Search results

The purpose of this paper is to offer an insight into why men do research on in-equality.

The author utilizes autoethnography, as a form of self-reflection, to help make sense of the own experiences and to connect it with the broader world. It is a narrative based on personal experiences which connects the author's biography with his research endeavours. It also enables to engage in self-analysis and self-awareness of the motives for conducting research on in-equality.

In this narrative, the author shares his journey as an equality scholar, and how his multiple identities as a visible minority, an immigrant to Canada, and a gay person shapes my worldview, attitudes, and beliefs, which in turn influences his own work on equality and diversity. The narrative is based on the intersection of multiple identities, and not just solely based on the author's gender. The attribute feeling deprived on behalf of others, rational self-interest, and social justice as the chief reasons for engaging in in-equality research.

Autoethnography is inherently subjective, based upon the author's own biases and interpretation of events, but the subjectivity can also be an opportunity for intentional self-awareness and reflexivity. Given the multiple identities that the author holds, some of the experiences recounted here may be unique to the author, and some may be shared with others. Thus, it is not the author's intention to represent, in general, why men do in-equality research.

This autoethnography has allowed the author the opportunity to be self-aware of the complexity of the multiple identities. This self-awareness also allows the author to be more respectful, authentic, and inclusive of others. The author hopes that these reflections will resonate with some of you, and perhaps inspire one to engage in similar work, for reasons that are unique to one and all.

This editorial introduces the papers within the special issue and outlines their contribution to the emerging and evolving study of sexuality and sexual orientation in organisation and management studies.

A review of some key themes within the literature on sexuality and sexual orientation is provided prior to drawing out key points within the submitted papers and considering how they contribute to this literature.

These six papers make an important contribution to the fast‐changing and evolving study of sexuality and sexual orientation in organisations and the development and implementation of equality and diversity policy and practice.

The editorial refers to papers presented at the Equality Diversity and Inclusion Conference held in Istanbul, July 2009, which included a stream entitled: “Spirals of silence? Tackling the ‘invisibility’ of the sexual orientation strand and sexuality in academic research and in organisation equality and diversity policy and practice” which can lead to reflections on the processes of voice and silence as these pertain to the discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation issues in academic organisations and at academic and practitioner conferences.

The purpose of this paper is to reflect, personally, regarding work, politically and theoretically, on 40 years of involvement in organization studies, profeminism and intersectionality.

The paper uses autoethnography.

The paper shows the need for a broad notion of the field and fieldwork, the development of intersectional thinking, the complexity of men's relations to feminism and intersectionality and the need to both name and deconstruct men in the research field.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in doing research.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in equality practice.

The paper suggests a more explicit naming and deconstruction of men and other intersectional social categories in social, political and policy interventions.

The paper points to recent historical changes in the connections between feminism, gender, profeminism, organizations and intersectionality in relation to equality, diversity and inclusion.

The over-arching purpose of this paper is to provide a reflexive personal narrative of the inequalities experienced as the author grew up with a desire to dance; personal experiences which influenced the author to become an educator and eventually led the author to engage in some active research on the issue of boys and dance in secondary schools in the north of England.

This project is based on narrative interviews with young males, as the researchers seek to assess the current landscape of dance education within the UK. Interviews were conducted within two high school settings. Yet, this paper does not focus on the data produced in such interviews. Instead, it adopts a reflective methodology in terms of auto-critiquing the inquiry, exploring themes such as dancing negativity, homophobia and homonormativity.

The paper offers a brief critique of the literature around long-standing cultural ingrained discrimination experienced by boys who dance. Finally, and importantly, the paper offers a personal and intimate account reflecting on the author's experiences of engaging in research on male dancers in secondary schools.

This paper is a semi-autobiographical reflective inquiry which assesses the current issue of masculinities and dance, within adolescent educational settings. It is important in generating an awareness of the importance of individual and subjective reflective starting points for conducting research and the paper concludes how ethnographic research is never really neutral.

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate on self-reflexivity and, in particular, explore the notion of context in relation to men's reflexivity in academic work.

The paper is a commentary on an earlier paper published in Equality, Diversity and Inclusion addressing the issue of reflexivity in organization studies and commented on by three different scholars.

Relating specifically to men doing gender studies research, the authors argue that they are always men in context, and their “privilege” (and reflections on it) needs to be accounted for in situ; in relation to the assumptions, relations, and practices at hand, rather to some abstract and vague “privileges” contained in, and carried by, men as a general category.

The paper seeks to advance a novel understanding of reflexivity not so much anchored in the willful capacity to reflect on scholarly work but as engagement with experiences of exclusion or unexpected outcomes in fieldwork and in interacting with other researchers.

The purpose of this paper is to explore using a reflexive approach the impact of author's personal positioning on issues of power balance between the interviewer and the interviewee, dealing with sensitive stories and concerns of difference and sameness between participants and the researcher in both the data collection process and also during the interviews.

Initial data were gathered from 45 semi-structured interviews with self-identified gay men in a wide range of occupations and ages working in the seaside resort of Bournemouth on the south coast of England.

The paper highlights some of the dilemmas of insider status and doing research on gay men. These include: ethical issues of closeness and involvement with participants, dealing with author's own personal frustrations, tackling the power imbalance between the interviewer and the interviewee and the impact of author's personal positioning on the data collection.

Little research has been done on the impact of men doing research on issues of diversity. In particular, this paper re-examines the power balance between the interviewer and interviewee as being one sided as previous studies have suggested in the researcher's favour. It also uncovers ethical dilemmas such as sexual attraction and involvement that has had scant coverage in the literature.

Little is known qualitatively about how men become involved in diversity research. The purpose of this paper is to address a part of the gap in this type of research.

The paper provides a self-reflective account of how the author became involved in diversity work.

The author argues that “doing diversity” can be said to reflect an implicit “tempered radical” (Meyerson and Scully, 1995) approach which triggered deep-level concerns about a particular invisible trait that – up to the present paper –the author had never addressed in the research.

The main limitation is that the contribution is based on a self-reflective account and can only be taken as a possibility among many possibilities; not as a representative situation.

The diversity concept's vagueness which is often criticized for diluting pre-existing concerns about gender (and other) strands, appears to have the potential of helping male researchers to become aware of diversity strands they had never dared to address before, and to become aware of some of the male privileges they had enjoyed unknowingly.

The paper illuminates that white males can benefit from working on the concept of diversity. Having been induced to work on diversity from social pressures rather than from a personal initiative does not reduce the pleasure, excitement and learning drawn from doing diversity-related work.

No paper to the author's knowledge focuses on male diversity research in France, an up-to-now silent area.

Borrowing from the literature on social cognition and schema theory, the purpose of this paper is to examine sexual orientation and sex discrimination, to critique and refine that doctrine, particularly when traditional gender roles are enforced in workplaces. The insights of cognitive schemas on lesbian and gay identity are employed to link models of judicial decision making and gender/sexual orientation.

Methodologically, the paper is located in the sociolegal tradition, but also uses case analysis to supplement and advance its thesis. Because US nondiscrimination law distinguishes between sexuality and gender discrimination, it provides a unique laboratory to critique not only American law, but the structure of nondiscrimination law generally.

Judges' and others' schemas of lesbian and gay men suggest explanations for the analytical confusion in nondiscrimination law. Additionally, the paper's specific findings both supplement and question aspects of extant models of judicial decision making and gender/sexuality.

Social cognition framework enables judges and commentators to reconceptualize facts and relevant doctrine in gender and sexual orientation discrimination cases and to critique some fundamental assumptions of nondiscrimination law. Further, because the paper bridges judicial decision making and gender/sexuality, researchers in those areas can use this analysis of a specific legal context to provide additional insights into how those models work and their underlying, hidden assumptions. This is a conference paper based on this author's work on schema theory and sexual orientation identity in nondiscrimination law.