Are we there yet? Best practices for diversity and inclusion in Australia

IF 0.7 Q2 LAW
T. Mundy, Nan Seuffert
{"title":"Are we there yet? Best practices for diversity and inclusion in Australia","authors":"T. Mundy, Nan Seuffert","doi":"10.1080/09695958.2019.1676754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article reports on the findings of a pilot research project investigating current best practices, operating within national law firms in Australia, that support women lawyers in their advancement to partnership and other leadership positions. Academic research and professional body reports suggest that current diversity and inclusion (D&I) initiatives across the private sector are not resulting in significant change to advancement, retention and attrition of women in the legal profession. However, work done by the Women Lawyers’ Association of New South Wales in Australia, through the Data Comparison Project (DCP), indicates that some firms have made better progress than others. Building on the DCP, this article presents the findings of a pilot project involving in-depth interviews with four of the top-achieving national law firms in Australia on gender equity criteria. It finds that these firms are collectively engaging with many of the best practice initiatives for D&I recommended by the current national and international research and scholarship, and in some instances go beyond international best practice. What is apparent, however, is that the current best practices have yet to achieve significant advancement of women, or to break through the glass ceilings that continue to operate for women in large Australian law firms.","PeriodicalId":43893,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/09695958.2019.1676754","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2019.1676754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article reports on the findings of a pilot research project investigating current best practices, operating within national law firms in Australia, that support women lawyers in their advancement to partnership and other leadership positions. Academic research and professional body reports suggest that current diversity and inclusion (D&I) initiatives across the private sector are not resulting in significant change to advancement, retention and attrition of women in the legal profession. However, work done by the Women Lawyers’ Association of New South Wales in Australia, through the Data Comparison Project (DCP), indicates that some firms have made better progress than others. Building on the DCP, this article presents the findings of a pilot project involving in-depth interviews with four of the top-achieving national law firms in Australia on gender equity criteria. It finds that these firms are collectively engaging with many of the best practice initiatives for D&I recommended by the current national and international research and scholarship, and in some instances go beyond international best practice. What is apparent, however, is that the current best practices have yet to achieve significant advancement of women, or to break through the glass ceilings that continue to operate for women in large Australian law firms.
我们到了吗?澳大利亚多元化和包容性的最佳实践
本文报告了一项试点研究项目的结果,该项目调查了澳大利亚国家律师事务所中支持女律师晋升为合伙人和其他领导职位的当前最佳做法。学术研究和专业机构报告表明,目前私营部门的多元化和包容性(D&I)举措并没有导致女性在法律行业的晋升、保留和流失方面发生重大变化。然而,澳大利亚新南威尔士州女律师协会通过数据比较项目(DCP)所做的工作表明,一些公司比其他公司取得了更好的进展。在DCP的基础上,本文介绍了一个试点项目的结果,该项目涉及对澳大利亚四家最优秀的国家律师事务所就性别平等标准进行深入访谈。报告发现,这些公司正在共同参与当前国内和国际研究和学者推荐的许多D&I最佳实践计划,在某些情况下甚至超越了国际最佳实践。然而,显而易见的是,目前的最佳做法尚未实现妇女的重大进步,或打破澳大利亚大型律师事务所中继续对妇女运作的玻璃天花板。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信