Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Research Teams: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

IF 2.1 3区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Race and Justice Pub Date : 2022-04-05 DOI:10.1177/21533687221087373
Angela J. Hattery, Earl H. Smith, Shannon Magnuson, Allison E. Monterrosa, Katherine Kafonek, C. Shaw, Rochelle Davidson Mhonde, L. C. Kanewske
{"title":"Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Research Teams: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly","authors":"Angela J. Hattery, Earl H. Smith, Shannon Magnuson, Allison E. Monterrosa, Katherine Kafonek, C. Shaw, Rochelle Davidson Mhonde, L. C. Kanewske","doi":"10.1177/21533687221087373","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and the racial justice protests that followed, many institutions, including the academy, pledged their support for policies and practices that combat on-going racial injustice. Social justice and anti-racism initiatives abound on college campuses, including programming, hosting speakers, and proposing required ‘diversity’ classes for all students. For all this rhetoric, college and university administrators have remained silent when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as they relate to research. And yet, extant research documents the ways in which racial and gender biases have consistently shaped every level of research from the development of the research question, to the diversity (or not) of the sample, the availability of funding, and the probability of publishing. In this paper we focus on one aspect of the research process: the assembling (or not) of diverse research teams. We explore the benefits that diversity in research teams brings to the integrity of the data as well as the obstacles to both assembling a diverse research team and managing it successfully. Specifically, this paper focuses on the myriad ways in which diversity in research teams is treated as a set of boxes to check, rather than an epistemology that underscores positionality and power. We present a series of case examples that highlight the ways in which diversity, equity, and inclusion are successfully and unsuccessfully achieved in research teams, both in terms of outcomes and experiences. These case examples focus specifically on power relations along all forms of diversity, including race and gender as well as rank. The case examples also serve to unpack the ways in which research teams can rely on positionality as a tool for addressing power at three distinct levels: in conducting social science research generally, between the researcher and the “researched,” and among the research team itself.","PeriodicalId":45275,"journal":{"name":"Race and Justice","volume":"12 1","pages":"505 - 530"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"18","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Race and Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/21533687221087373","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 18

Abstract

Since the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and the racial justice protests that followed, many institutions, including the academy, pledged their support for policies and practices that combat on-going racial injustice. Social justice and anti-racism initiatives abound on college campuses, including programming, hosting speakers, and proposing required ‘diversity’ classes for all students. For all this rhetoric, college and university administrators have remained silent when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as they relate to research. And yet, extant research documents the ways in which racial and gender biases have consistently shaped every level of research from the development of the research question, to the diversity (or not) of the sample, the availability of funding, and the probability of publishing. In this paper we focus on one aspect of the research process: the assembling (or not) of diverse research teams. We explore the benefits that diversity in research teams brings to the integrity of the data as well as the obstacles to both assembling a diverse research team and managing it successfully. Specifically, this paper focuses on the myriad ways in which diversity in research teams is treated as a set of boxes to check, rather than an epistemology that underscores positionality and power. We present a series of case examples that highlight the ways in which diversity, equity, and inclusion are successfully and unsuccessfully achieved in research teams, both in terms of outcomes and experiences. These case examples focus specifically on power relations along all forms of diversity, including race and gender as well as rank. The case examples also serve to unpack the ways in which research teams can rely on positionality as a tool for addressing power at three distinct levels: in conducting social science research generally, between the researcher and the “researched,” and among the research team itself.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究团队的多样性、公平性和包容性:好、坏、丑
自2020年5月25日乔治·弗洛伊德被谋杀以及随后的种族正义抗议活动以来,包括学院在内的许多机构承诺支持打击持续存在的种族不公正的政策和做法。大学校园里充斥着社会正义和反种族主义倡议,包括节目编排、接待演讲者,以及为所有学生提供必要的“多样性”课程。尽管有这么多言论,但当涉及到与研究相关的多样性、公平性和包容性实践时,学院和大学管理人员一直保持沉默。然而,现存的研究记录了种族和性别偏见如何始终如一地影响着从研究问题的发展到样本的多样性(或不多样性)、资金的可用性和发表的可能性等各个层面的研究。在本文中,我们关注研究过程的一个方面:组建(或不组建)不同的研究团队。我们探讨了研究团队的多样性给数据的完整性带来的好处,以及组建多元化研究团队和成功管理团队的障碍。具体而言,本文关注的是研究团队的多样性被视为一组需要检查的盒子的无数方式,而不是强调地位和权力的认识论。我们提供了一系列案例,强调了研究团队在结果和经验方面成功和失败实现多样性、公平性和包容性的方式。这些案例特别关注各种形式多样性的权力关系,包括种族、性别和级别。这些案例还揭示了研究团队可以在三个不同层面上依靠立场作为解决权力问题的工具的方式:在进行社会科学研究时,在研究人员和“被研究者”之间,以及在研究团队本身之间。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Race and Justice
Race and Justice Multiple-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
19.00%
发文量
37
期刊介绍: Race and Justice: An International Journal serves as a quarterly forum for the best scholarship on race, ethnicity, and justice. Of particular interest to the journal are policy-oriented papers that examine how race/ethnicity intersects with justice system outcomes across the globe. The journal is also open to research that aims to test or expand theoretical perspectives exploring the intersection of race/ethnicity, class, gender, and justice. The journal is open to scholarship from all disciplinary origins and methodological approaches (qualitative and/or quantitative).Topics of interest to Race and Justice include, but are not limited to, research that focuses on: Legislative enactments, Policing Race and Justice, Courts, Sentencing, Corrections (community-based, institutional, reentry concerns), Juvenile Justice, Drugs, Death penalty, Public opinion research, Hate crime, Colonialism, Victimology, Indigenous justice systems.
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Race and Skin Color on Police Contact and Arrest: Results From a Nationally Representative Longitudinal Study Editorial Co-Introduction for 14(1) An Unbridgeable Gap? Racial Attitudes and Friendship in Prison Isom Front Matter for RAJ 14(1)—Editor's Note An Empirical Examination of the In-Prison Behaviors of Foreign-Born Individuals: Does Nationality Predict Misconduct?
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1