Exploring the paper Leslie, L.M., 2019. Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), pp.538-563.
Blog three of five, in a series by Dr Chrissi McCarthy.
Whenever we consider a research paper, we need to think about how it came to the conclusions it did. Knowing the foundations of the work can help us determine the value of the research in our understanding of the area we want to explore.
When dealing with hard science, things can be a little more straightforward, as there is a clearer line between cause and effect. Hence, there are clear standards that can be established to determine if research is likely to provide a robust answer; double-blind experiments are usually found at the top of that list.
In the social sciences, it can be somewhat challenging to navigate. People tend to be influenced by many factors, so it requires a bit more effort to establish what causes something to happen. Even then, we need to test if that is a general rule or specific to that context.
This means we must carefully consider how we conduct research, its likely effectiveness, and whether it is expected to be replicable in other contexts.
Exploring the paper Leslie, L.M., 2019. Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), pp.538-563.
Conceptual papers
Let’s focus on this month’s paper, Diversity initiative effectiveness: A typological theory of unintended consequences.
Firstly, it’s a conceptual paper, which means that it aims to build a theory; it does not claim to test that theory. Conceptual papers don’t usually introduce new data; instead, they tend to look at what has been said before and draw conclusions from previous work.
Often, there is enough past information available that requires someone to bring it all together and make sense of it, much like a project manager assessing all the undertakings of a team and identifying where patterns have emerged that need attention.
Setting the scope
So that’s what Leslie did. First, they defined the parameters of the paper. Focusing on work where there was a clear desire to improve outcomes. They are clear that they do not engage with performative work, as they assume this work will have little positive impact on diversity goals.
This scope setting is critical, it’s likely that work that is performative will be recognised as such throughout the company and employees will respond to its intent, not the undertaking itself. This is likely to provide a set of different reactions. By setting a clear line, we can better understand what happens only when work is intended.
Finding the pattern
Next, they considered past papers and recognised existing patterns, as well as spotted a couple of gaps. They sought to understand the reasons these patterns arose, putting together the findings of research papers to create a theory that can then be tested.
Explaining the pattern
The paper then seeks to understand the pattern, what past research has said, and what commonalities have arisen. From here, a pathway can be suggested that may help other researchers and practitioners predict the study’s outcomes.
Limitations.
The paper doesn’t specify the method it used to gather research papers to identify patterns. This can make it difficult for researchers to understand if there were gaps in the data gathering. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t a clear system to gather the data, just that we don’t know exactly what it was.
My own reflections
I love this paper, and I understand that that can be a problem. When we recognise something in a piece of work that speaks to us, we can fall into the trap of confirmation bias, where we accept findings because they confirm what we believe, not because they evidence something.
I let myself off the hook a little, though. I love this paper because it draws together a lot of the research I have read in this area. I recognise the work and understand how the theory has been built upon it. But maybe my letting myself off the hook is just part of the bias?
I tell you this because it’s a danger for all researchers. To get to something important, we must acknowledge and recognise our bias.
For me to pretend that this paper was not influential does not mean it has not shaped my thinking. So instead, I shall foreground it and hope to create a discussion.
Recognising bias and the impact of being human in the research process is a crucial aspect of being a researcher.
