Tag: unit2

Discussion Questions WK 7/26

  1. In the Ted-Talk “INCLUSION over Diversity” Kenyona Matthews drew on her own experience being a member of a marginalized group in her predominately white university. Throughout the video, Kenyona directly forms a connection between her success in this university and the universities efforts to create an inclusive environment for all its students. As she provides insight into her experience prior to the schools adoption of more inclusive practices, it is evident that once this shift occurred, Kenyona’s motivation increased greatly. She even mentions that when she saw the institution actively working towards becoming inclusive through things like funding African American history courses she felt valued and seen which reflected into her school work because her grades began to rise. When she went to Law school she was met with an entirely different environment which was not as accepting to Black people. She mentioned that by her second year, a large majority of her Black classmates had left since they felt like they didn’t belong there.

This ted-talk is very important for my research because it is the most informative primary source that I have found. In my opinion Kenyona explained everything very clearly, I liked how she explained the differences from her PWI and her high school which had a majority population of minority students. She was also able to explain the differences in how she felt prior to the adoption of inclusive practices and after, and then she went on to explain the differences from and inclusive environment to her experience in law school. This all helps my research a lot since it is essentially showing the difference in a diverse environment and an inclusive one, through Kenyona’s experience. I also think it is very helpful that she spoke about the change in her motivation at school and how it was connected to the increase of inclusion in the school. This relates to the article “The Inclusion Dividend: Why Investing in Diversity and Inclusion pays off” because it supports the idea that the more diverse and inclusive an organization is the higher their success rates. This is because the employees will feel valued which results in them doing their best work. A very important part of this was towards the end when she said “diversity will always give us space in the rooms but it leaves no room for our thoughts and out ways of life. Inclusion will change our rooms. Inclusion will make sure we all have a seat and voice and it makes it so that once you hear the voice you have to act and make some changes” this gives me a good explanation of the difference between Diversity and Inclusion which is a part of my research as well. Diversity does not guarantee Inclusion, which also means it alone is not enough to make sure a company/organization is successful because when people do not feel like they have a voice or a seat at the table, they will not be able to work their best.

2) In Lauren T’s response she mentions that she felt so uncomfortable in her workspace that she would strategize different paths to the bathroom so she didn’t have to pass by a specific male coworkers desk. She mentions that this passive sexism prevented her and other women from feeling confident, supported and safe in their workplace and this was not the type of conditions that would help a woman grow her career. I think this is very upsetting that these women come to work, which is a place they should feel valued and respected, and they are experiencing this degrading behavior. Lauren also mentions that the men who are the perpetrators of this do not acknowledge how difficult they are making the experience of the women the work with. She says that since she works in a male dominated agency, she feels like if she brings it up she will be labeled as “the complainer or too sensitive”. She then goes on to say that she doesn’t believe that the open office is to blame but rather the sexist men who are not willing to reflect on their behavior to see how it is affecting their female co workers. By this statement, Lauren is introducing a new perspective, the open office merely exposes the true nature of these male colleagues. The new question is what can be done to prevent this type of behavior and Lauren suggest you the adoption of employee training plans which serve to make all people in the office feel comfortable.

Discussion Questions Week of 7/26

Response to #1

Summary

In the journal article created by Cornell’s psychologists Ceci and Williams along with Cornell researcher Barnett, titled “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations”, the authors attempt to comprehend the reason why an increasing number of women are pursuing STEM-related degrees, but the number of women in STEM-related jobs is not increasing as rapidly. To understand the reasons behind this, the authors hypothesized that a circular relationship exists between various factors, the most important being biological sex. Biological sex in the article claims to be a critical factor since it impacts everything from hormones, thoughts on the tradeoff between career and family values, even SAT scores. To back up this theory, the article utilizes separate studies and datasets. The authors dive into other reasons to explain why more women do not enter into math-intensive careers, including motivations, historical context, and cultural factors.

Analysis

This article is like none of the others that I have read. Instead of just explaining the impact that society has on why more women do not enter into STEM-related careers, it examines biological reasons. The perspective that this article takes overall is more of a scientific view than a social perspective. I see myself using it to focus on these biological elements rather than the social ones that every other article references. This article relates to my other sources because they all attempt to explain why more women are not involved in STEM-related careers. It just takes the research a step further than the other sources that I have found because it uses scientific evidence to back up its claim. I must use the biological elements referenced, the statistics that the article provides to help back up my thoughts and other research. Overall, it will be crucial to use the scientific data to examine my question as to why under-representation matters to everyone and the reasoning behind why it exists to determine possible solutions to the issue.

Ceci, Stephen J., et al. “Women’s Underrepresentation in Science: Sociocultural and Biological Considerations.” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 135, no. 2, 2009, pp. 218–261., doi:10.1037/a0014412.

Response to #3

In recent discussions of subtle sexism, Katharine Schwab presents a controversial issue on whether open office workspaces provide more benefits than costs. On one hand, some argue that the open space encourages engagement and breaks open the chain of command thoughts. From this perspective, these individuals argue that the benefits outweigh the costs and therefore open office spaces should be utilized. On the other hand, however, others argue that the open office space violates people’s right to privacy and encourages subtle sexism. In the words of Schwab, “This kind of all-glass, no-privacy environment leads to a subtle kind of sexism, where women are always being watched and judged on their appearances, causing anxiety for many employees.”. According to this view, open office spaces cause harm towards women within the organization and would therefore do the opposite of their original intent, make for a tense environment where women do not feel safe.

My own view is that Schwab fails to address some of the solutions to the issue at hand. Schwab is right that those open office spaces violate the right to an individual’s privacy. I will be extending the argument by providing my own solution to the problem. Many organizations are beginning to understand the benefits that meeting pods/quiet pods hold for workers within the organization. Not only do they provide a space for an employee to relax without having to listen to the loud and rambunctious open office space, but it allows for privacy. The women in the article address that in their current open office space, there is nowhere to go besides the restroom for an escape from others watching them. A meeting pod would allow for a location where females could go to work without having to worry about others watching them for however long they need away from the open office space. Obviously, it is difficult once you enter a lease or commitment for a new office to leave that behind due to monetary constraints or legal contracts, but meeting pods provide a solution to the problem. With all of the hyperlinks provided in the article, I am surprised that Schwab did not address what other companies have been doing for a long time, and how pods have benefitted their employees. Other alternatives could include what Google has begun to do in its offices, which is that they introduced inflatable walls.

Although I believe that it is important to create a sense of privacy in the workplace, I do also believe that having open areas where people can communicate and engage with each other is critical to the success of an organization. Therefore, I believe that a hybrid workplace, where there are 50% meeting pods and 50% cubicles/open areas where people can engage would be the best solution to the issue. For my TSIS templates, I used one from the introduction in the book, along with another from chapter five. I feel as though I have become more comfortable with using them which is great. Below I have attached some links to information on meeting pods and Google’s inflatable walls.

The many functions and benefits of office meeting pods

https://www.theverge.com/tldr/2021/4/30/22411593/google-post-pandemic-office-plans-inflatable-robot-walls

Discussion Questions Week of 7/26

Response to #1

In “Applying artificial intelligence: implications for recruitment,” Ashwani Kumar Upadhyay and Komal Khandelwal provide an overview of the ways artificial intelligence (AI) is being used in the hiring process and discuss the advantages for firms as well as job candidates. The authors are associate professors in strategic management at universities in India and have recently co-authored a book, AI Revolution in HRM: The New Scorecard, which provides an in-depth look at this rapidly evolving field. In their article, they highlight the many advantages of AI for HR, including helping recruiters process enormous volumes of data, screening social media to make sure a candidate’s values align with the organization, and matching personality types to certain positions. AI saves time on routine processes and allows HR staff to focus on high value work. The authors are clear that AI is good at identifying talent but many activities such as rapport-building and salary negotiation still need to be done by humans. The authors also highlight benefits for candidates, such as quicker rejections so job hunters can move on and functions that can direct candidates to other positions that might be a better fit. The authors also point out that AI can be intelligently programmed to avoid unconscious bias, and that AI technology, like other technologies, will get better over time.

This article will be useful to my project because it concisely describes the allure of AI for HR in practical terms. I am building a case to support the idea of slowing down AI implementation in HR and imposing legal restrictions because diversity and inclusion efforts will be harmed, so I need a source or two that advocate for the implementation of AI and that discuss the benefits. Human resource departments are overwhelmed with data to review, candidates to screen, and endless routine interactions and tasks. In some ways, firms are racing against each other to find the right employees, so the firms with the better technology and faster processes may win. This does not mean that AI is or will be perfect in the near term, especially when it comes to issues like diversity and inclusion. However, the authors make a solid argument for implementing these systems and express optimism about the future. In this way, they provide a good counterpoint to my argument.

Upadhyay, A. K., & Khandelwal, K. (2018). Applying artificial intelligence: implications for recruitment. Strategic HR Review, Vol. 17, No. 5: 255-258. DOI:10.1108/SHR-07-2018-0051. https://www-proquest-com.libezproxy2.syr.edu/docview/2133758924?pq-origsite=summon&accountid=14214.

Response to #3

The readers who responded to Katharine Schwab’s article on open offices understandably have a right to feel offended when a coworker harasses them, even in a subtle way. Many of the situations the women described sounded not only uncomfortable but creepy, and I can see why many of them wanted to leave their jobs. But when looking for the real causes of the problem, I think it’s important to separate the environment (which doesn’t have a mind of its own and doesn’t act) from the people in the environment (who do). In other words, I don’t think the environment creates the organizational culture, the people do and if you want to change the culture you have to work on the people.

It saddened me to read that many of the women made changes to their appearance and behavior. In a world that is increasingly aware of sexism and sexual harassment because of movements like “Me Too,” I think an open office might be the perfect environment to bring a subject like sexism in the workplace out in the open. With everything literally out in the open, what is holding companies back from educating all employees about the negative impact of sexism? Policies can be set and explained to curb behavior that makes people uncomfortable and to encourage more people to report sexist behavior when they see it happening. Extending this idea further, I would say that women do not have to fight this battle alone. There are many men who are willing to fight it with them, and men who aren’t doing enough can be encouraged to do more. “How Men Can Confront Other Men About Sexist Behavior” by W. Brad Johnson and David G. Smith shows them how they can get started.

Discussion Questions Week of 7/26

Response to #1:

Summary

In the journal article Intersectionality: Multiple Inequalities in Social Theory, by Sylvia Walby, Jo Armstrong, and Sofia Strid, the idea of intersectionality, mostly in regards to women, is explored with critical thinking, which offers solutions to the interconnected dilemmas women face daily, as well as systematically. The authors explore scholarly input from Crenshaw, McCall, and Hancock to understand commonalities between all of their arguments that could offer analysis as to why multiple inequalities take place for women. All of their arguments share inclusivity when it comes to women and disregarding generalizations put on them. However, the authors note that many dilemmas are left unsolved, even with Crenshaw, McCall, and Hancock’s input. The first problem involves figuring out how to address the relationship between structural and political intersectionality while not dismissing the other and instead focus on their connections. Structural intersectionality is when unequal social groups are considered, and political intersectionality regards political and systematic projects. The next dilemma asks how we address the relations between the inequalities without dismissing the powerful parts? Another problem regards balancing stability and fluidity, while the next wonders how to address class since all debates regarding intersectionality think of it differently. The authors offer solutions to each of these remaining problems, which all are similar because they all propose that one has to isolate each issue, take away its “status,” and think of all of them equally. This way, one can see the issues at hand more clearly and constitute a new critical way of thinking.

Analysis

This source is crucial to my research because it focuses on what problems still have to be fixed rather than listing success regarding intersectional thinking. By doing so, it leaves room for different perspectives and ideas to form different solutions. This is where preconceived bias can come in. With more research about bias and prejudice, I can see if this information can fill the gaps. The solutions the authors have mentioned are more complex than I gave in my summary paragraph, one being the solution for fluidity and stability. The solution reads, “The way forward is to recognize that concepts need to have their meaning temporarily stabilized at the point of analysis, even while recognizing that their social construction is the outcome of changes and interactions over time and to note the historically varied construction of these categories.” This solution is critical for my research because by stabilizing the meaning of a concept, one can see how it naturally is. There are no preconceived opinions or subconscious biases. There can hopefully be no underlying prejudice as well. The second part of the solution states that one can still recognize that social construction has caused changes and injustices, hence pre-conceived judgments. If people can start seeing a corrupt concept for how it is, without bias getting in the way, they can understand how it was historically constructed and maybe even dismantle it.

Response t0 #2:

In Kristin W’s response to the original article, she essentially notes that there are no ways to avoid the pressures of an open office, even if you tried. She states that in her experience, women would go to work early to get a seat close to the wall not to be stuck in the middle of the aisle. However, even if the women got wall seats, the men then had a perfect view to watch them. It made me honestly sad to know that these women could not even slightly avoid the poorly laid-out office. Not only was the layout awful, but the sexism revolved around it. Additionally, Kristin mentions the pressures of dressing nicely in an open office, which would create unpaid overtime at the end of the day because the men were still talking about work. By this point, too, I can already imagine the exhaustion the women have had from their days. Kristin’s writing illustrates a cycle- she notes that women can barely start their day off right in the workplace and can barely end it well. She does not necessarily mention the in-between parts of the day, but with the “cycle” being apparent, readers can certainly assume it is not so great either. Kristin W’s writing essentially demonstrates the inability of women to make their situation better because it was not designed to be changed; men have designed the office, therefore controlled by men. The beginning and ends of their days revolve around a man, whether that being watched from the aisle, expected to dress nicely for them, as well as staying late to work because the men haven’t left yet.

Research Plan

What question is guiding your research? (what do you want to use your research to understand?)

I have a few questions guiding my research:

Are there income inequalities between races?

If there are racial inequalities, why?

How are income level and health status connected?

Are minorities health disproportionately affected because of the income levels?

What are the attitudes/policies/history that contribute to the disparities?

In the workplace…..

How can we mend these differences?

How can we not only become more diverse but more inclusive?

I also want to elaborate my understanding on the different forms of racism and how it is connected with this topic.

Why this question? (help us to understand how it connects to your career/personal interests)

I am very passionate about public health and policy (those are my two majors). My entry level courses have only explored these issues on the surface. Through this project I would like to go more in depth from different angles. One day I hope to use my knowledge surrounding disparities that appear income and health (and other forms) to create societal change through legislation.

How will your professional/internship/organizational/course work inform your inquiry? (what connections can you see with the work that you’re part of in the world beyond our course?)

As I stated above, these issues are core topics in both of my majors. Beyond this course, I want to continue to educate myself and others on social injustices in different forms (women, LGBTQIA+, immigrants, BIPOC, etc.). As a career path, I would like to work in some way to find solutions. However, I do not have an ideal path on how I hope to accomplish this yet.

What fields (academic and professional) matter most to your inquiry? (where are you going to be looking for source material?)

I think the academic fields I am studying at Syracuse matter most to my inquiry. Some other relevant ones could be history and sociology.

Government would be an important professional field. Each branch of government plays a unique role in change.

Another important professional field would be Human Resource Departments of organizations to understand the current ways they work on diversity and inclusion, as well as equality and equity.

 I am going to use the databases provided by Syracuse Library to find sources. Additionally, I plan on reaching out to  the head of Syracuse University’s public health department for more guidance and insight on how to approach my research.

Currently, I need a more diverse set of sources. Most of the articles I have complied are overly complicated for this assignment. Even though I want to challenge myself, I do not want to confuse myself and readers.

I am a little overwhelmed because there is so much I want to cover through this assignment. I might need to organize my plan better by making it more specific.  

Discussion Questions Week 7/26

1.

In the article “Associations between sexual orientation discrimination and substance use disorders: differences by age in US adults” the authors discuss the study they did to see what trends there were between the age of adults with substance use disorders and how much sexual orientation discrimination they experienced. They found that US adults who are a part of sexual minorities are twice as likely to meet the criteria for many of the different substance use disorders (SUD). They saw that there are different factors that contribute to SUDs than just age. One being minority stress because it increases exposure to chronic stressors that are related to SUDs and other negative mental health affects.

This source connects to my other sources because they all focus on the main point of my argument, LGBTQ+ discrimination. What I have made sure to focus on when finding different sources is that they all discuss a different aspect of discrimination. This article focus substance abuse disorders and what, if any, the trend is between the different abuses, sexuality, and age; where the main cause is discrimination. It comes from the perspective of five professors who conducted this study to better understand the different abuse disorders that 20 million US adults have. I plan to use the data and results from this article to further discuss the effects of sexual discrimination on people and for evidence on the idea that it needs to come to an end.

2.

In the response titles “A Lack of Privacy makes Anxiety worse”, Emily emphasizes the effects that working in an open office had on her anxiety. She is agreeing with the original article and is giving an example of what she experienced in an open office and what she would do to accommodate herself and her needs. She also includes how she encouraged the company to change their office set up in her exit interview so that future employees do not experience the same things that she did. I feel that this was a productive way to address the issue that she faced because she not only explained it and explained what she did to help herself, she also told the company how to fix it and noted that she was not the only female in the office who felt like this.

Overview for Week of 7/26

Your research work continues this week, and will be the primary focus of your writing work. We’ll be doing that against the backdrop of a conversation about office design that intersects with our larger discussions around inclusion and organizational culture.

See, all the work we’re doing individually overlaps with these other conversations–there’s a lot of thinking and writing around these issues, and we can learn from all of the pieces that we bump into.

So, first, please take a few minutes to read through this post about the conversation analogy we’ll be using: 

Rounding out the conversation

Then, move on to this week’s work.

Reading

Writing

  • Complicating your Research–look through the folder of that name in Helpful Links on Blackboard, and then head to the Unit 2 dropboxes for instructions (due Wednesday). This is an important step in rounding out the conversation you will present in your research portfolio.
  • Rounding out the Conversation (detailed in the Unit 2 dropbox) (due Sunday)
  • Complete this week’s discussion work on the blog (due Thursday). See this post for prompts:
Discussion prompts for Week of 7/26

Rounding out the conversation

I’m looking forward to seeing how your conversations are starting to take shape. Let’s take a few minutes to run through this conversation analogy and how this particular assignment is helping you move toward your next project.

First the analogy: we’ve touched on this metaphor a bit recently, and it’s front and center this week as we’re looking at linked sources (that are effectively ‘talking’ to each other). This conversation analogy was introduced by writing scholar Kenneth Burke in 1974. Burke argued that research writing is akin to a conversation at a party. The conversation you’re interested in is already underway when you show up at the party, and as you drift into that room where folks are talking, you take some time to listen to what other folks have to say before joining in to offer your perspective.

Now, in any conversation, when you speak up, it’s generally not your mission to offer the definitive word on the subject, but rather to move/shape the discussion in some way. You say your piece, building upon the ideas that are already in circulation, and then you move on. That conversation continues once you’re done with it, but your contribution has changed it in some way.

Now, just like at a party, “conversations” in researched writing are more interesting –textured, nuanced, insightful–when there are a lot of perspectives represented, not just a bunch of folks sitting around and agreeing with one another. The conversation is more likely to move into new and fascinating territory when people who have valuable first-hand perspectives or data-driven insights are involved, when they’ve got good stories to share. And you’re more likely to have something valuable to contribute when you’ve spent some time taking in what others have to say.

You’re at the listening phase of that conversation now–taking in what others have to say and assessing who’s ‘present’ to make sure that you’ve got an interesting range of perspectives. That’s what you’re representing on the Rounding out the Conversation worksheet due this Sunday (8/1)–who’s in the ‘room’ and what roles they might be playing in the discussion. This will help you to identify gaps in your roster, so that you can keep looking for new and interesting people to engage in the discussion.

Your research portfolio (due next Wednesday, 8/4) will represent the conversation that you’ve orchestrated, pulling together at least 6 sources that represent different perspectives and knowledges and that chart a course for your ongoing research and writing work in our final unit. Be sure to review the unit 2 assignment sheet for specific instructions.

Discussion prompts for Week of 7/26

We’re diving into a series of conversations this week–around the physical design of office spaces, around the issues you’re exploring in your own inquiries, and around the very work of research and pulling together a range of perspectives. Let’s continue all of that work on the blog.

For this week, everyone should respond to #1 and then choose 1 of the other 2 questions to answer. Your initial posts are due by the end of the day on Thursday, and then I’ll ask you to log back into read through your classmates’ posts and respond as you wish.

  1. With the due date approaching for your research portfolio, it’s time to start practicing writing about your sources. Please compose an annotation for 1 of your sources, following the guidance on the unit 2 assignment sheet. This annotation should be 2 paragraphs long–1 of summary, 1 of analysis/ discussion of how this source will be useful to you. The draft is good practice for you, and provides me an opportunity to give you feedback on adjustments that you might want to make as you continue to work toward the portfolio (which is due next Wednesday, 8/4)
  2. Choose one of the responses from “Readers respond: open offices are terrible for women,” and consider how the writer builds upon the ideas in the original article (“The subtle sexism of your open office plan”). Use Harris’s terms from chapter 2 of Rewriting to describe what you see this writer doing (i.e. extending, illustrating, etc.) and what intrigues you about that. How does this person open up a new line of inquiry with their response?
  3. In the reader response piece, Katharine Schwab introduces those letters with a brief overview of some of the patterns she detects in their feedback. This segment includes some jump-out links to other related articles, and then segues into a selection of letters that focus on the gendered implications of open office plans (the impacts that disproportionately affect women). Thus, Schwab facilitates a complex discussion with many participants, but it’s by no means exhaustive. What else would YOU want to inject into the discussion? What is an issue/perspective you think is not currently represented here? (You can draw on your own experience if you wish, or conjecture as to what others might wish to incorporate, but offer up another take on this using one of the templates from They Say/I Say, any chapter.)

Please categorize your post as “discussions/homework,” and tag it with “unit 2,” “weekof7/26” and [your name].

Research Plan: Kayla

What question is guiding your research? (What do you want your research to understand?)

All of my research aims to reflect on what it’s like to be a member of the LGBTQIA+ community in professional settings. This is a broad topic that relates to whether or not members of this community are able to obtain/retention a job as well as overall equity in the workplace. I hope to uncover a variety of topics by answering this one question.

Why this question? (Help us understand how it connects to your career/personal interests)

This question allows for me to explore different forms of gender/ sexuality across a variety of professional settings. By using this question, an extensive scope of both secondary and primary sources become available to me. I have also found that while this question allows for me to choose from a bigger selection of articles/texts, I also have to make sure that my writing flows together. All of the personal experiences, statistics, and other forms of writing that I choose to include, must come together in a way that clearly supports my claim.

How will your professional/internship/organizational/course work inform your inquiry? (What connections can you see with the work that you are a part of in the world beyond the course?)

I am an ally to the LGBTQIA+ community and I am also an African-American female in STEM. I understand what it feels like to be a member of a minority group  because of this I am very passionate about advocacy for underrepresented individuals. At this point in time,  I am building my network through internships, career fairs, and other forms of social engagement and have been able to learn more about the types of discrimination in the STEM field alone. There are 2 articles that I included in my preliminary note-taking exercise that connect directly to LGBTQIA+ representation in STEM and I am excited to relate some of the experiences that I have gained with those from the article.

What fields (academic and professional) matter most in your inquiry? (Where are you going to be looking for source material?)

Most of my sources are primary sources coming from members of the LGBTQIA+ community. The second most used sources in my research are from allies of the community that strive to advocate for equity. The third type of field I am pulling from are purely statistical articles that will support my stance through unbiased data and help the reader visualize the magnitude of my argument.