Newsletter No. 70

4 No. 70 19th May 1995 CUHK Newsletter (Cont'd) Mary Chan'. Again, this is a matter of convention andca nb echange d if that iswha t is preferred. It is difficult for us t o comment onwhethe r personal titles should be used in a professional context. Normally we consider three points ： (i) individual preferences —some married women prefer to be addressed as 'Mrs .', some don't; (ii) the propriety of addressing people who are without professional or academic titles only by their names ； (iii) the practica l function of personal titles in indicating a person's gender when it is no t self-evident in thename . Theargumen t would of course be 'Do we need to know?' For personnel administration, it is convenient to know because of benefit provisions suchasmaternit y benefits. For day-to-day purposes, the need may not beas obviou s but for courtesy, people are normally addressed with titles. Regarding the use of the term 'working wife' in the StaffHandbook, we have alerted the Housing Committee to review the wording of the poin t system for assignment of quarters, and suggested the use of 'working spouse' instead of 'working wife'. We hope the above serves to explain the present practice. If additiona l information or clarification is needed, we shall be happy to furnish it. Sophie Lau Director ofPersonnel Comments from the Editor Weleav e it to readers to judge whether the language of the CUHKNewsletter smacks of sexism. Our conscious effort though has been to avoid using the non-specific 'he' a smuc has possible , and, instead of using the newl y coined 's/he' (and al l the clumsy 'him/her', 'his/her', and 'herself / himself' that may follow), we prefer to substitute the third person singular by a plural noun. In quoting University regulations and statutes, however, we quote them verbatim,as the y have been approved by the University Chancellor, Council, or Senate.We d o note that the non- specific 'he' appears not infrequently in the regulation s andstatutes , andw ewelcom e comments, by linguists in particular, on such usage. Wh e n I was asked to write a short piece on sexism at CUHK I immediately became defensive. Had I unconsciousl y made a sexist remark that targetedme for such an article? Like most males, I plead guilty to some form of sexism — laughing a t a sexist joke; remaining silent when witnessing sexist behaviour, listening to sexist discussions or reading sexist materials. On th e othe r hand , perhap s m y conscious , resolut e an d vocal opposition to anything sexist, or indeed to discrimination of any kind , had filtered through to the Publication Office? I had nothing to fear or be proud of, for neither hadmotivate d them to cal l me—they hadapparentl y chosenmesomewha t randomly to provide a male point of view. This brief, off-the-cuff point of view will focu s o n th e discrimination/stereotypin g sid e o f sexism , as harassment is being addressed fairly positively by theUniversit y (see the 19th March 1995 issue of the CUHKNewsletter), My only experience of overt sexism in my three and a half years at CUHK centres on a remark made by a BBA male student during thel990-91 academic year, my first here. He said CUHKwas a 'marriage university'. When I asked for an explanation , he replied that CUHK hadmor e females than males — true in theBusines s Administration undergraduate programmes —because females came to the University to look for husbands. He laughed as he told me this. Thinking it must have been a joke, I too laughed, andextende d the jok e with, 'And I foolishly assumed admission to university had to do with school results.' Now that I know a lot more about this university, I believe I could have dealt with this young man differently. He was intellectually abov e average, critical of academic standards and not the joking type. Our discussion was i n fact about academic standards andhi s remark could have been a flippant way of expressing his opinion that many of the students, particularly women, were not committed toacademi c pursuits. It could also have been an inappropriat e projection of hisdissatisfactio n with the method of admission. I should have probed into the real causes of his frustration , dispelled any misguided beliefs with facts, and show n himtha t scapegoating was no t thebes t way o f expressing them. If the incredibl e case mentioned in the19t hMarc h 1995issu e of the CUHKNewsletteris accurate, academic staff areals o capable of judging academic standards in thesam e flippant,stereotypical way —a lecturer is claime d to have said that CUHKwas no t a 'top university' because of thelarg e number of women attending his class. It would, of course, be nonsense to suggest that women (or men) are intellectually less capable than men (or women). Yet the employment pattern at CUHK shows that women are highly underrepresented in academic posts, particularly in the higher ranks, whereas in administration the females are in the majority except at the very top. I know enough about CUHK to be able to say categoricall y that the Vice-Chancellor, the Acting Registrar and the Director of Personnel (not because she is awoman , for women have been known to discriminate against other women) would not permit even a flake of gender discrimination in recruitment, appointments or admissions. Why is it, therefore, that women are underrepresented in higher-paid jobs, and overrepresented in lower-paid jobs as well as in the student body? The basic reason, not the cause, I believe, is that we do not have explicit objectives on gender proportions for our academic or administration establishments, nor for student admissions. At least I do not know of any. To my knowledge, our selection and admission criteria simply do not include gender. Some years ago, I remember visiting Saab Scania, the giant Swedish industrial concern. As I toured one of its factories , I was surprised to see equa l numbers of menan dwome n working side by side. That surprised me. I learned that one o f thecompany' s priority objectives was equa l representation of menan d women in all spheres of its operations. This was not easy, but Saab's top management were determined that it should happen. Equal representation of menan dwome n for staff andstudent s would also be difficul t to achieve at CUHK — in some areas and disciplines more than others —and would not be without problems. Consensus and support from both men and women would not come easily. Implementation would require new structures and expenditure of resources. It would have to be championed by devotees who would not rub people the wrong way. And so on, and so on! All this would take a long time to achieve without loss of quality. In my humble view and for my money, after the dust has settled, the effort would have been worth the candle. Mike S.G. Goldstein Senior lecturerin management The work of a colleague, anaccomplishe d writer, teacher, and researcher, seems not t o be taken very seriously. Her movement up the ranks has been very slow. How much of this is due to the (feminine?) wa y sh e conduct s hersel f a s an academic? Her academic writing contains features that feminist researchers andWester n discourse analysts have identifiedas being more often used byfemal e authors than by male authors: — I t i s 'personal'. She uses anecdotes to make her points andad d interest . Shewrite s from a first person point of view. Shesometime s mentions her feelings. — I t i s 'non-adversarial'. I t does not rely o n attacking the work o f other s i n order t o create a research space for herself ； nor does it focus on showing how the arguments of others are faulty inorde r toestablis h her ow n authority . Instead her wor k seeks to build upon theaccomplishment s of others in her community of scholars. It assumes a colleagial relationship to readers. — I t sometime s uses narrative of steps in reasoning rather than analysis or argument, induction or indirection rather than deduction, to make its points. The thesis may be implicit. — I t give s details and is contextual and particular rather than abstract and general. She seems to write from her 'whole self, (she is more than just an academic), and to want to bring in the whole world (including the blossoming jacaranda outside her window). There is less distance between self andobjec t of discussion. 一 I t sometimes seems unwilling to come to definite conclusions, which might close off discussion and exclude complexity, ambiguity, or messiness. Her publishing practices too are different from those of some of her colleagues, in that she enjoys writing textbooks and find sasmuc h pleasure in publishing pieces of writing in local journals, the newspaper, and othe r less prestigious sourcesas i n publishing in international journals. It mayb e that her scholarly community is closer to home. Teaching is big commitment for this colleague. She would never willingly giv e up teaching, even if asked to assume administrative responsibilities. She devotes herself to students, learns their names and takes time to work wit h them closely, believing that he r mission is to help students become engaged with their learning. To this end, she seeks input from students and spends a great deal of time revising her teaching materials. She is innovative, and also spends time in groups with other teachers, discussing teaching. For thi s colleague, research is an extensio n of teaching rather than a separate activity.Shei s less interested in research leading to the development of theory, andmor e interested in studying theway s theory might be applied in particular contexts. Her research methods tend to be the 'soft' sort, such as analysin g texts, conducting interviews, andmakin g use o f observation ： qualitative methods. When shewrite s up her research results, shei s onl y too aware of how subjective the research process really is, and that to a great extent, researchers construct their conclusions through the writing-up process itself. This colleague has learne d to write in the traditional academic style, to give stimulating lectures to large groups of students, to conduct quantitative research. But shechoose s not to, believin g that to do so would be like being forced to speak in an alien tongue or to make a commitment to a vision of the world she doesn't really believe in. And yet, is it because this colleague writes the way she does, devotes herself toteaching , conducts research on 'soft' topics using 'soft' (qualitative) research methods, andconduct s herselfasa nacademi c by establishing connections rather than by establishing superiority, that her wor k does not seem tob e value das i t should? And i f so, wha t areth eimplications ? Possible lack o f recognition for this colleague's work, an d that of others like her , for these reasons, is only one tragedy. Another is that colleagues who might be at their best writing, teaching, and researching in what appears to be a more feminine style might not realize that there could be alternatives to believing that academic writing is synonymou s with being adversarial and impersonal , that teaching means lecturing, or that research means statistical reduction of everything andeveryon e to numbers. Or there might be those who are aware of theissues , but fear that unless they work in 'mainstream' ways , it will affec t their prospects for substantiation , promotion, receiving research grants, and publishing their work. In either case, potentially productive academics will not do the kind of work of which they are capable. Of course, these issues go fa r beyond impact on individuals . The valu e placed on 'soft ' disciplines may be lowe r than it should beas lon gas researc h methods in the hard sciences are taken to be the highest form of scholarship. The situation also goes beyond the boundaries of anyon e universit y and out into the academic communityasa whole. And yet isn't there room in the intellectual world for different sorts of contributions to writing, teaching, and research, and wouldn't valuing those which have sometimes been seenas 'feminine ' encourage a broader range of high quality scholarship? What would happen if more scholars, teachers, andresearcher s did not useadversaria l methods to establish authority, admitte d ambiguity an d exploration int o the intellectual dialogue , conducted research without believing that they are discoverin g fixed and objectiv e truths, and admitted the personal into their teaching and their writing? Michele Chase Lecturer, English Language Teaching Unit