by Dr. Patricia Klinck and Ms. Andrea Allard.
Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne.
Parkville, Victoria, Australia.

This paper reports on a program for male academic staff at the University of Melbourne which aimed to enable men to explore their understandings of gender, the ways in which power is exercised by them as teachers and as administrators, and to consider models of leadership, including those based on collegiality and collaboration.

The program was organised on the model of a collegial support group which has been successful in leadership training in the US and Canada as well as in Australia.

This study shows that their knowledge and understanding of issues of gender and models of leadership are limited and unexplored. Their concept of power, as administrators, does not include the right or the responsibility to change either the culture or the role of women within the culture.

In this paper, we also discuss the barriers to change that emerged. These include the absence of professional development activities, which focus on knowledge of the issues of leadership, culture and gender and the isolation of individual men from the support of other pro-feminist colleagues. Furthermore, these barriers required a concerted long-term effort, such as provided in the collegial support group model, to create change.

Remember for a moment the fairy tale in which the beautiful princess leans over and kisses the ugly frog. Due to the devotion and concern offered freely by such a kind and loving princess, the object of her affection, the ugly frog is released from the evil spell and magically turns into a handsome prince. The ability of the princess to transform ugliness and limitations into a thing of beauty, indeed the transformative nature of love itself, is to be celebrated. On the other hand, the squat ugly frog can wait to be loved, hoped to be transformed, but cannot (does not) bring about the needed transformation, cannot (does not) address the possibilities of change in any real way for himself.

"Neither Frogs Nor Princes", is an evocation of our experiences of planning and implementing a pilot program, for males only, on gender, power and models of leadership. The program was offered in March 1994 at the University of Melbourne, the second oldest university in Australia and one that claims reputation for high academic standards. The university has twelve faculties with a total of 1899 staff of whom 37% are female (1993). The university has an Equal Opportunity Office responsible for addressing all equity issues including affirmative action and inclusive curriculum for the University. This pilot program was coordinated through the Equal Opportunity Office.

The decision to offer this pilot program was made for a number of reasons. First of all, in Australia, in response to the national Affirmative Action Program for Women, a number of initiatives have been undertaken to encourage and support women to succeed in academia. Underpinning these initiatives, however, is the often unexamined assumption that it is women who need to change in order to achieve 'success', to fit into academia.

As Carol Bacchi, Australian educational researcher, points out: "the existence of formal equal opportunity rules serves...(to) convince many, particularly those who themselves do not face discrimination, that all that needs to be done is being done..." (1993: 39). She goes on to argue that there is a need to: "...contest and re-signify the interpretations and conceptualizations, which surround these (equal opportunity) laws. The kind of re-signification which is needed emerges from the analysis...which illustrates that existing understandings disguise the operation of power in social relations....Ways must be found to draw attention to that factor. One way may be to shift the focus from the recipients of 'assistance', the targets of 'equal opportunity', to the beneficiaries" (1993: 39).

Sandra Acker, academic researcher in England and in Canada, states the need succinctly when she says, "...one task for feminists is to consider how to convince their colleagues that gender is not a topic of interest only to women, but a fundamental organizing principal of social life" (1994: 157).

We were interested in 'shifting the focus' and wanted to consider ways in which the 'beneficiaries' of power in social relations, those males who hold powerful positions in academia, might be challenged to see the need to examine, and perhaps begin to change, the masculinist culture of the workplace. We could not find programs which addressed academic leadership from this perspective.

Other recent work which has explored the 'masculinist culture', in particular that of Blackmore, informed the planning for the pilot program. Blackmore notes that in her study of an educational bureaucracy, the participants:

"...spoke of how embedded in this particular bureaucratic culture were norms of behaviour, models of good management and images of leadership which excluded most women because of their close association with so-called masculine attributes, behaviours and images. These norms emphasised a particular form of bureaucratic rationality and logic of procedures characterised by unemotional arguments and an apparent capacity to make the 'hard' decision. Language, symbols, rituals and myths perpetuated this hegemonic masculinity which defined insiders and outsiders." (1993: 80)

This description did not seem dissimilar to the academic culture and the ideals of academic leadership experienced by many women.

Blackmore also goes on to argue the need for feminists to 'problematise masculinity' and suggests the need to 'focus on similarities and not differences by forming a dialogue across differences' (1993: 88) The need for a collaborative approach to establish an environment where feminists and pro-feminist men are able to speak as equals seemed to be an important way forward.

Recent research and writing in the areas of gender, (eg., Weedon, 1987; Connell, 1987; Davies, 1989; Mac an Ghaill, 1994), educational leadership (eg., Herr Van Nostrand, 1993; Luke and Gore, 1992) provided a theoretical framework. Furthermore, our own knowledge and experience of current educational initiatives in the area of women and leadership (eg., Klinck, 1994; Lewis, 1993; Shakeshaft, 1989), and teachers and change (eg., Allard, et al, 1995; Fullan & Hargreaves, 1992) enabled us to work collaboratively to develop a pilot program.

While both authors have extensive experience in providing professional development programs for educators and in working in academic institutions, in order to better understand some of the dilemmas experienced in working through this project, it is necessary to clarify our positions relative to the hierarchy of the University of Melbourne. Neither of us held a tenured position; Andrea was on a five-year contract and Pat was working within the Educational Faculty as a visiting scholar. Neither of us as the program facilitators held formal administrataive positions within the University of Melbourne. Later on this lack of status influenced how the project was perceived and taken up by male academics. However, this was not obvious when we set out to offer the pilot program.

"Models of Leadership, Power and Gender" was organised into a series of three late afternoon seminars of two and one half-hours each. In order to do justice to the complexity of the issues, these seminars were offered not as one-offs, but as a sequential program. All male academics were invited to participate through a notice that was sent by the Equal Opportunity Office. The notice went to approximately 1200 male staff initially. Due to lack of enrolment it was readvertised to male academics in administrative positions. While the program created a great deal of interest among female academics, who were curious to know about the enrolment numbers and the program, the enrolment of male academics was extremely low: eg., for the first session, only eight males signed up. However, despite this low number, we decided to go ahead with it as a pilot project. In the first session, only five of the potential eight participants came. Of these, a senior administrator arrived announcing he could only stay for one hour; a second senior administrator arrived, announcing he could only come to the first session. Thus in the second session only three of the original participants returned. A new participant also arrived but could only stay for an hour. For the final seminar, only one participant came. We received apologies from the other two, one who became ill and one because he was attending a department meeting.

As well as a written evaluation by participants at the end of the program, a survey sought information from the male academics as to why so few enrolled. Answers included: childcare responsibilities; length of the program; belief that the issue had already been addressed; belief that since the program dealt with gender, it was not relevant to men. The misconceptions concerning 'gender' held by many of the male academic staff became obvious through such responses.

The purpose of the program was to explore the interrelationship of gender, power and leadership with the intent of changing the model of leadership and the nature of the culture. To accomplish this purpose we were determined to create and sustain an learning environment based on the experiential learning model. This model challenges the assumptions about knowledge which are at the heart of tertiary education. Quite simply it does not assume expert knowledge and right answers from the presenters nor does it see learners as "deficient". Rather experiences are taken as a significant knowledge base against which theory and practice can be evaluated. Our expectation was that experiences would be shared, theory challenged and new knowledge applied to the work context.

The first of the three sessions began with a discussion of the taken-for-granted premises of leadership. In this discussion we put expanded the concept of leadership to include teaching. It was the beginning of a shared understanding of leadership, gender and change. The second session dealt with the interrelationship between models of leadership, language and culture. The third and final session brought together strategies for gender responsible leadership, set an agenda for change and provided ongoing netowrking for the group. Readings were provided prior to each session. Each session also included sharing personal experiences and perceptions of field based assignments.

The above outline is the program as we intended it to unfold. In the phases of program planning we discussed and deliberated on the processes and the readings to be used. We verified and evaluated it against the principles of experiential learning and were confident that it was a well-integrated program. We anticipated a challenging but focussed discussion. The following section of this paper gives an account of how the program took shape. Our insights are also a part of the account.

From the start of the initial session, the male participants jockeyed for position; power was being negotiated. The negotiation established a pecking order. Talk became ordered, with some of the men having more rights than others to challenge and to offer opinions and to talk at length. In one exchange, power was conferred on a participant by the most senior academic present, who singled him out from the group with a compliment. The compliment recognised and lauded his power to influence the outcomes of meetings. His participation increased appreciably. The same senior administrator dismissed comments from another participant who remained silent until the depart of the senior administrator. Despite our continual attempts, as facilitators, to refocus the group on the intended program, for the first 45 minutes, it was a struggle over who had control. Our inability to command the groupÕs attention (Burger and Luckman 1969) and to attend to the topic of the program (Fishman 1983) was a clear signal that we were positioned as non-powerful and easily dismissed.

When the senior administrator left, we were able to claim the attention of the group and brought forward the article for discussion. The participants could reach no agreement on the relevance of the article. Several felt it was dated. One felt that in his faculty, (medical), gender was not a problem because they dealt with 'the top one per cent of the student population'. One felt that he too had experienced marginalisation just as the female post graduate student had in the article. In short, despite the different perspectives, the men agreed that we were dealing with a non-issue.

Shortly before the end of the first session, one of the participants asked us suddenly, 'Do you find this discussion intimidating?' His question took us by surprise since we had been fully engaged in the discussion. However, it enabled us to respond explicitly to two issues: firstly, that on a personal basis we found the discussion both hopeful and encouraging; second, it gave us the opportunity to pose the fundamental question: why were we, as a group, unable to discuss the topic of gender? In our opinion for the first two hours of the session, it had been deftly side stepped. Our question, in turn, was met with stunned silence on the part of the participants, followed by a more honest discussion and the first session ended on a more open note.

Debriefing after session one, we recognised that much of the power available in an academic teaching institution is based on 'expert' knowledge. The claim to 'right' answers is central to this concept and is exemplified through the use of the lecture as a common mode of information delivery. One of the challenges thrown at us during the first session was to 'define leadership'. We did not meet the challenge as one would in a lecture. As facilitators we charged the group with the task of defining key terms in their own words. We refused to give the 'right' answer, preferring to negotiate understandings, which would reflect all participants' perspectives. This was a departure from the rules of the academic game. In hindsight, we perceived that this left us in a less powerful position with the group. We had not commanded the session by using expert knowledge. Also, they were unaccustomed to participating in this sort of dialogue. They lacked the skills, knowledge and were unwilling to take the risk.

In session two, we decided to address the question of participation at the beginning of the session. We designed a process to give time for each participant to speak from a personal perspective. By naming and claiming issues in personal and professional experiences, the ways in which gender and power relations are constituted became clearer to the participants. Taken away from the abstractions of academic talk, they spoke as fathers, as partners, and as colleagues who walked along side their female colleagues, conscious of the women's anger and the injustices, conscious of what the future might hold for their own daughters and partners. They understood the problem as a lived daily experience. They expressed an urgency about the change needed and the challenge it presented.

The sense of urgency, challenge and a desire for better working relationships all appeared to be a mandate to bring change. However, this urgency and challenge did not translate into action. As administrators the participants did not see themselves as agents of change nor in need of change. Their view was that, sympathetic and supportive though they were, the change was 'out there' somewhere, to be done by and/or for women. From their comments, it appeared that the power to change seemed to reside either higher up in the academic hierarchy or in women themselves. Silence and learned helplessness were clearly evident in their responses.

Furthermore, this sense of helplessness was evident in their understanding of what the mandate of leadership encompassed. For example, in the last session one participant recounted his stand to encourage female students to enroll in a mathematics program and the lengths taken to ensure that female professors were hired as well. He lamented that this initiative had not been successful because the few women whom he had managed to employ were unable to take the 'stirring' by their male colleagues. His support for encouraging and employing females seemed sufficient to him. His leadership was successful in terms of the number of females admitted during his term. However, as an administrator, he did not see his role as one of influencing how the culture in the department was established or enacted. If the women were too "weak", then they were deficit. The department remained traditionally masculinist. In the third session, we focussed on experiences of exclusion and strategies of inclusion recommended in Herr von Nostrand (1993). He professed the desire to try again and to enlist the help of others.

As stated, the definition of leadership was broadened to acknowledge the act of teaching. However, participants did not make the connection between pedagogical practices, empowerment and the culture of the university. A long discussion evolved out of the two readings they had done concerning teaching as a leadership endeavour and the masculinist culture of academia. One participant gave the example of how he organised his students into small groups for research projects. He expressed surprise at the diversity of strengths and experiences which students brought to projects. He noted that the quality of the projects as well as interactions among the students increased. In the discussion, it was agreed that this pedagogical strategy lead to greater inclusion. It benefited female students who played a strong role in the projects, apparently benefiting from the rich interactions. Despite an extensive discussion, this participant was unable to make the connection between the changed role of women students, the greater emphasis on their knowledge and experiences and how this might, in the future, have impact on the number of women moving into academia. He could not see how such a change in the learning context could also be used to produce change in the organizational culture.

Our perspective on culture and change is based on Trompenaars (1993: 6-7) who states that 'culture is the way in which a group of people solves problems...(a) problem that is regularly solved disappears from consciousness and becomes a basic assumption, an underlying premise.' He goes on to say that each culture distinguishes itself by the solutions it finds for the problems it encounters.

In the past, universities have solved the 'problem' of student learning by defining the relations of the 'expert' professor and the 'deficient' student who is required to listen and to reproduce the 'right' answer. These assumptions about relationships and the nature of knowledge are unconsciously and deeply embedded. Experiential learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1994: 44-47) challenges those assumptions. As a pedagogy it affirms personal knowledge as a basis for acquiring new knowledge and sets up a relationship of mutual respect between students and professors, learners and teachers. It acknowledges expert knowledge but also builds on the strengths and experiences of all who are involved. Thus the decision to adopt this pedagogy attacks the underlying assumptions and premises of the university culture. It has the potential to bring about enormous change. To change the pedagogy is to change the culture of the organization.

Despite the fact that the participants did not see the connections between teaching, leadership and gender, their interest in the program carried beyond the seminars. One participant told how he had spent an entire dinner party discussing the issues of gender and power with his guests. While for many, this may not seem remarkable, he presented the discussion as unique and unusual.

After the three sessions were completed, the three participants were asked to complete an evaluation consisting of open ended statements. In their evaluations, they expressed their pleasure at having the opportunity to discuss these issues with other male colleagues. They stated that the discussions had given them a greater focus on the issues and a better understanding. One commented that he had found the opportunity to 'hear from women' particularly enjoyable. All commented on being disappointed by how few male colleagues had chosen to participate. Although they acknowledged that ours was a 'courageous endeavour', one thought that a team of facilitators, a man and a woman, would enhance the program.

During the program and in the ensuing weeks we discussed our impressions and reactions to this program. What worked? What would we do differently if we did it again? Would we do it again? We also reviewed the evaluation comments of the participants to ascertain how much impact the initiative had from their perspective. Our comments address program design, pedagogy, the needs of participants and facilitators and personal reflections.

From our perspective, the pilot project had its successes. As academics and professionals we often talk about the need for a change in the cultural context of organizations. Various professional development activities aim to make change in the working relationships between men and women; others, as already mentioned, aim to change women's knowledge and skill levels for career promotion. To our knowledge, none have directly approached men to make problematic gender, power and their assumptions concerning leadership. Nor have any addressed the need male leaders might have to talk to other men about strategies used to include women fully as equals, as colleagues.

As we reviewed the program design, several revisions became apparent. We are confident in the relevance of the stated assumptions and would make them more explicit from the outset. They represent significant challenges to the taken-for-granted assumptions underlying leadership, learning and gender. As such they would need to be revisited during the program so that participants make their own assumptions explicit.

Reflecting on the readings, these were chosen for their relevance to the university context but they proved foreign to the participants. They found them a 'hard read' and could not make connections with their work. They did not ask for further readings, which they might pursue on their own time. This silence made us aware of gaps in our planning. First, we had not anticipated the extent to which the literature on gender issues was unknown. We had assumed a higher level of awareness and knowledge on the part of these academics than was true. Second, over the course of two sessions, it became clear that their interest in the aims of the seminar was not linked to any urgent need to pursue topics, concerns and leadership strategies. From our perspective, we saw that the privilege of entitlement to a position within the hierarchy of power protected them from the experience of marginalisation and therefore of the need to understand it as Bacchi, (1993) suggests. As male academics they were privileged through the dominant discourses in operation. Because they were already there, they found it hard to see what it looked like from an outside or marginalised perspective.

The pedagogy of experiential learning presents significant challenges to facilitators and participants alike. These challenges are not new nor are they hidden. Although we have referred to the impact of learning models on the organizational culture, it is worthwhile to analyse them here in relationship to the program. First a facilitated groups is not the norm at the university. Expectations for the experiential learning model on which facilitated groups are established need to be made explicit throughout the program. These expectations include an examination of relationships between learner and 'the teacher' and of the nature of knowledge. Reflecting systematically on experiences and articulating personal knowledge within the group has the potential to assist participants in several ways. First, it gives them the opportunity to understand the relationship between power, knowledge and organizational context. This understanding is central to empowering others, that is, to setting the conditions which enable others to take control of their actions. Second, it is possible that making these connections could set the conditions to link their experiences and their mandate for leadership in the university community. This would create the potential for them to see the connection between pedagogical change and change to the university culture. By being more explicit throughout the program and by insisting on systematic reflection and application to their current context, the outcomes of the program could be enhanced.

Regarding the issues of power there is a need to explore each participant's sense of agency, authority based on their positions and on the ways in which the 'gender regime' operates (Connell, 1987). This exploration has ramifications for facilitators. They need to be explicit and assertive about the gains that male academics already have within the university. At the same time, it is important to recognise the challenge participants will experience while endeavouring to explore this issue. Facilitators need also to develop practical knowledge of how to deal with resistance to these explorations. Resistance and dissonance are to be expected and dealt with as part of the learning process.

It is important to share our personal reflections of the program. We learned a lot about power and leadership. For example, we learned that risk taking needs to continue throughout the sessions--not just as a starting point for setting them up. If we were to do this again, we would insist on using our personal power. For example, we would not let go of it so easily when the males started jockeying amongst themselves for position.

At different times in the pilot we were acutely aware of our deficits: both of us were in academic positions of no great importance in the hierarchy of the University; both of us could be seen as 'outsiders' since we speak with North American accents; both of us had prior knowledge of marginalisation which made us feel vulnerable, and perhaps overly cautious. We vacillated between confidence in our approach, certainty that our risk was worthy and deep concern about how the participants viewed the endeavour and how they were progressing. This was perhaps a measure of our own lack of confidence and sense of vulnerability, not an uncommon experience, we believe, of many women in academia.

We agreed with the evaluation comments that a male and female facilitator would be an advantage. This was in our initial plan. We worked closely on the advertising and the program design with a male colleague who was unable to continue with the pilot. The team approach would allow for close process observation and also for divergent perspectives both with the discussions and in the debriefing. However this presumes that a male involved would have a sound background in and commitment to understanding gender issues. He should also demonstrate the ability to facilitate in partnership to avoid the experience cited by Lewis and Simon (l986) where the asymmetrical power relations skewed male-female participation in the group.

In order to fully understand how the dynamics of the group functioned it would be highly recommended to use audio or visual taping. Too many nuances of meaning escape when note taking is used. The recorded data would allow for systematic use of discourse and conversational analysis techniques and triangulation.

Would we do it again? We have often debated that question. Over time we have come to the conclusion that we would but with strategic changes, some of which we have outlined above. We remain committed to our belief that there is a need to take action, to problematise the issues of gender, power and leadership in a male only context.

To return to our title: 'Neither Frogs nor Princes' summarise our understandings about the experience of planning and implementing this pilot project. The male academics who participated were certainly not 'ugly frogs'. They came because they had personal knowledge, based on their relationships as husband, father, colleague, of the difficulties and of the discrimination experienced by women working within patriarchal social systems. They came with the best of intentions and with a willingness to consider the issues. Nor were they princes about to use their power to transform the sleeping princess. Rather like the princess, they too suffer from learned helplessness and passivity; conditions, which require time, effort and deep commitment to resolve.

Participation in this project was not sufficient to develop the necessary understandings or commitment to begin the process of changing the academic culture in which they are privileged. Nor did it provide them with a sense of agency to transform their own leadership practices into more inclusive and collaborative ones. From our perspective, we saw little evidence that they were able to challenge the masculinist culture in which they were located. For us, in many ways, we learned, and relearned how difficult it is to challenge hegemonic discourses of leadership, power and gender. Clearly, much work remains to be done.

Drawing on the above literature, we started from the following premises. Traditional and current models of leadership are patriarchal and based on hierarchical structures. Emerging leadership envisages ways to transform the context in order to identify, acknowledge and value those who are excluded, eg., women. 'Gender' is a cultural/social construct; beliefs about 'appropriate' masculine, feminine behaviours are learned, can be changed, challenged and resisted, over time and in different contexts. Understandings of masculinities, femininities are negotiated, challenged, resisted, re-constructed, endorsed on an individual and collective basis. Change is possible and necessary. Leadership ability can be honed through education, experience and reflection. Naming the issues is a prerequisite to action. organizational change is based on a shared vision of how the world can be better and relies upon courageous, collaborative action on the part of leaders. Teaching, as well as administration, is a leadership activity which needs to be supported by 'positional' leadership while the hierarchy continues to operate.

In the first session, our goal was to focus specifically on the relationship between teaching as a leadership activity, and the ways in which power relations and understandings concerning gender influence the processes of leadership. In preparation for the session, we sent out a pre-reading 'A Discourse Not Intended for Her: Learning and Teaching Within the Patriarchy' (Lewis and Simon l986). This article is written from a dual perspective: that of a female post graduate student and a male professor. The article demonstrates how discourses of gender and power are enacted within academic classrooms.

The second session focussed on the interrelationship between models of leadership, language and culture. During this session, there was time to report back on the task and to discuss the reading. In response to queries raised in session one, data on the status and number of women academics at the University of Melbourne was also distributed for discussion.

To inform the discussion for the second seminar, the participants were asked to complete a task. During the week, they were to observe one formal (eg., a committee meeting) and one informal (eg., family dinner) situation in order to analyse the group dynamics. They were asked to consider the relationships in both situations, in terms of gender, power and leadership and to note their observations for the next session.

Additionally, excerpts from The Empowered Manager (Block 1987); Transforming Leadership (Anderson 1992) and 'Towards a 'postmasculinist' institutional politics'?' (Blackmore 1993), were distributed for reading. The first two excerpts provided masculinist concepts of leadership and were the basis for understanding Blackmore's article.

As a task for the following week, we asked the participants to examine and reflect upon the strategies, which they used to establish and promote inclusive participation within their individual academic contexts. They were also asked to identify factors, which work for and against change in their own context.

Our third and final session aimed to bring together strategies, set an agenda for change and provide ongoing networking for the group. We reviewed the leadership model developed and used at Edith Cowan University, Western Australia. This model was central to the Women in Leadership Program and has been used successfully for both women-only and mixed groups of academics and general staff.

An excerpt from Gender Responsible Leadership by Herr van Nostrand (1993) was provided at the close of the final session, as a means of highlighting a few of the strategies possible for change. We also distributed an evaluation, which reiterated the purposes of the program. It was mailed to all who had attended.

Acker, S. (1994) Gendered Education. Buckingham, England. Open University Press.

Aisenberg, N. and M. Harrington. (1988) Women of Academe: Outsiders in the Sacred Grove. Amherst, Mass. The University of Massachusetts Press.

Allard, A., Cooper, M., Hildebrand, G., Wealands, E. (1995) STAGES: Steps Toward Addressing Gender in Educational Settings.. Melbourne, Australia. Curriculum Corporation.

Anderson, Terry D. (1992) Transforming Leadership: New Skills for an Extraordinary Future. Amherst, Mass. Human Resources Development Press Inc.

Bacchi, C. (1993) The Brick Wall: Why So Few Women Become Senior Academics. The Australian Universities Review. Vol. 36, No. 1, 1993.

Blackmore, J.H. (1993) Towards a 'postmasculinist Institutional Politics'? in Baker, D. and Fogaty, M. [eds], A Gendered Culture: Educational Management in the Nineties. Melbourne, Australia. Victoria University of Technology.

Block, P. (1987) The Empowered Manager: Positive Political Skills at Work. San Francisco, USA. Jossey-Bass.

Connell, R.W. (1987) Gender and Power. Sydney, Australia. Allen and Unwin.

Davies, B. 1989. Education for Sexism: A Theoretical Analysis of the Sex/Gender Bias in Education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 1989 (21) 1-19.

Fullan, M. and A. Hargreaves. (1992) What's Worth Fighting for in Your School? Working Together for Improvement.Buckingham, England. Open University Press.

Herr Van Nostrand, C. (1993) Gender Responsible Leadership: Detecting Bias, Implementing Interventions. Newbury Park, California. Sage Publications.

Johnson, David W. and Frank P. Johnson. (1994) Joining Together: Group Theory and Group Skills. Allyn and Bacon.

Klinck, P. (1994) Women, Language and Leadership. EQ Australia, Spring, No. 3, 1994: 10-13.

Lewis, M. (1993) Without a Word: Teaching Beyond Women's Silence. New York, USA. Routledge.

Lewis, M. (1992) Interrupting Patriarchy: Politics, Resistance and Transformation in the Feminist Classroom in: Feminisms and Critical Pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Lewis, M. and R. Simon. (1986) A Discourse Not Intended for Her: Learning and Teaching Within the Patriarchy. Harvard Educational Review, 56, (4), 457-472.

Luke, C. and J. Gore. (1992) Women in the Academy: Strategy, Struggle, Survival in Luke, C. and J. Gore. [eds]. Feminism and Critical Pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Mac an Ghaill, M. (1994) The making of men: Masuclinities, sexualities and schooling. Open University Press: Buckingham.

Shakeshaft, C. (1989) Women in Educational Administration. Newbury Park (California): Sage Publications.

Trompenaars, F. (1993) Riding the Waves of Culture. London, England. Nicholas Brealey Publishing.

Weedon, C. (1987) Feminist Practice and Post Structuralist Theory. U.K.: Basil Blackwell Ltd.

-- What's New -- Presentations -- CV of Dr. Klinck -- KeyLinks --    Our Services --    Workshops --    Selected Clients --    Testimonials --    Newsletters -- Articles -- Contact Us --