{"title":"Stretched Thin: How a Misalignment Between Allocation and Valuation Underlies the Paradox of Diversity Achievement in Higher Education","authors":"Tanya Y. Tian, Edward B. Smith","doi":"10.1177/00018392241247744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Racial inequality is remarkably resilient in organizational and labor market contexts despite efforts to resolve it, which raises significant questions about the mechanisms underlying its persistence. We argue that organizational efforts that increase the inclusion of underrepresented racial groups in the short term may conceal an emergent mechanism that paradoxically results in exclusion over time. The emergent mechanism stems from an acute misalignment between the scope of allocation in the matching process and the scope of valuation in the evaluation process, which ultimately increases voluntary and involuntary turnover among underrepresented racial groups. We examine this paradox through a revelatory case in higher education. Drawing on comprehensive administrative and research performance data from a large (R1) U.S. public university, we find that Black assistant professors are significantly more likely than their White colleagues to be allocated to non-standard positions, i.e., formally appointed in two academic departments with shared compensation. Our results demonstrate that such non-standard appointments are associated with a significant decline in research productivity, which remains central during the evaluation process. The end result is that jointly appointed assistant professors—among whom Blacks are disproportionately represented—experience lower likelihoods of retention.","PeriodicalId":7203,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Science Quarterly","volume":"60 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Science Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392241247744","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Racial inequality is remarkably resilient in organizational and labor market contexts despite efforts to resolve it, which raises significant questions about the mechanisms underlying its persistence. We argue that organizational efforts that increase the inclusion of underrepresented racial groups in the short term may conceal an emergent mechanism that paradoxically results in exclusion over time. The emergent mechanism stems from an acute misalignment between the scope of allocation in the matching process and the scope of valuation in the evaluation process, which ultimately increases voluntary and involuntary turnover among underrepresented racial groups. We examine this paradox through a revelatory case in higher education. Drawing on comprehensive administrative and research performance data from a large (R1) U.S. public university, we find that Black assistant professors are significantly more likely than their White colleagues to be allocated to non-standard positions, i.e., formally appointed in two academic departments with shared compensation. Our results demonstrate that such non-standard appointments are associated with a significant decline in research productivity, which remains central during the evaluation process. The end result is that jointly appointed assistant professors—among whom Blacks are disproportionately represented—experience lower likelihoods of retention.
期刊介绍:
Administrative Science Quarterly, under the ownership and management of the Samuel Curtis Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University, has consistently been a pioneer in organizational studies since the inception of the field. As a premier journal, it consistently features the finest theoretical and empirical papers derived from dissertations, along with the latest contributions from well-established scholars. Additionally, the journal showcases interdisciplinary work in organizational theory and offers insightful book reviews.