ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

The challenge of diversity is much more than a change in terminology from categories like gender, ethnicity, age and class to the more encompassing and concealing term ‘diversity’. In contrast to gender and other categories of identity, which are often represented as sources of social inequality in organisations, ‘diversity’ does not so powerfully appeal to our sense of social justice. (Benschop, 2001, p. 1166)
Policy Futures in Education, Volume 4, Number 2, 2006 doi:10.2304/pfie.2006.4.2.96
96
INTRODUCTION
Doing Diversity
SARA AHMED & ELAINE SWAN
The challenge of diversity is much more than a change in terminology from categories like
gender, ethnicity, age and class to the more encompassing and concealing term ‘diversity’. In
contrast to gender and other categories of identity, which are often represented as sources of
social inequality in organisations, ‘diversity’ does not so powerfully appeal to our sense of
social justice. (Benschop, 2001, p. 1166)
This quote from feminist management academic Yvonne Benschop epitomises a central critique of
how the term ‘diversity’ operates within organisations. In relation to this special issue, it raises a
number of important questions: for example, if diversity does not necessarily appeal to our sense of
social injustice, what then is its appeal? To what are we appealing, when we appeal to diversity? In
this special issue, we aim to offer a wide range of perspectives on how the term ‘diversity’ is being
used within schools, colleges and universities to define their social and educational missions, as well
as their employment practices. The ‘turn’ to diversity has led to the term ‘diversity’ being used on
its own or with the term ‘equality’, such that people increasingly talk about doing ‘E & D’ work.
The politics of this turn has been much debated within critical race and post-colonial studies,
feminist studies, as well as critical management studies (Ang & Stratton, 1994; Bhabha, 1994;
Kandola & Fullerton, 1994; Deem & Ozga, 1997; Prasad & Mills, 1997; Kirton & Greene, 2000;
Lorbiecki, 2001; Gunew, 2004; Konrad et al, 2006; Lorbiecki & Jack, 2000). This shift has meant that
other kinds of vocabularies are no longer used, or at least are no longer central to policy debates,
including terms such as ‘equal opportunities’, ‘social justice’, ‘anti-racism’ and ‘multiculturalism’.
These terms have complex histories, which are bound up with the history of different political
movements, including the women’s movement as well as the anti-racist movement. When the
terms disappear from policy talk, a concern is that such histories might also disappear. It is striking,
for instance, that there is little reference made within current policy discussions on equality and
diversity to earlier debates on anti-racism versus multiculturalism within education (see Sarup,
1991; Rattansi, 1992). One of our aims in this special issue is to situate diversity work in relation to
these longer histories of political activism.
If the language of diversity is taking the place of other kinds of language, then it is extremely
important that we ask what this word actually does, in the sense of what are its effects. What
difference does diversity make? Why is there such a desire for diversity? In the critiques mentioned
above, diversity has been viewed as problematic because it individuates difference, conceals
inequalities and neutralises histories of antagonism and struggle. This special issue aims to extend
such important critiques by exploring how diversity gets ‘done’ within specific educational
contexts. These contexts include schools, adult and community learning, further education and
higher education. Together, the authors ask some open and exploratory questions about how
diversity works in these contexts, as well as what counts as diversity, who does diversity work, and
who is seen to embody diversity. In other words, rather than trying to ask ‘what is diversity?’, we
aim to track some of the uneven, complex and unstable effects of how the term is being or not
being ‘integrated’ into educational organisations.
Introduction
97
Articles in this special issue draw on a range of methodologies to investigate ‘doing diversity’.
These range from ethnographic studies, interview-based research, documentary and textual
analysis, theoretical and conceptual engagement and personal reflection. In so doing, the issue
shows how diversity operates as a set of practices across the educational sectors, as well as how
diversity affects the situation, position and lived experiences of different staff in specific
organisations. We have chosen articles that reflect on a wide range of forms of educational
provision, including schools (Osler), adult and community learning (Hunter), further education
(Turner), diversity training in the public sector (Crawley) and higher education (Deem & Morley,
Jones, Mirza). Education has long been seen as a crucible for equality work by policy makers,
parents and activists. A key concern is to show how diversity work is shaped by specific
institutional histories, and by the different constituencies embodied by each sector, in terms of both
students and staff.
All of the articles examine diversity work in education within the United Kingdom. The
specificity of this national dimension matters. Many of the articles engage with what we can call
‘the equality regimes’ in the UK: the new legislative frameworks that have reimagined equality as a
‘positive duty’ for public organisations. Recent legislation, in particular, the Race Relations
Amendment Act (RAAA) (2000) hence provides a key background to this special issue. The RRAA
makes promoting race equality a ‘positive duty’ under law. As such, the Act represents a significant
cultural as well as political shift: no longer does the law only work negatively (by making
discrimination unlawful), but it also entails a positive duty to promoting race equality. In actual
terms, ‘promoting race equality’ has meant that all public bodies must have a race equality policy
and action plan. In order to comply with the new law, organisations first had to write their race
equality policies. The RRAA has hence generated a considerable amount of documentation. Such
documents typically involve statements of commitment to diversity. It is important that we address
how these ‘diversity documents’ are written, who writes them, and whether or not they get taken
up. Indeed, one concern about the RRAA is whether the labour of doing the document gets in the
way of other forms of doing (Ahmed, forthcoming).
Many of the articles in this special issue also suggest that these new equality regimes are part of
a wider cultural shift, where diversity and equality are becoming part of performance and audit
culture (Power, 1994; Strathern, 2004). In other words, diversity and equality are not only
documented, they are being transformed into documents that can be evaluated by an agreed set of
measures. For instance, in higher education, the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU) ranked the race
equality policies of all universities in England and Wales. Although they did not produce a league
table on diversity and equality performances, they did publish a list of 34 higher education
institutions (HEIs) that had been given an ‘exemplar’ ranking. Although the ECU stresses that this
process was an ‘evaluation of the written policies and action plans only’ and not ‘an assessment in
practice’ (2003), it is striking that a number of HEIs make reference to their exemplar rank in the
race equality reports, and do so using the language of pride. For instance, one HEI mentions this
rank in their 2005 annual report, and then states: ‘we aim for excellence in everything we do, and
our approach to race equality should be just as professional and rigorous as all our other activities
... is very much part of our mission to maintain and develop our position as a world-class
university’. Documents that document racism become usable as measures of good performance.
This can lead to what Prasad & Mills (1997) call the ‘showcasing’ of diversity ‘successes’, of which
one technique is the ‘showcasing of exemplars’.
We could describe this shift towards documentation and measurement as involving the
bureaucratisation of diversity (see Mirza, 2005, p. 15). Articles in this special issue consider how
diversity is being ‘done’ through technologies of audit, inspection and monitoring, and raise
questions about how measuring diversity might affect the distribution of power within
organisations (see Turner, Mirza). What is being measured, we could ask, when we measure such
documents? If diversity becomes a matter of tick boxes and paper trails (or even becomes the paper
in the trail), then it would no longer be about challenging inequalities, or could even function as a
technology of concealment, where inequality is hidden by the very measurements of ‘good’
performance. As such, diversity might not only involve a depoliticisation of the equalities, as
Rosemary Deem & Louise Morley suggest in their contribution to the special issue, but also that
the equalities agenda could ‘even’ function as a mechanism for the reproduction of inequalities.
Sara Ahmed & Elaine Swan
98
Being good at diversity and race equality can become a form of organisational pride, which might
even block the recognition of inequalities within organisations. As such, diversity and equality
become forms of capital within organisations, which circulate through the distribution of
documents and ‘good feelings’ (Ahmed, forthcoming). Technologies of ‘show casing’ can lead to an
economy of affect in which pride, celebration, and upbeat performances hide the frustrations,
anger, tensions and disappointment of living with the effects of diversity work (Prasad & Mills,
1997).
In a way, not only is diversity becoming a performance indicator in the United Kingdom, but it
is also something organisations are increasingly performing. We do not have to look far to ‘see’
how diversity has been taken up. Diversity is increasingly used as a marketing device, or even as an
organisational brand – a ‘glossification’ of diversity (Gewirtz, 1995 cited in Lingard et al, 2003). One
further education college in the United Kingdom, for instance, suggests ‘celebrating diversity is
second nature to us’. Such statements are typically accompanied by visual images of happy
‘colourful’ faces, as a visual translation of the diversity metaphor of the multicultural mosaic
(Kandola & Fullerton, 1994) By implication, the college becomes diverse when racialised others
‘arrive’, as Lewis Turner explores in his article on governors in further education. Diversity
becomes something that can be added to the faces on the board. Indeed, as Puwar argues, ‘In policy
terms, diversity has overwhelmingly to mean the inclusion of people who look different’ (2004,
p. 1). In so far as diversity is seen to be embodied by others, it then allows the whiteness of such
organisations to be concealed.
Crucially, a number of the articles in this special issue explore the effects of diversity on those
who are considered to embody this term: Black and Minority Ethnic staff. How does being seen as
the embodiment of diversity effect Black and Minority Ethnic staff? Articles in this special issue
explore how Black and Minority Ethnic staff feel hyper-visible and exposed in white organisations.
One of the effects of the culture of diversity, then, might be how Black staff are continually
interpellated not only as signs of diversity, but also as responsible for it, as Heidi Mirza and Cecily
Jones both explore in their articles. Being asked to be the caretakers for diversity is one way that
Black and minority staff are continually repositioned as ‘outsiders within’, to use a term that Shona
Hunter draws on in her article. It is by making certain bodies responsible for diversity that other
bodies, and indeed the organisation itself, are let off or even discharged from doing this work.
Given that diversity work is given less value than other kinds of work within organisations, being
stuck ‘with’ diversity could become a way in which Black and Minority Ethnic staff get stuck in
organisations, spending their time doing work that is undervalued and underresourced in terms of
pay, power, time, financing, and commitment, and can lead to increased stress and few promotion
prospects.
One of the primary defences of the language of diversity is that it is more ‘inclusive’, precisely
because it does not name a specific social category (such as gender, race and class). But what are the
terms of this inclusion? Who is included by the term? One concern is that the inclusiveness of the
term might conceal how social categories such as gender and race work. Rosemary Crawley, Heidi
Mirza and Cecily Jones explore the ways in which diversity may work to negate the specificity of
the experiences of Black and Minority Ethnic women. Black and minority women often disappear
in the equality agenda, precisely given how race and gender get taken up separately, or because
‘diversity’ itself is seen to be, in the words of one influential North American diversity consultant,
‘beyond race and gender’, or even about ‘everyone’ (Thomas, 1991). One of aims in this special
issue was to provide a space to articulate a Black feminist standpoint on the messy, complex and
often painful ways in which Black and Minority Ethnic women negotiate cultures of racism and
sexism in education as students, teachers, managers, equality practitioners and activists.
Focusing on the effects of diversity means tracking how diversity gets used within organisations
by being attached to specific bodies, units or agencies. We need to consider the effects of such
‘diversity attachments’ on individuals as well as organisations. We also need to differentiate
between how diversity gets used to redescribe or reimagine educational organisations through
official documents (and ‘who’ gets to embody diversity at this level), and how diversity gets talked
about within organisations. Rosemary Deem & Louise Morley, for instance, present findings from
their large-scale qualitative study of six universities, which involved talking to a wide range of staff
about how they perceive diversity, including academics, administrators, porters and cleaners.
Introduction
99
Focusing on perception allows us to explore how diversity might have different associations for
staff within organisations (see also Konrad et al, 2006).
Diversity work also covers a range of different practices for these different staff. Articles in this
special issue hence consider different actors and what they do with diversity: including diversity
trainers, equality practitioners, leaders and governors. Our aim is to show the complexity of
diversity as a set of practices and start to ask what this might mean for the politics of diversity
within educational sites. For instance, Osler and Hunter both consider the role of leadership in
diversity work, defined as ‘leadership for diversity’ (Osler) or as ‘alternative imaginings of
educational leadership’ (Hunter). They also ask what kinds of knowledge and expertise ‘leadership
for diversity’ draws upon and who is imagined to have access to this expertise. Crawley considers
how diversity training can work to open spaces in which racism and sexism can be talked about.
Sanjay Sharma examines how diversity works in teaching practices. His article opens up the critical
question of how differences can matter in ways that challenge how differences are assumed to
reside in specific bodies or texts. How do we teach diversity, or teach beyond diversity? What does
it mean to train people in diversity? What role do governors and trainers have in promoting
diversity? And to what extent does this work actually work to challenge the histories of inequality
and injustice that still shape institutional worlds?
Indeed, what all the articles share is a concern with exploring how such histories continue to
matter; how much they are a point of inheritance. It is because colonialism, racism and gender
hierarchies continue to shape educational as well as social spaces that diversity matters. In other
words, diversity matters not as a description of such spaces (of what they are, or what they have),
but as a sign of what they are not. In this way, organisations need to diversify only when racialised
others remain the strangers, as ‘bodies out of place’ (Ahmed, 2000; Puwar, 2004). Ironically, the
hope for diversity lies in the aspiration that this term will keep these associations with such
racialised others, however problematic these associations may be. The aim would not be to
constitute Black and ethnic minority staff as the origin of diversity, as adding colour to the white
face of the university or college. Rather, in so far as diversity signifies the arrival of Black and
Minority Ethnic staff into educational spaces as head teachers, equality practitioners, lecturers,
managers, principals, then it might point also to how organisations are orientated around
whiteness, around those who are ‘already in place’. The happy smiling face of diversity would not
then simply rebrand organisations, but would point instead to what gets concealed by this very
image: the inequalities that are behind it, and which give it its surface appeal. In other words, if the
appeal of diversity is that it conceals inequalities, then we can expose such inequalities by exploring
the terms of its appeal.
Diversity work means working with problematic terms. But what we do when we do diversity
is also a question of how we use the terms available to us. Prasad & Mills criticise managerialist
diversity work for making diversity seem too easily ‘doable’ (1997, p. 11). These articles show how
the politics of diversity within educational policy and colleges, universities and workplaces is
complex, contextual and ambivalent; how undoable diversity work can be. However, we may need
to keep doing diversity work. We cannot always know what diversity work does but we need to
challenge the terms of this work. This special issue aims to be part of the challenge.
References
Ahmed, Sara (forthcoming) You End up Doing the Document Rather than Doing the Doing: race equality,
diversity and the politics of documentation, Ethnic and Racial Studies.
Ahmed, Sara (2000) Strange Encounters: embodied others in post-coloniality. London: Routledge.
Ang, I. & Stratton, J. (1994) Multicultural Imagined Communities: cultural difference and national identity in
Australia and the USA, Continuum: Australian Journal of Media and Culture, 9(2), pp. 124-158.
Bhabha, H. (1994) The Location of Culture. London: Routledge.
Benschop, Y. (2001) Pride, Prejudice and Performance, International Journal of Human Resources Management,
12(7), pp. 1166-1181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09585190110068377
Deem, R. & Ozga, J. (1997) Women Managing Diversity in a Postmodern World, in: C. Marshall (Ed.)
Feminist Critical Policy Analysis. London: Falmer.
Sara Ahmed & Elaine Swan
100
Equality Challenge Unit (2002) Exemplar Race Equality Policies and Action Plans.
http://www.ecu.ac.uk/publications/updates/02-03.pdf
Gunew, S. (2004) Haunted Nations: the colonial dimensions of multiculturalism. London: Routledge.
Kandola, B. & Fullerton, J. (1994) Managing the Mosaic: diversity in action. London: Chartered Institute of
Personnel and Development.
Kirton, J. & Greene, A-M. (2000) The Dynamics of Managing Diversity. London: Heinemann.
Konrad, A.M., Prasad P. & Pringle, J.K. (Eds) (2006) Handbook of Workplace Diversity. London: Sage.
Lingard, B., Hayes, D., Mills, M. & Christie, P. (2003) Leading Learning. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Lorbiecki, A. (2001) Changing Views on Diversity Management, Management Studies, 32(3), pp. 345-361.
Lorbiecki, A. & Jack, G. (2000) Critical Turns in the Evolution of Diversity Management, British Journal of
Management, 11, Special Issue, pp. 17-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.11.s1.3
Mirza, H. (2005) Race, Gender and Educational Desire, Inaugural Lecture, 17 May.
http://www.mdx.ac.uk/hssc/research/cres/docs/heidi_lecture.pdf
Power, M. (1994) The Audit Explosion. London: Demos.
Prasad, P. & Mills, A.J. (1997) From Showcase to Shadow: understanding the dilemmas of managing
workplace diversity, in P. Prasad, A.J. Mills, M. Elemes & A. Prasad (Eds) Managing the Organizational
Melting Pot – dilemmas of workplace diversity. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Puwar, N. (2004) Space Invaders: race, gender and bodies out of place. Oxford: Berg.
Rattansi, A. (1992) Changing the Subject? Racism, Culture and Education, in J. Donald & A. Rattansi (Eds)
Race, Culture and Difference, pp. 11–48. London: Sage.
Sarup, M. (1991) Education and the Ideologies of Racism. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books.
Strathern, M. (2004) Common Borderlands: working papers on interdisciplinarity, accountability and the flow of
knowledge. Wantage: Sean Kingston Publishing.
Thomas, R.R. (1991) Beyond Race and Gender: unleashing the power of your total workforce by managing diversity.
New York: American Management Association.
SARA AHMED is Professor of Race and Cultural Studies at Goldsmiths College and was Co-
Director with Elaine Swan of the project, Integrating Diversity: Gender, Race and Leadership in the
Learning and Skills Sector (CEL). Her publications include Differences That Matter: feminist theory and
postmodernism (1998); Strange Encounters: embodied others in post-coloniality (2000); The Cultural Politics
of Emotion (2000) and Queer Phenomenology: orientations, objects, others (2006). Correspondence:
Professor Sara Ahmed, Department of Media and Communications, Goldsmiths College,
University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, United Kingdom (s.ahmed@gold.ac.uk).
ELAINE SWAN is a Senior Teaching Fellow at Lancaster University Management School. She has
recently completed co-directing two research projects funded by CEL: one with Sara Ahmed on
Integrating Diversity: Gender, Race and Leadership and the other with John Burgoyne on
Leadership Development Practices. Her research interests in the interface between therapeutic
cultures and the workplace and diversity training. She is currently completing a short book on
diversity with Caroline Gatrell for management students. Correspondence: Dr Elaine Swan,
Lancaster University Management School, Lancaster LA1 4YX, United Kingdom
(e.swan@lancaster.ac.uk).
... Dobusch et al., 2021;Janssens & Zanoni, 2021). By considering contestation and contingencies as irreducibly inscribed in powerinvested configurations of practices (Foucault, 1991;Ziarek, 2001), our study enriches extant MOS that focus on 'doing' or 'performing' difference, diversity and inclusion (Ahmed & Swan, 2006;Adamson et al., 2021). Second, the paper contributes to critical-affirmative MOS and ethics of difference studies (e.g. ...
... Adamson et al., 2021;Janssens & Zanoni, 2021). Interpretive approaches have focussed on how difference (in age, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.) is socially constructed in organizations, and how managerial approaches are enacted in the sense of 'doing' diversity and inclusion (Ahmed & Swan, 2006). They thereby argue that, irrespective of a recent 'discursive shift from diversity (management) to inclusion' (Dobusch et al., 2021, p. 313), an instrumental approach to human difference remains dominant. ...
... Second, our analysis contributes to MOS and organizational ethics studies that adopt a critical-affirmative stance to difference and inclusion (Rhodes, 2020;Tyler, 2019;Tyler & Vachhani, 2021). We share their critical view on the use of pre-established categories and categorisations and are sympathetic towards the overall ethico-political orientation of valuing and recognising difference beyond functionalistmanagerial considerations (Ahmed & Swan, 2006;Zanoni et al., 2010). Our study, specifically, contributes to further conceptual development by highlighting the challenges that are concomitant with enacting an ethos or 'culture of difference' (Vachhani, 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
Abstract Responding to recent calls from within critical MOS and organizational ethics studies to explore questions of difference and inclusion ‘beyond unity and fixity’, this paper seeks to enrich the debate on difference and its negotiation in organizations, thereby foregrounding difference as the contested and ever-changing outcome of power-invested configurations of practice. The paper presents an ethnographic study conducted in a psychosocial day-care centre that positions itself as a ‘space of multiplicity’ wherein ‘it is normal to be different’. Highlighting the context-specific challenges and struggles encompassing mental ill-health as a category of difference deviating from the norm, our paper contributes to a critical-affirmative understanding of difference. We foster an approach that values normative orientations such as ‘egalitarian difference’ and ‘difference as multiplicity’ yet avoids idealising portrayals of an ethics of difference that challenges normalcy and unconditionally favours otherness and calls for ‘radically other kinds of difference’.
Article
Full-text available
Set within the context of the calls for a critical approach to the integration of international students, this paper draws on decolonial theories to examine the experiences of international students from Asian and African countries as they make sense of institutional policies designed to support their integration. The study uses a phenomenological approach to analyse focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews with international postgraduate students. The findings reveal how international students demand the decolonisation of a “Eurocentric” curriculum and a pedagogical framework that acknowledges their experiences and agencies as epistemic equals. Participants expressed diverse opinions about the institution’s academic culture, while inclusion policies are perceived as “tokenistic gestures” that fail to address racial invalidation and microaggressions. Findings from this study suggest the need for institutions in “post-race” times to transcend superficial equality discourses that commodify diversity as “good business sense”, targeting raced, mobile, and gendered “others” for inclusion by situating EDI strategies within a much longer history of global entanglements shaped by colonial, capitalist relations, rationalities, and subjectivities.
Chapter
Despite the current hyper-marketised higher education (HE) system obsessed with displaying “happy colourful faces” of diversity, there is a prevalence of deficit labels such as “BAME” which has created marginalised rhetoric which removes Muslim students from the traditional experience. For minoritised students like Muslim women, it fails to provide them with information about substantive experiences—relying on appearance and imagery—rendering them and their actual needs invisible. Thus, as a contested phenomenon in the HE space, the terrain traversed can be traumatic, and cause mental fatigue, which can often reveal itself in the form of lower attainment, increased anxieties, and cultural pressures. From generation Jihad to generation M, the Muslim female student population is often fixed by the white gaze, and this chapter seeks to explore how “a racialised episteme is interrupted” or disorientated through accounts of a brown Muslim student-lecturer in a modern university.
Article
Full-text available
Past work has sought to design AI ethics interventions--such as checklists or toolkits--to help practitioners design more ethical AI systems. However, other work demonstrates how these interventions may instead serve to limit critique to that addressed within the intervention, while rendering broader concerns illegitimate. In this paper, drawing on work examining how standards enact discursive closure and how power relations affect whether and how people raise critique, we recruit three corporate teams, and one activist team, each with prior context working with one another, to play a game designed to trigger broad discussion around AI ethics. We use this as a point of contrast to trigger reflection on their teams' past discussions, examining factors which may affect their ''license to critique'' in AI ethics discussions. We then report on how particular affordances of this game may influence discussion, and find that the hypothetical context created in the game is unlikely to be a viable mechanism for real world change. We discuss how power dynamics within a group and notions of ''scope'' affect whether people may be willing to raise critique in AI ethics discussions, and discuss our finding that games are unlikely to enable direct changes to products or practice, but may be more likely to allow members to find critically-aligned allies for future collective action.
Article
Aiming to add to existing knowledge on the everyday operation of whiteness in organizations, this article explores how white employers attempt to construct an open self while engaging in the reproduction of whiteness. We draw inspiration from the work of Bhabha to understand the ambivalences involved and to analyse interviews with employers in Belgium. Our analysis identifies three seemingly contradictory self-Other constructions through which white employers present themselves as open while engaging in different processes of reproducing whiteness. We propose that employers’ vacillation between these self-Other constructions enables the embrace of an openness that is conditional on otherness conforming to organizational whiteness characterized by an intertwinement of economic inequality and racio-ethnic inequality.
Article
This article investigates the emergence of intersectionality in EU policy discourses on gender equality in science and research, focusing on how it transforms existing equality politics. Based on critical policy analysis, we identify both limitations and potentials of this development. First, we find that, while documents often focus on the individual dimension of intersectionality, they do not necessarily neglect the structural dimension, as individuals’ experiences are sometimes used to illustrate structural aspects at work. Second, despite increasing mentions of intersectionality, we find that policy discourses remain dominated by a strong focus on gender. Third, we argue that the emergence of intersectionality reflects a shift from striving for sameness between men and women towards a neoliberal conception of valuing differences equally. This shift, while promising greater inclusivity, also risks depoliticizing and commodifying diversity. Our findings underscore the need for policies that genuinely address intersecting inequalities, advancing beyond individualistic and gender-centric approaches.
Article
Full-text available
A growing number of organizations open their strategy processes by including a more diverse set of actors. This has drawn scholarly interest and led to a field of research known as open strategy. In this paper, we problematize how open strategy research deploys diversity and inclusion without engaging with the diversity and inclusion literature that offers a more differentiated understanding of these concepts. We build on this literature to elucidate how most open strategy studies follow a business case approach wherein inclusion, and implicitly also diversity, are theorized based on their impact on strategy outcomes. We show how engaging with the diversity and inclusion literature allows open strategy scholars to move from the business case towards an alternative, equity-based approach. Adopting an equity-based approach widens the themes addressed in open strategy research to the reproduction of power relations and sustained inequalities in strategy making and thus contributes to a more societally meaningful and relevant understanding of diversity and inclusion in the strategy field.
Article
Full-text available
Based on collaborative research and reflections on media depictions, marketplace experiences, and Black life in Belgium and Britain, this article embraces Black joy, while critiquing societal demands and (re)presentations of it. Informed by scholarship on racialised emotions, Black interiority, and Black emotional epistemologies, we analyse how the idea of “Black joy” has been (re)presented in media in ways connected to racialised, classed, and national discourses of “we-ness” during the coronavirus (Covid-19) crisis. By analysing public (re)presentations of Black people, we critically consider how “Black joy” becomes “Black JoyTM” – a defanged expression, enabling brand advertising by tapping into the racial and capitalist politics of marketable and mediated Black emotions and intimacy. We ask, “when, how, and why are the everyday emotions and experiences of Black people (re)presented by contemporary marketplace institutions as joyful?”. Consequently, we theorise the relationship between Black joy, crises, and forms of Belgian and British advertising and media.
Book
Globalization and its melting pot of different nationalities, ethnicities and cultures is attracting research that is gathering in substance and theory. A dynamic new field that represents a significant focus within management and organisation studies is emerging. This Handbook showcases the scope of international perspectives that exist on workplace diversity and is the first to define this hotly contested field. Part I of the Handbook dissects the theoretical reasons and shows how the study of workplace diversity follows different directions. Part II critiques quantitative and qualitative research methods within the field, while Part III investigates the parallels and distinctions between different workplace groups. Key issues are drawn together in an insightful introduction from the editors, and future directions for research are proposed in the conclusion. The Handbook of Workforce Diversity is an indispensable resource for students and academics of human resource management, organizational behavior, organizational psychology and organization studies.
Article
Postcolonialism has attracted a large amount of interest in cultural theory, but the adjacent area of multiculturalism has not been scrutinised to quite the same extent. In this innovative new book, Sneja Gunew sets out to interrogate the ways in which the transnational discourse of multiculturalism may be related to the politics of race and indigeneity, grounding her discussion in a variety of national settings and a variety of literary, autobiographical and theoretical texts. Using examples from marginal sites - the "settler societies" of Australia and Canada - to cast light on the globally dominant discourses of the US and the UK, Gunew analyses the political ambiguities and the pitfalls involved in a discourse of multiculturalism haunted by the opposing spectres of anarchy and assimilation.
Book
Rethinking questions of identity, social agency and national affiliation, Bhabha provides a working, if controversial, theory of cultural hybridity - one that goes far beyond previous attempts by others. In The Location of Culture, he uses concepts such as mimicry, interstice, hybridity, and liminality to argue that cultural production is always most productive where it is most ambivalent. Speaking in a voice that combines intellectual ease with the belief that theory itself can contribute to practical political change, Bhabha has become one of the leading post-colonial theorists of this era.
Article
In the Government media, and public mind the relationship between ‘race’ and education is overwhelmingly negative. In Britain when we talk of ‘Black and ethnic minorities in schools’ we think of underachievement, rising exclusions and low aspirations. However, research evidence shows racialized people, particularly the women, have a positive and enduring relationship with education. Drawing on historical, archival, personal and research evidence, this article, which is drawn for the text of an inaugural professorial lecture, looks at the pervasive myths behind the link between ‘race’ and education and asks, ‘Why is there a crisis in “multicultural education” in twenty‐first century Britain?’ The author argues that by understanding the Black and Asian collective desire for education, we can begin to reclaim the meaning of education, reinstating it as a radical site of resistance and refutation, so evident in the postcolonial experience.
Article
This article sketches out the ways in which responses to diversity have changed over time. Using the schema of Dass and Parker there is a sense of movement across their four perspectives: resistance; discrimination and fairness; access and legitimacy; and learning, in which each perspective attempts to deal with the inadequacies of its predecessor. Although the learning perspective has the potential to develop a `better' understanding of difference, in which the work gets diversified, not just the people, it suffers from political naively. It needs to recognize the political and social dimensions of difference, rather than setting them aside, if it is to realize its potential. Key Words: difference; discrimination; diversity; learning; management; perspectives;politics