EQUALITY GUIdE - KU Leuven

192 Equality Guide
to be improved? Do you have a suggestion for a guest speaker?
For this task, the participants were subdivided in small groups of four people. The
groups were already more or less homogeneously composed before starting, so that
potential common items could be tracked. By working with three different subgroups
each on a different topic, a lot of information can be obtained in a short time.
For the topic gender, three homogeneous subgroups were composed: 1) those with a
critical point of view with respect to the gender problems or those who have never
experienced problems, 2) those with practical experience in the gender problems and
3) those who consider the gender topic in their research.
For the communication topic, the following three groups were composed: 1) those with
theoretical knowledge of communication, 2) those who are strongly communicative
and 3) those who communicate ‘awkwardly’.
The answers had to be listed and classified according to their importance. After 20
minutes, other groups were formed for a following topic. In each group, a reporter was
appointed who afterwards gave a brief summary for the other groups. The assistant
noted everything down on the flip-over. The different post-its and notes on the flip-over
were analysed by the project researcher (using the computer programme Atlas-ti) and
were grouped in a list.
The female participants ended this first meeting with a Q&A session. Most questions
handled about the qualitative research method, because most participants were not
familiar with this method. Therefore, in the next meeting, the difference between quantitative
and qualitative research would be explained.
3.3.2. Meeting 2: The gender topic
The second meeting provided the results of the brainstorming about the gender topic.
The several thresholds and difficulties experienced were split up into 12 categories.
1. Category: typical of the discipline/research group
The participants had different conceptions depending on their discipline, research
group or faculty. In this way, the big differences between the exact and the human
sciences became notable. The participants from the exact sciences experienced
more gender-related problems than for example those from the faculty of social
sciences and the faculty of law. The explanation given by one of the participants
was that “Within the exact sciences one works traditionally and strongly hierarchically.
There are many male colleagues who do not take responsibility for their family
and are still of the old school.”
In addition, the attitude of the department head also has an influence. One of the
participants told the group that the head of her department apparently thinks that
“you can put your children in your suitcase to go abroad”.