ENgAgiNg MEN iN gENdEr iNiTiATivEs - Catalyst

APPENDIX: METHODOLOGY ANDRESPONDENT PROFILESThis study was conducted using in-depth interviewsand an online survey. The interviews were conductedfirst to develop in-depth insights or hypothesesabout the factors that increase men’s awareness ofand advocacy for ending gender bias. Then an onlinesurvey was administered to test the hypothesesthat were developed based on the interviews. Bysurveying both men who were championing genderequality as well as a comparison group of menwho were not engaged in such activity, we wereable to examine what attitudes and experiencesdifferentiated the two groups. We describemethodological details associated with both theinterviews and survey below.InterviewsParticipant selection: Thirty-five intervieweeswere identified on the basis of the following criteria:1) engages in visible and “hands-on” leadershipof organizational initiatives to reduce genderdisparities in the workplace, 2) makes continuousand substantive time investments in mentoringwomen, and 3) is easily recognizable by womencolleagues/peers as a supporter of gender equality.Several interviewees were identified by D&Ileaders in their workplaces, often in consultationwith women’s resource groups and networks.Others were identified by program managers ofa mentoring consultancy (which was devotedexclusively to providing mentoring services towomen) for providing outstanding mentorship towomen mentees. The remaining interviewees wereselected on the basis of their leadership of variousadvocacy groups run both by and for men for thepurpose of promoting gender equality.Interview procedure: Interviews were semistructuredand covered a range of topic areasincluding participants’ motivations for championingwomen and issues of gender equality, their work andfamily histories, as well as their attitudes and beliefsabout gender. Interviews were conducted over thephone in English by three different interviewers,including one woman and two men. Each lasted aminimum of one hour.Interview analyses: Once the interviewee’sresponses were transcribed, the three researcherseach reviewed a different subsample of thetranscripts to independently identify the majorthemes. The researchers subsequently met todiscuss and reach agreement on the most commonthemes and to develop a coding scheme to capturethese themes. Using this coding scheme, fourdifferent researchers subsequently reviewed a setof assigned transcripts, identifying and recordingresponses that they judged to be representativeof the themes in the coding guideline. After eachresearcher had analyzed his or her assignedtranscripts he or she then reviewed his or hertranscripts with another researcher, resolving anydisagreements.SurveyParticipant selection: Two subsamples wererecruited for the survey. The first comprisedmale champions who were selected accordingto the same procedures we described in relationto the interviews. The second made up ourcomparison group—individuals who did notmeet the aforementioned champion criteria. Toselect participants for this group, we asked D&Iprofessionals who had previously nominated malechampions to also identify men who did not fit thechampion criteria but were similar to the championsthey had already identified in functional backgroundand rank.Survey procedure: Participants received a studyinvitation by email, which included a description of24 | Engaging Men in Gender Initiatives