Abstract
Purpose
– The purpose of this paper is to offer an insight into why men do research on in-equality.
Design/methodology/approach
– The author utilizes autoethnography, as a form of self-reflection, to help make sense of the own experiences and to connect it with the broader world. It is a narrative based on personal experiences which connects the author's biography with his research endeavours. It also enables to engage in self-analysis and self-awareness of the motives for conducting research on in-equality.
Findings
– In this narrative, the author shares his journey as an equality scholar, and how his multiple identities as a visible minority, an immigrant to Canada, and a gay person shapes my worldview, attitudes, and beliefs, which in turn influences his own work on equality and diversity. The narrative is based on the intersection of multiple identities, and not just solely based on the author's gender. The attribute feeling deprived on behalf of others, rational self-interest, and social justice as the chief reasons for engaging in in-equality research.
Research limitations/implications
– Autoethnography is inherently subjective, based upon the author's own biases and interpretation of events, but the subjectivity can also be an opportunity for intentional self-awareness and reflexivity. Given the multiple identities that the author holds, some of the experiences recounted here may be unique to the author, and some may be shared with others. Thus, it is not the author's intention to represent, in general, why men do in-equality research.
Originality/value
– This autoethnography has allowed the author the opportunity to be self-aware of the complexity of the multiple identities. This self-awareness also allows the author to be more respectful, authentic, and inclusive of others. The author hopes that these reflections will resonate with some of you, and perhaps inspire one to engage in similar work, for reasons that are unique to one and all.
Subject
Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management,Cultural Studies,Gender Studies
Reference84 articles.
1. Agocs, C.
(2012), “Representative bureaucracy? Employment equity in the public service of Canada”, paper presented at the 2012 Annual Conference of the Canadian Political Science Association, Edmonton, 13-15 June.
2. Alba, R.
and
Nee, V.
(1997), “Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration”, International Migration Review, Vol. 31 No. 4, pp. 826-874.
3. Amoroso, L.M.
,
Loyd, D.L.
and
Hoobler, J.M.
(2010), “The diversity education dilemma: exposing status hierarchies without reinforcing them”, Journal of Management Education, Vol. 34 No. 6, pp. 795-822.
4. Beaton, A.M.
and
Deveau, M.
(2005), “Helping the less fortunate: a predictive model of collective action”, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 35 No. 8, pp. 1609-1629.
5. Branscombe, N.R.
,
Schmitt, M.T.
and
Harvey, R.D.
(1999), “Perceiving pervasive discrimination among African Americans: implications for group identification and well-being”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 77 No. 1, pp. 135-149.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Fooled by Diversity? When Diversity Initiatives Exacerbate Rather Than Mitigate Bias and Inequality;Academy of Management Perspectives;2024-01-05
2. How change agents mobilise masculinities to support gender equality in academia;Organization;2022-05-09
3. Race and workplace discrimination;Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal;2019-07-16
4. From “blue sky” to real world research;Qualitative Research in Organizations and Management: An International Journal;2018-08-01
5. The double-edged sword of having a unique perspective;Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal;2018-04-16