All inside our heads? A critical discursive review of unconscious bias training in the sciences
All inside our heads? A critical discursive review of unconscious bias training in the sciences
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/gwao.13028
复制
发表时间：
2023-06
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Christian Möller;Saffron Passam;Sarah Riley;M. Robson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Christian Möller;Saffron Passam;Sarah Riley;M. Robson
为了应对科学领域持续存在的系统性性别和种族排斥，无意识或隐性偏见培训现已被广泛确立为高等教育（HE）的组织干预措施。最近的系统评价考虑了无意识偏见训练（UBT）的功效，但没有考虑干预措施本身的更广泛的特征和效果。本文以批判心理学和后结构主义话语理论中的女权主义学术为指导，通过对已发表研究的话语分析，批判性地审视了 STEMM 和高等教育机构中的 UBT。通过对 4 个数据库的系统检索，我们确定了 22 项研究中报告的三种类型的 UBT，这些研究在干预类型、目标群体和评估方法方面存在很大差异。在无意识偏见作为个人思想内部问题的有限认知问题化的指导下，干预措施遵循新自由主义治理的既定模式，并提供具体的情感规则和主体立场。当前的这些平等、多元化和包容性实践提出了一种新技术，组织可以通过这种技术来规范影响和行为，但不会影响结构性不平等和包容性障碍。
In response to persistent systemic gendered and racial exclusions in the sciences, unconscious or implicit bias training is now widely established as an organizational intervention in Higher Education (HE). Recent systematic reviews have considered the efficacy of unconscious bias training (UBT) but not the wider characteristics and effects of the interventions themselves. Guided by feminist scholarship in critical psychology and post‐structuralist discourse theory, this article critically examines UBT across STEMM and in HE institutions with a discursive analysis of published studies. Drawn from systematic searches in 4 databases, we identify three types of UBT reported in 22 studies with considerable variation in intervention types, target groups, and evaluation methods. Guided by limited cognitive problematizations of unconscious bias as a problem located inside individual minds, interventions follow established patterns in neoliberal governmentality and make available specific feeling rules and subject positions. These current Equality, Diversity & Inclusion practices present a new technology of power through which organizations may regulate affect and behavior but leave structural inequalities and barriers to inclusion intact.