explored
both the role of a campus-based women’s center in advancing transformative efforts as well as
the perceptions and experiences of women’s center staff in the transformational process. One
campus-based women’s center in a four-year university was studied in order to answer the
following research question: What is the role of one campus-based women’s center in
institutional transformation efforts on gender equity?
Additionally, the following sub-questions were explored:
A. How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation?
B. How do women’s center staff members describe their perceptions and experiences in
institutional transformation?
C. How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective
feminist ideologies?
Research Design
This study was approached from a critical, feminist perspective. Critical research seeks
to understand how knowledge is socially and culturally produced and reproduced and to
critically analyze systems of power and privilege in the construction of such knowledge
(Merriam, 1998). Feminist research more narrowly seeks to understand how gender shapes one’s
consciousness and experience and how constructs of gender are used to assign power and
privilege in society (Creswell, 1998). This study defined institutional transformation as a cultural
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 45

shift, where an innovative culture (a campus-based women’s center) decenters a traditional
culture (higher education) (Safarik, 2003). A critical, feminist approach allowed for an
examination of the individual and collective experiences in the transformational process toward
gender equity.
In educational research, qualitative methodologies are often used to provide an in-depth
exploration of a wide range of experiences or phenomena. Creswell (1998) suggested that
qualitative research questions explore the how and what of a given topic, providing an abundance
of detail and description-rich data. Merriam (1998) stressed that qualitative methodology best
allows for “understanding the meaning that people have constructed” (p. 6) in connection to an
experience or phenomenon. A qualitative, case study approach is well suited for examining the
process of transformation in its real life context. As stated earlier, the purpose of this study is to
describe how campus-based women’s centers serve as sites for institutional transformation.
Therefore, a qualitative, case study approach is appropriate for understanding how women’s
center staff, interns, and colleagues understand, experience, and impact the process of
institutional transformation toward gender equity.
There are three types of case studies: particularistic, descriptive, and heuristic. The
emphasis of this study calls upon it being descriptive in nature. According to Merriam (1998),
descriptive case studies provide for rich, detailed information of a phenomenon. The
phenomenon being examined in this study is that of institutional transformation. A descriptive
case study of one campus-based women’s center allowed for an in-depth description of how the
transformational process is experienced, perceived, and enacted. Furthermore, Olson (as cited in
Merriam, 1998) asserted that a descriptive case study a) highlights the complexities of the
situation, b) uses hindsight to make sense of the experience, c) draws upon a longer period of
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 46

time, d) presents a variety of viewpoints, and e) explores differences in opinion and experiences.
These descriptive case study features align well with components of the theoretical approach to
this study. Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation examined the
complexities of the transformational process as experienced through the interactions between the
individual and collective with the internal and external environment. Additionally, she argued
that innovative cultures affect transformation over a period of time and are best sustained
through a vitality of diverse viewpoints and experiences.
Research Site and Sample
The depth of analysis provided in case studies is, in part, due to the bounded nature of the
sample. A bounded system can be defined as a single entity, unit, or context (Merriam, 1998).
This study focused on one campus-based women’s center located at Citrus University (CU), a
four-year, research institution.
Purposeful sampling refers to the selection of data and description-rich contexts that
allow for a full analysis of the research questions under examination (Patton, 2002). Drawing
upon the research on campus-based women’s center typology to determine which qualities best
represented the majority of centers, this researcher looked for a women’s center that was a
resource center, administratively funded, professionally staffed, and located in a public
university. The Citrus University Women’s Center is appropriate for this study for several
reasons. First, the Women’s Center was founded in 1972. The Center has been a part of the
university administrative structure for more than forty years. These years not only coincide with
the contemporary women’s movement, but also with the rise of modern gender equity initiatives
in higher education. As stated earlier, institutional transformation is conceived as a process that
occurs over a period of time (Safarik, 2002; Safarik, 2003). To best understand the process of
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 47

institutional transformation, it is necessary that a campus-based women’s center has been part of
on-going and long-term processes and initiatives. This setting provided an opportunity to
examine the transformational process as it has occurred over more than four decades.
Secondly, over these years the Women’s Center staff has grown and is now comprised of
six professional staff members, several student interns, and volunteers. The size and scope of
women’s centers vary across the United States. As noted in Chapter Two, some are student-
staffed and some are professionally staffed. While both types of centers may have similar goals
and missions, how each interfaces with the administrative structure of the institution can
significantly differ. For the purpose of this case it was important to have a women’s center that
is a part of the campus administration and has professional staff to carry out its mission. The
size of the staff at CU allowed for a unique opportunity to explore the concepts of generational
feminist ideologies, dialogism, and vitality.
Next, the Center’s mission statement highlights a focus on institutional transformation on
issues of gender equity:
The Women's Center is dedicated to issues of gender equity on campus and the
surrounding community. The center's mission is to disseminate information on the status
of women and men in society today, to foster environment to enhance gender knowledge
and awareness and to focus on the elimination of stereotypes, including racial, gender,
sexual orientation, age and socioeconomic status (emphasis added). Intellectual and
emotional development, growth and support of the student body at CU are implicit in all
of the center's goals.
Again, as campus-based women’s centers vary, some have specific service missions, others
research missions, and others address the intersection between personal and institutional equity.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 48

Since this study examined the impact and experience of women’s centers on institutional
transformation, this must be a key part of the mission. The CU Women’s Center’s focus on both
individual and institutional change provides a setting to explore Safarik’s (2003) multi-
dimensional Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation.
Finally, the CU campus is known for its diversity and long-standing equitable enrollment
numbers of women and men. CU is part of a large state system comprised of 23 campuses and
over 444,000 students. CU is the largest, with 35,040 students enrolled for fall 2005. The
student body is 59 percent female, 26 percent Hispanic, 3 percent Black, 22 percent
Asian/Pacific Islander, and 4 percent International. In 2005, CU marked the 28
th
consecutive
year in which women comprised more than 50 percent of student enrollment. In 2004, CU was
ranked sixth in the nation by Black Issues in Higher Education (“All disciplines,” 2004) for the
number of baccalaureate degrees awarded to minority students. Hispanic Outlook in Higher
Education (“Top schools,” 2004) ranked CU eighth in a list of institutions with the highest
Hispanic women enrollment.
The sample for this study is comprised of Women’s Center staff, interns, and key campus
individuals. Women’s Center staff and interns best understand the individual and collective
experiences of those most involved in Women’s Center activities. This group represents full-
time and part-time professional staff, and undergraduate and graduate student volunteers. The
diversity of positions, the generational span, and the array of experiences in transformational
efforts provided for rich data and points of comparison. The sample also included key campus
individuals who are responsible for leading or oversight of gender equity initiatives, who work
closely with the Women’s Center; who have oversight of the Women’s Center; and who have
interacted with the Women’s Center on projects or initiatives. These include the Vice President
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 49

of Student Affairs, the Associate Vice President of Student Affairs (to whom the Women’s
Center reports), the Dean of Students, and Women’s Studies faculty. This group provided an
outsider’s perspective on how the Women’s Center participates in transformative efforts on
gender equity.
Data Collection
To provide for the depth of analysis associated with descriptive case studies, data were
collected through three primary sources: interviews, focus groups, and historical documents.
More specifically, data includes: 1) interviews with the Women’s Center staff; 2) interviews with
key campus individuals, as noted above; 3) a focus group with Women’s Center volunteers and
interns; and 4) a review of documents relating to the Women’s Center’s history and campus
gender equity initiatives.
Interviews
In order to examine the role of the Women’s Center in institutional transformation efforts
on gender equity, semi-structured interviews with the six Women’s Center staff and five to eight
key campus individuals, as noted above, were conducted. The semi-structured interview
contained a mix of structured and open-ended questions. According to Merriam (1998) this
structure allows for the researcher to respond to the information being shared and the flexibility
to explore emergent topics and information. Each interview lasted approximately one hour and
was conducted at a convenient time and location. Interviews were tape recorded and fully
transcribed at a later date.
The interview protocol was based on Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist Institutional
Transformation (see Appendix A and Appendix C). Building upon Wilbur’s Model of Social
Reality, Safarik (2003) presented a conceptual framework for understanding how “individual
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 50

consciousness interacts with discourse, social processes, and institutions over time” to create
institutional transformation (p. 421). Through the lens of this model, organizational life is viewed
in four dimensions of interaction between individual and group experience and interior and
exterior experience. According to Safarik, this model can be used as a diagnostic tool to examine
the dynamic process and experience of transformation.
The interview protocol for key staff used the external components of Safarik’s model to
best understand the perceptions of the Women’s Center from those colleagues and administrators
who oversee the Center or participate in gender equity initiatives (See Appendix B).
Focus groups
In addition to individual interviews, a focus group interview was conducted with
Women’s Center student interns. This group provided students’ perspectives on the role of the
Women’s Center in gender equity transformation efforts, as well as insight on the university’s
feminist community. According to Morgan (1997), the dynamic of group interaction that occurs
in focus groups provides data and information that is “less accessible” from other methods.
Morgan (1997) suggested that there are several common components to focus group
research design. The first is that focus groups are comprised of “homogenous” participants.
Similarity between participants allows for an engaging conversation and a sense of comfort
between participants. Whether these participants are strangers or not, Morgan noted that the
basic criterion should be “whether a particular group of participants can comfortably discuss the
topic in ways that are useful to the researcher” (p. 38). It is most likely that the participants of
this study’s focus groups will know one another, or at least be acquainted with one another.
They all have participation in the Women’s Center and/or women’s groups on campus in
common; however; they may have not had prior opportunities to discuss their views on gender
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 51

equity, approaches to transformation, or feminist philosophies. The second component is that
focus groups are usually comprised of six to ten participants. This sample size allows for
individual participation while maintaining order. In addition, it allows for the moderator to
probe for depth and allow for emergent lines of inquiry. And finally, focus groups have a
relatively structured style with strong moderator participation. Morgan suggested that to
mitigate the potentially limited data of an overly structured group, moderators should use a
“funnel” approach. A funnel approach to focus group interviews begins with a less structured
discussion of the topic and moves toward a more structured set of specific questions. Building on
Safarik’s model, the protocol began with a general question about campus-based perceptions of
gender equity and moved toward more specific questions based on the four dimensions of
organizational life.
The focus group lasted approximately 90 minutes and was conducted at a convenient and
central location for the participants. The focus group discussion was audio-taped and fully
transcribed at a later date.
Document analysis
A review of historical and current documents was used to understand the socio-historical
context in which the Women’s Center exists. Documents included:
 “Creation” documents such as proposals, newspaper articles, petitions, etc. These
documents helped understand how the Women’s Center was created, the campus climate
and feelings associated with the creation of the Center, and how the Women’s Center’s
mission and goals were initially conceptualized.
 Program brochures and descriptions.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 52

 Program assessments such as internal and external reviews and budget justifications.
These documents allowed for a better understanding of how leaders within and outside of
the Women’s Center have conceptualized the work and value of having a Women’s
Center on campus.
 Organizational charts.
 Student newspaper articles.
 Campus reports on gender equity will contextualize the work of the Women’s Center
within broader campus gender equity efforts.
These documents framed the work of the Women’s Center within the history and culture of the
university. More specifically, they helped to chronicle the campus cultural view and approach
to gender equity efforts over time.
Data Analysis
The data analysis process occurred in three distinct phases. The first was the transcription
phase. All interview and focus group notes were transcribed as soon after the collection as
possible. Secondly, data were coded. Creswell (2003) described this process as “organizing the
materials into ‘chunks,’” (p. 192) which involves organizing data into categories and labeling
those categories with a thematic descriptor. According to Merriam (1998), coding occurs at two
levels: “identifying information about the data and interpretive constructs related to analysis”
(p. 164). Finally, historical documentation has been used to place findings in a context and to add
depth of understanding to individual stories and experiences.
Reliability and Validity
Merriam stated “one of the assumptions underlying qualitative research is that reality is
holistic, multidimensional, and ever-changing; it is not a single, fixed, objective phenomenon”
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 53

(1998, p. 202). Therefore, how is it that we can ensure that our data are valid and reliable? Since
validity is used to determine whether the findings are accurate from the standpoint of the
researcher, the participant, or the readers of an account (Creswell & Miller, 2000, as cited in
Creswell, 2003), there are several strategies that can be utilized to increase the validity of this
study, including clarifying research bias and triangulation.
Researcher’s subjectivity
It is important to understand the researcher’s “assumptions, worldview, and theoretical
orientation” (Merriam, 1998, p. 205) and how they impact the design, collection and analysis of
the data. As a former campus-based women’s center director and feminist activist, it is
incumbent upon me to be aware of biases I may bring to this research. I have been involved with
campus-based women’s centers for nearly twenty years – first as an undergraduate student
majoring in Women’s Studies, then as a graduate student doing an assistantship at a women’s
center, and in the following years as a staff person. Those experiences come from a variety of
settings, including an Ivy League university, a large state school, and a small science and
engineering research institute.
Through professional organizations and relationships I have seen many different
women’s center models, approaches, and degrees of success. As a result, I have formed my own
thoughts and opinions about the role of a women’s center, feminist leadership, and the process of
institutional transformation.
In line with feminist research methodology, it is important that I locate myself within the
research process. Drawing upon the work of feminist philosopher Sandra Harding, Safarik
(2000) wrote: “In much of feminist research, the researcher resides on the same critical plane as
the researched; that is, her vantage point arises from the same historical and social conditions
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 54

that shape the world of those whom she studies” (p. 22). As a result, it is important to
acknowledge the assumptions that have framed my conceptualization of this study. These
assumptions include: 1) Across feminist philosophies lies a belief that change and
transformation are necessary to improve gender equity; 2) Improving the conditions for women
also means improving the conditions for other marginalized and underrepresented groups;
3) Historically, higher education is a hierarchy that favors White men of privilege;
4) Organizationally and culturally, higher education still operates as if this were true;
5) Feminism has had an impact on higher education: i.e. curriculum integration, women’s and
gender studies, childcare, anti-violence movement, student activism, enrollment/retention;
and 6) All women’s center work is fundamentally guided by a feminist approach.
Triangulation
Triangulation refers to the use of multiple sources of data to determine if findings are
consistent across sources. In this study the three sources of data are interviews, focus groups,
and documents.
Limitations of the Study
The nature of qualitative, descriptive case study methodology is that it provides an in-
depth understanding of the transformation process at one location. Such information-rich data
can help researchers and practitioners understand the depth and nuances of individual
experiences. However, this methodology also has limitations. One is that the findings of this
study may not be applicable or generalizable to other schools. This study examined one campus-
based women’s center which can best be defined as a resource center, which is administratively
funded, professionally staffed, and located at a public university. While this represents the largest
typology of women’s centers, future research will need to be done on student-run centers,
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 55

research centers, or private, small colleges to determine if the process and experience of
transformation on gender equity are different. Additionally, this study was conducted over a
period of three to five months. As it is conceived that institutional transformation is a process
that occurs over a length of time, this study period will not allow for an understanding of the
process over time.
Ethical Considerations
Ethical considerations such as informed consent, confidentiality, and protection of
participants’ anonymity were addressed throughout the research process. Participants gave
informed consent ensuring that they understand the nature of the study, their participation is
voluntary, and that they may withdraw from the study at any time. (See Appendix D).
Participants were assured that their participation is confidential and that throughout the process
there were no identifying characteristics assigned to the data collected. A pseudonym is used for
the school’s name. However, because this study will be conducted at one site, with limited
staffing, complete anonymity could not be guaranteed. I worked to minimize threats to
anonymity by only discussing one’s participation in private and away from other staff.
Additionally, all collected data, such as interview tapes, focus group notes, historical
documentation, and journals will be kept confidential. They are stored on my personal computer,
which is password protected, or in a locked file cabinet in my home office. Finally, I adhered to
the guidelines set forth by the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board
(IRB) and those set by the research site.
Summary
This chapter described the research design, sampling criteria, data collection, and data
analysis process that were used for this study. In order to examine feminist models of
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 56

institutional transformation in the context of campus-based women’s centers, a qualitative, case
study methodology was used. Data collection included one-on-one interviews, focus groups, and
document analysis. Reliability and validity were strengthened through triangulation and an
examination of researcher bias.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 57

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
For nearly 40 years, campus-based women’s centers have been sites on university and
college campuses focused on improving the educational experience for women students. As
colleges and universities strive to address issues of gender equity, faculty, administrators,
students, and campus activists seek to understand the challenges, experiences, and practices that
come with trying to transform an organizational culture. Through education, counseling, support,
and advocacy efforts women’s centers support women’s full access and involvement in the
academy. Therefore, women’s centers exist as a potential model for understanding how
institutional transformation is initiated and how such efforts impact both the campus and the
change agents involved.
This qualitative case study explored the role of one campus-based women’s center in
advancing transformative efforts as well as the perceptions and experiences of women’s center
staff in the transformation process. Using Safarik’s Model of Feminist Institutional
Transformation (2003) as a diagnostic tool, this study examined the transformative role that
feminism, vis-à-vis the Women’s Center, has had at Citrus University. Safarik’s model
suggested that the process of transformation can best be understood by how an innovative culture
decenters a traditional culture over time. Safarik’s model explored how an innovative culture
stays innovative and dynamic over the period of a culture shift through four interrelated themes:
1) keeping the innovative culture vital through dialogism; 2) assessing progress in multiple
contexts; 3) interpreting paradoxes of progress, and 4) creating the evolving, innovative
structure.
This chapter introduces data collected through interviews, focus groups, and document
analysis. The main research question that guided this study is: What is the role of one campus-
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 58

based women’s center in institutional transformation efforts on gender equity? Additional sub-
questions included:
A. How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation?
B. How does women’s center staff describe their perceptions and experiences in
institutional transformation?
C. How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective
feminist ideologies?
Those interviewed included six Women’s Center staff members, two Women’s Studies
faculty, and six college administrators. In addition, focus groups were conducted with Women’s
Center student interns. Documents reviewed included program descriptions, program
assessments, organizational charts, and student newspaper articles.
This chapter is divided into four sections. The first two sections contextualize the
individual and collective experiences of the Women’s Center staff. The first section provides an
overview of Citrus University, and more specifically, the Women’s Center. The second section
introduces the academic and professional backgrounds of the Women’s Center staff. In the third
section findings describing the mission, programs, and services of the Women’s Center are
presented. These relate directly to the exterior and group dimensions of Safarik’s model. Finally,
five salient themes that emerged from the data are discussed.
Contextualizing the Research Site: Citrus University and the Women’s Center
Citrus University (CU), a pseudonym, is located in the Western United States and is part
of a large state university system. The state system is comprised of 23 campuses and serves over
400,000 students. CU is one of the largest campuses in the state system with over 30,000
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 59

students enrolled. The student body is very diverse and the school is a designated Hispanic-
Serving Institution (HSI). CU ranks high in the nation for the number of bachelor degrees
awarded to under-represented minorities. It is also ranked first in the state system for bachelor
degrees awarded to Hispanic students. For over a decade women students have outnumbered
men. The current student body is 60% women.
When driving to campus I was struck by the maze of freeways, the congestion on the
roads, and the construction happening along the roadways. The campus is located right off of a
major freeway. My first impressions of the campus were the huge surface parking lots and two
large parking structures marking the perimeter of campus and the stark, modern buildings
indicative of mid-century institutional architecture. CU is a commuter campus with on-campus
housing available for 2,000 students. Bound by parking lots, the campus is compact. The
university website notes that the campus layout was planned “so that no student needs more than
10 minutes to go from one class to another.” The campus has limited green space, however one
gets the sense that there has been some attempt at creating space for students to gather between
classes. Scattered across campus are several outside eating areas surrounded by picnic tables and
information kiosks. By mid-afternoon students were scattered along the tables and sitting on
building stairways.
While CU was established in 1957, the Women’s Center did not open until 1972. The
original mission of the Women’s Center was to provide “space, conversation, services and
awareness for individuals interested in exploring the status of women in society.” The Women’s
Center reports to an Associate Vice President (AVP) within the Division of Student Affairs.
There are six full-time staff members and approximately a dozen student interns.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 60

Access to adequate resources, especially funding and space, could impact an office’s
ability to affect change on campus. Although I did not have access to the Women’s Center
budget, the Director, staff, and AVP all noted that the budget was insufficient to carry-out the
full vision of the Women’s Center. The AVP commented:
We don’t even come close to having the resources that are required, but when you’re in
an academic environment, you’re always in competition for resources. And anytime you
are going to split up the pie you’re taking money out of the classroom, out of teaching
students. It’s a constant battle to promote that we are partners in the education enterprise
that we deal with every day. Budget and space…
The Dean of Students added:
I think on a campus like ours, given the amount of money that is allocated to various
functions, what is put into that Center is appropriate. Do I think it is adequate? Of course
not. They could probably use twice the physical space and twice the staff at a minimum.
For 35,000 students, it’s a little bit ridiculous, but I could say that about pretty much
every department on this campus.
Each of the staff members commented on how the tight budget impacts the work of the Center.
The staff has to be thoughtful as to which programs and services they provide. One staff
member noted that they continuously discuss the Women’s Center scope and have tried to stay
focused on their mission, rather than being “all things to all people.” Another staff member
bragged about the staff’s ability to be creative in strategizing low-cost efforts and in securing
necessary funding through grants and/or donors for programs that they feel strongly about
providing. Collaboration with other offices is also a well-used strategy for securing necessary
funding.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 61

The Women’s Center is situated in the center of campus and is located on the second
floor of an academic building. There is enough office space for the staff as well as a large
conference room that doubles as a programming space. The Women’s Center is warm—full of
brochure and magazine racks, posters on the wall, and several comfortable couches. The space
seems to embody its mission of being a safe space for women and a resource on issues related to
gender equity. The Women’s Center is also near a large student service area where dozens of
students were eating, studying, and hanging out. Since the space an office occupies on a college
campus is often telling of its institutional value, it could be said that the Women’s Center holds a
prominent position at CU.
The AVP noted that the Center has always been perceived as a helpful, useful resource by
the faculty, administrators, president and vice president. Several study participants described the
Center as a key partner in carrying out the educational mission of the university. Others spoke
about the professionalism and helpfulness of the staff. There was clearly a deep level of respect
for the Women’s Center director and staff.
Despite the positive perceptions among their colleagues, most of those interviewed
commented on the low visibility of the Women’s Center among students. One staff member
shared: “When I go into classes I ask, ‘How many of you have heard of the Women’s Center?’
Usually only one or two students raise their hands.” A Women’s Studies professor concurred:
“The Women’s Center doesn’t have tremendous name recognition or wide appeal on campus.”
There are various ways in which this lack of visibility might be understood. One staff member
suggested:
Most of the students we serve are juniors and seniors. Freshmen, developmentally,
probably aren’t ready to look at issues of gender, but it would be so nice if we could
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 62

outreach to them younger, and that’s a challenge. Either they’re not interested, they’re not
ready,..or they say ‘I didn’t know about you until now.’ And I think, ‘Oh, how sad
because we have so many things we could have offered you all these years.’
Another faculty member felt that generally social activism, and more particularly feminism, was
not embraced by what she described as a culturally conservative student body. The student
interns agreed that, in general, the Women’s Center had low visibility among their peers.
Whether the low visibility among students is due to a lack of interest, apathy, or time, it poses a
direct challenge to the staff in serving the student population.
There are several issues regarding the context of this research site that could pose
challenges to transformation efforts on gender equity. CU is a large campus with mainly
commuter students. The student body is diverse and the budget is inadequate. And, although the
allocation of space suggests institutional value, the visibility among students is low. One would
expect a lack of visibility given the size and commuter status of students. In order for the
Women’s Center to make inroads they must make strategic, and creative, choices on
programming, services, and other interventions that address these potential roadblocks.
Women’s Center Staff
The Women’s Center staff consists of a Director, Assistant Director, Sexual Assault
Prevention Educator, Adult Reentry Coordinator, Women’s Cultural Resource Center
Coordinator, and an Administrative Assistant. Additionally, there are student interns who assist
in programming and implementing Women’s Center services. This section introduces each of the
staff members in order to better understand their academic and professional backgrounds and
how it is they came to Women’s Center work.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 63

The Director
Janet has been the director of the Women’s Center since 1989. However, her relationship
with the Women’s Center began years earlier as an undergraduate at CU. It was never her
intention to become involved with the Center or to find a career as its director. Originally she
thought the Women’s Center was a place where she did not belong.
I can remember when I was an undergrad and I went to school here and I saw the
Women’s Center….and I used to think, ‘Oh, those women all look like they’re man-
haters, you know, and they’re all gay or something and stuff like that,’ and I thought this
is…I mean, I didn’t make a judgment, I just noticed that and said that this isn’t a place for
me … So I had a preconceived notion about what a Women’s Center was.
This preconceived notion was challenged years later when she was a graduate student at CU
working on a Master’s degree in counseling. At that time, she started volunteering at the
Women’s Center and eventually completed an internship focusing on women and self-esteem. At
the Women’s Center she found a faculty mentor, who was one of the key players in the founding
of the Women’s Center in 1972. Janet’s perspective on the Center began to change as her
personal interactions with her mentor and the staff evolved:
I think that the director and then the interim director, they were reasonable women who
had connections with the mainstream society, so I began to see the Women’s Center not
as a marginal program that was only good for some people, but I was hoping it could be
good for everybody, women and men, different ages, different views on stuff. So it
became comfortable for me. It reflected my values greatly and was very interesting to
me.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 64

As Director, Janet is responsible for the strategic vision and mission of the Center. She serves in
several leadership roles within the Division of Student Affairs and across campus.
The Assistant Director
Nina has worked at the Women’s Center for nine years as the Assistant Director. Like
Janet, she is also an alumna of CU. She returned to college after time away and used the services
of the Adult Reentry Center located within the Women’s Center. She shared that she had a lot of
trepidation as a returning, adult student and that it was the services of the Adult Reentry Center
that gave her the confidence and support with which to continue. Later as a graduate student in
counseling she conducted a class project at the Women’s Center focused on the needs of adult
reentry students. Janet had served as her mentor for the project.
Professionally, Nina has held a variety of positions in education. Prior to returning to
school, she was an elementary school teacher for 10 years. After completing her graduate work
she worked at another local college as the assistant to the Dean of Students. About her
professional path she commented:
I’ve always been interested in not only the adult reentry students, but issues of gender.
Issues of gender certainly surfaced for adult reentry women as they…you know, the
issues and the challenges that they face when they think about coming back have a lot to
do with gender and the way they were raised and I certainly fell into that as well. So I
saw this position…and I thought, ‘I need to apply for this.’

In her role, Nina supervises all of the Center’s interns, plans and executes the programming,
supervises the coordinator of the Women’s Cultural Resource Center, develops the Women’s
Center’s affiliated websites, and serves as a “right-hand” person to the Director.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 65

The Administrative Assistant
Nina’s colleague, June, who has worked at the Center for six years, has a long and rich
history in domestic violence outreach and education. Her work in this area began during her
career in a local Sheriff’s Department. As a deputy, she became the “domestic violence expert”
and began conducting training at the law enforcement academy. After retiring from the Sheriff’s
Department because of an injury, she started volunteering for a local domestic violence shelter.
After a few years, the agency collaborated with the local Police Department and applied for a
federal grant through the Violence Against Women Act. They received the grant and June started
working with the Police Department as a victim advocate.
Her connection to the CU Women’s Center began through a series of community
collaborations. She got to know women who were connected to the Women’s Center and liked
working with the director. She noted:
So I kind of followed on their coat-tails when things starting changing at our agency…so
someone…who’s no longer here, she came first as the adult reentry coordinator. Then
they had a clerical position, which is so not my thing, never been a clerical in my life, but
I said, ‘You know what? I want to work for you guys,’ because it’s such a wonderful
place to work.
In her current position June continues to be involved in domestic violence work, in addition to
her administrative assistant responsibilities. She conducts workshops and lectures on domestic
violence and sexual assault prevention on campus and in the community. She provides advocacy
and support to students accessing the Women’s Center and because of her prior experience she
supports students when dealing with law enforcement or the legal system.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 66

The Sexual Assault Prevention Coordinator
This position was added to the Women’s Center when stronger national attention on the
epidemic of campus sexual assault emerged. Sandy has worked at the Women’s Center for four
years as the sexual assault prevention coordinator. She completed both her Bachelor’s and
Master’s degrees in Counseling at CU. Afterward she worked in the community at a variety of
local organizations. First, she worked at a Free Clinic doing birth control counseling, then on a
rape and domestic violence hotline, and finally at a battered women’s shelter. Eventually, she
began to do violence against women prevention education work.
Sandy came to work at the CU Women’s Center through a former intern she had once
supervised. Sandy attended a domestic violence training sponsored by the Women’s Center to
keep up her licensure. The intern was working with the Women’s Center and conducted the
training. A few weeks later Sandy got a call saying that a job was available. Her work now
consists of organizing a comprehensive education and survivor services program for the
Women’s Center. Eighty percent of her time is spent on educational efforts such as the Gender
Alliance program (which is discussed in detail later in this chapter), campus training, and policy
and protocol development. Twenty percent of her time is spent on victim services.
The Program Coordinator
Elaine is the youngest and newest member of the Women’s Center staff. Prior to joining
the staff at CU, she worked for a local domestic violence shelter. During that time she had the
opportunity to work collaboratively with the Women’s Center. She conducted presentations on
campus and helped the Women’s Center organize the annual domestic violence conference. Like
June, Elaine knew others who had come to work for the Women’s Center. When a new part-time
position opened Elaine was contacted by her friend and encouraged to apply. Although she got
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 67

the job it was only 20 hours and so she continued working at the shelter full-time. She liked the
position at the Women’s Center and really enjoyed the people. Eventually the position went to
full-time. Elaine is the coordinator of the Women’s Cultural Resource Center (WCRC).
The Adult Reentry Coordinator
Like several of her colleagues, Katie has a long history with CU as both a student and a
professional. She was a returning adult student who had decided on a change after a successful
career in sales and marketing and some time off to raise her family. She returned to school to
study psychology and received both her Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees at CU. As an
undergraduate she became involved with the Women’s Center as an intern focused on the Adult
Reentry program. She developed a survey to assess the needs of returning students and as a
result of her research helped Janet develop a course focused on the returning adult student. Her
career at the Women’s Center started off when she agreed to fill a temporary position, and
almost five years later she is still there. Katie continues to teach in the Psychology Department
and also runs a private practice.
The Interns
Each year the Women’s Center is home to approximately ten undergraduate interns.
These are both women and men, with the majority of them majoring in either counseling
psychology or human services. The internship offers students an opportunity to conduct research
on women’s issues or adult reentry issues, develop and implement programs and services,
conduct program assessments, facilitate support groups, or help manage the gender alliance
program. Students have the opportunity to focus on women’s issues, men’s issues, adult reentry,
or the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity. Most of the interns chose to do an internship at
the Women’s Center because of a prior connection to the services of the office, a program, or the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 68

Director. Student interns are required to attend a pre and post internship workshop, weekly
gender-focused training, attend at least four Center events, and commit 8-10 hours a week on
their internship project.
Discussion
Several commonalities emerged among the Women’s Center staff. These commonalities
could have positive and negative implications for how they do their work, as well as how they
understand the transformation process at CU. Four of the six staff members are alumni of CU.
This puts them in the unique position of understanding the campus from a student’s perspective.
Additionally, these four engaged with the Center as students, either to access the services or to
conduct research. They continue the history of providing a space for students to engage with
gender-related topics and to put theory into action. Collectively, they know and understand the
campus and have a strong foundation in the services provided by the Women’s Center.
However, none of the staff come from a Student Affairs or Higher Education administration
background. And, with the exception of Nina, none of them had experience in college
administration. They came to Women’s Center work because of a commitment to gender equity
and/or victim services. The strong community services background combined with little
administrative background in education may pose a challenge as the staff tries to navigate the
unique culture of higher education, especially as it relates to making institutional change.
Mission, Programs, and Services
One goal of this study was to understand how the mission and activities of the Women’s
Center support institutional transformation. This section reviews the mission, programs, and
services of the CU Women’s Center and how the study respondents view the role of such in
change efforts on gender equity.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 69

The current mission of the CU Women’s Center is to “disseminate information on the
status of women and men in society today, to foster an environment to enhance gender
knowledge and awareness and to focus on the elimination of stereotypes, including racial,
gender, sexual orientation, age and socioeconomic status. Intellectual and emotional
development, growth and support of the student body at CU are implicit in all of the center's
goals.”
Many of the participants felt that the main mission of the Women’s Center has always
been, first and foremost, to raise the general awareness of women’s issues and gender equity
issues on campus. One staff member remarked that the mission is “to educate women and men
and once we educate, we enlighten, and then growth and development happens.” Others agreed.
One student affairs administrator commented that the mission of the Women’s Center was to:
keep gender equity issues at the forefront of people’s minds; when in higher education it
is easy to think that the we are all progressive, that we are like-minded; that the isms
don’t really exist in this environment—it isn’t true; not true in life or the academy.
Similarly a Women’s Studies faculty member noted that the mission of the Women’s Center is to
“raise consciousness about gender, race, class, sexuality, ethnicity—the key areas of interest of
feminist activism.” She went on to say that the Women’s Center seems “to have a direct mission
of empowering students with knowledge.”
Bringing about institutional transformation on gender equity is not explicit in the mission.
However, the implicit focus on addressing and ending all forms of discrimination suggests that
the work of the Women’s Center contributes to transformative efforts. The perceptions of the
staff and colleagues suggest a mission with a strong focus on supporting women and providing
educational opportunities on gender-related topics to the student body. The staff strongly
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 70

believed that an increase in education and awareness would lead to personal change, and
personal change can lead to institutional transformation.
Study participants articulated six key programmatic areas and services that the Women’s
Center provides to fulfill its mission:
 information and educational opportunities on the status of women;
 a safe space for crisis response and counseling;
 resources for the adult reentry student;
 educational programs on communication between women and men;
 focus on men and masculinity;
 focus on cultural differences among women and address issues at the intersection of
race, ethnicity, and socio-economic class.
The first three components have been part of the mission since the Women’s Center’s inception,
and, as indicated in the literature these three usually form the foundation for university-based
women’s center. The last three are newer and have developed in response to national changes in
demographics and perhaps even a larger philosophical shift in locating women’s issues within a
larger framework of identity and social justice issues.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 71

Information and education
The Women’s Center raises awareness and empowers women through two avenues:
a) providing information, resources, and referral, and b) providing educational opportunities.
Each of the Women’s Center staff commented that providing information and support is a key
commitment of the office. One staff person remarked that the Women’s Center is known for this:
“I think that’s the one thing…the main thing about the Women’s Center is anybody who calls the
Center will get an answer…” Other staff members highlighted the welcoming feeling that they
try to foster at the Center. Upon my first visit it was easy to see how they do this. As mentioned
above, the Women’s Center is located in an academic building. The halls on the second floor are
painted institutional-white and around the perimeter of the building there are classrooms lined
up. The Women’s Center was full of desks, brochure racks, posters, books, and fliers. One gets
the feeling that if there is a need, they would have the answer.
The Center provides many opportunities for education and awareness-raising. One key
program is a weekly workshop series. These workshops highlight issues as far-ranging as new
developments in birth control to human trafficking to coping with stress to self-injury. While the
staff may run a workshop themselves, many times speakers are brought in from across campus or
the community. Workshops are held in the Women’s Center conference room and serve as a
great way to bring new people into the space. The audience may vary from topic to topic,
although it is generally well attended.
Another educational opportunity is the annual domestic violence conference. This
conference is an example of the Women’s Center’s collaborative work with the community and
its local agencies. Since 2000, this conference has brought together academics and service
providers to discuss the newest research and approaches to preventing and addressing domestic
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 72

violence. The conference offers continuing education credit to local practitioners that attend.
Several hundred people attend the conference annually.
These examples illustrate a change in how the Women’s Center approach to education
has developed over the years. One staff member remarked: “In the earlier years, I think it [the
Center] was more of a separatist place for women to go and discuss their struggles, which was
very appropriate in the early ‘70s.” She went on to describe that approach as one of “imposing”
ideas rather than providing education as a way to empower women. Today, the Women’s Center
website highlights that they strive to present a “fair” set of programs on gender awareness. By
providing opportunities more accessible to a larger community, more individuals have the
opportunity to explore and critically examine issues of gender equity. Providing individuals an
opportunity to enter a discussion from “where they are” and giving them a chance to critically
examine the issues is one approach the Women’s Center takes in effecting change.
Safe space
Throughout the interviews participants described the Women’s Center as a warm,
welcoming, safe space. Since the establishment of the Center the space represented a physical
and psychological haven for women on campus. One student affairs staff person commented:
It also is a place for women to come together and discuss mutual concerns and the
workload that they have to balance with attending campus, and they have children, or
don’t have children, or relationships, it’s a place for them to come to.
As mentioned earlier, it is clear upon entering the Women’s Center that one has entered
something different. Using Virginia Woolf’s model of a “room of her own,” many Women’s
Centers are seen as a safe place to gather, think, create, and even act. One male intern shared: “I
feel like it is just a comfortable atmosphere where we can either just come in and sit on the couch
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 73

and just…you know, like hang out in-between classes, as well as it is a place to provide
services.” Such a space can be seen as disruptive to the dominant, male culture of higher
education.
The Women’s Center also offers a space for women to find support and advocacy on
issues of violence against women. When asked about which Center programs they find most
compelling, a male student intern commented:
I usually emphasize counseling groups that… people [staff] are here for crisis
intervention. We do have psychological services on campus, but people here are able to
help when someone comes in and I really emphasize it’s a resource for whatever you
need, especially the counseling, rape prevention, equity, things like that.
As noted above, several of the Women’s Center staff members are trained and able to respond to
issues such as sexual assault, sexual harassment, stalking, or relationship violence. Additionally,
there is one dedicated full-time staff person responsible for coordinating survivor services
including crisis response, policy, and prevention education efforts. Campus administrators
viewed this as an important component of the Center’s offerings. One key campus
administrator noted that: “The counseling for rape or attempted rape victim is also very
important because it supplements what we have at the Health Center.” Another campus official
commented that although there is a counseling center on campus that: “I’ve had much better
success…with the Women’s Center than the Counseling Center, but I love sending victims
directly into the Women’s Center. I know what they’re going to say.”
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 74

The Adult Reentry Center
Since its inception the Women’s Center has housed the Adult Reentry Center on campus.
The Director of the Women’s Center shared that historically this connection was established to
handle the initial impact of women returning to school. She noted:
[The state system] developed women’s centers in 1970-72 and …there was a prediction...
that women’s centers were going to fade out because we weren’t going to need them
anymore and what would evolve from them would be Adult Reentry Centers.
In fact, the opposite occurred at CU. The Adult Reentry Coordinator started as a full-time
position and eventually became a part-time position. According to Katie, the current
coordinator, over time the position has become more and more rooted in the work of the
Women’s Center.
One staff noted that having the Adult Reentry Program housed within the Women’s
Center is a natural fit: “there typically are more adult reentry women than men and adult reentry
women, and like all women, these women have issues that have a lot to do with gender
socialization.” The Adult Reentry Center has been able to provide support and services to help
returning students, mainly women, adjust to academic life and persist to graduation. Programs
like the Adult Reentry Center have been at the forefront of perhaps that largest change around
gender equity this century: the unprecedented admission of women to higher education.
However, at CU this may be changing. The adult reentry population at CU is
approximately 55% women and 45% men, with the male population slowly growing. According
to Katie, “men used to come in [to CU] and were very outcome focused; now the men are more
process focused and are talking about their feelings and fears [about returning to school]; the
men are much more open than they used to be.” As a result, they are much more likely to access
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 75

the services. The services still, in large part, focus on the impact of gender socialization on one’s
academic success, but now look at gender roles for women and men.
Improving interpersonal communication
The Women’s Center staff believes that improving gender equity on campus is directly
tied to improving communication between women and men. One staff person said of the
Women’s Center mission:
It is to create a sense of gender equity, to help people see how it is to really have an equal
place in the world, and I don’t mean equal like 50/50 because it never works that way,
but so that men and women can really start to communicate on a level in which we can
really hear each other and to create a comfort between men and women that reduces
suspicions in the sense that one or the other is always trying to manipulate the other. I see
that’s really our greatest mission.
Another staff member noted:
I think the mission is really to disseminate gender issues and equality between men and
women and really getting men and women to communicate about the issues that are
going on with them and just have better relationships, whether we’re talking about
heterosexual or homosexual relationships: how do we interact better, how do we get to
know each other on a level that we feel comfortable enough to talk about everything and
anything?
The focus on communication has emerged over the last ten years as the Women’s Center began
looking at programming efforts that could reduce violence against women. In many ways this
focus mirrors a national trend where campus sexual assault prevention efforts have moved from
providing advocacy and risk-reduction efforts targeted at women to primary prevention efforts.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 76

These new efforts are focused on changing men’s behavior and helping students develop healthy
relationship skills. One key campus administrator noted: “10, 15, 20 years ago the predominant
program or services offered there [at the Women’s Center] would be self-defense classes, and
self-defense classes are important, but now you’re going to see more women coming
together…to say, ‘We’re not going to stand for this.’”
One of the largest programs now offered at the Women’s Center is the Gender Alliance
Program. The Gender Alliance Program is designed to “improve communication between
women and men in order to decrease the incidents of sexual assault in our campus community.”
The staff coordinator of the Gender Alliance Program described that it was first developed by a
peer institution and over the last three years CU has refined it to meet the needs of their
community. Student interns are trained to go into general education classes to present the
material. The workshops are based on a series of key questions asked in same-sex groups. The
coordinator described:
The first one is, what do you like about being a woman or a man? The second one is what
do you dislike about being a woman or a man? These are really ice-breaker, warm-up
questions because the meat of the program is what do you never want to see, hear, or
experience as a woman or a man? The fourth question is as your allies, what do you want
or need from the men or women in your life?
Students are then brought back together and share their answers with the opposite sex.
According to the coordinator, the top three issues raised by women, regardless of group
demographics, are rape, domestic violence and the loss of a child. These are what most women
do not want to “see, hear, or experience.” Men on the other hand, she said:
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 77

Men are afraid of not being able to control their environment. They’re afraid of dying,
they’re afraid of being jumped, they’re afraid of going to war, they’re afraid of failing,
they’re afraid of flunking out of school. Women are afraid of being physically injured or
someone they love being physically injured, they’re afraid of being raped, they’re afraid
of domestic violence, they’re afraid of their children being hurt, they’re afraid of getting
cancer. Across the board, you get the same answers. And then what do you want from
men and women, men and women want the same stuff…they want love and affection and
trust and safety and communication. They want the same stuff over and over and over
and over and over.
Afterward the opposite sex group needs to acknowledge what they were told and repeat back
what they heard the other group telling them.
The Gender Alliance Program not only offers an educational experience for hundreds of
CU students, but also provides a leadership experience for the student facilitators. These
students are often Women’s Center interns who through the experience deepen their
understanding of women’s issues and gender equity. Through this program male facilitators
become strong advocates not only for equity issues but also for the Center.
The Men’s Center
While the focus on interpersonal communication between women and men is one way
that the Women’s Center is working with men, it is just one part of their commitment to
engaging men in all aspects of the change process. And, again, while the Women’s Center has
always seen themselves as a place open to all students, it is just recently that serving men has
become a focused part of their mission. This movement is in large part due to the declining
number of male students. CU is experiencing the same trend happening in higher education
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 78

across the nation: women are attending in higher numbers. However, instead of this
strengthening the need for increased services for women, it has CU worried about the status of
men.
The importance of addressing men in the mission of the Women’s Center was addressed
by all six of the staff members. One staff person commented:
We talk about issues that are pertinent to both men and women. Our programming
reflects that, our internship opportunities reflect that. We always have males and females.
Our programming hosts both female faculty and community members and male faculty
and community members and they’re talking about men’s issues, women’s issues.
This participant goes on to explain how issues are examined as they relate to women and men.
She explained how each of the staff members has an expertise and that they are often asked to go
into classrooms and lecture:
I talk about the imposter phenomenon…about it as it relates to women and what the
research has to say about that, but I also talk about the fact that men suffer from this too,
but it’s not as evident and here is why. So we try to look at both of the genders and talk
about the issues for both.
It is important to note that some conflict still exists about how including men’s issues into the
mission will impact the focus on women. For example, another staff person highlighted the role
of men whenever she is talking about the Women’s Center to others but ends by noting that the
culture is still male dominated, even if men are not the majority:
I always use the caveat that although we’re called the Women’s Center, we aren’t just
about women, we’re about women and men, and our name is, you know, maybe left over
from women’s centers back when we had just women’s centers to really focus on women.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 79

Although we do focus on women, we totally include men and we do our best to not
alienate men. I always make that point because people always say “Well, Women’s
Center, where’s the Men’s Center?” And I said, “Well, that’s the rest of the campus.”
Another staff person viewed the mission as even broader:
I think the Women’s Center’s mission is just to educate as many students as possible
about issues in general in the community, within themselves to kind of learn about who
they are so as they leave the university, they become…I don’t know, I guess you can say
better advocates for men and women and, you know, you don’t have a woman who’s
saying it’s all about women, this is how women are treated, but no, equally to be able to
say, ‘Yeah, there are some issues, but look, there’s some issues too for men and we need
to talk about those issues and not always blame men or always blame women or say
that’s a women’s issue or that’s a men’s issue, now it’s a people issue.' I think that’s one
of the good things I think about our mission.
By having a specific focus on men and masculinity, the Women’s Center can engage students on
gender-related topics from a place where all students can enter into the conversation. However,
there is always the potential for deflating the issues into “human issues," rather than challenging
students to understand how gender might impact their worldview.
The Women’s Center also has a series of programs incorporated in what they entitled,
The Men’s Center. Described by one flier the Men’s Center is:
A place for men to gather, to learn about themselves and, in doing so, learn effective
ways to interact and interpret their world and create healthy relationships for themselves.
The Center is a place to begin to dialogue, man to man, so that we can be better
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 80

communicators and people. It’s a place to explore philosophical, emotional, and learning
experiences dealing with issues of masculinity in the new millennium.
One Women’s Center staff person noted: “people don’t always remember we have a Men’s
Center and it is funny when the guys tell you about it, but it is there, it’s just hard to find men
who feel comfortable enough to participate in it.”
This move toward a focus on men and masculinity indicates a paradigm shift in how
change around gender equity is conceived. Programs focused on victim advocacy and providing
safe space are reactive ways to engage change. In other terms these would be considered tertiary
interventions. However, a focus on men, especially since men continue to be the primary
offenders in incidents of sexual assault and interpersonal violence, is a primary intervention.
The increased number of women students on college campuses, along with the national
trend of focusing on men and masculinity, has forced many programs to rethink their name.
Some schools now have Centers for Women and Men, or Gender Resources Centers, or at more
progressive schools, Feminist Resource Centers. A smaller number of schools have opened
Men’s Resources Centers, in addition to an existing Women’s Center. At CU, the Women’s
Center Advisory Board engaged in name change conversation recently. Some board members
argued that the name should be changed to be more inclusive of men, while others felt like
women still needed specific resources and support that should not be “co-opted” by a focus on
men. In the end the Advisory Board made the decision to keep the name, even though several
other programs in the state system chose to change their names.
Women’s Cultural Resource Centers
In addition to the stronger focus on men and masculinity, over the past decade the
Women’s Center has placed a stronger focus on the needs of women of color. Although the staff
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 81

works hard to ensure that all programs and services are inclusive, they felt that it was important
to provide a space for women of color to connect and define their own programs and services.
The Associate Vice-President for Student Affairs noted this as an example of how the Women’s
Center has remained current and connected to the needs of the student body: “The Women’s
Center has evolved. As the demographics on campus have changed, the services have been
enhanced and modified to be more inclusive of these cultures.” The Dean of Students added that
there has been an “intentional” effort to reach out to various communities of women to the point
that the Women’s Cultural Resource Centers have become “home base” for much of the diversity
work being done on campus. This change also fits within the larger movement of redefining
“women’s issues” in relation to the intersections of race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality. In doing
so, the Women’s Center serves a larger portion of the student body and as a result
transformational efforts on issues of gender equity become part of larger diversity efforts on
campus.
The Women’s Cultural Resource Centers (WCRC) is a program within a program. The
WCRC provides library resources, support and discussion groups, and programs geared to the
needs of African-American, Chicanas/Latinas, Asian, Pacific Islander, and Native American
women. The overall mission of the WCRC is to provide support for women of color to achieve
academic success. The stated goals are to:
- Increase retention rates for first-generation college women of different cultures.
- Increase graduation rates for first-generation college women of different cultures.
- Expand the knowledge and awareness of the impact of culture, gender and ethnic
influences on students’ professional lives
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 82

- Challenge stereotypes and engage in activities that decrease discrimination and
racism
- Explore the intersection of gender and ethnicity.
However, there are specific missions and goals set by each of the small groups (i.e. The African
American Resource Center; the Latina Resource Center, etc.). Each smaller group has a student
intern who helps with organizing the discussion groups and events.
One of the most popular programs is Sistertalk. This is a discussion group for African
American women where they discuss the impact of culture and ethnicity in their academic,
personal, and professional lives. The group meets weekly and also organizes various events such
as a Gospel Fest, Tea, and annual welcome dinner.
An important role of the groups within the WCRC has been to develop leadership skills
of the students involved. One administrator commented:
The thing that I have noticed is that the demographics on campus have changed
dramatically and a lot of the student advocacy groups are now being chaired and led by
women. Most of its members are women. The development of minority women’s
leadership skills is very important.
The WCRC encourages student leadership by first asking students to create bulletin boards that
highlight a role model from their culture who they aspire to be like. This helps students identify
characteristics and traits of successful women who have come before them. Additionally, many
students involved in the WCRC are also involved in other campus cultural groups.
Like at many universities the issue of diversity is front and center at CU. Several students
noted that cultural diversity is definitely more “pressed” on to students than issues of gender.
They point to academic course requirements that address issues of race and ethnicity and the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 83

level of programming happening across campus on such topics. At CU there are several other
campus offices focused on issues of diversity: Multicultural Leadership Center; Asian Pacific
American Resource Center; Chicano/a Resource Center; and the African American Resource
Center. There are also dozens of student groups associated with these centers. The WCRC works
to collaborate with these centers and groups to maximize efforts and minimize duplication.
The WCRC also has to deal with political issues related to doing diversity work. The
WCRC program coordinator shared that originally the program was called the Women of Color
Resource Center. However, this was seen by others on campus as politically incorrect and drew
criticism by the administration and students. Additionally several years ago students of color
were criticized in an article published in the student newspaper for “self-segregating.” The
Sistertalk group provided African American women a safe space to talk about the article and
craft a response.
Discussion
The mission, programs, and services of the Women’s Center have a strong focus on
supporting personal change among the individual students with which they work. The programs
and services are designed to meet each student “where they are,” to provide information,
education, and resources to help them learn more about gender equity. These efforts have
changed over time to reflect the changing landscape for women at CU, the changes in student
population, the philosophy of the Women’s Center staff, and national trends. Many of the
participants described a Center that transformed over time from a “traditional” center to a
“contemporary” center. One key campus administrator described this as a shift away from a
focus on women’s rights and women’s empowerment to a focus on violence against women and
healthy relationships. This shift also includes a stronger focus on men and women of color. One
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 84

staff person noted that in order for women’s centers to have survived over time they have needed
to “help men and women understand each other, to include issues that are related to men because
women live in a world with men.” She went on to say “we have been successful because we feel
that we’ve been contemporary in that way.”
As a potential site for institutional transformation, women’s centers need to continuously
adapt and evolve to meet the changing landscapes in which they find themselves. The 1972
focus on re-entry women is no longer as salient as it once was. The Adult Reentry Center helped
change the institution by supporting women’s transition back into higher education. Today over
60% of CU is women. Today’s focus on men, masculinity, and healthy relationships addresses
the epidemic of sexual and interpersonal violence on college campuses. And, as the United
States becomes increasingly diverse, women’s centers must address institutional transformation
through the lens and experiences of women of color.
None of the research participants spoke about change efforts at the institutional level as
being part of the mission of the Women’s Center. However, when asked they were able to
describe several areas in which the Women’s Center has a role in efforts such as policy
development, faculty and staff education, and administrative discussions. The impact of change
efforts that focus on the individual versus the institutional will be further explored in the
following section.
Findings by Theme
This section explores five main themes that emerged from a review of the data. These
themes help us better understand the role and experiences of the CU Women’s Center in
impacting institutional transformation. The first theme explores the Women’s Center’s focus on
individual growth and development and how that relates to institutional transformation. The
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 85

second theme looks at the barriers facing the Women’s Center in effecting change—specifically
the challenge of not being in academic affairs and the limitations placed on the women’s center
as a result of being at a state school. The next theme reviews the data on how the Women’s
Center director’s leadership supports and, sometimes, limits her ability to address issues that
might be important areas for change. The fourth theme examines the impact of individual and
collective feminist philosophies on how the Women’s Center approaches change. And, finally,
the last theme explores how multiple feminist communities at CU interact around institutional
change efforts.
Individual and Institutional Change
Over the past three decades many women’s centers have shifted from a singular focus on
providing personal support to individual women to an intentional focus on initiating institutional
transformation. When campus-based women’s centers were first established they were primarily
concerned with the safety, support, and well-being of women students. Over time women’s
center staff and campus feminists realized that in order for gender equity to be achieved they
would need to have a larger, more institutional impact. Unfortunately, as the focus has shifted to
institutional change efforts, the need for individual services has not decreased (although such
needs have changed as noted earlier in this chapter). The mission, programs, and services of the
CU Women’s Center are heavily focused on providing individual support and advocacy to
individual students. However, the staff also provides some leadership on policy development and
consultation at the institutional level. This section examines the data related to the individual
and institutional approaches to change in order to better understand how the Women’s Center
approaches transformation efforts.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 86

The CU Women’s Center conceptualizes the process toward gender equity in terms of
individual change and institutional change. On the individual level, the Women’s Center
provides students, mainly women, support, advocacy, empowerment, and encouragement. This
always means taking a student development approach to make sure that they “meet the students
where they are.” Institutionally, they work on policy development and implementation and
participate in campus-wide committee and decision-making. For the Women’s Center staff
individual and institutional efforts are not mutually exclusive. According to the staff, providing
individual support services to campus clientele positions them to impact institutional
transformation. As one staff member described, the Center provides education and support to
students, which in turn raises individual and collective awareness, which in turns begins to
change the campus culture and environment. This viewpoint draws upon the second wave
Women’s Movement philosophy that the “personal is political.”
One example of this is the Center’s work in the area of sexual assault and relationship
violence. It is the mission of the Women’s Center and responsibility of each individual staff
member to provide an environment that is a safe, welcoming, and supportive to women and men
seeking assistance. Providing crisis response for an individual supports the student’s personal
and academic life. Educationally, the Women’s Center staff is doing presentations in
classrooms, student housing, and to student groups. These presentations focus on primary
interventions such as addressing core issues around gender, communication, and consent. As
demonstrated by the composition of the Women’s Center interns, some of the students then seek
out volunteer or activist opportunities to address violence against women. Additionally, through
these efforts the Women’s Center becomes the institutional location for response protocol, policy
development, and training. In this case, institutional efforts rely on the following: a) knowing
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 87

what is happening to individual students; b) individual students coming forward; and c) staff
getting involved at the root of policy development and institutional decisions.
When asked about their role in policy development the Women’s Center staff pointed to
the sexual assault and sexual harassment policies. At CU, the Women’s Center is responsible for
developing policy and response protocol, conducting training among staff and student leaders,
and responding to victims of sexual assault and sexual harassment. These efforts contribute to
creating a safe environment for women. This also helps the university meet federal mandates.
In summary, the Women’s Center’s strength is in providing support and educational
interventions to individual students. The staff has been responsive to national trends and the
needs of their students. However, there is little evidence to suggest that these efforts have
impacted institutional change on gender equity. The Women’s Center has had an impact on
defining and supporting the campus’ policy on sexual assault and harassment. Certainly policy
development is one structural way to enact change. However, given the state and federal
mandates, these policies would have been developed with or without a campus women’s center.
The Women’s Center’s role in such policy development does not necessarily point to a
transformative change in the campus culture.
Challenges to Making Change
The Women’s Center staff identified two barriers that inhibit their efforts in impacting
institutional change. The first is the divide, and power differential, between academic affairs and
student affairs. At CU much of the decision-making power lies with the faculty and the
Academic Senate. According to several participants this is where “real institutional change
happens.” A Women’s Studies professor opened up our interview by saying:
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 88

I don’t think your focus on Women’s Centers is necessarily going to get you very far.
The key reason is that the curriculum and the core disciplines are what drive the heart of
the university. So, to the extent that you can find a campus where there is a very strong
presence and commitment to Women’s Studies, then you will start to see change. The
Women’s Center is housed within Student Affairs. Student Affairs is often thought of as
the step-child to Academic Affairs. They are seen as support functions…and
unfortunately, they are not going to be a major player in instituting change for women in
the academy.”
The Women’s Center staff understands and echoes this opinion. Recently, Janet shared, the
Academic Senate discussed the declining number of male students on campus. When asked if
she was part of the discussion she commented: “I feel without a Ph.D., I probably couldn’t speak
in front of the group.” So, instead she submitted a report on the topic. Later when asked about
her goals for the future of the Women’s Center, Janet responded: “I hope the next Director will
have a Ph.D.”
The Women’s Center has made several structural decisions to strengthen their
relationship with faculty. The Women’s Center has an advisory board which consists of staff,
students, and faculty members. The faculty members on the advisory board represent a wide
variety of academic disciplines and programs. Additionally, the Women’s Center has a strong
relationship with the Women’s Studies program (which is explored later in this chapter).
However, they still experience a lack of visibility within the Academic Senate and in campus-
wide conversations and decisions.
The second barrier is the limitation of working at a state school. Because of real or
perceived conflicts in using state monies to address political issues, the Women’s Center does
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 89

not take a stand in what they consider “hot topic” issues. “You’re not going to see any of us out
on campus carrying signs for abortion rights,” shared the Assistant Director. This is where, the
staff argued, they can be most effective in providing educational opportunities to students.
Students can then be more informed about the issues and make their own decisions about
politically-charged issues. The Women’s Center also provides support to students and student
groups who want to provide information, education, or activism around such issues.
It is difficult to tell from the data how much the work of the Women’s Center staff is
limited by being at a state school versus how much their individual approach to change has an
impact. As discussed in the next section, the staff shares a similar moderate, feminist approach to
change. Individually and collectively they do not define themselves as activists.
Leadership and Impact on the Change Process
If leaders are agents of change (Rost, 1991; Burns, 2003), then it is important to
understand the leadership style of the CU Women’s Center director. This case study is about
how the CU Women’s Center impacts transformational change on gender equity. To a large
extent, the Director, Janet, sets the vision, mission, and activities of the Women’s Center. She
often serves as the “voice” of the Women’s Center and over her two decades as Director, she has
forged strong connections across campus. Every staff member commented on her style and
leadership strength as a key reason for choosing to work at the Center and for the Center’s
success on campus. This section explores the findings related to the leadership style of the
Director and how it impacts the change process.
As a leader, Janet describes herself as a coalition builder where strong relationships with
colleagues are critical. She commented: “Getting along with people and intimacy and closeness
is everything for me, but I think I just do it sort of naturally. I like working with people.” She
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 90

continued: “I have a lot of energy and my follow-through is almost 100%.” The Women’s Center
staff described her as a consensus-builder who seeks their input in almost all decisions. One
described the working environment as a “democratic society,” where everything is decided in
collaboration. However, they were quick to note that this does not mean that Janet does not have
her own opinion or is unable to make decisions. “She knows exactly what she wants to happen
and what’s going to happen,” shared one staff member. Another commented: “We’re very
collaborative but yet you know she has the last say. She has a nice balance of being able to be
assertive and yet collaborative.”
As a result of her commitment to collaboration and creating strong relationships, the
perception of the Women’s Center is strongly connected to the campus perception of Janet. One
staff person commented, Janet “walks on water on this campus. I am not kidding you, she is
golden. On this campus if you say you’re from the Women’s Center you have instant
credibility.” Janet and the other staff members take their reputation seriously. They talk at length
in staff meetings about who they need to connect with on various topics or around program
development. One staff member created an “Important Persons Committee,” to foster on-going
collaborative efforts across various campus constituencies. And when planning meetings with
others they go so far as to make sure that they always have coffee and snacks on hand so that
people feel welcomed and that their time is respected.
These relationships also impact how others on campus view the Women’s Center’s
approach to change. At CU personal relationships might be more important than one’s title and
creating these relationships, or, the ability to create these relationships is thought of as an
important skill of its own. One AVP remarked:
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 91

Social change on campus is really dependent on the skills the individual brings…because
you can have the title, but if they can’t get people on board, they’re not going to create
change. Janet is real diplomatic on how she gets the support of various constituencies and
offices. She is well-respected on this campus and carries a lot of influence.
Another administrator added that such relationships help others overcome any pre-conceived
notions that they might have about working with a women’s center. She noted that this is
instrumental in making change on campus.
The staff is very gentle, reaching out, and pulling you in. The Women’s Center is an open
environment, more of a community, positive, growth oriented, forward thinking place,
non-threatening, and easy to talk to.
As evidenced by these comments, it is critical for the Director and the Women’s Center to spend
time and energy in managing campus relationships so that they might be able to effect change.
What is not clear from the data is whether or not this is how most other units on campus operate
or if this is specific to the Women’s Center and/or efforts around gender equity.
There are also negative impacts to the change process from maintaining these personal
relationships. When asked if her desire to maintain relationships ever stands in the way of
forwarding gender equity efforts, Janet replied, “Probably. Yeah, probably.” She went on to
share the conflict she often faces when choosing between addressing sexist behaviors head on
while maintaining important campus relationships. This conflict exemplifies a key challenge for
women’s center leaders as they negotiate between being part of the university system while
having to critique it at the same time. This also speaks to Janet’s personal and professional desire
not to be viewed or treated as a marginalized campus unit. Her goal has been to have the
Women’s Center as part of the “mainstream” administration.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 92

Janet does not believe in taking a political stance on a “hot issue” if it could alienate
individuals or communities on campus: “I choose my battles carefully, but I am silent more than
some.” This cautiousness impacts how change happens on campus. The Dean of Students
commented:
Janet consults a lot, especially when she feels she’s entering territory that might be
touchy or sensitive or a bit of a political landmine. I appreciate that because it is really
important. On the other hand, the drawback is that …she may be a little too cautious in
not wanting to push a button or rock the boat and sometimes to affect wide-spread
organizational change, you got to stir things up a bit. And, that’s not like Janet.
Instead Janet’s approach to change is through providing educational opportunities for women
and men to learn about the issues so that they can make informed decisions and opinions.
Through setting the mission and vision for the Women’s Center, the Director sets the
tone for the general approach to gender equity change efforts. For Janet, and the Women’s
Center staff, strong relationships were paramount to making change. Through campus
relationships alliances are built that help overcome potential barriers and stereotypes. However,
relationships can also silence staff members when confronted with addressing issues head on
versus maintaining the connection. This silencing is driven by the desire not to become or be
seen as a marginalized unit.
Feminism and Approach to Change
It is important to understand how the Women’s Center staff articulates their views on
feminism and how such views impact their individual and collective approach to gender equity
transformation. Over the past four decades feminism has grown and developed – responding to
the changing landscape for women in society, expanding its view to the needs of women of color
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 93

and women across the globe, and becoming increasingly critical of the movement, itself, and its
own privileged views. As a result, multiple feminist philosophies have emerged. These
philosophies are often generational and can be shaped by one’s race, ethnicity, sexual
orientation, socioeconomic status, educational level, and other markers of privilege or
oppression. Different feminist philosophies may have overlapping as well as distinct approaches
to change. For example, a classic liberal feminist ideology may focus on providing equal
opportunities for women and men within existing structures, while radical feminists may argue
that structures themselves are inherently patriarchal and sexist and need to be completely re-
examined. Today’s younger feminists often view the fight toward gender equity as inextricably
linked with other forms of oppression and therefore a broader agenda of social justice may
impact their approach to transformational efforts. Therefore, it is necessary to understand the
individual experiences and feminist ideologies of the CU Women’s Center staff, in order to gain
a perspective on their individual and collective approach to gender equity transformation.
Five of the six Women’s Center staff shared similar views on feminism and their personal
feminist philosophy. They described themselves as “strong, but moderate” feminists;
“mainstream,” “approachable,” and “inclusive.” “Feminism,” Janet described:
means that women should have equal access, equal opportunity politically, socially,
economically, in any way possible…equal access to everything in the world and that
there is no such thing as sexism and putting down a whole population.
Similarly, June defined feminism as working toward equality for women and men.
I have four children, I have two boys and two girls, and I’ve done my best to show them
and raise them that, ‘You know, you guys can do whatever you want. No matter what
your gender is, you choose to do what you want to do and what makes you happy and
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 94

what you do best,’ and so I kind of try and tell the students that I come in contact…I tell
them that as well, to recognize what their strengths are and what their weaknesses
are…So feminism to me is about that, it’s supporting women’s roles in the world.
These five women also described their feminism as what it is not. Janet stated her feminist
philosophy is one that is “palatable to most people” and “has the fewest stigmas.” One such
stigma is how feminism is viewed as anti-male.
Being a strong feminist, we do not male-bash because we know what kind of oppression
that brings one, what kind of statement that sends out, how we generalize our comments
about men. So our Women’s Center probably does less male-bashing than any other place
on campus.
Nina, the assistant director, said of herself and her colleagues:
We all like to look at the balance of issues...none of us are man-haters, and I think that
there is a perception that some feminists, if you’re a very strong, hard-line feminist, some
people call them Nazi feminists… that men are the enemy, patriarchy is the enemy. I
think because all of us have a deep respect for the relationship between men and women
that we don’t come across being very strong feminists.
Each member of Women’s Center staff articulated a similar view of feminism. In every
interview the staff was quick to point out that they were not anti-male, “feminazi,” man-hating,
or radical feminists. It was as if defining their feminist ideology could only be done by first
distancing themselves from the stereotypes often associated with radical feminism and women’s
center work. As I went from interview to interview I wondered if this was a response developed
over years of having to defend one’s work against those who held such stereotypes, or if the staff
themselves believed the stereotypes of feminism they were expressing.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 95

The final staff member, Elaine, does not consider herself a feminist. When asked if she
was a feminist, she responded:
I don’t know if I really use the word “feminist” for myself. I just try to look at all issues
and, you know… we talk about it because we say, “We’re not the feminazi.” I’m trying
to think of how we explain it to ourselves, but I really…no, I don’t really tell people I’m
feminist.
Instead she says that her focus is on empowering women and men to grow and develop.
I think really what I’m looking at with my work is just helping the women and the men
that I interact with and the people who come in here to just discover who they are and to
be open to people’s differences and the similarities, and just be open to it and look at it
and say, “OK, I get it.” Not to judge it or not to see it as wrong or bad.
For the CU Women’s Center staff, their moderate feminist views impact their approach to
change in positive and problematic ways. Janet, for example, stated that she does not believe in
taking a political stance on a hot issue if it could alienate individuals or communities on campus.
One scenario Janet highlighted was of a peer institution that was fighting with senior leaders to
take an institutional pro-choice stance. Her response was “why would you take that on” when it
was not only such a divisive issue but one that should not be tackled by a state school which is
funded by taxpayer money. Instead her approach to change is through providing educational
opportunities for women and men to learn about the issues so that they can make informed
decisions and opinions.
Like Janet, Nina’s moderate feminist stance is further defined by her personal approach
to politically charged issues and professional restrictions being located at a state school. She
commented:
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 96

I think there is a perception that if you are a true feminist, that you are very politically
involved, which we are, but because we’re a state institution, we cannot take a stance or
position. We just cannot. So I feel like…I don’t know, I don’t think I’d be stepping out of
turn by saying I think all of us in here are moderate feminists because we put the needs
and the interests of the Women’s Center first, so you’re not going to be seeing any of us
out on campus carrying signs for abortion rights or any of those hot-topic issues
because… professionally we can’t…We all like to look at the balance of issues.
Nina’s comments highlight the important issue of how women’s center leaders need to balance
the personal and political aspects of gender equity work. This is especially a challenge when at a
state school where perceived and/or actual mandates me restrict one’s work and ability to serve
all women.
Sandy identifies as a feminist who “lives and breathes” her feminist philosophy as a
mother and as a professional. Like her colleagues, Sandy defines her feminism as a belief in
equality for men and women. And, like her colleagues, she does not consider herself radical.
I want equality for men and women. I’m absolutely not a radical feminist. I am…I think I
live and breathe it. I’ve raised my daughter that way. I live that life. I model it, but
I…because what I think is much softer than what we had to do in the ‘70s, so we had to
do that. We might have to go back to it. I think there’s that possibility, I do. I think it’s
scary. I think that most young people think that that work was done and they don’t need
to do it anymore and because they can get a legal abortion, they’re against abortion, and I
think there’s some work to be done out there, but I just really believe feminism is
about…is about equality and we’re certainly not done, but I don’t want to use a hammer
to get there. I want to work with men, I want to help educate them and let them educate
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 97

us and…so that there is equal pay for equal work eventually and so that there is not sex
slavery and…you know, we’ve got a lot of work to do, but…and I think it’s a process.
Sandy’s work in violence prevention has impacted her view of feminism over time. Her feminist
ideology has become “softer” in reaction to women’s changing role in society. She articulated
the relationship between her ideology and the culture by suggesting that if rights are taken away
from women that the movement may have to once again become more radical. The “softer”
approach is one where women and men are working together toward equality and healthy
relationships.
Elaine’s interest is in helping students to engage with each other on an equal level and to
give them the opportunity to critically examine relationships, social constructs, and their
experience. Her work allows women of color to not only come together and find strength in
community but also the support to challenge others on campus.
Elaine feels that it is important to connect with students based on how they view their
identity development as a woman. One project that Elaine does with students participating in the
various women’s cultural groups is to create bulletin boards of women they find to be role-
models. These bulletin boards fill the walls of the conference room located inside the Women’s
Center. This space is used regularly for classes, seminars, meetings, and events. Elaine shared a
story that highlights how students at various stages of their development interact
I’ve had Women’s Studies students just say ‘This is wrong. Why did you put her up?
This is why we don’t like her,’ and I’m thinking, ’You’re Women’s Studies students and
you’re so attacking a woman that my student finds as a role-model and this is why she
believes it’…I try to teach the students, you know, this philosophy is that where are you
right now in this moment and where you are right now is OK and be OK with it. Now if
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 98

you meet somebody who’s at a different level or at…maybe you’re here and they’re here,
remember what is was like when you were there and don’t judge them because they’re
still growing as a person and they’re still learning and they’re going to make their
mistakes and don’t judge them, allow them to make their mistakes… there’s some
Women’s Studies students who just think, ‘Uh, I know it all and if you don’t think this
way, then something’s wrong with you. You’re not a feminist,’ and that’s why I don’t
like the word sometimes ’feminist’ because like, ’OK, if I’m not your kind of feminist,
I’m not a good feminist.’
Elaine’s example highlights her commitment to working with students with various beliefs and at
various stages of development. It also demonstrates her work in creating dialogue between these
students.
Elaine’s personal and professional approach to change is guided by her commitment to
supporting women’s personal growth and academic success. As the data above suggest, her
work supports and empowers women of color to succeed in the traditional academic structures of
the university. However, she also empowers women to develop their voice in order to challenge
the viewpoints of the majority culture.
Elaine is the only Women’s Center staff person who does not identify as a feminist.
Additionally, she is the only staff person who identified as a woman of color. This could suggest
that her approach to change may be different than that of her colleagues. And, perhaps more
importantly, more appropriate to serving the women of color at CU. Her perspective may allow
Elaine to create a safe space for women of color within the Women’s Center who may not
identify with feminism or feminist approaches to change. However, Elaine’s articulation of her
professional philosophy is very similar to that of her colleagues. She believes in providing a
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 99

safe, supportive space for women to identify their needs and challenges to their educational
experience. Elaine reports that the programs she coordinates are well-attended and students
seem to be having their needs met. So, it may be that the Women’s Center in general is a place
where women of color and women who do not identify as feminist are able to find support and
community.
In summary, the Women’s Center staff shares many commonalities in their pathway to
women’s center work. Academically, they have each had a non-traditional academic path. All of
them have an academic background in counseling, human services, teaching, or some
combination of each. And many of the staff members have a professional background in
counseling and/or domestic violence work. It is also important to note that none of the staff
intentionally sought out a career addressing issues of gender equity in higher education. Perhaps
it is this commonality that speaks to their individual and collective moderate feminist stance.
And, furthermore, this commonality highlights their discomfort with what they view as the
common stereotypes associated with feminist action and women’s center work.
Relationships have been important in the staff’s path to the CU Women’s Center. Several
of them came to the Women’s Center because of academic experiences they had with the office
during their own time as a student. The rest came to the Center based on the recommendation of
friends and former colleagues. All of them knew that the Women’s Center did good work and
was a valuable part of the community.
Relationships continue to be important to the staff as they approach change on issues of
gender equity. They view the Women’s Center as a “mainstream” office that meets the needs of
all students, not just a fringe few with radical and marginalized views. Their feminist ideology
supports this view.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 100

With the exception of one staff member, they all individually consider themselves
moderate feminists. This feminist philosophy, similar to what has been called liberal feminism,
focuses on equal rights of women and men. Each of the women believes in achieving equality
through education and empowering women and men to develop as individuals. They also all
articulate a strong focus on supporting better communication between women and men as a
means of achieving better relationships and equality.
Although the staff may share similar feminist ideologies, they differ greatly in their
professional interests. They each have a different expertise, or passion, that focuses their work.
One staff person’s expertise is in the needs of the re-entry student whereas another staff person is
dedicated to supporting the educational persistence of women of color. Collectively, the staff
builds off of a shared value system to best serve the varied needs and constituencies found in the
CU community.
Each of the staff members defines their individual feminist philosophies by what it is not,
namely being a feminazi. In other words, as individuals they do not see themselves as activist,
political agents, or as being against individual men. In fact, they strongly identify their feminism
as inclusive of men and men’s issues. Collectively this moderate feminist stance can be defined
as apolitical, with a strong focus on individual empowerment, and a focus on effecting change
from within the system. This is done through educational efforts, and relationship building, but
not by challenging the very notion of higher education through its structures, policies, and
traditions. This raises the question of whether or not this approach has developed primarily
because of personal ideologies or because of an unsafe organizational culture. It may be that
there is not enough safety for staff members to strongly identify as feminists. Unlike the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 101

students, the staff was much more hesitant to embrace a feminist label. There may also be some
question about how safe and open the campus is to operationalizing feminist values into action.
Strengths and Challenges of Multiple Campus Feminist Communities
The CU Women’s Center does not exist in a vacuum. Their work intersects with other
campus groups and organizations that work on issues of gender equity. This section explores the
data related to several campus feminist communities and how these distinct, yet connected,
communities fit together and impact the change process. Together these data put the individual
experiences, perspectives, and approaches of the Women’s Center staff into a broader framework
of change efforts and provide context for how the Women’s Center as a unit fits into the larger
campus culture and transformative efforts.
There are several distinct, yet interrelated, feminist communities at CU. There is the
Women’s Center, the Women’s Studies program, and one prominent feminist student
organization, the Third Wave. Individually each community plays a role in moving forward
change efforts on issues of gender equity. However, they each approach change in different
ways. The Women’s Center approaches institutional change by supporting individual women and
men through advocacy, education and the dissemination of information. As an academic
program, the Women’s Studies program provides an intellectual opportunity for students to
explore the changing roles of women in society and support students in their efforts to put theory
into practice. As a student organization of the Women’s Studies program, the Third Wave serves
as the feminist activist group on campus.
The CU Women’s Studies program is located in the College of Humanities and Social
Sciences. Although it is not a department, the program does offer a major and a minor. In any
given year there are 25-40 majors. The program currently has four full-time faculty members.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 102

The program offers 18 courses and cross-lists courses with several other departments to provide
a full array of gender-based course options. The program’s mission is to provide the “study of
gender-based movements, gendered experience, research, analysis, and theory, from a women-
centered perspective, as subjects and as researchers.”
According to one Women’s Studies faculty member the program enjoys a “ton of
institutional support.” The Dean is eager to expand the program. This support is in part garnered
because of the high enrollment in Women’s Studies courses. The courses are full and
consistently exceed enrollment targets. The plan is to increase the faculty over the next few years
and seek departmental status. The next faculty search will focus on finding someone who
specializes in Queer Studies. There is currently no LGBT/Queer Studies program, although
individual courses in this area do exist in several different academic areas on campus.
The Women’s Studies program provides opportunities for students and faculty to engage
in various forms of social and political activism. Students are encouraged and supported in
planning talks, seminars, and “gender equity campaigns.” Such efforts are often connected to
topics being discussed in the classroom. Two of the four faculty members conduct research that
focuses on political action. One professor commented: “Faculty are politically ‘out of the closet.’
We talk with our students about political ideas and it is not discouraged on campus.” This has
been a “pedagogical choice” among the faculty. She went on to comment that this is in stark
contrast to her last position where there was an implicit culture of not engaging students around
politics and social action.
When asked to describe the campus in terms of gender equity, one professor commented
“it’s not easy to be a woman at CU.” CU is located in an “ideologically provincial place,” which
is commonly known for its conservative, and often religiously conservative, views. She
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 103

continued: “To be a feminist student is to be in an extreme minority and to be politically left of
center is to be out of the mainstream in every way.” So for many students who resonate with
feminism, the Women’s Studies program provides a safe and supportive environment.
The Women’s Center and Women’s Studies program have a longstanding connection.
The “founder” of the Women’s Studies program was also one of the key people involved in
starting the Women’s Center. Throughout the years the two offices have worked collaboratively
on programs and policy development. Members from each office hold positions on one
another’s advisory boards and the Women’s Center often serves as a site where Women’s
Studies courses are held. One faculty member described this as an “existing relationship that
both sides dip into occasionally.” A Women’s Center staff member described it as a “reciprocal”
relationship that needs to be maintained.
There are differences personally and collectively in how the two groups approach gender
equity work. Largely, the Women’s Center staff speaks of the Women’s Studies faculty as
political, activist, and ardent. Along those lines, the personality of the Women’s Studies faculty
is described in terms of their political and feminist stance. One Women’s Center staff person
described:
It seems like the only time I’ve worked much with XX, she is …I don’t know if even
radical captures it…she talks more about what’s wrong and is more clear and louder
about what we’re going to have to do to make it right. She’s not wrong for doing it. She’s
doing it a different way than I am and I’m not comfortable doing it that way. We are not
as comfortable being Norma Rae. We quietly do what we do.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 104

According to one Women’s Center staff person, Women’s Studies faculty members are able to
take on a more activist role in the community because of their standing as an academic unit. She
noted:
…their focus is academic and they can take a political position on things and they do and
they should because they’re talking about these issues in the classroom and they can talk
about and say anything that they want in the classroom and faculty certainly aren’t going
to be penalized by taking a position.
By being “protected” by the privileges that go with an academic position, this staff person felt
that Women’s Studies faculty had more freedom and opportunity to take political stances and
discuss controversial and political topics. As was suggested earlier by one Women’s Center staff
member, the topics that are addressed at the Women’s Center are limited by being at a state
school. When questioned about this one Women’s Center staff person noted:
I think that the definition and the idea of what feminism is from a Women’s Studies
perception, from faculty in the Women’s Studies is much different than the way the
Women’s Center might define feminism. I think that there is a difference. Maybe not
a…maybe conflict is too strong of a word, there’s a difference and I think a lot has to do
with they can take a position and we can’t and I think that when you look at those two
from an outsider point of view, you might say, ‘Well, the Women’s Center doesn’t look
very feminist because we don’t see them out there taking a stance,’ because we have to
offer and we try to offer a balance of issues for all students.”
Although the Women’s Center staff and Women’s Studies faculty described a strong, on-
going relationship, it was also evident that there were personal and professional challenges
between the two units during the time of this study. Most of the Women’s Studies faculty did
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 105

not respond to this researcher’s requests for interviews. One pulled out of the study and only two
were willing to be interviewed. The AVP shared: “There is a push and pull between Women’s
Studies and the Women’s Center right now as a result of new personalities. It used to be hand in
hand and is now a tug of war.” She went on to share that Janet is not seen by Women’s Studies
as “vocal enough” on key issues and that the newer Women’s Studies director has a very strong
viewpoint. One Women’s Studies professor concurred in commenting: “I haven’t seen a lot of
political radicalism, they [the Women’s Center] seem to have a more mainstream ideology.”
Although, she noted, “they are also not partisan in a way that might make them ineffective.”
Although there are differences, the Women’s Studies faculty values the role that the
Women’s Center plays on campus. When asked about that role, the Women’s Center was
described as a “very student-centered” place, “with the focus of consciousness-raising and
empowering students with knowledge.” One faculty member shared: “It is so grounded in a real
life desire to change people’s minds and to change individual lives.” She argued that while the
Women’s Center staff may not be “strictly espousing feminism all the time” that the very
essence of their work is clearly feminist: “They are trying to raise consciousness about gender,
class, race, sexuality, and ethnicity—the key areas of feminist action.”
In addition to the Women’s Studies program, the Women’s Center also works with the
student group, The Third Wave. The Third Wave is a student-run organization closely affiliated
with the Women’s Studies program. According to study participants, the organization is the most
visible feminist presence on campus. They organize events such as Women’s History Month,
Take Back the Night, The Vagina Monologues, and other activities that focus on issues of gender
equity. The Women’s Center regularly provides the organization with space to meet, financial
support (when deemed appropriate), and guidance on program planning. Several of the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 106

Women’s Center staff noted that as a student-organization the Third Wave had the ability to be
more active and political than they could be. So, although they will not join the organization in
political activities, they do their best to support the students in other ways.
It is unclear to this author how the students of the Third Wave view the Women’s Center.
Although several requests for interviews were made, they were never answered.
As noted by Safarik (2002), multiple feminist philosophies can be useful in creating a
campus dialogue on gender issues. Multiple feminist philosophies can be a sign of institutional
change. Among those interviewed, there was a shared belief that multiple feminist perspectives
were helpful to advancing gender equity transformation efforts. One Women’s Center staff
person commented:
I think it’s very helpful to have these multitudes of various ideas about what feminism
could be. I mean, we’re an institution of higher education and if you just offer…can you
imagine just offering one perspective? I mean, that’s sort of an oxymoron to why we’re
here. So I think it’s very helpful because students…everybody’s different and
everybody…I hate to pigeonhole anybody anyway. I don’t want…I don’t want personally
to necessarily fit in a box. I don’t want anybody to say, “Oh, she’s that kind of feminist or
she’s that kind of woman, she’s that kind of democrat, she’s that kind of….,” because I
don’t…the world is much more complicated today than it’s ever been and I think it’s very
hard to pigeonhole and I think that that’s where stereotypes arise from and I think that’s
where conflict arises from. It’s born out of pigeonholing people and so I think that
it’s…to survive in today’s world, you have to be able to look at the big picture, you have
to be able to embrace diversity and how can you do that if you don’t have…if you’re not
open-minded, you’re not trained, or you’re not living in any kind of world that gives you
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 107

a variety of perspectives, that allows to look at each one, respect each one, you don’t
certainly have to agree. So, no, I think we benefit by a variety of perspectives.
Study participants noted that while in theory such diverse feminist approaches should support
and enhance transformational efforts, there are challenges that exist within the collective feminist
community. One challenge is that multiple philosophies and approaches could be divisive if the
different groups do not actively work against that happening. One Women’s Center staff person
shared: “I think it could be divisive…I think we work really hard to not let it be.” The data
suggest that both the Women’s Center and Women’s Studies program fundamentally support one
another and the work they do. It appears that current differences in styles among the leaders
pose a challenge, but one they are both working on managing.
Each of these three communities helps to provide women at CU a connection to one
another, to campus, and to their educational experience. However, they do so in very different
ways, impacted by different feminist philosophies. Each of the efforts contributes to individual
and campus change through varying degrees of education, empowerment, and activism. In one
way the philosophical differences lead to a continuous conversation about feminism and its role
in the lives of women on campus. These differences also challenge the women and men
involved to articulate their approach to change. In another way, however, it also fragments the
already small campus feminist community. In this way personal and professional respect and
relationships may be paramount to keep these differences from being too divisive.
Summary
Citrus University is a large, diverse, state school. For over a decade the number of
women students have outnumbered men. The Women’s Center was established in 1972 to
provide “space, conversation, services and awareness for individuals interested in exploring the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 108

status of women in society.” Currently, the Women’s Center has six full-time staff and has
adequate space in the center of campus, although like many other campus units the budget
remains tight. The Center has a positive relationship with faculty, administrators, and senior
administration and is perceived as a helpful campus resource. However, the Women’s Center
struggles with name recognition among the student population.
The Women’s Center staff share many commonalities that could have positive and
negative implications on the transformation process. Several are alumni and understand the
unique position of the Women’s Center in providing students a chance to put theory into
practice. However, all of them come from a non-profit, community services background, with
little academic or professional background in higher education. This may pose unique challenges
as they try to effect change at CU.
Over the years women’s centers have shifted from a singular focus on providing personal
support to individual women to an intentional focus on initiating institutional change. The
mission, programs, and services of the Women’s Center are focused on supporting personal
change for the individual students with which they work. They have stayed true to the
cornerstone of Women’s Center services in providing support, advocacy, resources, and
education. They have also grown to meet the changing needs of the student population by
providing a stronger focus on issues related to men and masculinity and issues at the
intersections of race, ethnicity, class, and gender. However, transformation at the deepest of
levels is not addressed in the mission or services of the Women’s Center.
Being located in Student Affairs may serve as a barrier to the Women’s Center’s ability
to impact institutional change. Much of the decision-making power lies within the Academic
Senate and with the faculty and academic disciplines. Another barrier is the constraint of
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 109

working at a state-funded university. The Women’s Center must maintain a neutral stance on
issues seen as political and potentially divisive.
Individually and collectively the Women’s Center staff’s feminist philosophy can best be
defined with a liberal feminist framework, focused on providing equal opportunities for women
and men within existing structures. The staff members view their feminist philosophy as
approachable and mainstream. They work hard to be inclusive and want to be able to engage all
students on issues relevant to gender equity. They work equally as hard to let people know that
they are not “feminazis” or “man-haters.” This philosophical approach may be helpful on a
campus community which is seen as conservative and apolitical. Good relationships are
paramount on this campus to getting things done. The Women’s Center understands that and has
worked hard over the years to cultivate and maintain strong relationships with students, faculty,
and administrators. However, this may also limit the impact the staff can have if they are too
concerned in being accepted, and keeping relationships strong, rather than challenging
discriminatory or sexist systems. Janet, the Women’s Center director, acknowledges this is a
particular challenge for her.
The relationships between the multiple campus feminist communities are also important.
These communities—the Women’s Center, the Women’s Studies program, and the Third Wave
student organization—are distinct, yet interrelated. Each has a distinctive feminist ideology and
approach to effecting change. Additionally, they have varied levels of privilege and power
within the institution that allows them to act on gender inequities differently. Multiple feminist
philosophies and communities are important to impacting institutional change. While these three
groups may not always agree, they do fundamentally support one another.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 110

The next chapter examines these findings as they relate to the research questions and
Safarik’s Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation (2003). Furthermore, recommendations
for practice and future research are presented.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 111

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
This case study examined the role of one campus-based women’s center in advancing
institutional transformation on gender equity and the perceptions and experiences of women’s
center staff in the transformation process. Over the past twenty years, women have made
tremendous gains in accessing higher education, especially at the undergraduate level. However,
this alone does not mean that gender equity has been achieved. Women are not represented
equally across the disciplines, especially in science and engineering (NSF, 2004). Women are
less likely to pursue advanced degrees at the same level as men. Furthermore, women of color
are even more unlikely than White women to go to graduate or professional school (Allen,
2011). Women’s experience, at all levels, including students, faculty, and staff, still points to a
chilly campus climate (Caltech, 2001; Curtis, 2004; Fisher, Cullen, and Turner, 2000; Mason and
Goulden, 2002; MIT, 1999).
For nearly forty years, campus-based women’s centers have been a place where women
can find support, safety, and advocacy. Campus-based women’s centers’ missions indicate a
commitment to effecting transformation, both for individual women and at the institutional level
(Davie, 2002; Gould, 1989). As such women’s centers serve as a place to investigate the process
of institutional transformation and its impact on the staff involved.
This descriptive case study examined one campus-based women’s center at a four-year,
public university. The participants included Women’s Center staff members, key Student Affairs
administrators, faculty associated with the Women’s Center and Women’s Studies program, and
student interns at the Women’s Center. Data were collected through 1) interviews with the
Women’s Center staff; 2) interviews with key campus individuals, as noted above; 3) a focus
group with Women’s Center interns; and 4) a review of documents relating to the Women’s
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 112

Center’s history. The interview protocol was based on Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist
Institutional Transformation (see Appendix A and Appendix C) to help understand the dynamic
process and experience of institutional transformation.
This chapter presents key findings in response to the research questions. Next follows a
discussion of the findings in the context of Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist Institutional
Transformation. And finally, recommendations for practice and future research are offered.
Major Findings by Research Questions
The primary research question that guided this study was: What is the role of one
campus-based women’s center in institutional transformation efforts on gender equity? The
conclusions below are based on the data collected for the following three sub-questions.
1. How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation?
The first finding is that the mission and activities of the CU Women’s Center may
support, but do not actively initiate, institutional transformation efforts on issues of gender
equity. This finding is based on data which suggests:
- The Women’s Center’s focus on the personal growth of students as a way of transforming
the campus is ineffective.
- The Women’s Center’s mission does not explicitly point to an office or campus
commitment to institutional transformation.
- The Women’s Center’s focus on and commitment to diversity may be one important way
that they can support institutional transformation efforts.
Personal Growth vs. Institutional Change. The mission and activities of the CU Women’s
Center aim to help individual students grow and develop in their awareness of gender equity
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 113

issues. It is as a result of this personal growth through consciousness-raising, the Women’s
Center staff suggested, that institutional change occurs. In other words, as women become aware
of the ways in which gender inequity impacts their lives, they will begin to challenge and change
the college campus. This approach is consistent with the literature on the mission and activities
of campus-based women’s centers (Bengiveno, 2000; Brooks, 1988; CAS, 1998; Churgin, 1978;
Clevenger, 1988; Davie, 2002; Kunkel, 2002; Stineman, 1985 ). However, the data suggested
that this approach does not impact institutional change. As stated by Bengiveno (2000): “It is
not enough to assume that once women achieve a heightened feminist consciousness that the
institutions will automatically change.”
Approaching institutional transformation through individual change can be understood
through the lens of the second-wave feminist philosophy of the “personal is political” (Hanisch,
1970). Hanisch (1970) argued, in her seminal essay, that consciousness-raising efforts were
critical for women’s understanding of the role that sexism and inequity played in their personal
lives and in the larger culture in which they lived. Hanisch (1970) further asserted that the
personal problems women faced individually were, in fact, political problems as well, when
viewed collectively. Through consciousness-raising efforts women were compelled to become
politically active, thereby using their personal experiences to impact broader change.
Consciousness-raising efforts are an important way to engage college students in
dialogue around gender equity issues (Davie, 2002). And, consciousness-raising plays an
important part of students’ psycho-social and cognitive development. However, moving students
from awareness to action may require more resources and time than the CU Women’s Center
has. The Women’s Center is largely understaffed in comparison to the numbers of students they
serve. Their time is pulled in many different directions from sexual violence response and
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 114

counseling to transitioning women returning to school and trying to provide educational
programs. Providing enough programs that engage students in a way that will move them from
personal awareness to action seems unlikely. By spending much of their time on these efforts,
the Women’s Center staff has limited time and resources to focus on efforts that could have a
broader institutional impact.
Since this study narrowly focused on the CU Women’s Center it is unclear whether or not
other campus programs or offices face similar challenges. For instance, do the other identity
and/or cultural centers find themselves working with individual students at the cost of addressing
institutional change? Can they manage to do both and how? And, are these challenges more
likely to be found in student affairs versus academic affairs? How, for example, does an
academic support program such as a teaching and learning center navigate working with
individual students and faculty versus addressing institutional barriers that impact overall
academic success? For women’s centers, and other units, who have a mission to make change at
an institutional level, understanding the broader impact of this issue is paramount.
Mission. Based on the mission and activities, the CU Women’s Center can best be
defined as a demand-for-service resource center (Wetzel, 1988; Willinger, 2002). As such they
focus on responding to the needs of the individual student. The CU Women’s Center provides
resources and information, crisis response and counseling, services for the re-entry student, and
student internships. Each fills a gap in campus services and fills a need within the student
community. The Women’s Center staff prides themselves on being responsive and helpful. As
one staff member commented: “the main thing about the Women’s Center is anybody who calls
the Center will get an answer.” Being responsive is one way in which women’s centers have
remained relevant to the student populations they serve.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 115

However, the CU Women’s Center mission does not explicitly define their role in
initiating or participating in institutional transformation efforts. It is unclear as to whether or not
this was intentional—meaning that it was the intention of campus administration that the
Women’s Center has no role in such efforts. Or, perhaps, it is also reflection of the Women’s
Center’s staff’s focus on working with individuals to promote personal growth as a vehicle for
institutional change. In either case, the result of such an omission means that an important voice
(that of the Women’s Center and the women they represent) may be left out of critical campus
conversations and decision-making processes. Furthermore, it may inhibit the Women’s Center
staff in initiating important campus conversations if they view that this is not their role.
Focus on Diversity. Women’s centers (like the CU Women’s Center), which started
during the Second Wave Women’s Movement, often have the stigma of being a place for
privileged, White, heterosexual women. Today, the mission and activities of the CU Women’s
Center are guided by a commitment to working with women across cultures. The staff described
this commitment as one way in which the work of the Center is “contemporary” and has kept up
with the needs of a changing student body. As one administrator noted: “The Women’s Center
has evolved. As the demographics on campus have changed, the services have been enhanced
and modified to be more inclusive of these cultures.” By ensuring that the Center is grounded in
exploring the intersections of race, ethnicity, class, and sexuality, the Center expands its sphere
of influence across campus and may support institutional diversity efforts.
The Women’s Center works to make sure that issues of race, ethnicity, class, and
sexuality are incorporated into all of the programs and services they offer. Additionally, through
efforts like the Women’s Cultural Resources Center, the Women’s Center provides space for
women to gather in identity groups to discuss and receive support on issues that are most salient
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 116

to them. Each group within the WCRC is also charged with creating bulletin boards for the
office that share these issues, in their own voice, with other students. Furthermore, the Women’s
Center has created important collaborations with many of the diversity-focused administrative
units and student groups on campus. As noted by some of the participants, diversity is seen as an
important issue at CU. By making sure that women’s voices and experiences are included as the
campus works to support diverse students, the Women’s Center can have a much larger impact
on campus. The Women’s Center’s strong focus on addressing issues for women of color may
provide opportunities for the Women’s Center to engage in campus diversity efforts and may
provide a space for gender equity efforts to move forward.
2. How does women’s center staff describe their perceptions and experiences in
institutional transformation?
The second finding is that the Women’s Center staff perceived that there are barriers that
inhibit their ability to impact institutional transformation. This finding is based on data which
suggests:
- The Women’s Center staff and affiliated faculty perceived that institutional
transformation efforts are best initiated at the faculty level.
- The Women’s Center staff also perceived restrictions placed on their work by being at a
state school.
- The Women’s Center director also perceived and experienced that her effectiveness was
sometimes comprised by valuing collegial relationships over initiating change.
Faculty privilege. The Women’s Center staff spoke about having a lack of authority to
address change at the institutional level. When asked about their perceptions of and experiences
with institutional change efforts the CU Women’s Center staff had little to share. One area
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 117

where they felt like they had an impact was in their work on violence against women policies
and procedures. Such policies and procedures fit with the Women’s Center focus on providing
education and support in this area. Working with campus colleagues on such policies and
procedures was viewed a natural extension of a domain in which they already have authority.
When probed more about their experiences the staff suggested that anything having to do with
institutional change had to be faculty led, usually within the structure of the academic senate.
However, the staff gave no examples of where being staff, and not faculty, actually impacted
their roles. Their views seemed to be shaped more by being located within student affairs. Both
the staff, and other faculty and administrators, noted that student affairs offices, such as the
Women’s Center, were seen as support services on campus, and as such not part of the decision-
making structures that lie with the academic units. This raises the question of whether or not
there is a real hierarchy of power at CU, or whether or not this was a perception that the staff
members had and were responding to. The limitations of this study did not allow for a full
examination of this issue.
Impact of being at a state school. The Women’s Center staff also noted that their work
on institutional change was negatively impacted by being located in a state school. State funding
often comes with restrictions on how monies cannot be used for political activities. This puts
administrative units, like a women’s center, in a difficult position since feminism and gender
equity are political in nature. At CU, the Women’s Center explicitly stays away from issues and
activities that are overtly political, or in their words, “hot topics” (i.e. reproductive choice,
marriage equity, etc.) Instead they argued that the Women’s Studies program, which has a
perceived safety that comes with academic freedom, is better suited to engage students and the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 118

campus in these issues. However, in the context of this study there was no evidence that the
Women’s Center has been explicitly restricted by campus and/or state leadership for this reason.
It is not clear how to interpret this inconsistency. One possibility is that the Women’s
Center staff is operating off of assumptions of what might happen if they were more political.
These assumptions may be based on their understanding of the campus culture. As noted by
several participants, CU is described as a politically-conservative campus. Another possibility
may be the Women’s Center is impacted more by a lack of institutional power but that it is more
acceptable to explain this by “blaming” perceived state restrictions. And, finally, given the
staff’s moderate feminist philosophy (described in more detail below), their interpretation of the
state’s restrictions may be overly narrow. The data indicates that not all of the women’s centers
within the state system view their ability to be more political in the same way. The director
shared that in a meeting with other directors she was stunned that some would take on issues that
she felt were too political.
Campus relationships. By being strongly invested in campus relationships the Women’s
Center director may compromise her ability to impact transformation. Within any organizational
structure it is important to establish positive working relationships with people across the
organization. That may be especially true in large organizations like universities where
collaboration is highly valued. It may be equally as true that when working on issues of change
and equity, not everyone is going to like you or like what you are doing. This is a huge concern
for the CU Women’s Center staff. The mission of the Women’s Center is to challenge the status
quo through education and awareness-raising and to provide support to women. However, the
staff is hesitant to challenge, either students or the organization, on issues if they are afraid it will
cause tension.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 119

This is particularly true for the director, Janet. She has worked at CU for many years and
is well connected across campus. She has developed strong relationships with administrators at
all levels. Janet described herself as someone who values relationships over almost anything
else. She is proud of the network she has created at CU. The administrators and faculty
interviewed in this study described her as talented, easy-to-work with, and as a solid
professional. However, some also pointed to her emphasis on relationships as a roadblock in
Janet’s ability to make change.
Janet’s leadership approach is consistent with the literature on women’s identity
development (Gilligan, 1982) and leadership styles (Bensimon, 1989). According to Jablonski
(1996), in her study on the leadership challenges for women college presidents, it is not
uncommon for women to want to maintain relationships even “at the cost to oneself or to the
institution.” This is further problematized for feminist leaders who struggle with being both
simultaneously an insider and outsider within the academy (Blackmore, 1989).On one hand,
women’s center directors and staff are part of the campus administrative structure. They are paid
by the organization and, hopefully, contribute to the strategic goals set by campus leadership. On
the other hand, they are there to address deeply embedded sexist beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
that limit women’s full participation in higher education.
One approach to managing the insider/outsider role is that of tempered radicalism.
Tempered radicalism can be seen as an incremental approach to making change. “"Tempered
radicals are people who operate on the fault line. They are organizational insiders who contribute
and succeed in their jobs. At the same time, they are treated as outsiders because they represent
ideals or agendas that are somehow at odds with the dominant culture" (Meyerson, 2003, p.5).
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 120

Janet’s style may be viewed through this lens. She values connection to her peers and strong
campus relationships and has a long-term approach to change.
However, one potential pitfall with this approach is being seen as neutral, or even silent,
on important issues. Being neutral or silent on important issues not only doesn’t lead to
transformation but might also serve to further marginalize women on campus and create a divide
between women and the women’s center. This is a challenge for administrators and staff
working in an insider/outsider role. They must balance the need to maintain relationships while
being able to fairly represent the voices and experiences of all those that they serve. By only
representing the voices and experiences of a few a women’s center runs the risk of being seen as
ineffective by their constituents.
3. How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective
feminist ideologies?
The third finding is that the process of institutional transformation is impacted by both
individual and collective feminist ideologies and approaches to change. This research site was
chosen, in part, because of the relatively large number of staff for a campus-based women’s
center. The assumption was that there would be a variety of feminist philosophies and
approaches to change that could be examined. Furthermore, one could “test” Safarik’s theory
that dialogism is necessary to promote transformational change. However, as it turns out, the
staff at the CU Women’s Center has a strongly shared feminist philosophy. Such a strong
collective identity appears to limit the Women’s Center’s impact on transformational efforts.
Individually most of the Women’s Center staff described themselves as “moderate”
feminists. Staff members described this philosophy as acknowledging differences between
women and men and between various cultural identities, but seeking equality across those
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 121

differences. They seek to help women gain equity within the university by supporting students’
understanding of how gender norms impact their personal and academic experiences. As
moderate feminists, the staff is more comfortable working within the system rather than seeking
to make changes to the system itself. Given the conservative nature of CU, this may be one
appropriate approach to the change process.
However, having only one feminist philosophy and approach represented at the Women’s
Center may be limiting their impact. The data suggested that it has been difficult for the staff to
work with those who have a more activist approach (i.e. Women’s Studies, the Third Wave,
LGBT student groups).
The role of the CU Women’s Center in any institutional transformation effort is also
negatively impacted by their fractured relationship with the Women’s Studies program. Kasper
(2004) notes that it is not uncommon for there to be tension between women’s centers and
women studies programs. She notes that women’s studies programs are often fighting to be seen
as a serious academic discipline and the work of a women’s center is seen as a service unit. Such
views were echoed by the faculty participants in this study. Kasper further asserts that women’s
studies faculty may have issues with having staff as equal partners in academic decision making.
At a faculty-led school like CU, this may be particularly true.
Safarik’s Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation
Safarik’s (2003) Model of Feminist Institutional Transformation offered a conceptual
framework and diagnostic tool for understanding the dynamic process and experience of
transformation over time. Through this lens, organizational life can be viewed in four dimensions
of interaction between individual and group experiences and interior and exterior experiences.
As such, this framework provides a way to explore not only the collective role of women’s
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 122

centers in the transformational process but also the individual experiences and approaches of the
women’s center leaders. In examining the findings through Safarik’s model, a lack of diversity in
feminist philosophies has negatively impacted the Women’s Center’s ability to impact change
and stay innovative over time. However, there are signs that the Women’s Center has impacted
some change over a long period of time.
Individual-Interior: Staying innovative through dialogism
Women’s Centers serve as a possible site of transformation because they can challenge
traditional values, norms, and structures of the academy. However, Women’s Centers, and the
staff who work in them, are not monolithic. Women’s center staff has various academic and
professional backgrounds, as well as differing feminist philosophies. One’s feminist philosophy
can shape how women’s center staff view and enact transformational efforts (Chavez, 2003).
Therefore it is important to understand the individual experiences, views, and feminist
philosophies of the staff to better understand how they conceive and implement transformational
efforts toward gender equity. Safarik argued that differentiation exemplified by multiple
feminist philosophies helps keep an innovative culture dynamic and vital.
The data presented in the last chapter indicate that there is more similarity than difference
among the CU Women’s Center staff. Four of the six are CU alumni and accessed the Women’s
Center as students. Most of them have backgrounds in counseling and/or victim services. None
of them has an academic background in higher education administration or student affairs, and
only one worked in higher education before joining the Women’s Center.
Individually, almost the entire CSU Women’s Center staff identify as “moderate”
feminists. They described this philosophy as one that acknowledges, and appreciates,
differences between women and men, as well as understanding the impact of other cultural
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 123

identities on one’s gendered experience. They seek to promote equality across these differences
through educational interventions.
The staff also defined this “moderate” feminist philosophy in opposition to a “stronger,”
more radical feminist approach. Although the research on feminist ideology within women’s
centers is limited, there is some suggestion that an overwhelming number of women’s center
leadership defined themselves as strong or very strong feminists (Chavez, 2003). Upon further
examination, however, these leaders defined their feminism as a blend of various feminist
philosophies. Based on the literature, the moderate feminist philosophy of the CU Women’s
Center appears to blend components of a liberal feminist approach with the examination of
cultural differences focused on by third wave feminists. On one hand, similar to liberal feminists,
the participants seemed to view difference between women and men as natural and hold that
regardless of difference both women and men have the right to be treated equally. Additionally,
they value education as a tool for empowerment and achieving equity. However, unlike classic
liberal feminist theory, the participants also acknowledged how the intersections of gender, race,
and ethnicity impact how gender roles are created and defined. This was particularly evident in
the work in the Women’s Cultural Resource Centers.
In either context, the focus of the Women’s Center staff is working within existing
structures and paradigms, rather than challenging them. This approach is distinctly different than
the critical feminist approach that Safarik found in her work. As change agents, a critical
feminist approach would seek to challenge and deconstruct the very notion of the structures,
policies, and practices that keep women marginalized. In terms of a transformational approach
there would be a strong focus on identifying and disrupting deeply embedded systems of power
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 124

and privilege. In none of my interviews with the Women’s Center staff was this ideology and/or
approach mentioned.
Safarik also argued that dialogism exemplified by multiple feminist philosophies helps
keep an innovative culture dynamic and vital. Rather than a sign of internal fragmentation,
diverse feminist philosophies strengthen the transformation process and sustain it over a period
of time. Additionally, Safarik’s advanced stages of transformation are evidenced by the degree to
which dialogism is present. The CU Women’s Center lacks a diversity of feminist philosophies
within the staff. As indicated above they share similar backgrounds, feminist philosophies, and
approaches to change. This may account for the harmonic working environment articulated by
each member of the staff. However, it does suggest that the innovation that could result from
multiple perspectives is missing. And, according to Safarik, it suggests a lack of advanced stages
of transformation. The data supported this assertion in that the study participants could only
identify one area (sexual assault prevention and response) where they have may have impacted
institutional transformation.
Group-Interior: Assessing progress in multiple areas
The second dimension of Safarik’s model asked the question: Who are we? As with any
campus unit, the CU Women’s Center does not exist in a vacuum. On matters of gender equity,
they interface with the Women’s Studies program and the Third Wave student organization.
Each organization helps to provide women at CU a connection to one another, to campus, and to
their educational experience. However, they do so in very different ways, informed by different
feminist philosophies. These differences could help foster a continuous conversation about
feminism and its role in the lives of women on campus. These differences could also challenge
those involved to articulate their approach to change. However, such differences could also
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 125

fragment the already small campus feminist community. In this way, personal and professional
respect and relationships may be paramount to keep these differences from being too divisive.
As presented in the previous chapter, the Women’s Center and Women’s Studies
program have a long established relationship. They have served on each other’s governing
boards. The Women’s Studies program faculty values the Women’s Center as a place where
students can put feminist theory into action. These students often serve as interns and help the
Women’s Center develop and implement programs of interest to students. The Women’s Studies
program values that students have a place to go to find support for personal issues. The Women’s
Center staff, in turn, understands the importance of faculty, along with faculty privileges, to
impact transformation within the academic sphere.
At the same time, these two units have faced conflicts stemming from their approach to
change. Collectively the Women’s Studies program is more vocal about gender inequity and
more supportive of activism as a way to foster change. Collectively, as noted above, the
Women’s Center is more moderate in their feminist views and change philosophy. However,
despite the current conflict, both groups recognize and appreciate the role of different views and
approaches. Throughout the interviews, participants highlighted the strong history shared by both
groups and the professional respect they held for each other. Janet’s strength in creating and
maintaining strong relationships is apparent.
Safarik also suggested that institutional transformation is a process that happens over the
course of many years and is related to the vitality of the innovative culture. As a result, multiple
generations or reiterations of an innovative culture may co-exist. The Third Wave student group
is one of the newer iterations of an innovative culture at CU. The Third Wave engages in
feminist activism on a campus that, as described by study participants, is rather apolitical and
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 126

conservative. While the actions of the Third Wave may not be particularly innovative for some
campuses, they are for CU. Such activism not only provides a space for women and men to put
theory into practice, it also positions the Women’s Center as a place for the less political to
engage in conversations around gender equity.
Safarik argued that the extent to which an innovative culture can sustain a dialogic
approach and retain a quality of inclusiveness, the transformative efforts can continue.
Additionally, Safarik (2000) warned that centers of innovative culture cannot “succumb[ing] to a
new kind of oppression” (p. 291) by privileging one kind of scholarship, feminist ideology, or
transformative approach over another. The data highlight that while the Women’s Center staff
understands the importance and role of the Women’s Studies program and Third Wave group in
furthering gender equity efforts, they also demonstrated feelings of discomfort with each group’s
approach. Furthermore, the Women’s Studies faculty, while appreciating the work of the
Women’s Center, viewed their own role on campus as more transformative. To move forward
any transformational efforts, each of the innovative cultures at CU must come together to find
common ground and appreciation for each other’s approach to change.
Individual-Exterior: Interpreting the paradoxes of progress
The third aspect of Safarik’s model examined the shifting values and relative nature of
transformation over time. The process of transformation challenges the values, beliefs, and
assumptions that make up the culture of the institution. As a change in the traditional culture
occurs there is also change in the innovative culture. For example, as the numbers of women in
higher education have increased over the last thirty years, women’s centers have moved from
focusing on access for women to providing equitable experiences and outcomes for women.
Furthermore, since the innovative culture is not monolithic both the innovative culture and the
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 127

traditional culture experience a shift in values over time. Safarik argued that it is important to
understand how context shapes the way in which a shift in values is experienced and perceived.
The culture at CU has changed over time, both in response to external conditions and to
Women’s Center efforts. As noted, one shift over time is the growing number of male students
and women of color. This has meant that the Women’s Center has had to develop new strategies
and programs that are relevant to a diverse community. Additionally, they have been challenged
to think about how to engage men in gender-related topics. Another shift can be seen in the way
that the campus has addressed issues of violence against women. Years ago, the work of the
Women’s Center focused on personal safety and risk reduction. As the community changed and
as new laws have been put in place, they have shifted to a more preventative model, helping to
improve communication between women and men. Additionally, the Center has been
instrumental in establishing policies and response protocols.
Group-Exterior: Creating an evolving, innovative structure
In the fourth and final lens, Safarik argued that in order for innovative cultures to impact
the deep-level cultural change necessary for transformation, they must be represented in the
structures, policies, and practices of an institution. The mere fact that a women’s center exists at
CU is core to the “structural embodiment” of gender equity. The Women’s Center’s physical
space represents that the university places a fair amount of value in the office. The Women’s
Center is positioned within the Division of Student Affairs giving it a legitimate home within the
larger university (unlike centers that exist as student groups). However, data suggested that
reporting to Student Affairs might negatively affect the Women’s Center’s ability to impact
transformational change. Despite these challenges the Women’s Center approach to change
through educational efforts and relationship building helps to mitigate the barrier. For those who
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 128

know about or who have used the Center, there is a strong feeling that they are competent,
credible, and supportive professionals. When opportunities arise to align with faculty and
campus academic departments, the Women’s Center has the ability to influence decision-making
at a broader level.
Gender equity, vis-à-vis the Women’s Center, is also represented in campus policies,
specifically those that address sexual harassment and sexual assault. The Women’s Center
maintains a key role in the development of these policies and is responsible for the training as it
relates to them. They are also instrumental in much of the campus response to sexual assault and
sexual harassment policy violations. However, beyond these two policies the Women’s Center
staff is not involved in other campus-wide or division policy development. In order for
transformation to occur more broadly on campus, the Women’s Center staff should be included
in other campus conversations and policy development efforts.
Limitations of Safarik’s Model
Safarik’s model offered one look at how a campus-based women’s center might impact
institutional change. Safarik defined transformation as “a cultural shift in which an innovative
culture decenters the traditional culture.” Just like the findings in her study, the findings of this
study indicate that “true” transformation has not yet happened as a result of the work of the
innovative culture, in this case the CU Women’s Center. However, that does not mean that some
change has not happened. The strength of the CU Women’s Center is its ability to work with and
support individual students. However, Safarik’s model does not specifically address how the
change process occurring at the individual level might ultimately impact transformation at an
institutional level.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 129

Implications for Practice
The findings of this study reveal seven potential implications for the women’s center
professional, as well as campus leadership wanting to advance institutional transformation on
issues of gender equity.
The first implication for practice is to have campus goals related to institutional
transformation on issues of gender equity reflected in the mission and programs of the women’s
center. At CU, the primary mission of the Women’s Center was to provide education, advocacy,
and support to students. This mission remains important. However, as evidenced by the
experiences and perceptions of the CU Women’s Center staff, this mission alone does not
address the larger institutional goals around gender equity. A broader mission might include:
policy review and development, leadership development, campus climate assessment, and
curriculum transformation (Allen, 2011). By including institutional transformation goals in the
Women’s Center mission staff can bring an important voice to campus dialogues and initiate new
efforts based on their day-to-day experiences in working with various campus communities.
This recommendation assumes that a campus has institutional transformation goals
related to gender equity. As presented earlier, there are still many inequities that exist on college
campuses for women, from access to experience to educational outcomes. Colleges are being
called upon to be more transparent in their efforts to support women and by having such goals
schools become more accountable. Women’s Centers can serve as an important resource in
helping schools develop such goals.
Second, campus leadership might consider having the women’s center report to an
academic affairs unit (i.e. Provost’s office). At CU, the staff and faculty participants agreed that
the Women’s Center’s sphere of influence, in terms of impacting institutional change, was
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 130

negatively impacted by being located within student affairs. This may be especially true for
other schools with strong faculty leadership or where student affairs and academic affairs do not
have a history of collaboration. At CU, participants agreed that much of the decision-making
power resided with the faculty senate and that impacting institutional change was not a regular
function of student affairs offices. Reporting to an academic affairs office might allow women’s
centers to broaden their scope to address the needs of all constituencies on campus, including
faculty, students, and staff. This would provide women’s centers the ability to identify salient
gender issues across communities. As such, they can potentially design interventions at the
institute level and engage administrators and faculty in such efforts.
Additionally, being housed in academic affairs may provide the women’s center with a
greater ability to address potentially charged and/or difficult issues. Both the staff and faculty
participants in this study noted that the Women’s Studies program, an academic unit, had more
freedom to speak out and confront issues of inequity. Janet, the director of the CU Women’s
Center, also expressed her hope that the next Women’s Center director would have a Ph.D. and a
stronger academic connection to the Women’s Studies department. This, she felt, would give the
Women’s Center more credibility, more influence, and more support. By moving women’s
centers into academic affairs and being more connected to an academic unit, they become a part
of the institutional academic mission, which may provide greater safety in terms of addressing
challenging issues around gender equity.
A third implication for practice suggests that women’s center leaders need to be
comfortable in addressing and responding to difficult issues, even at the risk of impacting
campus relationships. Institutional change around gender equity is not an easy task. It challenges
some of the most fundamental foundations of higher education and a history built on inequity.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 131

Staff and administrators working on issues should expect pushback. In fact, pushback is natural
part of moving through change. Women’s centers need to work toward building strong campus
relationships, collaborations, and to the extent possible, consensus building. However, doing
such should not stop women’s center staff from tackling difficult issues. This is easy to
proclaim, but hard to do. This is why it is important that women’s centers and campus
administrators have developed a shared vision and mutual trust. Campus administrators can
support the women’s center through difficulties. And, ideally, when challenging issues come up,
campus administrators could turn to the women’s center staff for an honest assessment. This kind
of supportive, honest relationship will help ensure that the women’s center can serve both as part
of the campus administration and a voice for gender equity.
The fourth implication for practice is that campus leadership and women’s center staff
should work toward a common understanding of the role that feminism plays in informing the
women’s center’s mission, programs, and approaches to institutional change. The history of
women’s centers is rooted in feminism. Today, feminist theory and practice is still important to
help inform women’s center staff and campus leadership on how to advance transformation
toward gender equity. However, feminism is still much maligned in our culture and on our
campuses. On campuses like CU, it may be difficult to talk about feminism let alone talk about
how it might impact practice. At CU it appeared to be difficult for the Women’s Center staff to
talk about feminism. The staff spent a great deal of time and energy in proving that they were
not “too radical” or “man-haters.” Although their individual and collective feminist philosophy
was very broad and inclusive, the staff members were not comfortable talking about it without
defending themselves. The potential challenge with this is that a women’s center might end up
positioned against other campus groups that might have a different feminist philosophy and
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 132

approach (i.e. one that is more radical or activist). At CU, there was a divide between the
Women’s Center and Women’s Studies program, in large part due to their different philosophies.
Discussing with campus leadership and key allies the role of feminism in transformational efforts
might allow for a greater clarity and appreciation for how the women’s center approaches their
work. Staff can articulate how and why feminism is both an important philosophy and strategy
for helping the school achieve their goals. To further discuss how multiple perspectives interact
together to move forward institutional goals may strengthen the campus feminist community and
transformation efforts.
The fifth implication for practice suggests that women’s centers should be professionally
staffed by more than one person and should aim to represent a diversity of feminist philosophies
and approaches to change. In a 2011 report for the Association for the Study of Higher
Education, Women’s Status in Higher Education: Equity Matters, Allen argued that multiple
lenses of feminist theory and approaches are needed to effectively analyze gender equity
problems, create solutions, and implement change strategies. Furthermore, as noted by Safarik
(2003), institutional change is supported by and sustained through having multiple feminist
philosophies and approaches at play.
At CU, the Women’s Center staff highly identified with a shared feminist philosophy.
While this meant that the staff had a clear vision of their role, mission, and approach, it also
limited their sphere of influence. The Women’s Center expressed discomfort with the activism of
the Women’s Studies program and the Third Wave student group. And, several campus
administrators and faculty commented on the inability to engage the Women’s Center in issues
that required a different approach. By growing the range of feminist perspectives within the staff,
the Women’s Center will better be able to engage a broader community. Multiple lenses will
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 133

allow the staff to think more broadly about their work and how they can impact institutional
change. Furthermore, it would encourage the Women’s Center to change along with the
environment, as well as to change in ways that are incongruent with the environment, thereby
identifying new areas where institutional change might be needed.
The sixth implication is that women’s centers should consider how best to engage men as
allies in creating institutional change. At CU, the Women’s Center was making efforts to engage
male students, especially on issues related to healthy relationships and violence against women.
Furthermore, they were working on creating a space within the Center specifically for men to
explore issues of power, privilege, and masculinity. However, the program was not well
accessed. One question that women’s centers might ask is whether or not they are in the position
to best address these issues? And, if not, where on campus could such programs be housed?
Some women’s centers across the United States are expanding their mission to address issues of
gender from a broader perspective. Some have changed their name to reflect this new direction
(i.e. Centers for Women and Men) and hired male staff to lead new programming. A few schools
have created men’s centers to work in collaboration with women’s centers on common issues. In
either scenario, women’s centers have the potential to engage men in furthering gender equity
goals.
Finally, the last implication for practice is that women’s center staff and campus
administration should expect that there are different approaches to creating institutional change,
and that rather than being divisive they should be embraced and fostered. At CU the Women’s
Center staff was uncomfortable with a more activist approach to change. As explored throughout
this chapter, this may be due to their moderate feminist philosophy, their perceptions of being
limited as staff at a state school, or by their discomfort with challenging colleagues on critical
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 134

issues. In addition to this discomfort, they also seemed critical of organizations that took a more
activist approach to change. One example is the chasm between the Women’s Center and
Women’s Studies program. Another example is the Women’s Center’s relationship with the
LGBT community. During this study, several participants alluded to the fractured relationship
between these two groups. The Women’s Center director, in particular, was uncomfortable with
and critical of programs that were being organized by the LGBT student group. When
questioned further, other participants were hesitant to go into detail and members of the LGBT
community were unresponsive to requests to be interviewed.
While the CU Women’s Center has a focused commitment to working with women of
color and men, their relationship with the LGBT community may mean that the Women’s Center
is not addressing the needs of all women on campus. Furthermore, by not valuing the potential
impact of campus activism, the Women’s Centers own work toward institutional change may be
limited. As noted by Safarik, multiple philosophies and approaches to change work to keep
innovative cultures vibrant and strong. In that light, women’s centers need to work alongside of
other campus organizations working on equity issues, regardless of their approach.
Future Research
This case study relied on the rich data collected from focusing on the experiences of one
women’s center at one college campus. While it has yielded several interesting themes and
implications for practice, the findings are shaped by the bounded nature of the site. Therefore it
would be interesting to investigate similar research questions at different types of women’s
centers and campuses. Would a women’s center reporting to a provost with oversight of
students, faculty, and staff, have similar experiences? Would a women’s center with a diverse set
of feminist philosophies and approaches have more impact on campus transformation? How do
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 135

student-run women’s centers fit into Safarik’s model and what impact and experiences do the
students have? And, finally, how would institutional transformation occur if the women’s center
was at a small liberal arts school or a women’s college?
This study did not look at other models of institutional transformation. Safarik’s model
was selected for this study because of its ability to look at personal and institutional experience
in the change process with a focus on the role of feminist ideology. However, other models
might uncover different insights on the role of women’s centers.
This study also lacks significant participation by Women’s Studies faculty and the Third
Wave student organization. This researcher approached all the Women’s Studies faculty
members to participate in this study. However, many did not reply and those that did refused to
participate. One faculty member initially agreed and then backed out of the study. The Third
Wave student organization was also unresponsive to this researcher’s outreach. Although some
faculty did participate, additional data from these sources would have provided a richer
understanding of the Women’s Center’s role in institutional transformation.
Final Thoughts
“The Women’s Center was and is an effort to hold the doors open for change.
In a sense, it is only a beginning.” (Gould, 1997)
Why do we need a women’s center is a question that women’s center staff are used to
hearing. As women’s enrollment in higher education continues to grow, questions about gender
equity and resources for women will become an important point of dialogue on college and
university campuses across the United States. Now more than ever women’s centers, students,
staff, faculty and administrators will need to be able to answer that common question. This study
attempted to answer part of that question. Shedding light on the role of campus-based women’s
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 136

centers in advancing institutional transformation on gender equity will help administrators make
decisions moving forward. Women’s centers continue to serve as a campus space where
change—either at the personal level or the institutional level—is enacted. The findings and
implications for practice can help campus administrators and women’s center staff strengthen the
women’s center’s ability to support transformational change and improve gender equity.

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 137

REFERENCES
All disciplines combined total minority baccalaureate. (June 3, 2004). Black Issues in Higher
Education.
Allen, E. (2011). Women’s status in higher education: Equity matters. Association for the Study
of Higher Education. 37(1): 1-163.
Arlton, D., Lewellen, A., & Grissett, B. (1999). Social system barriers of women in academia:
A review of historical and current issues. In The woman-centered university. Eds. M.
McCoy &J. DiGeorgio-Lutz. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Bengiveno, T.A. (2000). Feminist consciousness and the potential for change in campus
based student staffed women’s centers. Journal of International Women’s Studies,
1 (1).
Bensimon, E.M. (1989). A feminist reinterpretation of presidents’ definitions of leadership.
Peabody Journal of Education. 66(3): 143-156.
Blackmore, J. (1989). Changing from within: Feminist educators and administrative leadership.
Peabody Journal of Education. 66 (3): 19-40.
Blackmore, J. (1999). Troubling women: feminism, leadership, and educational change.
Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.
Brooks, K. (Summer 1988). The women’s center: The new dean of women? Initiatives, The
Journal of the National Associations of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors.
51 (2-3): 17-21.
Burns, J. M. (2003). Transforming leadership: A new pursuit of happiness (Vol. 213). Grove
Press.

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 138

Byrne, K.Z. (2000). The role of campus-based women’s centers. Feminist Teacher. 13:
48-61.
California Institute of Technology (2001). Committee on the status of women faculty at Caltech,
final report. Retrieved November 20, 2004 from
http://diversity.caltech.edu/CSFWFINALREPORT1.pdf
Chavez, M.G. (2003). A study of feminist leadership characteristics in women’s centers
and women’s studies programs at Southern California universities and colleges
(Doctoral Dissertation, University of LaVerne). Dissertation Abstracts
International, 62 (12): 4446.
Churgin, J. R. (1978). The New Woman and the Old Academe: Sexism and Higher Education.

Clevenger, B. (Summer 1988). Women’s centers on campus: A profile. Initiatives, The Journal
of the National Associations of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors. 51 (2-3):
3-9.
Council for the Advancement of Standards (CAS) in Higher Education. (1998). Women student
program standards and guidelines, self-assessment guide.. Washington, DC.
Creswell, J.W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Creswell, J.W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Curtis, J.W. (2004). Faculty salary and faculty distribution fact sheet 2003-04. American
Association of University Professors.
Davie, S.L. (2002) University and college women’s centers: A journey toward equity.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 139

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Ferguson, M., Katrak, K.H., & Miner, V. (1996). Feminism and antifeminism: From civil
rights to culture wars. In J. Glazer-Raymo, B.K. Townsend, and B. Ropers-
Huilman (Eds.). Women in American higher education: A feminist perspective.
ASHE Reader Series, (pp. 53-71). Boston, MA: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Fisher, B. S., Cullen, F.T., & Turner, M.G. (2000). The sexual victimization of college women.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
"Founding." National Organization for Women. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2014.
Freeman, C.E. (2004). Trends in educational equity of girls & women: 2004 (NCES 2005–
016). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminine mystique. New York, NY: W.W. Norton and Company.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Harvard University Press.
Gould, J. (1989). Women’s centers as agents of change. In C.S. Pearson, D.L. Shavlik & J.G.
Touchton (Eds.), Educating the majority: Women challenge the tradition in higher
education. (pp. 219-229). New York: American Council on Education.
Gould, J.S. (1997). Personal reflections on building a women’s center in a women’s
college. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 25, 110-119.
Gribi, G. (2002). Mailing list for North American women's studies programs & campus women's
centers. Retrieved September 12, 2006 from http://creativefolk.com/wc.html
Griggs, C.S. (1990). Exploration of a feminist leadership model at university women’s
centers and women’s studies programs: A descriptive study (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Iowa). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50 (12):
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 140

3807.
Hanisch, C. (1970). The personal is political. Notes from the second year: Women’s liberation,
76-78.
Horowitz, H. L. (1987). Campus life: Undergraduate cultures from the end of the
eighteenth century to the present. New York, NY: Alfred. A. Knopf.
Jablonski, M. (1996). The Leadership Challenge for Women College Presidents. Initiatives, The
Journal of the National Associations of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors.
57 (4): 1-10.
Karjane, H.K., Fisher, B.S. & Cullen, F.T. (2000). Campus sexual assault: How America’s
institutions of higher education respond, Final Report, NIJ Grant #1999-WA-VX-0008,
Newton, Massachusetts: Education Development Center, Inc.
Kasper, B. (2004). Campus-based women’s centers: Administration, structure, and
resources. NASPA Journal. 41 (3): 487-499.
Kerr, B.A. (1994). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women and giftedness. Scottsdale,
AZ: Ohio Psychology Press.
Kunkel, C. (2002). Starting a women's center. In S.L. Davie (Ed.) University and college
women’s centers: A journey toward equity.(pp. 65-78). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Lisker, D. (2005). The Duke women’s initiative. On Campus with Women, American
Association of Colleges and Universities, 35(1).
Mason, M.A. & Goulden, M. (2002). Do babies matter: The effect of family formation on the
lifelong careers of academic men and women. Academe, 90(6).
Mason, M. A., Wolfinger, N. H., & Goulden, M. (2013). Do Babies Matter?: Gender and Family
in the Ivory Tower. Rutgers University Press.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 141

Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1999). A study on the status of women faculty in
science at MIT. MIT Faculty Newsletter, Vol. XI No. 4.
Merriam, S.B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Meyerson, D. (). Tempered Radicals: How Everyday Leaders Inspire Change at Work.
Harvard Business School Press.
Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
National Science Foundation. (2004). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in
science and engineering: 1998. Arlington, VA.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Princeton University (2003). Report of the task force on the status of women faculty in the
natural sciences and engineering. Retrieved November 20, 2004 from
http://www.princeton.edu/pr/reports/sciencetf/
Rich, A. (1979). Toward a woman-centered university. In J. Glazer-Raymo, B.K. Townsend, &
B. Ropers-Huilman (Eds.), Women in higher education: A feminist perspective (pp. 3-15).
Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.
Rivard, N. (2003). Who’s running the show? University Business, 6(2): 11-13.
Ropers-Huilman, B. (1998). Feminist leaders in higher education: A textual analysis of power
and resistance.
Rost, J.C. (1991). Leadership for the twenty-first century. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 142

Rudolf, F. (1990). The American college and university: A history. Athens, GA: The
University of Georgia Press.
Safarik, L. (2000). The transformative role of feminist scholarship at the University of
California, Los Angeles. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles).
Dissertation Abstracts International, 61 (6): 2215.
Safarik, L. (2002). Theorizing feminist transformation of higher education. Teachers College
Record, 104(8): 1718 – 1759.
Safarik, L. (2003). Feminist transformation in higher education: Discipline, structure, and
institution. The Review of Higher Education, 26(4): 419 – 445.
Schneir, M. (1994). Feminism in our time: The essential writings, World War II to the
present. New York, NY: Random House.
Smith-Rosenberg, C. (1998). Readers companion to U.S. history: The cult of domesticity.
Retrieved December 1, 2005 from
http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_009300_cultofdomest.
htm
Snyder, T. D., & Dillow, S. A. (2011). Digest of education statistics 2010 (NCES 2011-015).
Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. National
Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces. ed. gov/pubs2011/2011015.
pdf.
Solomon, B. M. (1985). In the company of educated women: A history of women and higher
education in America. Yale University Press.
Stanford University (2000). Report on the status of women faculty at Stanford University.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 143

Retrieved November 20, 2004 from
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/provost/womenfacultyreport/
Stineman, F.C. (1985). Women’s centers in public higher education: Evolving structure
and function (retention, comparable worth, managerial style, feminism) (Doctoral
Dissertation, University of Pittsburgh). Dissertation Abstracts Internationals, 46
(03): 628.
Tobias, S. (1997). Faces of feminism: an activist’s reflections on the women’s movement.
Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Top schools for Hispanic women by the numbers. (February 23, 2004). Hispanic Outlook in
Higher Education: 18-21.
Warshaw, R. (1994). I never called it rape: The Ms. report on recognizing, fighting and
surviving date and acquaintance rape. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Wetzel, J. (Summer 1988). Women’s centers: The frameworks. Initiatives, The Journal of the
National Associations of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors. 51 (2-3): 11-
16.
White House Task Force to Protect Students From Sexual Assault (2014). Not Alone.
Willinger, B. (2002). Women’s centers, their missions, and the process of change. In S.L. Davie
(Ed.). University and college women’s centers: A journey toward equity. (pp. 47-64).
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 144

APPENDIX A
Interview Protocol for Women’s Center Staff

Individual/Interior: Who am I? (Focus on dialogic self; values, assumptions, beliefs; dual
identity: feminist/student affairs professional)

Tell me about your career path in higher education.
- How did you get into women’s center work? (B)
- What experiences influenced your decision to do women’s center work? (B)
- What values, assumptions, or beliefs guide your work in the women’s center? (B)
- Is there a difference in how you define yourself as a higher education professional vs. a
women’s center professional? (B)

Do you consider yourself a feminist? (C)
If so
- How do you define feminism? (C)
- What experiences were important in forming your identity as a feminist? (C)
- Has your concept of feminism changed over time? How has it changed? (C)
- What does it mean to you now to be a feminist? (C)
- How does being a feminist impact your professional identity? (C)
- How do feminist ideologies impact or affect your work? (B/C)
If not,
- What philosophical approach do you take to issues of gender equity? (A/C)
- Do you consider it necessary to have a feminist perspective to advance transformational
efforts on gender equity? Why or why not? (C)
- How do you define feminism? (C)
- How do others’ feminist ideologies impact or affect your work? (B/C)

Individual/Exterior: What is my experience within the Women’s Center? Student Affairs? CU?
(Focus on mission, goals, and work duties; support and services; community)

Tell me about your work at the Women’s Center. (A/B)
- What is the mission of the Women’s Center? (A)
- Does the Women’s Center have a value statement? If so, what is it? (A)
- Who does the Women’s Center serve? (A)
- Tell me what the Women’s Center provides. (A)

What is your role in the overall mission and work of the Center? (A/B)
- What are some work experiences that have been meaningful to you? (A/B)

How is the work of the Center perceived on campus? (A)
- How does the Center interact with students, other staff, administrators and faculty? (A)
- Do you feel that there are adequate resources at the Women’s Center? (A)

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 145

What is it like to do Women’s Center work at CU? (B)
- Do you collaborate with others on campus? Please describe. (A/B)

How would you describe the Women’s Center role in institutional efforts on gender equity? (B)
- What campus-wide efforts on gender equity do you participate in? (A/B/
- How does your experience at CU compare to your experience at other universities? (B)

Group/Interior: Who are we? (Focus on internal changes in the feminist community on campus
and shifts in priorities)

Is there a feminist community at CU? If so, describe. (C)
- How would you describe the feminist agenda on campus? (C)
- Has it changed over time? If so, how? (C)
- What are the effects of this agenda on your work? (B/C)
- Have there been conflicts within this community? If so, please describe. (C)
- Do you think there are value differences between those who identify as feminist and non-
feminists on campus? If so, what are they? (C)

Group/Exterior: What is the role of the center on campus? What progress have we made?
(Focus on transformational change, campus perception, visibility, administrative support)

What has been the role of the Women’s Center on this campus? (A)
- Has it changed over time? If so, how? (A)
- How is it perceived by your colleagues? By students? By senior administration?
Nationally? (A)

Has the Women’s Center promoted any changes in policy? In structure? (A/B)
- What were the policy or structural issues when you first came to the Women’s Center?
(A/B)
- What are they now? (A/B)
- How does the Women’s Center go about creating change? (A/B)

Tell me how you would describe how CU has made progress on gender equity during your time
on campus? (B)
- How does the Women’s Center go about creating change? (B)
- Does the Women’s Center encounter resistance? From whom? What do you think it was
about? How have you responded? (B)

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 146

Research Questions
Cross-references of interview questions with research questions:

What is the role of one campus-based women’s center in institutional transformation
efforts on gender equity?
A) How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation?
B) How do women’s center staff members describe their perceptions and experiences
in institutional transformation?
C) How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective
feminist ideologies?

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 147

APPENDIX B
Interview Protocol for Key Campus Individuals

Tell me about your perceptions of the work of the Women’s Center? (A)
- What is its mission? (A)
- What services and programs do they provide? (A)

What has been the role of the Women’s Center on this campus? (A)
- Has it changed over time? If so, how? (A)
- How is it perceived by others on campus? (A)
- How does the Center interact with other offices, staff, administrators, and faculty? (A)
- Do you feel that there are adequate resources at the Women’s’ Center? (A)

Has the Women’s Center promoted any changes in policy? In structure? (A)
- What is their role in division wide or institution wide gender equity efforts? (A)
- How would you describe the Women’s Center approach to creating change? (A)
- Does the Women’s Center encounter resistance? From whom? What do you think about
it? (A)

How would you describe CU in terms of gender equity? (B)
- Tell me how you would describe how CU has made progress on gender equity during
your time on campus?(B)

Is there a feminist community at CU? If so, describe. (C)
- How would you describe the feminist agenda on campus?(C)
- Has it changed over time? If so, how? (C)
- What are the effects of this agenda? What has changed? (C)

Research Questions
Cross-references of interview questions with research questions:

What is the role of one campus-based women’s center in institutional transformation
efforts on gender equity?
A) How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation?
B) How do women’s center staff members describe their perceptions and experiences
in institutional transformation?
C) How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective
feminist ideologies?

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 148

APPENDIX C
Focus Group Protocol

How would you describe issues of gender equity on campus?
- What are the main issues or experiences that impact women students?
- What are the biggest concerns of individual women and of campus women’s groups?

Individual/Interior: Who am I? (Focus on dialogic self; values, assumptions, beliefs; dual
identity: feminist/student affairs professional)

Tell me about how you became involved with the Women’s Center? (B)
- What experiences influenced your work with the Women’s Center? (B)
- What values, assumptions, or beliefs guide your work in the women’s center? (A)
- What do you like most about being involved with the Women’s Center? (A/B)

Do you consider yourself a feminist? (C)
If so,
- How do you define feminism? (C)
- What experiences were important in forming your identity as a feminist? (C)
- Has your concept of feminism changed over time? How has it changed? (C)
- What does it mean to you now to be a feminist? (C)
- How do feminist ideologies impact or affect your work with the Center? (C)
If not,
- What philosophical approach do you take to issues of gender equity? (B/C)
- Do you consider it necessary to have a feminist perspective to advance transformational
efforts on gender equity? Why or why not? (B/C)
- How do you define feminism?(C)
- How do others’ feminist ideologies impact or affect your work? (C)

Individual/Exterior: What is my experience within the Women’s Center? CU? (Focus on mission,
goals, and work duties; support and services; community)

Tell me about your work at the Women’s Center.
- What is the mission of the Women’s Center? (A)
- Does the Women’s Center have a value statement? (A)
- Who does the Women’s Center serve? (A)
- Tell me what the Women’s Center provides. (A)

What is your role in the overall mission and work of the Center? (A/B)
- What are some work experiences that have been meaningful to you? (B)
- How is the work of the Center perceived on campus? (B)
- How does the Center interact with students, other staff, administrators and faculty? (B)
- Do you feel that there are adequate resources at the Women’s Center? (A)

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 149

What is it like to be involved with the Women’s Center? (A)
- Does the Center collaborate with others on campus? Please describe. (A)
- How would you describe the Women’s Center role in institutional efforts on gender
equity? (A)
- What campus-wide efforts on gender equity does the Center participate in? (A)

Group/Interior: Who are we? (Focus on internal changes in the feminist community on campus
and shifts in priorities)

Is there a feminist community at CU? If so, describe.
- How would you describe the feminist agenda on campus? (C)
- Has it changed over time? If so, how? (C)
- What are the effects of this agenda on your work? (C)
- Have there been conflicts within this community? If so, please describe. (C)
- Do you think there are value differences between those who identify as feminist and non-
feminists on campus? If so, what are they? (C)

Group/Exterior: What is the role of the center on campus? What progress have we made?
(Focus on transformational change, campus perception, visibility, administrative support)

Tell me how you would describe how CU has made progress on gender equity during your time
on campus?
- How does the Women’s Center go about creating change? (A)
- Has the Women’s Center promoted any changes in policy? In structure? (A)
- Does the Women’s Center encounter resistance? From whom? What do you think it was
about? How have they responded? (A)

Research Questions
Cross-references of interview questions with research questions:

What is the role of one campus-based women’s center in institutional transformation
efforts on gender equity?

A) How do the mission and activities of the women’s center support institutional
transformation?
B) How do women’s center staff members describe their perceptions and experiences
in institutional transformation?
C) How, if at all, is the transformational process impacted by individual and collective
feminist ideologies?

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 150

APPENDIX D
Informed Consent for Non-Medical Research
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education

FEMINIST MODELS OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION: A CASE STUDY OF
ONE CAMPUS-BASED WOMEN’S CENTER

You are being asked to participate in a research study entitled “Feminist Models of Institutional
Transformation: A Case Study of One Campus-Based Women’s Center” with Candace Rypisi, a
USC doctoral student, and Dr. Adrianna Kezar in USC’s School of Education. You were
selected for this study because of your affiliation with the Women’s Center or your work on or
oversight of campus gender equity issues. Your participation in this study is voluntary. If you
decide to participate, you may stop the interview at any time without any consequence.
Individual interviews and/or focus group interviews will last approximately 1 hour.

PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this study is to learn more about how campus-based women’s centers serve as
sites for institutional transformation on issues of gender equity. I am interested in exploring the
role of campus-based women’s centers in advancing transformative efforts as well as the
perceptions and experiences of women’s center leaders in shaping institutional transformation.

PROCEDURES
You will be asked to share some reflections in an individual interview or focus group. Both of
which will last approximately 1 hour. Before the interview, I will ask for your permission to
audio-tape the conversation and take notes. After the interview and/or focus group, I will
transcribe your words. Then, you will have the chance to correct the transcription. Finally, the
audio recording will be erased, and the transcription will only be identified by code.

I would like to interview you at a time and place convenient to you. This can be in your office or
at an on or off-campus location.

Do you have an hour to participate in this study? If so, let us schedule it for a time and place
convenient to you.

RISKS AND BENEFITS
There are no direct benefits to you, and you will not be paid for participating in this research
study. Indirectly, this process may provide you with the benefit of recognition for your
contributions. Engaging in a dialogue regarding your experiences may increase your confidence
in your ability to effect transformational change at your workplace or on campus.

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 151

CONFIDENTIALITY
As stated above, only I will have access to the audio recordings. They will be stored first on the
recording device and then transcribed onto my personal computer, which is password protected.
After I will destroy the audio recordings and your transcribed words will only be identified by
code.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
You can choose to participate or refuse to participate. If you volunteer to participate, you can
withdraw at any time without consequence. By signing below and answering the research
questions, you are consenting to participate in this research project and to have the dialogue
recorded.

IDENTIFICATION OF INVESTIGATORS
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact Candace Rypisi at 626-
482-1881 or Rypisi@usc.edu, or Dr. Adrianna Kezar at 213-821-1519 or kezar@usc.edu, USC
Rossier School of Education, WPH 703C, Los Angeles, CA 90089.

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH SUBJECTS
You may withdraw your consent at any time without consequence to yourself. Further, granting
consent does not waive your legal rights. If you have questions regarding your rights as a
research subject, contact the University of Southern California’s IRB, Office of the Vice Provost
for Research, Grace Ford Salvatori Building, Room 306, Los Angeles, CA 90089, 213-821-5272
or upirb@usc.edu

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH SUBJECT

I understand the procedures described above and I understand fully the rights of a potential
subject in a research study involving people as subjects. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

_____ I agree to be audio-taped.

_____ I do not agree to be audio-taped.

_________________________________________________
Name of Subject

__________________________________________________
Signature of Subject

________________________
Date

A FEMINIST MODEL OF INSTITUTIONAL TRANSFORMATION 152

SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

I have explained the research to the subject or her/his legal representative and answered all of
her/his questions. I believe that she/he understands the information described in this document
and freely consents to participate.

___________________________________________________
Name of Investigator

___________________________________________________
Signature of Investigator

___________________________
Date (must be the same as the subject’s)

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Over the past twenty years, women have made tremendous gains in accessing higher education, especially at the undergraduate level. However, this alone does not mean that gender equity has been achieved. Women are not represented equally across the academic disciplines

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Women in science and engineering: thriving or surviving?

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Organizational resistance toward chief diversity officers: a qualitative study of small liberal arts colleges

PDF

Action research as a strategy for improving equity and diversity: implementation constraints, outcomes

PDF

Negotiating racial conflict: the leadership role of the dean of students

PDF

Art school abridged: exploring the inferior completion rates of art colleges

PDF

Supporting non-tenure-track faculty in a physical therapy program: a case study

PDF

Exploring the undergraduate Latina/o experience: a case study of academically successful students at a research institution

PDF

Transfer students from California community colleges: a narrative approach to understanding the social capital and institutional factors that lead to a timely transfer to a public, four-year univ...

PDF

The growing gender gap among Latino students attaining a postsecondary education: a study of a minority male support program

PDF

Senior university officials' approaches to global engagement: a case study of a private and a public research university

PDF

Distributed leadership practices in schools: effect on the development of teacher leadership - a case study

PDF

The Ph.D. as a contested intellectual site: a critical race analysis of the personal and institutional factors that influence the persistence and retention of academically successful Black doctor...

PDF

Self-efficacy beliefs and intentions to persist of Native Hawaiian and non-Hawaiian science, technology, engineering, and mathematics majors

PDF

Community college transfer student involvement experiences at a selective, private four-year university

PDF

Leading from the margins: exploring the perspectives of Black women in leadership roles at predominantly white institutions

PDF

A semester late: a phenomenological study examining the experiences of spring admits in higher education

PDF

K-12 standards-based reform implementation: site-level shared roles of leadership: a case study

PDF

How principals lead Title I schools to high academic achievements: a case study of transformative leadership

PDF

Chief diversity officers and their impact on campus climate for students of color

Asset Metadata

Creator Rypisi, Candace (author)

Core Title A feminist model of institutional transformation: a case study of one campus-based women's center

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 01/26/2015

Defense Date 10/16/2014

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Educational Leadership,institutional transformation,OAI-PMH Harvest,women's center

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Kezar, Adrianna J. (committee chair), Sundt, Melora A. (committee member), Tambascia, Tracy Poon (committee member)

Creator Email candacer@caltech.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-524261

Unique identifier UC11297651

Identifier etd-RypisiCand-3129.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-524261 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RypisiCand-3129.pdf

Dmrecord 524261

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rypisi, Candace

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA