Illusion of inclusion

The illusion of inclusion has been defined as the "sometimes subtle ways that the standards can appear to adequately address race while at the same time marginalizing it."[1]

The illusion of inclusion was characterized by Helen Turnbull in terms of diversity and inclusion; using the baking of a cake as an analogy, diversity was characterized as "the mix" and inclusion was characterized as "the effort that it takes to make the mix work"; with the analogy set, she concluded that "having a diverse workforce does not guarantee that you understand how to make that mix work or how to unlock its full potential."[2] Turnbull highlighted the related concepts of dominant culture and subculture as well as the related dynamics of dominance and privilege in relation to subordinance and assimilation in human relationships; within this dynamic, she highlighted that it was not only a matter of individual self-perception, but the conscious or unconscious perceptions, assumptions, and labels ascribed to or projected onto the individual, which affects the health of the relationships the individual has with other people.[3]

Turnbull also highlighted affinity bias as a related factor, such as involving corporate hiring practices; while affinity bias was indicated to not be exclusive to dominant culture (i.e., culture of white men), in dominant culture, interviewers who showed a biased preference for candidates that were similar to them (e.g., candidates who are "like" the interviewer, candidates who make the interviewer feel "comfortable") were showing an affinity bias; thus, the interviewer may also possess an unconscious bias toward candidates dissimilar to them (e.g., candidates who are "not like" the interviewer, candidates who make the interviewer feel "uncomfortable") possess an unconscious affinity bias.[4] She further adds the factor of assimilation, which she defined as the "need to adjust our style to fit within the dominant organizational and/or cultural norms"; the listed subcomponents of assimilation were feedback (e.g., feedback involving affinity bias, feedback involving group stereotypes operating in concert with confirmation bias, feedback that ignores the positives and presents "development opportunities" through the lens of one's own culture, race, or gender), distancing (e.g., distancing oneself from one's own social identity group), and collusion (i.e., adjusting one's own style to ensure that one is kept politically safe and that members of the dominant culture are kept "comfortable").[5] Furthermore, she underscored that unconscious and conscious messages, measures, and images of the dominant culture can have a negative impact upon individuals, and thus, lead to assimilation; with the internalization of these messages, measures, and images, she also highlighted that individuals can collude with the dominant culture, and thus, individually self-sabotage.[6]

  1. ^ Heilig, Julian (2012). "The Illusion of Inclusion: A Critical Race Theory Textual Analysis of Race and Standards". Harvard Educational Review. 82 (3): 403–424. doi:10.17763/haer.82.3.84p8228670j24650.
  2. ^ Turnbull, Helen. "The Illusion of Inclusion – Part I". Profiles in Diversity Journal.
  3. ^ Turnbull, Helen. "The Illusion of Inclusion – Part II". Profiles in Diversity Journal.
  4. ^ Turnbull, Helen. "The Affinity Bias Conundrum: The Illusion of Inclusion Part III". Profiles in Diversity Journal.
  5. ^ Turnbull, Helen. "Assimilation: Hidden in Plain Sight: The Illusion of Inclusion Part IV". Profiles in Diversity Journal.
  6. ^ Turnbull, Helen. "By Whose Standards Do We Measure Ourselves: The Illusion of Inclusion Part V". Profiles in Diversity Journal.