Wong Chuk Yan E, Kirby Teri A, Rink Floor, Ryan Michelle K
Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands.
Department of Psychology, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Front Psychol. 2022 May 25;13:791572. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.791572. eCollection 2022.
Many diversity interventions for women are ineffective. One reason for this may be that the field that diversity interventions are usually based on, the social sciences, often do not consider intra-group differences among women. Specifically, differences by racialization may be excluded from such diversity interventions. The present research examines whether racially marginalized women have different diversity interventions needs than White women, and whether organizations are less likely to represent those needs (i.e., intersectional invisibility). Across an open-ended coding ( = 293) and a ranking study ( = 489), Black women noted a need to incorporate intersectional differences, Asian women prioritized methods to address challenges to their authority, and White women indicated a need to address agency perceptions. Improving work-life balance and networks was a shared concern among participants, though we theorized different racially gendered reasons for why these intervention needs are relevant to each group. In Study 3 ( = 92 organizations), we analyzed organizations' websites using word count and textual analysis. Organizations- including the Education, Science, and Research sector- most readily advocated for women through enhancing agency. They were also less likely to mention dealing with perceptions of excessive agency or addressing intersectional considerations. The organizations broadly mentioned other marginalized groups besides women, but rarely did they do so intersectionality. Taken together, our findings demonstrate different intervention priorities across differently racialized groups. We found evidence of intersectional invisibility where organizations were more likely to address agency-enhancing intervention needs while failing to include other intervention needs relevant for Black women and Asian women. We discuss the implications of these findings for organizations, in general, as well as potential implications for the field of academic social sciences.
许多针对女性的多元化干预措施是无效的。造成这种情况的一个原因可能是，多元化干预措施通常所基于的社会科学领域往往没有考虑到女性群体内部的差异。具体而言，这种多元化干预措施可能会排除因种族化而产生的差异。本研究考察了与白人女性相比，种族边缘化的女性是否有不同的多元化干预需求，以及组织是否不太可能体现这些需求（即交叉性隐形）。在一项开放式编码研究（n = 293）和一项排序研究（n = 489）中，黑人女性指出需要纳入交叉性差异，亚洲女性将应对其权威挑战的方法列为优先事项，而白人女性则表示需要解决能动性认知问题。改善工作与生活的平衡以及社交网络是参与者共同关心的问题，不过我们从理论上探讨了为何这些干预需求对每个群体都相关的不同的种族化性别原因。在研究3（n = 92个组织）中，我们使用词频统计和文本分析对组织的网站进行了分析。包括教育、科学和研究部门在内的组织，最常通过增强能动性来倡导女性权益。它们也不太可能提及应对过度能动性的认知或处理交叉性考量。这些组织广泛提及了除女性之外的其他边缘化群体，但很少从交叉性角度这样做。综合来看，我们的研究结果表明不同种族化群体有不同的干预重点。我们发现了交叉性隐形的证据，即组织更有可能满足增强能动性的干预需求，却未能纳入与黑人女性和亚洲女性相关的其他干预需求。我们讨论了这些研究结果对一般组织的影响，以及对学术社会科学领域的潜在影响。
