Inclusion or co-optation? Navigating recruitment as a gender diversity candidate in finance

IF 3.8 2区 经济学 Q1 ECONOMICS New Political Economy Pub Date : 2023-04-13 DOI:10.1080/13563467.2023.2200242
S. Predmore
{"title":"Inclusion or co-optation? Navigating recruitment as a gender diversity candidate in finance","authors":"S. Predmore","doi":"10.1080/13563467.2023.2200242","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the decade-plus following the financial crisis of 2008, diversity and inclusion initiatives – especially those targeting gender – have proliferated in global financial centres. Feminist political economists critique the ways that struggles for gender and racial equality can become co-opted via inclusion endeavours, and how they may primarily serve to legitimate existing institutional practices. At the same time, diversity and inclusion initiatives open up counterspace for emerging professionals to draw from experiences of marginalisation, formulate critiques, and push back against processes that generate inequalities. In this study, I draw from field-based and interview research on gender diversity programmes in finance to analyse how dynamics of co-optation and critique play out as recent initiates into the industry navigate diversity offerings. I refer to De Jong and Kimm’s (2017) research agenda on co-optation as conceptual reference, demonstrating how mechanisms, effects, and actor’s perceptions of co-optation play out together in this particular institutional matrix. The fault lines that emerge around institutional practices of diversity indicate where a hegemonic incorporation that would serve the financial establishment is incomplete and contestations over the inclusivity of professions, markets and financialised societies remain.","PeriodicalId":51447,"journal":{"name":"New Political Economy","volume":"28 1","pages":"897 - 909"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13563467.2023.2200242","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In the decade-plus following the financial crisis of 2008, diversity and inclusion initiatives – especially those targeting gender – have proliferated in global financial centres. Feminist political economists critique the ways that struggles for gender and racial equality can become co-opted via inclusion endeavours, and how they may primarily serve to legitimate existing institutional practices. At the same time, diversity and inclusion initiatives open up counterspace for emerging professionals to draw from experiences of marginalisation, formulate critiques, and push back against processes that generate inequalities. In this study, I draw from field-based and interview research on gender diversity programmes in finance to analyse how dynamics of co-optation and critique play out as recent initiates into the industry navigate diversity offerings. I refer to De Jong and Kimm’s (2017) research agenda on co-optation as conceptual reference, demonstrating how mechanisms, effects, and actor’s perceptions of co-optation play out together in this particular institutional matrix. The fault lines that emerge around institutional practices of diversity indicate where a hegemonic incorporation that would serve the financial establishment is incomplete and contestations over the inclusivity of professions, markets and financialised societies remain.
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
包容还是增选?作为金融行业性别多元化候选人的招聘指南
在2008年金融危机之后的十多年里,多样性和包容性倡议——尤其是针对性别的倡议——在全球金融中心激增。女权主义政治经济学家批评了争取性别和种族平等的斗争可能通过包容性努力被同化的方式,以及它们可能主要是如何使现有的制度实践合法化的。与此同时,多样性和包容性倡议为新兴专业人士提供了反击空间,使他们能够从边缘化的经验中汲取教训,提出批评意见,并抵制产生不平等的进程。在这项研究中,我借鉴了金融领域性别多样性项目的实地研究和访谈研究,以分析在新近进入该行业的新人驾驭多样性产品时,合作和批评的动态是如何发挥作用的。我引用De Jong和Kimm(2017)关于合作的研究议程作为概念参考,展示了合作的机制、效果和行动者的感知如何在这个特定的制度矩阵中共同发挥作用。围绕机构多样性实践出现的断层线表明,在哪些地方,为金融机构服务的霸权合并是不完整的,而关于职业、市场和金融化社会的包容性的争论仍然存在。
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
CiteScore
10.10
自引率
9.50%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: New Political Economy aims to create a forum for work which combines the breadth of vision which characterised the classical political economy of the nineteenth century with the analytical advances of twentieth century social science. It seeks to represent the terrain of political economy scholarship across different disciplines, emphasising original and innovative work which explores new approaches and methodologies, and addresses core debates and issues of historical and contemporary relevance.
期刊最新文献
Varieties of central banking: the Nordic Model beyond a fiscal-centric approach Understanding power, culture and institutional change: a revised approach to political settlements analysis The ecological currency hierarchy: empirical support for currency power driven asymmetries in environmental and social autonomy Towards a degrowth transition: bringing interests back in Rentier capitalism, social reproduction, and the limits of liberalism: mapping gendered asset value in Kuwait
×
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