Week of 7/6 – Discussion

1. One article I’m looking to add to my research portfolio is called “Linguistic Diversity in the International Workplace.” In his article academic researcher Dorte Lonsmann explains what language ideologies are and the dangers it can develop into such as leading to issues of exclusion and language competence. He goes onto describe this in six written sections that draw varying forms of attention to a type of diversity that is underrepresented and should become more characteristically addressed in the workplace. Adopting an ethnographic approach for research, Lonsmann evaluates a modern international company in the context of Denmark observing and surveying employee’s language differences.

The article is useful in reinforcing the research I’ve previously done given its findings apply in a different international environment (in short that there is an essential connection between language and individuals and failure in recognizing this can inadvertently have consequential effects on performance). Similarly, Lonsmann’s ideologies explain individual behaviors through insider-outsider group relations, status perceptions, and social identity which overlap with many of the articles we’ve read in the past. Lonsmann also identifies the gaps of research there are which his current study is designed to better address by revisiting initially perceived diversity conceptions. Lastly, the article’s best strength is in the extent/intent of inclusivity by surveying the companies employees at all organizational levels (adding more voice to support the perspective of why we should care on the issue).

3. Being an architecture student this week’s readings fell right in my line of interest. There were a lot of illuminating points made between the news article and reader responses which quite frankly are seldomly touched on in school. Sexism being a product of design, particularly in the layout of a floor plan, caught me by surprise however after reading the numerous sources I began to empathize with the given perspectives.

To add a bit of background to this discussion, I’d like to share that the architectural industry has increasingly expressed the inequalities and gender gap between men and women architects. The career path and work to obtain an architectural license is especially difficult and significantly lower for women. When you consider gender roles, wage differences, power structures, award recognition, etc. it becomes more evidently clear why the system is unjust. Architect Denise Scott Brown probably best sums up this in this short video clip which can add more scale to the issue. Its also been the reason more organizations have come together to support practices led by women and host forums to openly discuss this.

The reason I share this is that the article noted all the floor plans from the study were designed by men.  While this a credible facet, I don’t think the article accurately represents the issues at large (which might suggest placing all responsibility on men i.e. one-group fits all). One reader added,

“I should also mention that a woman designed our office, and I think she did a wonderful job. I don’t think this issue is a product of open office plans, I think it’s an issue of entitled, sexist men being unwilling to evaluate their own behavior and how it impacts their women colleagues, and an issue of companies not challenging this problem beyond just sticking a page in the HR manual about sexual harassment”

I found this response from Lauren best describe the nuanced reality of the situation. The problem is when people don’t hold accountability for their behaviors and when those in management positions don’t use their power to enforce anything about it. This is an issue of communication and a lack of better understanding others points of view. Being more conscious of our actions is a place to start, but that can only begin with a conversation on the subject matter.