A Sociocultural Framework on Diversity Requires Structure as well as Culture and Social Psychology
A Sociocultural Framework on Diversity Requires Structure as well as Culture and Social Psychology
复制标题
多样性的社会文化框架需要结构以及文化和社会心理学
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
N. DiTomaso
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
N. DiTomaso
人与人之间有许多不具有社会意义的差异。有些人是左撇子，有些人是右撇子。有些人对花生等食物过敏，有些人则没有。我们不会根据这些差异来区分人们，因为我们不认为具有这些特征的人构成了一个群体，重要的是，这些差异与获得资源、尊重或作为主导群体成员所带来的影响无关。因此，当我们谈到社会和行为科学中的多样性时，我们主要感兴趣的是那些确实具有社会意义的差异，也就是说，我们指的是那些影响人们生活结果的差异，尤其是那些倾向于产生、维持和再生产不平等的差异。在过去的二十年里，我一直在与不同的同事一起撰写一系列论文，试图创建一个综合框架，以理解多样性如何促进不平等的再生产（DiTomaso, ParksYancy, & Post, 2003; DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007; DiTomaso, Post, Smith, Farris, & Cordero, 2007; Skaggs & DiTomaso, 2004; Smith, DiTomaso, Farris, & Cordero, 2001; Thompson & DiTomaso, 1988）。我的努力不仅仅是了解哪些差异会产生差异，而是要了解社会显著差异如何导致在日常互动中再现不平等的机制，然后在个人和集体层面的社会制度嵌入中变得持久（Tilly, 1998, 2000）。在我的努力中，在这方面，我试图借鉴社会学、社会心理学和管理学的研究，我特别试图展示这些领域的研究是如何相互关联的，以及这些领域应该如何相互促进（DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007）。当我开始我的努力时，我发现的第一件事是，在多样性和不平等的问题上，不同领域甚至分支领域之间的交流很少。尽管近年来在这方面有了一些变化，越来越多的研究人员从邻近领域借鉴，创建了自己的综合框架（Brewer, 1997; Brickson, 2000; DiMaggio, 1997; Ridgeway, 2001; Ridgeway, Boyle, Kuipers, & Robinson, 1998; Sears, Sidanius, & Bobo, 2000），但在不同领域对多样性和不平等如何结合在一起的理解上仍然存在重大差距。在努力创建一个综合框架的过程中，我学到的第二件事是，要从一个没有受过训练的领域中汲取并有效地利用研究成果是多么困难。来自另一个领域的研究总是有深度和复杂性，这对于天真的用户来说是很难理解的，而且总是有成为外行的危险。我发现情况就是这样，例如，当我时不时地回顾一些文章，这些文章引用我的工作来证明一个观点，而这个观点与被引用的工作中的论点或发现完全相反。考虑到这些困难和挑战，我赞赏普劳特（本期）为发展一种理解多样性的社会文化方法所做的努力，但我觉得有许多领域还不发达，需要一些额外的考虑。也许我最关心的问题是这篇文章的框架是呼吁创造一种多样性的“科学”。这个词的含义表明，努力的结果将是协商一致的、可重复的和相对稳定的。综合科学的各种定义表明，“科学”构成了对精确应用的事实或真理的系统化知识（http:// dictionary.reference.com/browse/science）。这不是，也不可能是我们理解多样性的方式，因为多样性与基于群体的不平等的联系意味着我们对多样性的理解总是会受到质疑。也就是说，对多样性的理解，就像不平等本身一样，是政治性的，并受到不断的挑战，因为那些占主导地位并享受其社会地位的特权的群体可能会抵制使这一进程通过的努力
There are many differences among people that do not have social significance. Some people are left handed and others right handed. Some are allergic to foods like peanuts and others are not. We do not differentiate people on the basis of these differences, because we do not think of the people with these characteristics as forming a group, and importantly, these kinds of differences are not associated with access to resources, deference, or the influence that comes with being a dominant group member. When we speak about diversity in the social and behavioral sciences, therefore, we are primarily interested in the kinds of differences that do have social significance, and by that, we mean the differences that affect the outcomes in people’s lives and especially the kinds of differences that tend to generate, maintain, and reproduce inequality. For the last two decades, I have been trying in a series of papers with various colleagues to create an integrative framework for understanding how diversity contributes to the reproduction of inequality (DiTomaso, ParksYancy, & Post, 2003; DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007; DiTomaso, Post, Smith, Farris, & Cordero, 2007; Skaggs & DiTomaso, 2004; Smith, DiTomaso, Farris, & Cordero, 2001; Thompson & DiTomaso, 1988). My efforts have not been just to understand which differences make a difference, but rather to understand how socially significant differences lead to mechanisms that reproduce inequality in everyday interactions and then become enduring in the embeddedness of social institutions at both the individual and the collective levels (Tilly, 1998, 2000). In my efforts, in this regard, I have tried to draw from research in sociology, social psychology, and management, and I have specifically tried to show how the research across these fields is interrelated and how the fields should contribute to each other (DiTomaso, Post, & Parks-Yancy, 2007). When I began my efforts, one of the first things I discovered was that there was very little interchange across fields or even subfields on issues of diversity and inequality. Although there has been some change in that respect in recent years with more researchers drawing from neighboring fields to create their own integrative frameworks (Brewer, 1997; Brickson, 2000; DiMaggio, 1997; Ridgeway, 2001; Ridgeway, Boyle, Kuipers, & Robinson, 1998; Sears, Sidanius, & Bobo, 2000), there are still major gaps in the understanding across fields about how diversity and inequality come together. The second thing that I learned in my efforts to create an integrative framework is how difficult it is to draw from and use productively the research from a field in which one was not trained. There is always a depth and complexity to the research from another field that is hard for the naive user to grasp and always the danger of being a dilettante. I have found this to be the case, for example, when from time to time I review articles that cite my work as justification for a point that is the exact opposite of the arguments or findings in the work being cited. Given these difficulties and challenges, I applaud Plaut’s (this issue) efforts to develop a sociocultural approach for understanding diversity, but there are a number of areas that I feel are underdeveloped and that require some additional consideration. Perhaps the issue about which I have the most concern is the framing of the article as a call to create a diversity “science.” The connotations of that word suggest that the outcome of the efforts will be consensual, reproducible, and relatively stable. A composite of the various definitions of science suggests that “science” constitutes systematized knowledge of facts or truths that are precisely applied (http:// dictionary.reference.com/browse/science). That is not and cannot be the way that we understand diversity, because the association of diversity with group-based inequality implies that our understanding of diversity is always going to be contested. That is, the understanding of diversity, like inequality itself, is political and subject to constant challenges as those groups that are dominant and enjoy the privileges of their social position are likely to resist efforts to make the processes by
影响因子：
16.4
作者：
FISKE, ST
通讯作者：
FISKE, ST