Co-Located

1
Co-Located Collaborative

• Womens and Gender Studies
• Within a Womens Center
• Sheila Hassell Hughes Lisa Rismiller
• University of Dayton

2
History of Relationship between WST and WCs

• The history of relationships between Womens
  Studies programs
• (WST) and campus Womens Centers (WC) is long and
  complex,
• with everything from closely collaborative,
  symbiotic partnerships
• to disconnected, bitter combatants. On campuses
  with both
• entities, WST-WC relationships have been heavily
  influenced by
• origins of the women involved
• WST faculty trained scholars
• WC staff activists and/or student affairs
  professionals
• split between academic and activist foci
• WST needed to establish itself as a legitimate
  academic discipline
• tenure and promotion processes for WST faculty
  was an important part of establishing legitimacy
• WCs tended to focus on supporting womens
  physical and psychological needs
• activism / advocacy for policy and practice
  change was usually integral to WC work
• other important factors
• organizational and physical distance physical
  location often exacerbated the academic vs.
  student services divide
• both tended to move from being loosely-structured
  to being more firmly institutionalized
• skills and experiences of each director
• personal relationships between leaders of both
  entities

• Perceptions of the other often increased
  tensions
• WST historically viewed WC staff as
• lacking understanding / appreciation of the
  pressures of academia
• rabble-rousers reflecting negatively on
  feminists and WST
• student affairs staff, therefore not part of the
  academic enterprise (faculty didnt recognize
  value of experiential learning offered by WC)
• similar to / more connected than they to
  community-based womens organizations /
  activities
• WC historically viewed WST faculty as
• increasingly disconnected from their shared
  feminist roots more focused on research and
  achieving tenure
• relatively conservative and elitist (faculty
  tended to be white, heterosexual, and
  middle/upper class).
• unsupportive of WC activism on behalf of women
• unengaged in critical issues facing women
  students (e.g. sexual harassment, chilly climate,
  etc.)
• But this historical model is increasingly falling
  by the wayside.
• Today many, if not most, campuses have both WST
  and WC. When
• the relationship between the two works well
• the campus views both programs as strong,
  mutually-supportive and meeting the needs of
  women

3

• Timeline of Womens Gender Studies and the
  Womens Center at UD

• 1st major graduates
• Program name changed from Womens Studies to
  Womens Gender Studies
• 1st ed. of WGS Making Waves, WGSs newsletter
• 2006

• WST occupies a series of small, invisible,
  impractical spaces
• 1978-2004

• WST major
• approved
• WST re-locates
• to Womens Center
• WST Director joins WC Advisory Board begins
  column in WC newsletter
• 2004

• Women Culture approved as a thematic cluster
  for Gen-Ed
• 1993

• 9 majors graduate
• 2007

• Growth of minor
• ½ time administrative assistant hired
• Expansion of courses across the disciplines
• Increase in affiliated faculty impact on
  campus climate
• 1979-2004

• Womens Studies Program founded in response to
  Title IX
• WST offers minor
• 1978

WST/WGS WC
Collaboration

• 1993
• Presidents Advisory Committee for Womens
  Issues (ACWI) made 1st formal request for WC

• 2000
• 2nd ACWI request for WC
• President appointed task force to study need

• 2005-07 Annual Collaborations
• Womens History Month Programming
• Campus speakers (2 or more)
• Assigning mentors to new women faculty (with
  AFW)
• Attending NWSA
• Co-advising student organization (AWE)

• 2003
• Womens Center Opens (January)
• 1900 S.F. in central location
• 2 F/T staff director and administrative
  assistant
• Budget for programming and initiatives
• 4 P/T GR and UG students hired
• Logo, website, and newsletter launched

• 2004
• WC Director joins WST Steering Committee

• 2001-03
• Administration offers programming grants to
  signify commitment to a WC

• 2005 Collaboration
• Womens History Month
• Film Series

• 2006 Collaborations
• Art Takes on Pornography
• Exhibit and Panel Discussion
• Community Forum on women survivors of childhood
  sexual abuse
• Program to recruit and fund NWSA participation

• 2001
• President committed to opening a WC once
  appropriate space was found

• 2003-Present
• Formal mentoring program for faculty and staff
  women
• Coordinating Love Your Body Month and Womens
  History Month celebrations

• 2003-2006
• WC administers provost-funded summer research
  grants for pre-tenure women

• 2006-07 Annual Collaboration
• Womens Advocacy Dinner
• (student initiative)

4
Benefits of Co-location at UD

• 2900SF of centrally-located space on campus
• ease of access and visibility for both programs
• ease of communication between the two offices
  (physical proximity)
• multiple spaces for a variety of uses offices,
  conference room, workroom (convertible for WST
  classroom use), lounge, kitchen, hallway gallery,
  bulletin boards
• separate but shared resource collections, with
  different foci
• each body raises the visibility of the other
  (students faculty who visit WST must come to
  the WC students, faculty, and staff who use the
  WC see WST)

5
Challenges Opportunities
Mutual Strategies

• differing missions
• feminist focus
• breadth of goals constituencies
• differing constituencies
• students
• faculty
• staff
• local community
• differences in institutional location, status,
  power,
• funding, etc.
• differences in politics style
• relationship to campus and community activism?
• radical or reformist in approach
• negotiational or confrontational in style
• interpersonal style
• turf battles
• blurring of identities
• loss of academic status for womens studies
• loss of perceived relevance to staff and some

• developing a joint plan for collaboration with
• short-term and long term goals
• taking into account the challenges and
  opportunities of your particular context
• developing collaborative programs that fulfill
  both missions
• e.g. when WS is planning an academic event,
  talking with the WC about potential for
  supplemental programming
• looking for ways to bring the other body into
• opportunities that come along
• keeping each other informed
• having directors or other representatives serve
  on each others advisory bodies
• connection education
• mutual investment
• having an agreed-upon, informed response to the
  question, Whats the difference between WS and
  the WC?
• developing distinct visual identities, messages,
  and venues
• but taking advantage of opportunities for
  cross-promotion
• having respect and appreciation for your
• differences AND
• looking for ways to engage, influence, and
• supplement each others work and approach
• being self-aware