Re: Diversity scholarship: Identifying under-represented groups

Sure, here is some of the research. [1] I tried to find HTML or articles discussing these research papers where I could, because not all of the PDFs are tagged. Also, much of this research shows that the cues that work for groups that have moderate underrepresentation are different -- and in some cases the opposite of -- the cues that work for groups that have massive underrepresentation. In fact, some of the research I read (often done in US universities), compared some of the same imbalances we have in the W3C. That is to say, some of the research compared the effects of certain cues on white women and on black men and women, in groups in which white women were moderately underrepresented, while black men and women were massively underrepresented.

1. Most important, I think, is this 2018 article from Harvard Business Review: "Research: When Boards Broaden Their Definition of Diversity, Women and People of Color Lose Out". <https://hbr.org/2018/10/research-when-boards-broaden-their-definition-of-diversity-women-and-people-of-color-lose-out>

The point of this article is not to say that women and people of color lose out when "diversity" includes some of the other groups we are discussing, such as people with disabilities. It's specifically talking about generalizing "diversity" so much that it stops having a useful meaning: diversity of thought, diversity of experience, diversity of perspective. The article doesn't argue against soliciting diversity of thought, but it shows how once "diversity" is generalized, all of the games for traditionally underrepresented groups vanish.

2. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R., & Randall-Crosby, J. (2008). Social identity contingencies: How diversity cues signal threat or safety for African-Americans in mainstream institutions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 615–630. <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/psychology/vpvaughns/assets/pdfs/Social%20Identity%20Contingencies%20(2008).pdf>

This study found that in situations where groups were extremely underrepresented, seeing so-called colorblind cues (that is, encouraging a generic inclusive and accepting environment) made members of the underrepresented groups suspicious and threatened. One key quotation: "But to the extent that African Americans are attentive to cues signaling how they will be valued and treated, ignoring group membership is threatening when it implies that a setting values prototypicality or sameness."

3. Stevens, F. G., Plaut, V. C., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2008). Unlocking the benefits of diversity: All-inclusive multiculturalism and positive organizational change. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 44, 116–133. <https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242151238_Unlocking_the_Benefits_of_DiversityAll-Inclusive_Multiculturalism_and_Positive_Organizational_Change>

One key quotation: "minorities on the other hand distrust colorblind initiatives because they are perceived as being exclusive of their group. Moreover, minority distrust of colorblind ideals is exacerbated in cases where organizations do not appear to be especially diverse in the first place." Another quotation: "A colorblind perspective does not reliably indicate a prejudicial organizational stance but rather, may reflect an attempt by the organization to frame their diversity practices using an ideology that has traditionally appealed to nonminority groups.  Although a colorblind ideology may appeal to nonminorities, this approach to diversity also may alienate minority employees and allow a culture of racism to develop."

This study is actually somewhat frustrating, as it affirms the findings of the previous study, but also discusses how explicitly doing multicultural outreach annoys members of overrepresented groups, and it proposes what they call "all-inclusive multiculturalism" which can both do the necessary non-colorblind outreach *and* make members of overrepresented groups feel welcome and heard as well. And yet they don't propose any language (and I'm not sure if their study actually used any such language, because I'm pretty sure this is a  paper based on a review of the existing literature and not an empirical study), And to a certain extent it seems to me like this "all-inclusive multiculturalism" is a magical unicorn incantation.

4. Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Racial colorblindness: Emergence, practice, and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 205-209. <http://web.mit.edu/epa1/www/New%20articles/Racial%20color%20blindness-%20Emergence,%20Practice,%20and%20Implications.pdf>

5. Apfelbaum, E. P., Stephens, N. M., & Reagans, R. E. (2016, July 18). Beyond One-Size-Fits-All: Tailoring Diversity Approaches to the Representation of Social Groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. <https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53765baee4b0e5824b38300f/t/57d6cda320099e32e859ac62/1473695140350/apfelbaumetal_beyond_one-size-fits-all_2016.pdf>

An Article about this study: <https://www.bu.edu/research/articles/diversity-is-difficult/>

6. Inside Higher Ed has an article about two institutions that successfully diversify their faculties. Both were prohibited from having hiring quotas, but they found that simply asking explicitly for diversity statements from faculty, and having explicit conversations about diversity and what it means among their existing faculty and hiring committees, sent messaging to both potential applicants and to existing staff and faculty that the university was taking diversity quite seriously. The interviewees make it clear that they were explicit about their goals to increase gender and racial representation across the faculty. One of the universities successfully increased hires from indigenous backgrounds as well (Although that particular success is attributed to cluster hiring, which is in academia-specific approach that doesn't have anything to do with us). <https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/09/28/how-two-institutions-diversified-their-faculties-without-spending-big-or-setting>

Deborah

[1] I'd like to propose to the search engine manufacturers a variant of safe search called "no Nazis" or something. I hate how even when I know what I am looking for, searching for anything that has to do with diversity these days tends to get me some really loathsome people. Searching for diversity in recruitment research turns up some super nasty results unless you limit your search to .edu/.gov/.org sites, ugh.


On Wed, 2 Jan 2019, Léonie Watson wrote:

> Thanks Deborah. If you have time, could you share some of the research into 
> the way name-checking specific groups actually helps? I think that would be 
> useful.
>
> Léonie.