Research and academic programs in the hard sciences and some other fields at the University of Washington are a point of pride. In contrast, the social sciences and humanities are an embarrassment. Today's Exhibit A: a UW assistant professor has published a treatise on the situational validity of sexualized banter in the workplace.
Medical News Today reports:
...University of Washington, Bothell, sociologist...Kari Lerum, an assistant professor of sociology and interdisciplinary studies (had)...her research published in the journal Gender & Society, (and) worked at three restaurants serving food and drinks over a 14-month period. These included an upscale (ed.- and gay) Cape Cod, Mass., restaurant she called the Blue Heron and a Seattle strip club nicknamed Club X...(plus)...Annie's, a family diner in Seattle...Her study focused on the banter and interactions among workers and between workers and supervisors...includ(ing) sexual innuendos and puns as well as references to sex acts.Lerum noted:
...if people went to these places with a fixed definition of harassment, there would be instances of it every night. Ultimately, if you are trying to assess an incident it would be important to have a cultural understanding of that particular workplace and the people's understanding of that culture. It is a complicated question. Keep in mind sexual banter and camaraderie can empower workers so they have control over working conditions and their creative, productive selves. Sexual banter is okay if people feel they are working in a safe environment and the banter is not disrespectful or a form of discipline.Under the right conditions, sexual banter can help build camaraderie, and camaraderie is a positive thing for workers and the organization because if employees are happy and feel they belong they work harder and are more productive. This is not so much about sex, but about people being empowered and having ownership of their work life.
Sorry, I think it's easier these days to have a fixed and highly cautionary definition of sexual harrassment in the workplace. When disputes and conflict occur between employees, what has passed before as mutually acceptable banter can then become retroactive "harrassment" and lawsuit fodder which disrupts the workplace environment, badly damaging morale and posing direct economic costs.
That a publicly-funded university in Washington state would waste an assistant professor's time working in a gay restaurant in Cape Cod and a Seattle strip club in order to validate sexual banter among employees is a sad commentary on the state of our state, and public higher education. Even worse, (as you'll see at the end of the above-linked article) the University is urging interested media to contact one of its public relations flacks about the study, so he and Lerum can waste more taxpayer dollars chatting it up.
The old "publish or perish" track to tenure has its downside, especially in the social sciences and humanities, where research topics are increasingly agenda-driven, politically-suffused, and just plain frivolous.
Better Ms. Lerum should have undertaken a treatise on research topics chosen by UW graduate students, assistant professors and professors in the social sciences and humanities. Nice post-modernist, meta-research hook, and useful, to boot! Why for that effort, I'd suppport a special appropriation from the legislature.
Or before long, dare we anticipate a performance audit of social sciences and humanities research in Washington state institutions of higher learning?
Sexual harassment is a totally subjective "crime," based not upon some objective standard but upon how someone "feels" about a given incident.
I sense some tension on the left about this...imposing a Victorian verbal code upon the workplace doesn't mesh well with "I'll screw what, when, and where I want."
Remember..."It's just about sex."
Posted by: South County on February 25, 2005 01:21 PMIt doesn't occur to me that THOSE would be a great way to enjoy my time at the work. I can think of better ways to enhance my time in the workplace.
Besides, does this professor realize she's setting the N.O.W. gang back a few decades?
Posted by: Michele on February 25, 2005 01:28 PMAs for it being 'harmless', how does she know what's going on inside people's minds? A lot of people go along with this kind of talk because they want to fit in, or because they know they have to be on good terms with certain people to get the shifts they want. And no way do you want to have the chef not like you if you're a waitress - he can really mess up your orders (and thereby your tips). I've been in work situations where people would start to talk crudely, and I'd try to change the subject or just quiely leave. I was branded a Christian prude.
It doesn't take a prude to realize this assistant prof's research is junk.
Posted by: Shannon K on February 25, 2005 01:34 PMIs there really any wonder why there is a shortage of money for higher education?
Posted by: Jonathan on February 25, 2005 02:18 PMWhile I think you're dead on the money about having a strict definition of sexual harrassment in the workplace and enforcing it on the grounds that not to do so opens a company up to potential lawsuits, I also don't think that the treatise you're talking about is necessarily a waste of time.
Sociology is the study of human society. The workplace is one microcosm of that society and sexual banter is an action which (whether we like it or not) occurs within that microcosm of society. As such the study of sexual banter in the workplace is a valid (and possibly interesting) exercise in sociology.
I find Lerum's vocabulary a bit off-putting--she's free with the sort of buzzwords and catch-phrases you find all over the softer sciences--but her conclusion doesn't seem that far-fetched to me.
Again, you may not like that sort of banter, and it certainly isn't in a businesses best interest to allow it to happen, but it does happen (more frequently than you might think) and as such is a proper study of sociology.
Posted by: Nathan Azinger on February 25, 2005 03:35 PMFirst of all, if people weren't petty, selfish, greedy and vindictive, we wouldn't have these issues. People could use common sense and cut each other a little slack and we'd all be better off.
What the study points out is that the true "crime" in harrassment has nothing to do with specific words or actions. Perhaps it will move legislators to establish laws that more effectively punish the (abhorrent) harrassers, but also prevent false claims.
Posted by: Mark on February 25, 2005 04:31 PMAnd as a point of interest: This article stems from my dissertation research which was conducted long before I accepted my appointment at UWB. The study was funded entirely from my wages as a worker in these organizations.
Sincerely,
Professor Kari Lerum, Ph.D.
I am afraid that I must disagree with you and agree with the professor. Her research is important and confirms what we all know: that the definition of sexual harassment is nebulous and conforms to the norms of the workplace environment. What is routine at my wife's workplace (she is an engineer working in an almost exclusively male environment) would horrify my co-workers, and we both work for the same, large defense contractor. What occurs in her workplace would be considered sexual harassment in mine, but in hers is ordinary and not harassing in the least.
Dr. Lerum's study confirms what sociologists focusing on the sociology of law have know for decades: laws (such as those governing sexual harassment) are only necessary when there is a breakdown in informal social control. In the workplaces she studied, this banter was part of the culture, accecpted, and controlled for informal means - a look or disapproving glance or silence - if it went too far. I bet if her study were broadened to larger workplaces, she would see a difference in the efficacy of informal versus formal (policies, procedures, guidelines, and training on sexual harassment) social control.
Posted by: Adrian on February 28, 2005 09:52 AM