评估中不平等的(再)产生:概述评估结果中性别和种族差异驱动因素的统一框架

IF 3.1 Q2 MANAGEMENT
Mabel Abraham , Tristan L. Botelho , Gabrielle Lamont-Dobbin
{"title":"评估中不平等的(再)产生:概述评估结果中性别和种族差异驱动因素的统一框架","authors":"Mabel Abraham ,&nbsp;Tristan L. Botelho ,&nbsp;Gabrielle Lamont-Dobbin","doi":"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Evaluations play a critical role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Although evaluation systems are a cornerstone of organizational and market processes, they often reinforce social and economic inequalities. The body of organizational research on inequality and evaluations is extensive, but it is also fragmented, siloed within specific contexts and types of evaluations (e.g., hiring, performance). As a result, we currently lack a systemic understanding of the conditions under which inequalities emerge. This paper provides a unifying framework to identify how gender and racial inequality is produced and reproduced in evaluations across professional contexts (e.g., digital platforms, entrepreneurship, traditional employment). Our framework categorizes the drivers of inequality into three main areas: prevailing beliefs in evaluative contexts, the design and structure of evaluation processes, and the characteristics of evaluators. Our approach not only sheds light on the common processes that exacerbate inequality but also underscores why an integrative framework is critical for both theoretical advancement and enacting effective reforms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":56178,"journal":{"name":"Research in Organizational Behavior","volume":"44 ","pages":"Article 100207"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The (re)production of inequality in evaluations: A unifying framework outlining the drivers of gender and racial differences in evaluative outcomes\",\"authors\":\"Mabel Abraham ,&nbsp;Tristan L. Botelho ,&nbsp;Gabrielle Lamont-Dobbin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.riob.2024.100207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Evaluations play a critical role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Although evaluation systems are a cornerstone of organizational and market processes, they often reinforce social and economic inequalities. The body of organizational research on inequality and evaluations is extensive, but it is also fragmented, siloed within specific contexts and types of evaluations (e.g., hiring, performance). As a result, we currently lack a systemic understanding of the conditions under which inequalities emerge. This paper provides a unifying framework to identify how gender and racial inequality is produced and reproduced in evaluations across professional contexts (e.g., digital platforms, entrepreneurship, traditional employment). Our framework categorizes the drivers of inequality into three main areas: prevailing beliefs in evaluative contexts, the design and structure of evaluation processes, and the characteristics of evaluators. Our approach not only sheds light on the common processes that exacerbate inequality but also underscores why an integrative framework is critical for both theoretical advancement and enacting effective reforms.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research in Organizational Behavior\",\"volume\":\"44 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100207\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research in Organizational Behavior\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308524000030\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MANAGEMENT\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research in Organizational Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191308524000030","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MANAGEMENT","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

评价在分配资源和机会方面起着关键作用。虽然评价制度是组织和市场进程的基石,但它们往往加剧社会和经济不平等。关于不平等和评价的组织研究是广泛的,但它也是分散的,局限于特定的背景和评价类型(例如,雇用、业绩)。因此,我们目前对不平等产生的条件缺乏系统的了解。本文提供了一个统一的框架,以确定性别和种族不平等是如何在跨专业背景(例如,数字平台、创业、传统就业)的评估中产生和再现的。我们的框架将不平等的驱动因素分为三个主要领域:评估环境中的普遍信念,评估过程的设计和结构,以及评估者的特征。我们的方法不仅揭示了加剧不平等的共同过程,而且强调了为什么一个综合框架对于理论进步和实施有效改革都至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The (re)production of inequality in evaluations: A unifying framework outlining the drivers of gender and racial differences in evaluative outcomes
Evaluations play a critical role in the allocation of resources and opportunities. Although evaluation systems are a cornerstone of organizational and market processes, they often reinforce social and economic inequalities. The body of organizational research on inequality and evaluations is extensive, but it is also fragmented, siloed within specific contexts and types of evaluations (e.g., hiring, performance). As a result, we currently lack a systemic understanding of the conditions under which inequalities emerge. This paper provides a unifying framework to identify how gender and racial inequality is produced and reproduced in evaluations across professional contexts (e.g., digital platforms, entrepreneurship, traditional employment). Our framework categorizes the drivers of inequality into three main areas: prevailing beliefs in evaluative contexts, the design and structure of evaluation processes, and the characteristics of evaluators. Our approach not only sheds light on the common processes that exacerbate inequality but also underscores why an integrative framework is critical for both theoretical advancement and enacting effective reforms.
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
Research in Organizational Behavior
Research in Organizational Behavior Psychology-Social Psychology
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
4
期刊介绍: Research in Organizational Behavior publishes commissioned papers only, spanning several levels of analysis, and ranging from studies of individuals to groups to organizations and their environments. The topics encompassed are likewise diverse, covering issues from individual emotion and cognition to social movements and networks. Cutting across this diversity, however, is a rather consistent quality of presentation. Being both thorough and thoughtful, Research in Organizational Behavior is commissioned pieces provide substantial contributions to research on organizations. Many have received rewards for their level of scholarship and many have become classics in the field of organizational research.
×
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