- When reviewing my classmates’ contributions I could see that many new categories of diversity are discussed throughout these posts. Each topic of focus added to the canon simply because they analyzed a topic that we have yet to discuss. What I found interesting was that before reading the post discussing language diversity, I had not thought the topic was an issue related to diversity. It made me think outside my perspective, and since I know many people with non-native accents it allowed me to connect and empathize. The addition of the article Language Diversity, Non-native Accents, and Their Consequences into the canon was significant to me because it added a unique inclusive perspective of multiple people who struggle with the challenges of language diversity at work. The media element from the same post, which was a TED talk from cognitive scientist and professor Lera Boroditsky, was informative and connected well with the article, working as supportive evidence. After reading all of these posts I can now see how diversity and organizational culture is so complex. Reflecting on the first reading we looked at where there was so many definitions of organizational culture I can see how this came to be due to a extensive list of diverse groups in the world.
3. The transitions that Bogost uses throughout his writing help move along his argument clearly, keeping it focused and concise. Some of the ways he approaches moving between one paragraph and another include a tactic where he seems to begin his paragraphs with a response to the question that the previous posed. The use of language to begin a paragraph such as “But” and “even though” continuously reference the content in the paragraph above giving his writing a continuous flow. To do this he begins his text with the story of Webb, making them familiar with her from the start so that the continuous inclusion of her perspective does not feel random or unrelated to the other facts or opinions he includes.
Michaela, one of the reasons I chose to expand the canon with this article was similar to yours. Having family and knowing a lot of people who don’t speak English as their first language has always made me consciously aware of the topic. I’ve always empathized with them but what this article enlightened me on was in applying this on a broader/ deeper scale. I gained insight into hearing more detailed and various accounts from people outside my vicinity. The perspective the targeted employees or academic researchers gave made me connect and understand the issue even greater. By reading more into the subject it too made me reflect on our conversations and the organizational cultures we create.
One of the aspects I found intriguing about your article, Bryan, was that it asks us to consider how different linguistic backgrounds might make for different kinds of worldviews (this is similar for religion, sexuality, gender, race, etc.). So as a set these articles nudge us to think about how demographic diversity makes for diversity of perspectives and problem-solving approaches. We’re not just thinking about diversity for its own sake, but about the *impacts* of that diversity in our working communities.
Language diversity is something I never would have thought to include in my definition of diversity at the start of this class, but reading this post definitely expanded my knowledge. To think that there are many people across this country who struggle with the challenges of language diversity at work is so eye opening, and it makes me feel guilty for not recognizing this sooner. I also enjoyed the TEDTalk and agree that my understanding of organized culture has become so complex now.
Language diversity is a huge issue that I admit I never really gave much consideration to. Not even just the spoken language, but say for instance people who are deaf and work around people who are not. At one of my previous jobs there were a few people who were deaf and while it was somewhat easy to communicate with them I can totally see how the opposite can be true and it can set either person up (or both) at a disadvantage.