An evaluation of a leadership development programme for women in STEMM in Antarctica

Abstract

In this paper, we explore the advantages and challenges of combining transformational tourism in Antarctica with a transformational leadership development programme for women. Our case study is a three-week leadership development course in Antarctica for women in STEMM that had the express purpose of increasing female leadership and visibility in the domain of climate change. Using a feminist sociological approach, we argue that synthesising transformational leadership development and transformational tourism in Antarctica has the potential to augment the effectiveness of both experiences and is particularly apt, given the programme’s focus on climate change. Travelling to Antarctica as a group facilitated the development of strong bonds between the women, an important design feature of women’s leadership development programmes. Additionally, exposure to the Antarctic landscape provided scope for awe-inspiring experiences that enhanced these relational bonds and led women to reflect on and/or challenge their views of themselves and their place in the world. We conclude that leadership development programmes for women in STEMM could be further strengthened by addressing gender essentialism. We also focus on issues associated with using Antarctica as a “stage” for climate protection – namely, the problematic depiction of women as “naturally” virtuous regarding environmental management.

Keywords:

• Antarctica
• gender
• leadership
• transformational
• tourism
• STEMM

Notes

¹ Carey et al., “Glaciers, Gender, and Science”; Rosner, “Gender and Polar Studies,” 492.

² Collis, “Antarctic Territory: Man’s World?”; Dodds, “Post-colonial Antarctica”; van der Watt and Swart, “Whiteness and Antarctica.”

³ Chipman, “Women on the Ice,” 12. See also Carey et al., “Glaciers, Gender, and Science”; Collis, “Antarctic Territory: Man’s World?”

⁴ Dodds, “Preface.”

⁵ Glasberg, “Living Ice.”

⁶ Strugnell, “Female Antarctic Researchers.”

⁷ Carey et al., “Glaciers, Gender, and Science,” 775.

⁸ Strugnell, “Female Antarctic Researchers.”

⁹ Carey et al., “Glaciers, Gender, and Science.”

¹⁰ Glasberg, “Living Ice,” 228.

¹¹ Arora-Jonsson, “Virtue and Vulnerability.”

¹² Fletcher, “Post-heroic Leadership.”

¹³ Ibid., 651.

¹⁴ Oreskes, “Objectivity or Heroism,” 102.

¹⁵ Ibid., 111.

¹⁶ Prinsely, Beavis, and Clifford-Hordacre, “Busting Myths”; UNESCO, “Women in Science.”

¹⁷ Carey et al., “Glaciers, Gender, and Science”; Gaard, “Ecofeminism and Climate Change.”

¹⁸ Gaard, “Ecofeminism and Climate Change,” 28.

¹⁹ Arora-Jonsson, “Gender and Environmental Policy,” 303.

²⁰ Espinosa, “Pathways and Pipelines”; Eagly, “Female Leadership”; Ely, Ibarra, and Kolb, “Taking Gender into Account.”

²¹ Savigny, “Women, know your Limits.”

²² Meyerson and Fletcher, “Modest Manifesto.”

²³ Reilly et al., “Confronting Gender Inequality,” 1026.

²⁴ Ely, Ibarra, and Kolb, “Taking Gender into Account.”

²⁵ Ely, Ibarra, and Kolb, “Taking Gender into Account,” 486.

²⁶ Acker, “Chairing and Caring”; Lynch, “Carelessness”; Morley, “Rules of the Game.”

²⁷ Fletcher, “Post-heroic Leadership.”

²⁸ Eagly, Johannesen-Schmidt, and van Engen, “Meta-analysis.”

²⁹ Ely, Ibarra, and Kolb, “Taking Gender into Account.”

³⁰ Stempel, Rigotti, and Mohr, “Think Transformational Leadership.”

³¹ Fletcher, “Post-heroic Leadership,” 654.

³² Ibid., 655.

³³ Ross, “Transformative Travel.”

³⁴ Powell et al., “From Awe to Satisfaction.”

³⁵ Ross, “Transformative Travel,” 55.

³⁶ Robeldo and Batle, “Transformational Tourism.”

³⁷ Powell et al., “From Awe to Satisfaction.”

³⁸ Zuev and Picard, “Antarctic Tourist Interaction.”

³⁹ Pearce, Strickland-Munro, and Moore, “Awe-inspiring Experiences,” 365.

⁴⁰ Tin, Summerson, and Yang, “Tourists’ Perceptions of Antarctica.”

⁴¹ Powell et al., “From Awe to Satisfaction,” 145.

⁴² Nash and Moore, “Exploring Methodological Challenges.”

⁴³ Braun and Clarke, “Thematic Analysis.”

⁴⁴ Acker, “Gendered Games”; and Holvino, “Intersections.”

⁴⁵ Lumby and Morrison, “Leadership and Diversity.”

⁴⁶ Cassano, “Climate of Extremes”; Zuev and Picard, “Antarctic Tourist Interaction.”

⁴⁷ Suedfield and Steel, “Capsule Habitats,” 228.

⁴⁸ Ibid.

⁴⁹ Palinkas, “Isolated and Confined Environments.”

⁵⁰ Video 1 may be accessed here: https://vimeo.com/224259959. Participants have given their permission for these videos to be shared.

⁵¹ Pattyn et al., “Sleep in Antarctica.”

⁵² Suedfield and Steele, “Capsule Habitats.”

⁵³ Boniface, “Women in the Outdoors.”

⁵⁴ Ely, Ibarra, and Kolb, “Taking Gender into Account”; Harris and Leberman, “Leadership Development for Women.”

⁵⁵ Boniface, “Women in the Outdoors.”

⁵⁶ Kellert, “Introduction” to The Biophilia Hypothesis, 20.

⁵⁷ Powell et al., “From Awe to Satisfaction.”

⁵⁸ Ibid.

⁵⁹ Video 2 may be accessed here: https://vimeo.com/224258981.

⁶⁰ Picard, “White Magic”; Zuev and Picard, “Antarctic Tourist Interaction”; Tin, Summerson, and Yang, “Tourists’ Perceptions of Antarctica.”

⁶¹ Roberts, van der Watt, and Howkins, “Antarctica.”

⁶² Picard, “White Magic,” 307.

⁶³ Aurora Expeditions, “Greg Mortimer.”

⁶⁴ Homeward Bound, “Greg Mortimer OAM.”

⁶⁵ See also Farley, “By Endurance We Conquer.”

⁶⁶ Glasberg, “Living Ice.”

⁶⁷ The story relates to the Swedish Antarctic Expedition (1901–1903), during which the scientific research vessel Antarctic became stuck in the ice. The crew abandoned ship and made their way to Paulet Island. To survive the winter, the male crew killed up to 1,000 penguins. They were eventually rescued by an Argentinian ship nearly nine months later. See Lewander, “Representations.”

⁶⁸ Homeward Bound, “Mother Nature.”

⁶⁹ Stearney, “Ecofeminism and the Maternal Archetype.”

⁷⁰ Arora- Jonsson, “Virtue and Vulnerability”; Gaard, “Ecofeminism Revisited”; Resurrección, “Women and Environment Linkages.”

⁷¹ Leach, “Earth Mother Myths.”

⁷² Nash et al., “What Style of Leadership.”