Exploration of Relationships between Conformity to Masculine Social Norms and Demographic Characteristics

Akpanudo, Usenime; Huff, James L.; Godwin, Allison

doi:10.1109/fie.2018.8658515

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specific masculinity norms were identified through subscales of the 22-item Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory (CMNI-22), which has high concurrent validity with the original CMNI instrument (Akpanudo et al , 2018; Hamilton and Mahalik, 2009; Jbilou et al , 2021; McGraw et al , 2021). The CMNI-22 instrument is a short-form version of the 96-item CMNI-96 and includes 11 subscales representing 11 traditional masculine norms: emotional control, risk-taking, pursuit of status (status), dominance, playboy, power over women, primacy of work, self-reliance, violence, winning and heterosexual presentation (Mahalik et al , 2007).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Men’s transformative health service use: rethinking customer experience of vulnerability

McGraw,

Russell-Bennett,

White

2024

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Preventative health services are keen to identify how to engage men and increase their participation, thus improving health, well-being and life expectancy over time. Prior research has shown general gender norms are a key reason for men’s avoidance of these services, yet there is little investigation of specific gender norms. Furthermore, masculinity has not been examined as a factor associated with customer vulnerability. This paper aims to identify the relationship between gender norm segments for men, likely customer vulnerability over time and subjective health and well-being. Design/methodology/approach Adult males (n = 13,891) from an Australian longitudinal men’s health study were classified using latent class analysis. Conditional growth mixture modelling was conducted at three timepoints. Findings Three masculinity segments were identified based on masculine norm conformity: traditional self-reliant, traditional bravado and modern status. All segments had likely customer experience of vulnerability. Over time, the likely experience was temporary for the modern status segment but prolonged for the traditional self-reliant and traditional bravado segments. The traditional self-reliant segment had low subjective health and low overall well-being over time. Practical implications Practitioners can tailor services to gender norm segments, enabling self-reliant men to provide expertise and use the “Status” norm to reach all masculinity segments. Originality/value The study of customer vulnerability in a group usually considered privileged identifies differential temporal experiences based on gender norms. The study confirms customer vulnerability is temporal in nature; customer vulnerability changes over time from likely to actual for self-reliant men.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Men’s transformative health service use: rethinking customer experience of vulnerability

McGraw,

Russell-Bennett,

White

2024

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…histories to team composition and accepted norms in engineering (Akpanudo et al, 2018;Bejerano & Bartosh, 2015;Carlone & Johnson, 2007;Malone & Barabino, 2009;McGee, 2021). Explicit discussion about the socio-cultural context of engineering can provide starting points to deeply consider how diversity in engineering teams is created.…”

Section: Knowledge Construction Processmentioning

confidence: 99%

Building Inclusion in Engineering Teaming Practices

Rodríguez-Simmonds

Godwin

Langus³

et al. 2023

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Teamwork is a commonplace component of engineering practice. Engineering educators have been studying ways to make teams more effective and inclusive. However, students' interpersonal interactions often create exclusionary experiences.Purpose/Hypothesis: This study investigates how the team formation process and what kinds of teaming practices and behaviors promote inclusive team environments. We were sensitized to Tuckman and Jensen's (1977) revised theory of the five stages of teaming along with opportunity structures theory as frameworks to study how particular team interactions did or did not promote the inclusion of its members.Design/Method: This interpretive multi-case study used team observations, classroom artifacts, and student interviews in a first-year engineering course to understand the experiences of three teams. The primary data source, student interviews, were analyzed to understand the individual and collective team experience. These results were triangulated with the other data sources to build three team descriptions and a crossteam comparison. Results:Our findings indicate that the process of storming and norming in teams is an essential point in which social inclusion is built into teaming practices or not. While all teams, regardless of inclusive behaviors, were academically successful, the inclusive norms developed by some teams increased student learning and belonging. Conclusions:The emphasis on teaming in engineering education has often focused on the effectiveness of teams for a final project. However, the process of teaming and how peers shape the engineering environment is just as important for student's belonging and persistence. The results of this work can provide strategies for supporting students' teaming processes to develop more inclusive teams.

show abstract

“…Several studies have elucidated this problematic characterization of rigor, including related work on the role of expectations (Kamanda, Walther, Wilson, Brewer, & Sochacka, 2020), academic and nonacademic stressors (Bahmani et al, 2018;Bazeley, 2007;De Castella, Byrne, & Covington, 2013;Thompson, Davis, & Davidson, 1998), as well as a context of high selectivity in engineering programs (Davies & Guppy, 1997;Godfrey, Aubrey, & King, 2010;Slaton, 2010;Valerio, 2014). These dynamics are set against and undergirded by a backdrop of cultural characteristics of engineering learning environments around, for example, competitiveness (Pawley, 2009;Sagebiel & Dahmen, 2006) and masculinity (Akpanudo, Huff, & Godwin, 2018;Holth & Mellstrom, 2011;McLean, Lewis, Copeland, Lintern, & O'Neill, 1997) that have been identified to negatively impact students (Foor, Walden, & Trytten, 2007). An emerging body of work including recent studies in engineering education examines timely issues around student stress (Jensen & Cross, 2021), well-being, and mental health (Ang & Huan, 2006;Furry & Sy, 2015;Hunt & Eisenberg, 2010;Schafer, 1996;Sommerfeld, 2016;Struthers, Perry, & Menec, 2000;Vasconcelos & Almeida, 2018) with their profound impacts on students' learning experiences and outcomes (Bahmani et al, 2018;Bazeley, 2007;De Castella et al, 2013;Hackett, Betz, Casas, & Rocha-Singh, 1992;Thompson et al, 1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…More specifically, work on disciplinary cultures and narratives (Committee on Public Understanding of Engineering Messages, 2008;Godfrey & Parker, 2010;Pawley, 2009;Sochacka et al, 2021) has begun to examine their impacts on student learning, retention and diversity (Foor et al, 2007). Prior work has, for example, identified masculinity (Akpanudo et al, 2018;Holth & Mellstrom, 2011;McLean et al, 1997) and competitiveness (Morton, Gee, & Woodson, 2020;Pawley, 2009;Sagebiel & Dahmen, 2006) as cultural characteristics of engineering learning environments. Similarly, studies have identified a prevalent focus on technical aspects and artefacts (Mazzurco & Daniel, 2020;Sochacka et al, 2021) over social dynamics and perspectives (Cech, 2014;Garibay, 2015) to be a pervasive and in some ways problematic feature of engineering programs (Walther, Brewer, Sochacka, & Miller, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional Engineering Socialization at the Intersection of Collective Constructions of Expectations and Individual Shame Experiences

Kamanda¹,

Walther²,

Wilson³

et al. 2022

Studies in Engineering Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Prior work has investigated engineering students' professional formation through the lens of individual experience and from a cultural perspective. The concept of professional shame provides an opportunity to explore students' experiences of disciplinary expectations as situated in a context of engineering social norms. 2 Kamanda et al. Studies in Engineering Education 3 Kamanda et al. Studies in Engineering Education LITERATURE REVIEWIn this section, we explore prior work around student stressors and their impacts, the role of engineering culture in the professional formation of students, and emerging scholarship on professional shame. While these factors are individually impactful in education, in this study, we will explore their interplay in the lived experience of engineering students.Prior research on pressures facing students has identified a range of academic and non-academic stressors resulting from parental expectations, grades, test taking, time pressures, and future plans

show abstract

Exploration of Relationships between Conformity to Masculine Social Norms and Demographic Characteristics

Cited by 7 publications

References 24 publications

Men’s transformative health service use: rethinking customer experience of vulnerability

Men’s transformative health service use: rethinking customer experience of vulnerability

Building Inclusion in Engineering Teaming Practices

Professional Engineering Socialization at the Intersection of Collective Constructions of Expectations and Individual Shame Experiences

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About