By Dr Monika Nangia, Academic Registrar and Director of Student & Academic Services at Durham University.
In a world increasingly aware of the value of diversity, the role of women in leadership is more critical – and undervalued – than ever. Despite encouraging strides, women, particularly women of colour, continue to face systemic barriers to advancement. This is a story of resilience, inequity, and hope.
The conversation around diversity and inclusion is urgent, and storytelling has emerged as one of the most potent tools to address these challenges. It connects us on a human level, fosters empathy, and confronts biases. At its best, storytelling is transformational.
In my career, I have witnessed the transformative power of storytelling in ushering in meaningful change. The stories we carry as women – of resilience, determination, and overcoming barriers – are far more powerful than any statistic or corporate policy. These personal narratives, shared boldly, have the potential to inspire, to challenge, and to reshape how we think about leadership.
Why We Need Women in Leadership
The benefits of gender-diverse leadership are unequivocal. According to Deloitte’s Global Human Capital Trends, organisations with inclusive cultures achieve 2.3 times higher cash flow per employee, 1.4 times more revenue, and are 120% more capable of meeting financial targets. Diverse boards, particularly those with greater gender and ethnic representation, also demonstrate better resilience and crisis management – evident during the COVID-19 pandemic.
But beyond numbers lies the human impact. Women leaders bring ‘cognitive diversity’, which accelerates learning and performance in complex and uncertain situations. Their leadership fosters a sense of belonging, improves employee engagement, and reduces turnover.
The journey to leadership for women is fraught with challenges. The ‘broken rung’ effect—where women are less likely than men to be hired or promoted into entry-level managerial roles – creates a bottleneck that compounds over time. For every 100 men promoted to manager, only 81 women make the same leap, with even fewer opportunities for women of colour.
Racial inequalities exacerbate this gap. McKinsey’s 2020 report highlights that women of colour face the steepest drop-off in career advancement at the transition from middle to senior management. Cultural expectations and resistance to authority further hinder their progress.
These systemic inequities are reflected starkly in higher education. According to the HEPI Report 2020, Mind the Gap: Gender differences in HE, while women now constitute 55% of university staff in the UK, they occupy only 29% of vice-chancellor roles. Among professors, women account for 29.7%, but Black women make up less than 1%.
The Power of Storytelling
Stories have a unique ability to amplify voices, challenge biases, and inspire inclusivity. Neuroscience tells us that engaging narratives release oxytocin in the brain, promoting empathy and altruistic behaviour. More than data or policy, storytelling humanises diverse experiences and catalyses change.
I’ve seen firsthand how storytelling transforms workplaces. Women leaders who share their personal journeys of resilience and ambition inspire others to envision new possibilities. Their stories break down preconceived notions, fostering an inclusive mindset that leads to behavioural change.
One colleague who spoke candidly about her experience being the only woman of colour in a senior leadership team. She described how, despite excelling in her role, her authority was often questioned, and she had to work twice as hard to gain the same respect as her peers.
Her story resonated deeply, not just because of the challenges she faced, but because of the hope and strength she embodied. By sharing her experience, she is creating a ripple effect – encouraging others to speak up, address inequities, and push for change.
Storytelling is also about accountability. In fact, it is far more important to confront the untold stories, the contributions of women whose voices have been silenced or overlooked. This is especially true for women of colour, whose experiences often fall at the intersection of gender and race-based inequities.
Mending the ‘Broken Rung’
A combination of stories like hers, with corresponding datasets as evidence, expose the structural barriers that continue to hold women back. The ‘broken rung’ is a vivid example of this.
Another story that sticks with me is from a woman in higher education, who spoke about being overlooked for a leadership role despite being the most qualified candidate. She later discovered that her ambition had been perceived as ‘sharp-elbowed’ and intimidating – a stark contrast to how her male counterparts were described.
Hearing her story compelled me to reflect on how ambition in women is often misinterpreted, reinforcing stereotypes that undermine their credibility. At a recent workshop, a senior leader shared her journey of overcoming immense personal and professional obstacles to lead a major organisational transformation. Her authenticity and vulnerability moved the room, sparking conversations about resilience, leadership, and the need for systemic change.
Building a Legacy of Inclusive Leadership
The path to inclusive leadership requires intentionality. It means addressing both visible and invisible barriers, from hiring practices to cultural attitudes. The stories we share today will shape the leadership landscape of tomorrow. As women, we have the opportunity – and the responsibility – to use our narratives to drive change.
Organisations with diverse leadership teams outperform their peers not just financially but also in innovation and problem-solving. The evidence is clear: diversity is not just a moral imperative – it is a strategic advantage. But the true value of diversity goes beyond metrics. It’s about creating workplaces where everyone feels they belong, where their contributions are valued, and where they can thrive.
The United States Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., has shut down a dozen student affinity clubs to comply with President Donald Trump’s executive orders to eliminate federal funding for diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and ensure that no member of the military “be preferred or disadvantaged on the basis of sex, race, ethnicity, color, or creed,” The Washington Postreported.
The Asian-Pacific Forum Club, the National Society of Black Engineers Club and the Latin Cultural Club are among the campus groups ordered to shut down, according to a memo sent Tuesday from Chad Foster, deputy commandant at West Point, to the Directorate of Cadet Activities.
The memo orders all the identified clubs to “permanently cease all activities” and “unpublish, deactivate, archive or otherwise remove all public facing content.” It also orders the dozens of other clubs at West Point to “cease all activity” until they have been reviewed to ensure compliance with Trump’s executive orders and guidance from the Army and the Department of Defense.
Below is the full list of disbanded clubs, including some with decades-long histories at West Point, according to the Post:
The Asian-Pacific Forum Club
The Contemporary Cultural Affairs Seminar Club
The Corbin Forum
The Japanese Forum Club
The Korean-American Relations Seminar
The Latin Cultural Club
The Native American Heritage Forum
The National Society of Black Engineers (West Point chapter)
The Society for Hispanic Professional Engineers (West Point chapter)
The Society of Women Engineers (West Point chapter)
Representative Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, speaks at a press conference following the passage of his Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act in the House of Representatives.
Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images
The House of Representatives voted 218 to 206 to pass a bill that would unilaterally ban trans women from competing in women’s sports Tuesday. The votes were nearly split along party lines, but two Democrats, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, both from Texas, voted for the bill.
Sponsored by Representative Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, the legislation dubbed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, is the latest attempt in Congress to keep trans women off women’s sports teams and builds on efforts in the states to restrict the participation of transgender students in sports that align with their gender identity. Last Congress, identical legislation from Steube passed the House but didn’t move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Now, Republicans hold the majority in both the House and the Senate, making it far more likely that this iteration will be more successful. In nearly half of the country, trans women are banned from playing women’s sports at the K-12 or higher education level, but the legislation would take those bans nationwide.
Passing the bill was a top priority for House Republican leadership, who included it on a list of 12 pieces of legislation to be considered first when the new session of Congress kicked off earlier this month. Its place of prominence seems to indicate that Republican leadership will prioritize rolling back or restricting the rights of transgender people, whom Republicans have often put at the center of a culture war.
Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump have criticized the Biden administration’s effort to amend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to prevent blanket bans that prohibit transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity. Last month, the Biden administration scrapped that proposal.
Under the bill, institutions that receive federal funding would be prohibited from allowing “a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.” It defines sex as being based on “a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” though it doesn’t expound upon how an institution would tell. The bill does not prevent trans men from playing on men’s teams.
Anti-trans activists argue that allowing individuals assigned male at birth to play on women’s sports teams opens cis women athletes up to being injured by athletes who are more naturally powerful due to their physiques. There is sparse research on if this is true; however, the few studies that do exist haven’t backed up the idea that trans women retain significant advantage over athletes assigned female at birth.
Supporters of the legislation—including some cis female athletes, like Riley Gaines, who have competed alongside and against trans athletes at the collegiate level—also argue that trans women take spots on women’s teams, going against Title IX’s promise of equal opportunity, and that it is uncomfortable for cisgender female athletes to share close quarters, like locker rooms, with individuals assigned male at birth.
Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, echoed these sentiments in his argument on the House floor Tuesday.
“Mr. Speaker, kicking girls off sports teams to make way for a biological male takes opportunities away from these girls,” he said. “This means fewer college scholarships and fewer opportunities for girls. It also makes them second-class citizens in their own sports and puts their safety at risk.”
Some people who agree that trans women should not play on women’s teams say they broadly support transgender individuals but see it as unfair for them to take spots on women’s teams. But Steube took a different approach. When he announced the bill earlier this month, he quoted President-elect Donald Trump’s promise that “under the Trump administration, it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders—male and female.”
Meanwhile, Democrats and LGBTQ+ advocates argue that trans women should have the opportunity to play sports—which have been shown to improve outcomes and mental health for youths across the board—on the team that matches their gender.
“Transgender students—like all students—they deserve the same opportunity as their peers to learn teamwork, to find belonging and to grow into well-rounded adults through sports,” said Representative Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat, on the House floor. “Childhood and adolescence are important times for growth and development, and sports help students form healthy habits and develop strong social and emotional skills. Sports provide meaningful opportunities for kids to feel confident in themselves and learn valuable life lessons about teamwork, leadership and communication. Teams provide a place for kids to make friends and build relationships.”
Bonamici and other democrats dubbed the bill the “Child Predator Empowerment Act” and argued it wouldn’t make schools safer for students. In fact, she said that the vague language in the bill about what defines the male sex could lead to invasive examinations.
“There is no way this so-called protection bill could be enforced without opening the door to harassment and privacy violations. It opens the door to inspection, not protection, of women and girls in sports,” she said. “Will students have to undergo exams to prove they’re a girl? We are already seeing examples of harassment and questioning of girls who may not conform to stereotypical feminine roles; will they be subject to demands for medical tests and private information? That’s intrusive, offensive and unacceptable, especially from a party of limited government.”
I often ignore my well-being—mind, body and spirit—while advancing my academic career. As a woman of color academic, balancing work and life feels very hard. My personal and professional lives are tangled, pulling at me in tiring ways. Relaxing seems wrong, and resting feels like a luxury.
I get so caught up in meetings and deadlines that on a typical day I often skip lunch. I forget to drink water and don’t even step outside for fresh air. My self-care plan has been “out of sight, out of mind.”
Now, in my 40s, I see the toll this has taken. I struggle with muscle spasms, neck pain, mental health issues and deep exhaustion. The hardest part? My six-year-old daughter says, “Mom works a lot.”
Enter Slow Living: A Revolutionary Recalibration
The slow living movement, rooted in the slow food movement, promotes a lifestyle centered on mindfulness, sustainability and quality over quantity. It encourages us to slow down and make intentional choices in a world that often values speed and productivity. This philosophy emphasizes the importance of relationships, well-being and balance.
For women of color in academia, slow living practices provide a means to counteract the intense pressures of teaching, administration, funding and publication. These pressures are heightened by systemic challenges such as microaggressions, tokenism, code-switching and the obligation to mentor students from similar backgrounds. This leads to cultural taxation and the demands of invisible labor, resulting in increased stress and burnout. The slow living approach promotes self-care and helps us reconnect with what truly matters, enhancing resilience and mental well-being.
The Invisible Burdens Women of Color Carry
Women of color in academia often face unique challenges that remain invisible to many of their peers. For example, the overwhelming burden of service work, particularly mentoring students of color, frequently contributes to feelings of isolation and burnout. While mentorship is vital and rewarding, it takes a significant toll, contributing to a sense of alienation, invisible labor and racial battle fatigue. The emotional and intellectual labor involved often detracts from time that could otherwise be spent on research, teaching or personal pursuits. Addressing these issues requires a deeper understanding of systemic obstacles and intentional efforts to foster equitable academic environments.
Furthermore, women of color academics often encounter challenges related to tokenism within predominantly white academic settings. Their roles can be perceived as symbolic, which leads to the expectation that they represent entire racial or ethnic communities. Faculty of color are frequently called upon to address student concerns regarding racism or to spearhead diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, a burden not equally shared by their white colleagues.
Moreover, microaggressions—subtle yet harmful discriminatory behaviors—can create an environment in which faculty of color feel compelled to continually validate their competence. These experiences highlight the need for systemic change to cultivate a more inclusive atmosphere where women of color faculty can thrive and contribute their invaluable perspectives.
The Slow Living Solution
The principles of slow living offer women of color academics a robust way to reclaim their time and energy, enabling them to focus on their well-being, passions and purpose. Embracing slow living practices may aid us in navigating the often overwhelming demands of academic life with greater intention and balance, which may amplify self-agency.
Mindfulness practices such as morning meditation or walking in nature can provide essential moments of peace. Setting boundaries, saying “no” to additional commitments and taking mental health days are other strategies that allow academics to preserve their energy. Intentional time management helps reduce stress and ensures alignment with personal values, creating a more fulfilling academic experience. Institutional support for mindful practices can be crucial in promoting the well-being and retention of women of color faculty by creating environments that prioritize self-care, work-life balance and mental health.
Slow living enhances career satisfaction by aligning daily tasks with long-term goals. Reflecting on work can help identify opportunities that bring purpose and joy, like prioritizing collaborative projects that match personal values. A model that reflects this intentional approach is transformational leadership in academia. This model focuses on leaders encouraging collaboration, promoting shared goals and emphasizing personal growth and well-being. Women of color faculty may use this model to engage in work that is aligned with their values and supported by institutional leadership, promoting meaningful collaboration and decreasing the likelihood of feeling disconnected or burned out.
Incorporating slow living into academia can inspire a ripple effect across departments and institutions. Women of color faculty prioritizing well-being and balance set a powerful example for colleagues and students. These shifts can foster a culture that values mental health and personal fulfillment as much as professional achievement. Over time, tailored slow-living principles could encourage academic institutions to reimagine success metrics, emphasizing sustainability, collaboration and community impact.
From Individual Change to Institutional Transformation
Slow living can’t flourish in a vacuum. For women of color faculty to thrive, institutions must provide meaningful support. Structural changes can transform individual efforts into a sustainable culture shift—and, honestly, wouldn’t academia be better off for it?
Institutions can enhance the well-being and retention of women of color faculty through several structural changes. Implementing flexible work policies, such as remote teaching and flexible hours, helps faculty manage their professional and personal lives. A holistic approach to tenure and promotion that values work-life balance, teaching quality, mentorship and community impact fosters inclusivity. Mentorship programs and employee affinity groups provide essential support and collaboration. Additionally, dedicated mental health resources help mitigate burnout. Programs like the Advancing Faculty Diversity initiative at the University of California celebrate (and fund) faculty DEI contributions. Finally, incentivizing collaborative work can shift success metrics to prioritize impactful contributions, benefiting faculty and institutions.
A Paradigm Shift Worth Embracing
After years of pushing myself to the limit, I realized it was time for a change. While moving to a peaceful countryside cottage wasn’t possible, I discovered that small daily habits could transform my busy life. I started by walking: Each morning, I would take a 10-minute walk through my neighborhood, paying attention to the rhythm of my steps and allowing myself to immerse in the present moment fully. I also began typing slower, breathing mindfully and speaking intentionally. These simple changes introduced mindfulness, making me feel less frantic about productivity and helping me prioritize quality family time.
Embracing slow living in my professional life has been a game-changer. It’s helped me focus on well-being and redefine success as living better rather than just doing more. As academics, we should celebrate lifelong learning and incorporate slow living into our lives. After all, if we’re too busy to care for ourselves, what are we truly working for?
So here’s my challenge to you, dear reader: Take a deep breath. Walk a little slower. Break away from the chime of an email sitting in your inbox. Speak with intention. Let’s rewrite the script that tells us we must hustle to the point of harm. Our careers, families and, most importantly, we are worth it.
Kenyatta Y. Dawson is a program director and faculty member at Texas Woman’s University. She specializes in diversity, equity, inclusion, student success and professional development in higher education. Her research focuses on mentoring adult learners, career satisfaction and equity-driven leadership. Grateful to Texas Woman’s University’s Women’s Thought Leadership Program for advancing underrepresented voices, Dawson embraces the Write to Change the World mission for inclusivity and social impact.
A full picture of neurodiversity in the workplace includes understanding how gender shapes employees’ experiences of neurodevelopmental disorders. Although they’re diagnosed at roughly the same rates as men, women with ADHD may be overlooked in conversations about attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Until fairly recently, ADHD was seen as primarily affecting children, with the typical view of someone with the disorder as a restless or hyperactive boy.
Awareness about how ADHD can manifest differently in women — and how gender stereotypes play a significant role in diagnosis and treatment — can help foster a culture that uplifts neurodiversity and the skills that neurodiverse employees can offer an organization. Employees with ADHD bring unique strengths and perspective to their work, such as creativity, courage and hyperfocus.
Here’s what HR needs to know about ADHD and how it can be different for women.
Misconceptions About ADHD
Rather than a set of behaviors, ADHD is a neurodevelopmental condition affecting about 2% to 5% of adults, and falls under the same broad umbrella as autism spectrum disorder and dyslexia. A stereotypical picture of someone with ADHD is “a boy who can’t sit still and is disruptive in class,” according to Dr. Deepti Anbarasan, a clinical associate professor of psychiatry at New York University.
Women who receive ADHD diagnoses in adulthood may have struggled with inattention and executive functioning for much of their lives. Because girls and women with ADHD often present as inattentive rather than hyperactive, and because women often develop coping skills that mask ADHD, women often receive late-in-life diagnoses. By the time women reach adulthood, however, the rates of diagnosis are close to those seen in men.
ADHD in women often presents as challenges with executive functioning, which can include difficulties with attention and focus, as well as emotional dysregulation, trouble with finishing tasks or juggling multiple tasks, and absentmindedness. Women with ADHD might also suffer from anxiety and depression, and even suicide attempts and self-harm. Some people with ADHD compensate by working extra hours during their personal time to keep up with their day-to-day work, causing added stress.
A Strengths-Based Approach
Though ADHD can pose real challenges at work, a strengths-based approach highlights the advantages that employees with ADHD bring to their jobs. In a recent study, for example, 50 adults with ADHD identified the positive aspects of living with the condition, including energy and drive, a high degree of creativity, an ability to hyperfocus, and traits such as resilience, curiosity, and empathy. The same study emphasizes that experiencing ADHD as challenging or beneficial depends on the context and sociocultural environment that a person is in.
HR as a Leader in Neurodiversity
Given how much context and sociocultural environment matters, creating a campus climate that supports neurodiversity is critical. HR can champion neurodiversity through awareness and well-being programs. Because ADHD often occurs alongside depression and anxiety, a holistic approach to well-being is recommended. (Learn how the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio gained traction with their mental health awareness campaign.)
HR can also advocate for accommodations to support neurodivergent employees. For example, task separation is a common management strategy to help employees set their work priorities. In emails and written communication this might look like establishing clear parameters, breaking requests down into bulleted lists, and clearly spelling out instructions like “two-minute ask” or “response requested.” (For many more suggestions on how to uplift neurodiversity on campus, including practical tips for accommodations, read Neurodiversity in the Higher Ed Workplace.)
There’s a business case to be made for a robust attention to neurodiversity: increased retention and productivity, reduced absenteeism, and developing employees’ strengths. Supporting neurodiversity also builds an appealing workplace culture, one that signals to employees that their whole person is valued.
New research from CUPA-HR on the state of the professional workforce in higher education shows that women and people of color are not only being paid less than White men in the same position, but also are less likely to hold higher-paying positions.
CUPA-HR’s research team analyzed data from the Professionals in Higher Education Survey, a comprehensive data source that collects salary and demographic data on more than 293,000 professionals in 409 positions from approximately 985 higher ed institutions, to evaluate representation and pay equity for women and professionals of color from 2016-17 to 2023-24.
The Findings
Women and people of color have lower representation among the highest-paying professional jobs. Women and people of color have lower representation among six-figure (i.e., paid more than $100,000) jobs in comparison to all other professional jobs. White men held 40% of six-figure jobs but held 28% of jobs paying less than $100,000.
Pay equity has improved slightly for women over the past eight years, but women of most races/ethnicities are still paid less than White men. Except for Asian women, women of all other examined races/ethnicities were paid less than White men in 2023-24.
Over the past eight years, the representation of people of color increased among higher ed professionals; the increase in the representation of women of color was more than double the increase in the representation of men of color. The representation of people of color increased from 22% of professionals in 2016-17 to 26% of professionals in 2023-24. During this time, women of color had more than two times the increase in their representation than did men of color (26% increase for women versus 10% increase for men).
Older women experience greater pay gaps than younger women. Women over age 42 had larger pay gaps relative to White men than did women age 42 or younger.
New research from CUPA-HR on the state of the faculty workforce in higher education shows that despite some growth in representation among tenure-track women and faculty of color in new hires, advancement to higher faculty ranks remains a barrier. What’s more, these promotion gaps are found in every faculty discipline.
CUPA-HR’s research team analyzed data from the Faculty in Higher Education Survey, a comprehensive data source that collects salary and demographic data by tenure status, rank, and faculty discipline, to evaluate representation and pay equity for women and faculty of color from 2016-17 to 2022-23.
In addition to the finding that women and faculty of color are not being promoted to senior faculty ranks at the same rate as White men, the data also show that women, Black, and Hispanic or Latina/o faculty are better represented in non-tenure-track than in tenure-track positions, and that pay gaps in non-tenure-track positions persist for these groups. Combined with the fact that these groups are less likely to be promoted to higher ranks in tenure-track positions, the result is that a substantial segment of faculty, primarily women and people of color, are employed in positions that pay lower salaries throughout their careers.
Other Findings
Tenure-track faculty positions are on the decline. There has been a decline in tenure-track positions and a corresponding increase in non-tenure-track positions over the past seven years. In 2016-17, tenure-track roles accounted for 73% of faculty, but by 2022-23, this proportion fell to 66%, with a marked increase in non-tenure-track positions over the last two years. Additionally, the percentage of new tenure-track assistant professor hires dropped in recent years, indicating a trend toward more new non-tenure-track hires.
The representation of women and people of color in tenure-track faculty positions is increasing, yet challenges remain. There was a notable increase in the representation of tenure-track (TT) women and faculty of color from 2016-17 to 2022-23. In 2022-23, more than one-fourth (26%) of TT faculty were people of color. This marks a 28% increase over the span of seven years, compared to 2016-17, when faculty of color constituted closer to one-fifth (21%) of all TT faculty. However, the growth in racial/ethnic representation still lags when compared to the demographic composition of U.S. doctoral degree holders. Further, despite strides toward pay equity for tenure-track faculty of color, White women in tenure-track positions still face persistent pay gaps in 2022-23.
Since 1996, the National Committee on Pay Equity has acknowledged Equal Pay Day to bring awareness to the gap between men’s and women’s wages. This year, Equal Pay Day is March 12 — symbolizing how far into the year women must work to be paid what men were paid in the previous year.
To help higher ed leaders understand, communicate and address gender pay equity in higher education, CUPA-HR has analyzed its annual workforce data to establish Higher Education Equal Pay Days for 2024. Tailored to the higher ed workforce, these dates observe the gender pay gap by marking how long into 2024 women in higher ed must work to make what White men earned the previous year.
Higher Education Equal Pay Day fell on March 5, 2024, for women overall, which means that women employees in higher education worked for more than two months into this year to gain parity with their White male colleagues. Women in the higher ed workforce make on average just 82 cents for every dollar a White male employed in higher ed makes.
Highlighting some positive momentum during this Women’s History Month, some groups of women are closer to gaining pay equity. Asian American women in higher ed worked two weeks into this year to achieve parity on January 14 — not ideal, but by no means insignificant. In fact, during the academic year 2022-23, Asian American women administrators in particular saw better pay equity than most other groups, according to CUPA-HR’s analysis.
But the gender pay gap remains for most women, and particularly for women of color. Here’s the breakdown of the gender pay gap in the higher ed workforce, and the Higher Education Equal Pay Day for each group.* These dates remind us of the work we have ahead.
March 5 — Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. On average, women employees in higher education are paid 82 cents on the dollar.
January 14 — Asian Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Asian women in higher ed are paid 96 cents on the dollar.
March 1 — White Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. White women in higher ed are paid 83 cents on the dollar.
March 12 — Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Native of Hawaii or Pacific Islander women in higher ed are paid 80 cents on the dollar.
March 28 — Black Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Black women in higher ed are paid 76 cents on the dollar.
April 12 — Hispanic/Latina Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Hispanic/Latina women in higher ed are paid 72 cents on the dollar.
April 22 — Native American/Alaska Native Women in Higher Education Equal Pay Day. Native American/Alaska Native women are paid just 69 cents on the dollar.
CUPA-HR research shows that pay disparities exist across employment sectors in higher ed — administrators, faculty, professionals and staff — even as the representation of women and people of color has steadily increased. But with voluntary turnover rising, not addressing pay disparities could be costly.
CUPA-HR Resources for Higher Education Equal Pay Days
As we observe Women’s History Month and Higher Education Equal Pay Days for women, we’re reminded that the fight for equal pay is far from over. But data-driven analysis with the assistance of CUPA-HR research can empower your fight for a more equitable future.
See our interactive graphics that track gender and racial composition, as well as pay, of administrative, faculty, professional, and staff roles, collected from CUPA-HR’s signature surveys:
An analysis of two decades worth of CUPA-HR data on gender and pay in higher ed administrative roles paints a troubling picture of pay equity. In 2022, women made up 51% of administrators in college and universities, but they were paid 93 cents for each dollar a man in an administrator position was paid. This represents an increase of just 3 cents from 2002, when women made 90 cents for each dollar a man was paid.
Among chief human resources officers, the pay disparity is even wider. Though three in four (76%) of CHROs are women, their pay in 2022 was only 89 cents for each dollar male CHROs were paid. Deputy CHROs who are women were paid only 83 cents, a figure that remained unchanged from 2002 through 2022.
The Higher Ed Administrators: Trends in Diversity and Pay Equity From 2002 to 2022 report also found that people of color — women especially — are increasingly represented in administrative positions. Drawing on 10 years of data, CUPA-HR found that between 2012 and 2022, the representation of people of color in higher ed administration increased by 41%. In 2012, people of color comprised 13% of administrators and in 2022, 18% of administrators. Women of color went from comprising 7% of higher ed administrators in 2012 to 10% of higher ed administrators in 2022.
Despite these gains in representation, women of most races and ethnicities are still paid less than White men in the same administrator positions.
The Report’s Major Findings Include:
The past 20 years saw an increase of 20% of women in administration, from 43% in 2022 to 51% in 2022, but pay equity for women has not kept pace. In 2002, women in administrator positions were paid 90 cents for each dollar men in administrator positions were paid. Two decades later, women in administrator positions were paid just 93 cents for each dollar men in administrator positions are. These wage gaps are not explained by the fact that women may have greater representation in lower-paying positions.
From 2012-2022, the representation of people of color in administrative roles increased by 41%. The biggest increases were among administrators of two or more races (290% increase) and Asian administrators (76%). Women of color have seen more than double the percentage increase in representation than men of color (54% increase for women versus 26% for men).
But people of color are still underrepresented in administrative positions. Using the percentage of people of color with U.S. graduate degrees (31%) as a comparison, we find that only 18% of higher ed administrators were people of color in 2022.
Women’s representation in executive roles increased, but pay inequity still exists. In 2022, women held one in three campus presidencies, an increase of 60% from 2002. In 2002, female presidents were paid 92 cents on the dollar to male presidents and saw only a 1-cent increase in the 20 years since. The worst pay equity for presidents was for Hispanic or Latina women, who were paid 82 cents per dollar paid to White men. In the same time span, the representation of women provosts increased, comprising nearly half (48%) of provosts in 2022. The gender pay gap narrowed as well: Female provosts were paid 91 cents on the dollar compared to male provosts in 2002, and in 2022, female provosts were paid 96 cents on the dollar compared to male provosts.
CHRO gender pay equity remains low. In 2022, three in four (76%) CHROs were women, with White women representing 60%. In 2002, female CHROs were paid 86 cents for each dollar male CHROs were paid. In 2022, female CHROs were paid only 89 cents for each dollar male CHROs were paid.
Addressing the Administrative Pay Gap
Addressing pay inequity and increasing the representation of people of color among higher ed administrators requires long-term solutions like conducting pay analyses. CUPA-HR’s DataOnDemand for the Administrators in Higher Education Survey features the most comprehensive data available on higher ed administrator salaries, as well as data on pay equity and representation for women and people of color for every administrative position.
Recruiting a more diverse pool of faculty candidates and mitigating bias in faculty promotions are also important to succession planning, as one notable path to the presidency is to start off as a faculty member, ascend to dean, then to provost, and then to president.
You also might consider what talent pipeline programs exist on your campus. For inspiration, see these models of internal talent development:
When you write a book, it’s lasting. It’s sharable. Your book is findable online which for professors that means you can help more people with your research, teaching, and the things you care about most. I’m delighted to share this featured interview with you.
Dr. Jane Joann Jones is a book coach for minoritized women professors. She left the tenure track 8 years ago to help you confidently write your book.
Jane says, “You’ve done this research. It’s really meaningful to you. And you wanna see it out in the world.” If you want a book, I want you to have a book! I hope this interview resonates with you.
Welcome to The Social Academic blog and podcast. We’re also on YouTube! I’m Jennifer van Alstyne (@HigherEdPR). Here we talk about managing your online presence as a professor. You can build skills to have a strong digital footprint to share your research and teaching online. And I’m here to help you.
In this interview, Dr. Jane Jones and I talk about
Meet Dr. Jane Jones
Jennifer: Welcome to The Social Academic. Today I’m talking with Dr. Jane Jones of Up In Consulting.
We’re gonna be talking about books. So, authors, please listen up. This one is for you. Dr. Jane Jones, would you please introduce yourself?
Jane: Sure. My name is Jane Jones. I am a New Yorker and I am a book writing coach. I came to book writing after I left my tenure track job. I was an Assistant Professor of Sociology. That’s where I have my PhD, in sociology.
I started out as a developmental editor and then transitioned into coaching. The business I have now is a book coaching business where I work with women in academia who are writing books in humanities and social sciences. I help them get those books done through a combination of developmental editing, coaching, and project management support.
Jennifer: I love that. Now, can I ask, what do you like most about coaching? Why do you like working with people on their books?
Jane: Oh my goodness, there are a lot of reasons actually. I really do love coaching.
One thing that stands out with the coaching side is how much academics already know, but have been socialized to believe they don’t know. Especially women.
Jennifer: Ooh. Especially women. Okay.
Jane: Especially women. Especially Black women, other women of color, They’ve been taught not to trust their own knowledge.
Jennifer: Mm.
Jane: And through coaching, a lot of what I focus on, is helping people realize that you already know a lot about your topic. You already have a lot of expertise. You don’t always have to defer to other scholars, to your dissertation advisor, especially when you’re writing your book. You no longer have to answer to your dissertation advisor. And that you have a lot of the skills already.
To be sure, there are a lot of things that we aren’t taught about publishing. There is a big hidden curriculum around book writing. And exposing that hidden curriculum is very important, while also reinforcing people’s trust in their own knowledge. Being able to do both of those two things at the same time, I think is the most important part of the coaching relationship for me.
What are universities not teaching you about book writing?
Jennifer: I love that because my next question was what are universities kind of not teaching you, right? What are universities not teaching, especially minoritized faculty, about writing books?
It sounds like people do have more knowledge than they’re able to process, maybe admit, or accept of themselves. Can you tell me a little bit more about that? Where is that difference between how much we know and how much we really need support?
Jane: I always joke that there’s no Publishing 101. There’s no Book Writing 101.That course is not taught in grad school. I mean, for that matter, Article Writing 101 isn’t either. Those aren’t taught in grad school.
Where people have a lot of knowledge is in their subject matter. In the data you have collected, all of the literature, you’ve read, how you make sense of the literature. People are experts there. You’ve spent your whole graduate career…Because I work with people at all stages of their career from Assistant Professor to Full Professor. You’ve accumulated so much data, number one. And you have so much knowledge. Right? So that is there.
But in terms of questions like, “Well, how is a book different than a dissertation?”
You know, “Structurally, what do I put in my book that wasn’t in the dissertation?”
Or, you know, “How do I create the through line in my book?”
You know, these really, kind of tactical questions about how do I actually do the writing of this type of manuscript? Which is different than an article, and is different than a grant proposal. They’ve never been taught that.
Even though they have all of the information, they don’t know how to get it on paper in a way that is going to be legible for our reader. That’s where the work happens. That’s what we do, and that’s what universities don’t teach people how to do.
Sometimes it’s because people just don’t know how to teach it. It’s kind of like, you write your book for yourself. For many people who write their first book, and if you’re a first book author watching this, if someone comes and asks you what you did, you might be like, “I don’t remember. I just got that done. I was on a tenure timeline, and I put my head down, and I wrote.” And maybe I had a book manuscript workshop. Or, you know, like, I had good friends, or a supportive mentor who read it and gave me feedback. And I wrote, got feedback, wrote, got feedback, and that was it. And then the book was done, right? That doesn’t mean you can then teach that process to somebody else.
So being able to be a little bit on the outside of the process as developmental editor, and with the other developmental editors, you know, who work in the program with me, being on the outside of that process and saying, you know, there are some common things. There are some things that all books have in common. And we’re gonna teach you how to implement and how to learn that craft, the things that are common about the craft of book writing.
We work with people across disciplines. We’re ‘discipline agnostic’ as we like to say. You know, from art historians to people who are more on the side of doing quantitative, big survey research, but writing books. We run the gamut. But even within that, there are things people have in common in their books and in their trials of writing, you know? The experiences they’re having, trying to make enough time to write the book, feeling imposter syndrome, not knowing what to do with feedback, being worried about approaching an acquisitions editor. You know, going back to the hidden curriculum, not knowing how to talk to an acquisitions editor and feeling very intimidated. Those are all things that we help them with that I think aren’t really being talked to them in other places.
People might be exchanging information informally. They’re like, “Oh, my friend published here. They said the editor is really nice.” Or, “They said the editor is really hands-on or not hands-on. So I have this informal knowledge, but I don’t know how to craft an email to an acquisitions editor. Or, strike up a conversation with them at a conference. And I feel very worried to do that.” You know, “I don’t know how to describe my book in one or two sentences so that I could talk to somebody about it at a conference and not spend 10 minutes talking about my book. Which, ultimately I will be, but I don’t have that sharp, quick summary.” Those are things that we help them with, because it could feel very disempowering when you don’t know how to do that.
Again, you have all this great information, but, if you don’t know how to talk to an acquisitions editor, how are you gonna have a book? If you don’t know how to craft a chapter, how are you gonna have a book.
Minoritized women in the academy do more service and mentoring
Jennifer: These are skills that professors can learn. These are skills that are learnable and that you can develop, but because they’re not taught by universities and the people who have experience in them maybe don’t know how to teach these skills, it is amazing that you and your team are there to support them. I’m so happy about that.
And I’m also happy that you work with minoritized faculty, with women. Why is that important to you?
Jane: It’s really important! I just want to go back to one thing, the people who have written books and don’t necessarily know how to teach it. I would add additionally, and kind of looping this into working with women and minoritized faculty is, like, they don’t often have the time to teach somebody elsehow to write a book.
It’s a time consuming process. A book is a multi-year process and people add mentoring like, “I’ll read a chapter for you and give you feedback.” But for someone to give them that structured support over time, faculty are having to publish themselves. They have to do their own service committees, they have their own families. Again, that doesn’t mean that they don’t offer help, but it means that they may not have the time or capacity to give that systematic type of help we do.
I think that’s especially pronounced for women and minoritized faculty because they often have an extra service load. They do more service. We know that statistically. They do more service. They’re doing more care-taking outside of work. Right?
There isn’t always that easy transmission of knowledge from a senior faculty member to a junior faculty member because they’re just as pressed as anybody else. And so are the junior faculty! And we don’t only work with junior faculty, but the majority of our clients are.
They have the same issues like extra service, students who want their mentorship because they’re the only Black person in the department. They’re only person who studies race. They’re the only person who does X research. So they have students who want their mentoring. And all of this creates extra commitments for them.
One thing that we focus on in coaching is helping people prioritize their books when there’s a lot of other things going on. Teaching that craft of writing, but also saying, like, “Hey, this book is really important to you for a lot of reasons. Like, professionally take a tenure promotion. But also because you’ve done this research, it’s really meaningful to you, and you wanna see it out in the world. How do we help you make sure that it stays top of mind?” What do we do to support people so that the book can stay top of mind.
Jennifer: I love that. I feel like my work is really aligned with that actually, because I’m really helping professors and researchers talk about the research and the teaching that they do on online. That way more people can have conversations, so that they can have more collaboration, so that they can get more research funding.
But most of the people that I work with have a lot of anxiety talking about themselves. Do you find that your authors have anxiety talking about their books?
Jane: Yeah. (laughs) Yeah. Definitely. And I think that the work you’re doing is so important, ’cause, in my opinion, if you write a book, don’t you want people to read it?
Like, you want it out in the world. Like, you wanna be in conversation with other people. You want people to read it, but you also want to talk to people about it.
Jennifer: Right, yeah. Yeah. Even, the ability to have someone on your team, be that kind of support, not just when you start writing the book, but through the whole process. That’s such an amazing idea that we can’t necessarily get through a mentorship position at your university. Especially if no one is in your field. I love that that support system is there.
It also gives authors an opportunity to have someone that they can talk with about their book. Some of the authors that I work with, I ask, “Who do you talk about your book with?”
And their answer is, “No one. Once I stopped working with my editor, I don’t talk with my colleagues. I don’t talk with my family. I don’t talk with my friends. My book came out seven years ago and I never talk about it.”
That really strikes me as something that I think that, people who work with you, they’re talking about their book. And thinking about it in much larger ways. Because it’s really introspective, and being introspective is hard. I love that you help people with that process and actually understand their motivations for why they’re doing it, who they’re helping. It’s amazing.
Jane: Yeah. Thank you. I think that another part that’s really important is that my programs are group programs.
Jennifer: Ooh.
Jane: And that’s on purpose. Because like you said, it is very introspective. For some people, the solitude, the solitary work, they like it. They’re like, “I like writing solitary. I like being alone with my thoughts.” And that’s great.
Some people are like, “It’s isolating, and I don’t like it, and I feel very alone in the process.” Being with people who are at a similar stage as them, and when I say stage, I don’t mean career-wise, I mean stage of the book. Because people come in, and they’re all at a similar stage of writing, so they’re all kind of going through it together.
“I’m trying to figure out the overarching argument of this book,” or, “I’m writing two of my empirical chapters, the two of my body chapters.” There’s a feeling of, “We’re in it together.”
I spoke to a former client the other day, and she was in Elevate a year ago maybe, and she said, “Our Elevate group still meets on Mondays and Thursdays on Zoom, and we still write together.”
Jennifer: I love that.
Jane: I was like, “Oh, my goodness.” I didn’t even know that they did that. And she’s like, “We kept the time and whoever can make it comes on Mondays and Thursdays and we meet.” Just having that community of people who are in it with you and are like, “I’ve seen you from when you started this book and you weren’t sure what it was about. And now you’re here and we’re just seeing each other’s process and giving each other support that way.”
It’s just awesome because we don’t get a lot of that in academia. We have to be very intentional about cultivating it. It doesn’t just show up for us.
Being able to provide that space where you have peers so you can be like, “I tried that too, and this is what happened when I tried it. “You know, or, “I went through that experience and I came out and I was, like, ‘I did it, and you could do it too.’”
Jennifer: I did it and you can do it too. Just hearing those two sentences, they’re so short. But, it just makes such a difference, especially to the women and minoritized faculty that you most want to help.
Jane: Yeah. I mean just seeing that. ‘Cause you get into it and you’re like, “I don’t know if I’m ever gonna be done with this book.” (Jane laughs). People definitely have that thought,
“I don’t know if I’m gonna be able to finish this.”
“I’ve been avoiding it.”
“I haven’t been working on my book, because I’ve been scared.”
“I got some feedback that put me into a tailspin.”
“I became overwhelmed with other commitments and I feel some shame about it.
“I feel so embarrassed.”
Jennifer: Hmm.
Jane: And reminding them that it happens. It’s disappointing that it happens, but it doesn’t mean something’s wrong with you. I was normalizing it and seeing when I did one-on-one, one thing that always happened was people would tell me something, I’d be like, “Oh, that’s really common.”
And they’d be like, “It is?”
And I’d be like, “Yeah, I have other clients who have experienced that.”
And they’re like, “They have?”
Jennifer: (Laughs). Yeah
Jane: So being able to put everyone in the group and be like, “Look, you’re all having this experience.” You are not uniquely incompetent in some way. This is something that happens to a lot of people. Just because we aren’t talking about it on Twitter, doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Jennifer: You know, I like when it is talked about on Twitter. I like when people talk about their struggles with writing on Twitter. Because I cheer them on. I’m like, “If you struggle with your writing, you get back to it, even if it’s a year later, two years later, 10 years later, I don’t care. Because I will remember that you were vulnerable and open about something you were going through. And I wanna cheer you on and I wanna hear about things when they’re not so good too.” So I really like vulnerability.
I love that people have a safe space to do that in your program. But I also encourage people, if you’re struggling with something, being open about it on social media can help spark new ideas, tools, and resources that you can use. But also new collaborations and ideas that could help spurn your research in another way. I mean, there’s just so much possibility besides hearing from other people, “Yes. I went through that too.” So yeah, I like that idea of being open about it.
Jane: Yeah, to be open about it! You know, it’s interesting. We gravitate to what is other people’s achievements and our failures, right? So, you finish a chapter and you’re like, “Yeah, but it’s not as good as I thought it would be.” Or, “Yeah, but it took me two months longer than I thought it would.” There’s always a diminishing.
Jennifer: Mm.
Jane: And convert on the flip side, they talk about other people who are like, “Well, that person finished their chapter so much faster than I did.” Or, “That person, you know, did this.” And it’s like, well, maybe they did. Maybe you don’t know the whole story. But it’s interesting, in our brains we kind of put everyone else as, “Well, they did it better or faster than I did. And when I did it, it was a mess.” And to coach around that and be like what is the story you are telling about your progress? And, is that story serving you? Because often it’s not. Saying, “I wrote my chapter, but…” And then using some type of diminishing, diminishing it in some way, how is that helping you?
Jennifer: Hmm.
Jane: Why would we emphasize that part of the story? What does it accomplish? It doesn’t accomplish anything besides making you feel like crap. It doesn’t accomplish anything. It doesn’t make you write faster. You can’t go back in time.(Jennifer laughs) You can’t go back in time and write the chapter faster.
Jennifer: Yeah, yeah.
Jane: So why would we talk about it so much? But we do, because sometimes we’re like, “Well, I don’t wanna seem arrogant.” Or, “It’s because I don’t believe that this is worthy of celebrating because it didn’t happen the exact way I wanted it to.” So where are the opportunities to kind of neutralize some of that language, so that people aren’t…
Jennifer: But you can find positives in it, right? Like, maybe that extra time gave you opportunity to realize something new. Maybe it was good that you didn’t write it as fast as you thought you might have been able to. There’s so much self-talk that can be negative that can be harmful for ourselves.
Jane: Yeah, there’s a lot of negative self-talk. Yeah.
Jennifer: Yeah. – I’ve definitely done that. I’m a creative writer and I’ve totally done that to my own. I didn’t write that fast enough or I didn’t write as much as so-and-so, yeah. It’s never helpful. It’s never helpful.
Jane: Yeah. Yeah. It’s like our running critic. And sometimes, it’s something my coach always says, “We can’t always get the critic to completely go away. We can put them in the backseat of the car, and be like, ‘You go back there. You’re not driving this car anymore. You’re not even in the back seat, but, like, the third row.’” (Jennifer laughs) You know, “We’re putting you back there. Like, I recognize that I may not be at a point where I can get rid of you, but I’m not going to give you authority over this ride. You don’t have the wheel. You’re back there.”
Jennifer: Still in the car, right? Can’t kick it out entirely. I mean, sometimes we can’t get control over it.
Jane: Still in the car. Like, you realize, you’re not wrong for having these thoughts. Like, they’re natural. And we’ve also been socialized to believe it’s not rigorous enough. It’s not fast enough. Publish or perish. There’s a lot of socialization at hand that is part of the reason why people have these thoughts.
As a coach it would be irresponsible for me to go in and just be like, “Oh no, you shouldn’t think any of this ever again.” Because as a sociologist, I know how strong the socialization is. As a coach I know that just makes you feel bad about having the thought. Then you feel bad because you didn’t write fast enough according to your standard. Then you feel bad that you’re judging yourself. And then you just feel doubly bad. So it’s like, “Okay, let’s just, like, take it back.”
Jennifer: Get out of that spiral.
Jane: Yeah. Let’s get out of the spiral. And, it’s okay that you had that thought. It’s okay that you feel bad. We don’t want you to feel bad indefinitely.
Jennifer: Hmm. I like that. We don’t want you to feel bad indefinitely.
Jennifer: Tell me more about Elevate. Who should join?
Jane: Everyone. I’m just kidding. (Jane and Jennifer laugh).
Jennifer: You said that people in the cohort are all in a similar place writing their book. When is it right to join your program Elevate?
Jane: Okay, so Elevate is a group editing and coaching program. We have a curriculum that we walk you through the
craft of writing a book
project management behind writing a book
mindset issues behind writing a book.
So much of what slows us down is our own thoughts. Like, “I’m not ready to write this.” “I don’t know what decision to make.” “So and so said this about my chapter, so I’m going to feel bad about it and just ignore it.” “I’m gonna avoid. I don’t wanna look at the feedback, so I’m just gonna avoid it.”
Those are the three domains we work in the craft of writing, project management, and mindset. We do that through a curriculum. We have lessons the same way you would in any course. We have editorial feedback, so you submit your writing for feedback twice a month.
And we have a lot of mindset coaching that I coach people hard, (Jennifer laughs) which I think is what most Elevate alumni would say. Like, “Jane really coaches us. Like, she really pushes us.”
Jennifer: Right.
Jane: I push you in a way that not like, “Write your book faster, write your book faster,” but rather, “Let’s get to the bottom of why you’re having these feelings about your book. Let’s get to it and figure it out,” type of coaching.
Because we’re academics, we’re in our brains so much. When it gets into having emotions, we’re, like, “Oh, no, we’re rational. We can’t really think about that.”
I used to be that person too. Oh, no.(Jennifer laughs) I hate that, all that emotion stuff. That’s not gonna work for me. Well, I kind of need to confront it, because you and your book are gonna be together for a very long time.
Like you were saying, like, as you write it and then after you write it, it’s not going anywhere. You should figure out how to enjoy it. To find pleasure in the process of writing it and be excited about it.
It’s just like any other thing. You’re not gonna be excited about your book 24 hours a day, but you wanna get to a point where you’re more excited and motivated than you are demoralized and stressed.
Jennifer: Hmm, mm-hm.
Jane: In the program, we go 24 weeks. We go through those three themes one by one. People who join, all women, they’re normally at a stage in their book where they are figuring out the big overarching picture of the book and the structure of the book.
Some people come in and they haven’t written a lot yet. They have all of their data collected, most of their literature read. You might need to go back and collect a little bit more data, but, we want you to really be past that stage. Some people come in and they haven’t written a lot.
Some people come in and they’ve written a lot and they’re just like, “I’ve been writing and writing, but I still don’t have a really clear through line,” or, “I still don’t know my argument.” And that’s fine, because people’s processes are different. Some people like to get a lot of words on paper and then go back and kind of orient themselves.
We advocate you creating the foundation first and then building your house. (Jennifer laughs) So people normally come in when they want that support. What we do first is teach people how to write your book overview, how to write your book’s framework and then create an outline for the entire book. And then they start writing chapters.
Normally within the program you can come out with a couple of chapter drafts if you have the time to commit, and you will know what your book is about, how you’re going to write it. You know how it’s going to unfold over time. And then you get to work.
Jennifer: You have a plan in place. You have the mindset that you need to make that plan actually done, like, to get your book done. I love that.
Jane: Yeah, yeah.
Jennifer: Oh, if people want more support, you help them with that too. Like, beyond writing their book, is that correct?
Jane: We focus on books, but we have an alumni program for Elevate. We don’t expect anyone to write a book in six months. (Jennifer and Jane laugh). That is not what we do. We do not make pie in the sky promises.
We have an alumni program and people often come back and do the alumni program, which is another six months. There we really focus on more now you’ve done a lot of the deep work, the deep thinking in Elevate. Now we are helping you get a lot of words on paper. People are doing the writing and getting the body chapters, I call them ‘the empirical chapters.’ But I know people also have ‘theory chapters,’ so I don’t want anyone to be like, “What about the theory chapter?”
We focus on getting chapters done or revising because some people will take Elevate, go off for a little while and work independently, and then come back and be like, “I have a couple of chapters done.” And we’re like, “Great, let’s start revising them.”
Jennifer: I’m glad I asked you about that because I felt like there might be some people who are like, “Oh, I need a little bit more help than that. Is there an option?” I’m glad that there’s an alumni program that supports you with continuing that process. That’s amazing.
What else should people know or consider about Elevate? Because your new cohort is opening up again soon.
Jane: Yeah, so we accept people who are writing first, second, third books. I think initially when we ran the program, it was very much for people who were transforming dissertations into books. And we have gotten a substantial number of people who are writing second books, which are a different challenge because you don’t have that scaffolding of the dissertation. Even if your first book is dramatically different from the dissertation, which many are, the book is not a revised dissertation. It is like a caterpillar to butterfly.
But the second book just poses different challenges, and we support people who are writing their second book, their third book, because that foundational work of creating the overview, the framework, the outline, you need to do that every time. It’s not like you write the first book and you’re like, “Well I’m an expert on book writing now, so I don’t need any help.” That’s not how it works. (Jennifer laughs). And even experts get support.
So it’s not a matter that it’s a remedial type of program. That’s not what it is. It’s not, for, “Oh the people who don’t know how to write books.” No, it’s for people who wanna write books with supportive community, expert editorial feedback and coaching to help them write the book with less stress, a better support system, a clear foundation for the book. So that they can make progress with more ease.
Writing a book is a complicated thing. It should be because you’re dealing with complicated ideas and all sorts of interesting data. And it’s not easy. But there can be more clarity and momentum in the process than what there currently is for a lot of people.
Jennifer: I think that this is such a wonderful gift that you can give to yourself, especially if this is, like, your second, third, or fourth book. Like, why not make this time easier and better?
Jane: The majority of the people who work with us pay through their universities. We have a significant number of people, and some people pay out of pocket. We have people who are like, “I wanna make this investment because my book’s important to me and I don’t wanna twiddle my thumbs…”
Jennifer: (Laughs). Good. So if you are listening to this, if you’re watching us on YouTube or reading the blog, know that this is a program that’s there to support you and that you can pay for it out of pocket or you can request funds from your university. I hope that you sign up for the wait list.
Jane: You can apply for Elevate. The application is just an application. It’s not a commitment to join the program. We look at your application, because one thing about the program is that we wanna make sure that you’re a good fit for the program.
We also wanna make sure the program’s a good fit for you. If we think that you’re not at the right stage, if there’s something about your research that we feel that we can’t support you…For instance, we had someone who’s writing a memoir and we’re like, “We don’t really edit a lot of memoirs.” If we feel like the program is not a good fit for you, we will tell you because we only want people in it who can commit and who we can help.
That is the point of going in and applying and possibly talking to me about the process if you have a lot of questions, that we wanna make sure that it works for everyone. Because it’s a big commitment. And also, a book is a big deal. If you’re gonna get support, you wanna make sure you’re getting the right support at the right time.
Instagram Live about finding your book audience on social media
Jennifer: I love that. Thank you so much for joining me for this interview, and for everyone listening, I do wanna let you know that Jane and I did an Instagram Live where we talked about your book audience versus platform.
Thank you so much for watching this episode of The Social Academic! And thank you so much, Dr. Jane Jones, for joining me.
Jane Joann Jones is an academic book coach who helps minoritized scholars get the feedback & support they need to confidently write their books. Jane strives to be the coach she wished for when she was on the tenure track.
In her eight years as an editor and coach, Jane has successfully helped dozens of academic authors create and execute a writing plan and ultimately write their books, confidently. Her clients have published with presses including Oxford, Princeton, Bloomsbury, University of Chicago, Stanford, Duke, and UNC. Through her work, Jane has restored minoritized academics’ faith in their writing abilities and their place in the academic world.
When she’s not challenging the status quo in academia, you can find Jane sipping a craft bourbon, on the rocks, while experimenting with a new cooking recipe. She also enjoys visiting museums for only one hour, devouring cooking shows, and impromptu dance parties to the tunes of Lizzo and Queen Bey. If you happen to be strolling through her New York neighborhood, you might see her at Lucille’s, her local café, drinking an oat milk latté with a raspberry donut and a good book.
