作为教员一起决定:性别化和种族化部门服务、晋升和投票中意想不到的后果的叙述

Laurel Smith‐Doerr, Ethel L. Mickey, Ember Skye W. Kane-Lee
{"title":"作为教员一起决定:性别化和种族化部门服务、晋升和投票中意想不到的后果的叙述","authors":"Laurel Smith‐Doerr, Ethel L. Mickey, Ember Skye W. Kane-Lee","doi":"10.1515/joso-2023-0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Workplace inequalities scholarship often assumes making people aware of problems will lead to change, although gendered and racialized organizations theories show systemic problems beyond individual awareness. Still, not enough research analyzes the narratives of savvy organizational actors – like university faculty aware of inequalities – to understand the mechanisms operating against leveraging that knowledge for change. Data consist of 10 group interviews with 45 faculty across departments in one US public university, supplemented by content analysis of 56 departments’ written bylaws. Findings focus on three common shared decisions: committee service, hiring/promotion, and voting practices. We find awareness of inequality may actually reinforce the status quo when narratives about gendered and racialized processes feature decoupling from formal bylaws, and when narratives about outcomes relate to multiple layers of unanticipated consequences favoring whiteness and men. Specifically, inequality is reproduced when narratives about gendered and racialized unanticipated consequences: 1) highlight the imperviousness of change, as in the difficulty of allocating service work equitably, 2) lack reflexivity and shift responsibility to ‘other’ groups – ‘faculty’ or ‘administrators’ – as in unequal hiring and promotion decisions, and 3) focus on standard old boy stories which obscure other inequalities, as in faculty voting where non-tenure track rank inequality obscures race/gender inequalities. When unanticipated consequences narratives have dimensions of fatalism, finger pointing, and blindness to intersectionality, white men may continue to benefit. This study shows how formal policies and awareness of inequalities may still fail to produce change.","PeriodicalId":445948,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Organizational Sociology","volume":"205 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deciding Together as Faculty: Narratives of Unanticipated Consequences in Gendered and Racialized Departmental Service, Promotion, and Voting\",\"authors\":\"Laurel Smith‐Doerr, Ethel L. Mickey, Ember Skye W. Kane-Lee\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/joso-2023-0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Workplace inequalities scholarship often assumes making people aware of problems will lead to change, although gendered and racialized organizations theories show systemic problems beyond individual awareness. Still, not enough research analyzes the narratives of savvy organizational actors – like university faculty aware of inequalities – to understand the mechanisms operating against leveraging that knowledge for change. Data consist of 10 group interviews with 45 faculty across departments in one US public university, supplemented by content analysis of 56 departments’ written bylaws. Findings focus on three common shared decisions: committee service, hiring/promotion, and voting practices. We find awareness of inequality may actually reinforce the status quo when narratives about gendered and racialized processes feature decoupling from formal bylaws, and when narratives about outcomes relate to multiple layers of unanticipated consequences favoring whiteness and men. Specifically, inequality is reproduced when narratives about gendered and racialized unanticipated consequences: 1) highlight the imperviousness of change, as in the difficulty of allocating service work equitably, 2) lack reflexivity and shift responsibility to ‘other’ groups – ‘faculty’ or ‘administrators’ – as in unequal hiring and promotion decisions, and 3) focus on standard old boy stories which obscure other inequalities, as in faculty voting where non-tenure track rank inequality obscures race/gender inequalities. When unanticipated consequences narratives have dimensions of fatalism, finger pointing, and blindness to intersectionality, white men may continue to benefit. This study shows how formal policies and awareness of inequalities may still fail to produce change.\",\"PeriodicalId\":445948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Organizational Sociology\",\"volume\":\"205 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Organizational Sociology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/joso-2023-0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Organizational Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/joso-2023-0004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

工作场所不平等研究通常假设让人们意识到问题会导致变化,尽管性别和种族化的组织理论显示了超越个人意识的系统性问题。然而,还没有足够的研究分析精明的组织参与者的叙述——比如意识到不平等的大学教师——来理解阻碍利用这些知识进行变革的机制。数据包括对一所美国公立大学各院系45名教师的10次小组访谈,并辅以对56个院系书面章程的内容分析。调查结果集中于三个共同决策:委员会服务、招聘/晋升和投票实践。我们发现,当关于性别和种族化过程的叙述与正式章程脱钩,以及当关于结果的叙述涉及到有利于白人和男性的多层意想不到的后果时,对不平等的认识实际上可能会强化现状。具体来说,当叙述性别化和种族化的意外后果时,不平等就会重现:1)强调变化的不可渗透性,如公平分配服务工作的困难;2)缺乏反身性,并将责任转移给“其他”群体——“教师”或“管理人员”——如不平等的招聘和晋升决策;3)专注于掩盖其他不平等的标准老男孩故事,如在教师投票中,非终身教职的排名不平等掩盖了种族/性别不平等。当意想不到的后果叙事具有宿命论、指责和对交织性视而不见的维度时,白人男性可能会继续受益。这项研究表明,正式的政策和对不平等的认识可能仍然无法产生变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Deciding Together as Faculty: Narratives of Unanticipated Consequences in Gendered and Racialized Departmental Service, Promotion, and Voting
Abstract Workplace inequalities scholarship often assumes making people aware of problems will lead to change, although gendered and racialized organizations theories show systemic problems beyond individual awareness. Still, not enough research analyzes the narratives of savvy organizational actors – like university faculty aware of inequalities – to understand the mechanisms operating against leveraging that knowledge for change. Data consist of 10 group interviews with 45 faculty across departments in one US public university, supplemented by content analysis of 56 departments’ written bylaws. Findings focus on three common shared decisions: committee service, hiring/promotion, and voting practices. We find awareness of inequality may actually reinforce the status quo when narratives about gendered and racialized processes feature decoupling from formal bylaws, and when narratives about outcomes relate to multiple layers of unanticipated consequences favoring whiteness and men. Specifically, inequality is reproduced when narratives about gendered and racialized unanticipated consequences: 1) highlight the imperviousness of change, as in the difficulty of allocating service work equitably, 2) lack reflexivity and shift responsibility to ‘other’ groups – ‘faculty’ or ‘administrators’ – as in unequal hiring and promotion decisions, and 3) focus on standard old boy stories which obscure other inequalities, as in faculty voting where non-tenure track rank inequality obscures race/gender inequalities. When unanticipated consequences narratives have dimensions of fatalism, finger pointing, and blindness to intersectionality, white men may continue to benefit. This study shows how formal policies and awareness of inequalities may still fail to produce change.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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