You're Prettier When You Smile: Construction and Validation of a Questionnaire to Assess Microaggressions Against Women in the Workplace

Gender microaggressions, especially its subtler forms microinsults and microinvalidations are by definition hard to discern. We aim to construct and validate a scale reflecting two facets of the microaggression taxonomy: microinsults and microinvalidations toward women in the workplace, the MIMI-16. Two studies were conducted (N1 = 500, N2 = 612). Using a genetic algorithm, a 16-item scale was developed and consequently validated via confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in three separate validation samples. Correlational analyses with organizational outcome measures were performed. The MIMI-16 exhibits good model fit in all validation samples (CFI = 0.936–0.960, TLI = 0.926–0.954, RMSEA = 0.046–0.062, SRMR = 0.042–0.049). Multigroup-CFA suggested strict measurement invariance between all validation samples. Correlations were as expected and indicate internal and external validity. Scholars on gender microaggressions have mostly used qualitative research. With the newly developed MIMI-16 we provide a reliable and valid quantitative instrument to measure gender microaggressions in the workplace.

Improving the Academic Climate of an R1 STEM Department: Quantified Positive Shifts in Perception

Ongoing efforts to improve diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) primarily manifest as attempts to recruit more women and individuals from historically marginalized groups. Yet, these efforts fail to repair the specific, systemic issues within academic communities that hinder diverse individuals from persisting and thriving in STEM. Here, we present the results of a quantitative, multiyear effort to make the academic climate of an R1 STEM department more inclusive. We use a student-led, department-specific, faculty-supported initiative to assess and improve the climate of the Department of Chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley, as a case study. Our results provide quantitative evidence that community discussions grounded in our own data, alongside cooperative community efforts to address the issues present in those data, are effective methods for driving positive change. Longitudinal assessment of our academic climate from 2018 to 2020 via annual department-wide surveys indicates that these interventions have succeeded in shifting the perception of our academic climate. This study confirms the positive outcomes of having a practical, sustainable, and data-driven framework for affecting change within a graduate community.