Disparity Studies: Isomorphic Discrimination?

Abstract

This research explores the veracity and reliability of existing approaches to conducting disparity studies by methodologically drawing on a 54-city, nine-firm analysis, with over 900 diverse businesses surveyed. Despite efforts to initiate systemic development opportunities for diverse businesses, disparity studies merely alert society to obstinate challenges that hinder access to government contracts for diverse businesses. The intended rationale for a disparity study is to provide a “strong basis on the evidence” to support race-conscious remedial tools in government procurement. They establish evidence of discrimination that affects businesses, however, the nature of their content and structural form limits their potential for economic reform. This inefficiency presents questions on methods used to procure these studies, implies criticism of the industry that produces these studies, and suggests questions on whether localities are remedying discriminatory practices. A large portion of disparity studies do not adequately address the historical context, challenges to inclusive procurement, or contextual understanding of the communities affected. While some studies have policy chapters that address these issues, this material is not standardized. The tendency towards isomorphism reaffirms past practices for these studies while ignoring the present, enervating challenges faced within these communities.