Introduction to Special Issue on Diversity and Inclusion

Fisheries ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 44 (8) ◽  
pp. 351-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaja Brix
2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-11
Author(s):  
Joanna Pyrkosz-Pacyna

The idea for this Special Issue actually originated during a conference devoted to gender equality in business settings: “It’s complicated. Gender balance in leadership” organized in 2018 by Diversity Hub, an organization focused on Diversity and Inclusion. Inspired by Professor Katarzyna Leszczyńska (AGH University of Science and Technology) and supported by Dr Tomasz Dąbrowski (Diversity Hub) the idea of an entire issue of an academic journal devoted to research and case studies on gender equality in science and business came to life. We opened the journal to sociologists, psychologists, cultural studies researchers, anthropologists, journalists and practitioners to share with us their work in this area. We received a broad variety of articles that tackled the notion from different perspectives and chose five articles that in our opinion provide the most interesting and professional contribution to the topic of gender representation in STEM and high business positions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 585-596
Author(s):  
Rana Haq ◽  
Alain Klarsfeld ◽  
Angela Kornau ◽  
Faith Wambura Ngunjiri

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to present the diversity and equality perspectives from the national context of India and introduce a special issue about equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI) in India.Design/methodology/approachThis special issue consists of six articles on current EDI issues in India. The first three of the contributions are focused on descriptions of diversity challenges and policies regarding caste and disabilities, while the remaining three papers address gender diversity.FindingsIn addition to providing an overview of this issue's articles, this paper highlights developments and current themes in India's country-specific equality and diversity scholarship. Drawing on the special issue's six papers, the authors show the relevance of Western theories while also pointing to the need for reformulation of others in the context of India.Research limitations/implicationsThe authors conclude with a call to further explore diversity in India and to develop locally relevant, culture-sensitive theoretical frameworks. Religious and economic diversity should receive more attention in future diversity management scholarship in the Indian context.Originality/valueHow does India experience equality and diversity concepts? How are India's approaches similar or different from those experienced in other countries? How do theoretical frameworks originated in the West apply in India? Are new, locally grounded frameworks needed to better capture the developments at play? These questions are addressed by the contributions to this special issue.


2017 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 350-361 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Storberg-Walker ◽  
Rita A. Gardiner

The Problem Authentic leadership (AL) has been viewed as an attractive leadership model to combat destructive forms of leadership. On a simple level, it is difficult to argue against authenticity when leading and developing leaders. However, on a deeper level, many scholars have challenged the ideas supporting authentic leadership to highlight the model’s theoretical assumptions and implicit values. Of the critiques, one of the most relevant challenges for HRD (Human Resource Development) is the critique based on identity because this critique aligns with HRD’s focus on diversity and inclusion. The problem is that HRD researchers and practitioners need to understand more about how authentic leadership, as described typically in scholarly and practitioner journals, homogenizes the workplace and discounts diverse ways of being authentic. The Solution The articles in this Special Issue offer a variety of different perspectives on the connection between authentic leadership and identity to make transparent the hidden assumptions, power dynamics, and contextual forces at play. When these unexamined and implicit factors are considered, HRD scholars and practitioners will be in a better position to promote diversity and inclusion in the workplace, as well as in teaching, research, and service. The Stakeholders Researchers and practitioners interested in authentic leadership, diversity and inclusion, and power.


Organization ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. 135050842097330
Author(s):  
Maria Adamson ◽  
Elisabeth Kelan ◽  
Patricia Lewis ◽  
Martyna Śliwa ◽  
Nick Rumens

This Special Issue seeks to begin to map out the key issues and contours of the emerging stream of literature on critical studies of inclusion in organisations. We aim to generate and develop further debates on critically theorising the concept, rhetoric and practices of inclusion, how inclusion manifests in different organisational contexts, how it works for different social groups, and how it continues to be implicated and interwoven with the logic of exclusion and inequality in contemporary organisations. The term ‘inclusion’ seems to have augmented the term ‘diversity’, resulting in the emergence of ‘diversity and inclusion’ as a standing term, with other terms, such as ‘equality’ and ‘equity’ currently less frequently used. In this Special Issue we treat diversity and inclusion as analytically distinct and question how far the ‘inclusion turn’ is changing practices in organisations. The papers in this Special Issue discuss how organisations ‘do’ inclusion, explore the conditions on which minority groups are included, and seek to develop a more nuanced understanding of the concept of inclusion by situating it into the broader social context and questioning the inclusion-exclusion binary.


2010 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 92-109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eva Bendix Petersen ◽  
Bronwyn Davies

In this article the authors take up the invitation to respond to the previous articles in the special issue. They discuss why it is so difficult to speak and write about gender and sexuality, and difference more generally, in the neoliberalised university. They make the case that the neoliberal university engages and uses categorical difference, and the individuals inhabiting these, mainly for auditing purposes. The authors develop the argument that despite the enterprise university's official commitments to diversity and inclusion, it remains indifferent to difference, understood as openness to becoming different, to differenciation in a Deleuzian sense. Difference is privatised and depoliticised and is only acceptable if it is useful and exploitable in pre-specified ways and if it conforms to and facilitates neoliberal agendas.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document