School of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley, California, USA.
Gerontologist. 2023 Jun 15;63(5):900-909. doi: 10.1093/geront/gnac152.
Despite increased attention to racial and gender justice in the workplace in recent years, discrimination complaints remain vastly underreported. Building on legal consciousness theory-which explains how individuals invoke (or do not invoke) legal principles to define everyday experiences-this study examines how long-term care facility staff understand experiences of discrimination by residents and why staff fails to report discrimination.
This qualitative comparative study uses in-depth semistructured ethnographic interviews to compare experiences among facility staff (n = 80) at three levels (floor staff, mid-management, and upper-management). The qualitative content analysis incorporated both inductive and deductive coding approaches.
Findings reveal extensive unreported instances of discrimination from residents. Staff at all levels rarely invoked discrimination concepts to describe interactions between residents and staff. Floor staff framed residents' discriminatory behavior as a condition of employment or attributed resident behavior to their health or cognitive status. Mid-management framed experiences around staff safety. Upper-management acknowledged staff rights without invoking discrimination rhetoric.
By avoiding naming experiences as discrimination and blaming residents, most floor staff never reached the claiming process that would result in a report or complaint of discrimination. Managers' framings also shaped how front-line staff and managers named, blamed, and claimed experiences of discrimination and help explain why staff may be hesitant to report discrimination by residents. These findings suggest the need for new and targeted policy and practice approaches that address the nuances accompanying how staff understands workplace experiences as discrimination.
尽管近年来人们越来越关注工作场所中的种族和性别公正，但歧视投诉仍然严重不足。本研究基于法律意识理论——该理论解释了个体如何援引（或不援引）法律原则来定义日常经验——探讨了长期护理机构工作人员如何理解居民的歧视经历，以及为什么工作人员未能报告歧视。
这项定性比较研究使用深入的半结构化民族志访谈，比较了三个层次（楼层工作人员、中层管理人员和高层管理人员）的设施工作人员（n=80）的经验。定性内容分析采用了归纳和演绎编码方法。
研究结果揭示了居民广泛存在但未报告的歧视事件。各层次的工作人员很少援引歧视概念来描述居民与工作人员之间的互动。楼层工作人员将居民的歧视行为视为就业条件，或将居民的行为归因于他们的健康或认知状况。中层管理人员将经验围绕工作人员的安全展开。高层管理人员承认工作人员的权利，但不援引歧视言论。
通过避免将经验命名为歧视并指责居民，大多数楼层工作人员从未进入到导致报告或投诉歧视的主张过程。经理的框架也塑造了一线工作人员和经理如何命名、指责和主张歧视经验，并有助于解释为什么工作人员可能不愿意报告居民的歧视行为。这些发现表明，需要新的和有针对性的政策和实践方法，以解决与工作人员如何将工作场所经验理解为歧视相关的细微差别。
