沟通特权和教员联盟

IF 1.4 Q2 COMMUNICATION COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY Pub Date : 2022-07-21 DOI:10.1080/01463373.2022.2099294
L. Hanasono, H. K. Ro, D. A. O'Neil, Ellen M. Broido, M. Yacobucci, S. Peña, K. Root
{"title":"沟通特权和教员联盟","authors":"L. Hanasono, H. K. Ro, D. A. O'Neil, Ellen M. Broido, M. Yacobucci, S. Peña, K. Root","doi":"10.1080/01463373.2022.2099294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT As individuals who use their privilege to reduce prejudice, educate others about social justice, and actively stop discrimination, faculty allies can play a vital role in transforming universities to be more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. However, discrepancies persist in how faculty define privilege and communicate allyship. Drawing from standpoint theory, we examined discursive divergences in how 105 full-time faculty defined and experienced privilege and how they enacted allyship in the workplace. Participants tended to conceptualize privilege as a set of advantages and lack of structural barriers for people based on their group membership(s). Discursive differences emerged regarding the degree to which faculty participants perceived privilege to be un/earned and rooted in structural power, and some participants took ownership of their social privilege while others discursively elided it. When asked to identify specific ally actions, participants often described broad behaviors that aimed to help individuals in interpersonal contexts but did not address actions aimed at dismantling inequitable power structures, revising biased policies, and transforming toxic organizational cultures. Our findings highlight the need for trainings that clarify conceptualizations of privilege and help faculty translate their understanding of allyship into communicative actions that stop discrimination at interpersonal and institutional levels.","PeriodicalId":51521,"journal":{"name":"COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY","volume":"70 1","pages":"560 - 584"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Communicating privilege and faculty allyship\",\"authors\":\"L. Hanasono, H. K. Ro, D. A. O'Neil, Ellen M. Broido, M. Yacobucci, S. Peña, K. Root\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/01463373.2022.2099294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT As individuals who use their privilege to reduce prejudice, educate others about social justice, and actively stop discrimination, faculty allies can play a vital role in transforming universities to be more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. However, discrepancies persist in how faculty define privilege and communicate allyship. Drawing from standpoint theory, we examined discursive divergences in how 105 full-time faculty defined and experienced privilege and how they enacted allyship in the workplace. Participants tended to conceptualize privilege as a set of advantages and lack of structural barriers for people based on their group membership(s). Discursive differences emerged regarding the degree to which faculty participants perceived privilege to be un/earned and rooted in structural power, and some participants took ownership of their social privilege while others discursively elided it. When asked to identify specific ally actions, participants often described broad behaviors that aimed to help individuals in interpersonal contexts but did not address actions aimed at dismantling inequitable power structures, revising biased policies, and transforming toxic organizational cultures. Our findings highlight the need for trainings that clarify conceptualizations of privilege and help faculty translate their understanding of allyship into communicative actions that stop discrimination at interpersonal and institutional levels.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51521,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"560 - 584\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2022.2099294\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2022.2099294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

作为利用自己的特权减少偏见、教育他人社会正义、积极制止歧视的个人,教师联盟可以在将大学转变为更加公平、多样化和包容性的过程中发挥至关重要的作用。然而,在教师如何定义特权和沟通盟友关系方面,分歧仍然存在。根据立场理论,我们研究了105名全职教师如何定义和体验特权以及他们如何在工作场所建立盟友关系的话语分歧。参与者倾向于将特权概念化为基于群体成员身份的一组优势和缺乏结构性障碍。在教师参与者认为特权是挣来的和植根于结构性权力的程度上,话语差异出现了,一些参与者拥有他们的社会特权,而另一些参与者则在话语上回避它。当被要求确定具体的盟友行动时,参与者通常描述了旨在帮助人际环境中的个人的广泛行为,但没有说明旨在拆除不公平的权力结构、修改有偏见的政策和改变有害的组织文化的行动。我们的研究结果强调了培训的必要性,以澄清特权的概念,并帮助教师将他们对盟友关系的理解转化为沟通行动,以阻止人际关系和制度层面的歧视。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Communicating privilege and faculty allyship
ABSTRACT As individuals who use their privilege to reduce prejudice, educate others about social justice, and actively stop discrimination, faculty allies can play a vital role in transforming universities to be more equitable, diverse, and inclusive. However, discrepancies persist in how faculty define privilege and communicate allyship. Drawing from standpoint theory, we examined discursive divergences in how 105 full-time faculty defined and experienced privilege and how they enacted allyship in the workplace. Participants tended to conceptualize privilege as a set of advantages and lack of structural barriers for people based on their group membership(s). Discursive differences emerged regarding the degree to which faculty participants perceived privilege to be un/earned and rooted in structural power, and some participants took ownership of their social privilege while others discursively elided it. When asked to identify specific ally actions, participants often described broad behaviors that aimed to help individuals in interpersonal contexts but did not address actions aimed at dismantling inequitable power structures, revising biased policies, and transforming toxic organizational cultures. Our findings highlight the need for trainings that clarify conceptualizations of privilege and help faculty translate their understanding of allyship into communicative actions that stop discrimination at interpersonal and institutional levels.
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
COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY
COMMUNICATION QUARTERLY COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
2.30
自引率
5.90%
发文量
32
期刊最新文献
“Here’s what you can do to stop the spread”: Frames and mobilizing information in CDC’s social media messages during the COVID-19 pandemic The road from Teamsterville: Locating alternate approaches to the ethnography of communication Parsing communication duration and diagnostic question effects in deception detection Effects or use?: Examining the over-time effects of media use and racial resentment Understanding the influence of student expectations of instructor immediate behaviors on AI-based education: the moderating role of social presence of AI instructors
×
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