No abstract

To increase the representation and participation of women and other minorities in organizations, workplaces must become more inclusive. For such change to be successful and sustainable, organizations must systematically break down the barriers constraining women's participation and effectiveness; improve their prevailing structures, policies, and practices; and engender transformation in their climates. This article presents the experience of 19 U.S. universities, funded by the National Science Foundation's ADVANCE Institutional Transformation program, that have embraced comprehensive transformation for improved gender representation and inclusion in science and engineering disciplines. It describes the facilitating factors, program initiatives, institutionalization, and outcomes of their transformation, and suggests a transformation model that all organizations can use to create an inclusive and productive workplace for a diverse workforce. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

No abstract

HRM and Migration scholars increasingly employ Bourdieu's concepts of capitals, fields and habitus to explain the interrelationships between migrant careers and context. Both literatures employ a Bourdieusean framework to examine devaluation of migrant capitals in host nations and migrant responses to such devaluation. However, their explanations are based on different assumptions of context. HRM literature regards migrants as confined to the host nation context, whereas Migration literature places them in a transnational context, spanning both originating and host nations. In this conceptual paper, we argue for integrating transnational perspectives into HRM literature to offer a more accurate portrayal of contemporary migrant lives, and to capture greater nuance in migrant career experiences. We seek to expand the conceptual lexicon to support new conceptualisations of transnational context, and to explore how locating a Bourdieusean framework in transnational contexts enhances its ability to explain migrant career experiences.

Unlike the doctoral programs in places where students are paired with advisors at the time of admission itself, most US programs require the students to choose their advisors, and the advisors to formally accept the students as advisees. Little research has been done to understand how students and faculty approach this mutual selection and pairing process. This paper examines this process in STEM departments (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics), with specific focus on factors influencing the decisions. Based on focus groups and interviews of doctoral students and faculty from STEM departments in an American university, we identify criteria applied by students and faculty in making their choices. Students were found to assess faculty on available funding, area of research, personality, ability to graduate students fast, and career prospects for students, and faculty to assess students on their qualifications/credentials and perceived ability to contribute to research. We also found that this mutual assessment was not objective, but influenced by perceptions associated with faculty gender and career stage, and student nationality. In the end, whether students and faculty were actually paired with persons of their choice depended on departmental factors including prevalent pairing practices, restrictions on student numbers per faculty, and reward structure. We discuss implications of the findings for research and practice.