1 / 29

Your Identity @ Work: Dialogues about Social Identity and Career Development

Your Identity @ Work: Dialogues about Social Identity and Career Development. Arianna Agramonte, Bernadette So, CJ Holterman, Ross Wantland, Susann Sears. Provide an example of how you have seen diversity benefit your work place? .

zubin
Download Presentation

Your Identity @ Work: Dialogues about Social Identity and Career Development

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Your Identity @ Work: Dialogues about Social Identity and Career Development Arianna Agramonte, Bernadette So, CJ Holterman, Ross Wantland, Susann Sears

  2. Provide an example of how you have seen diversity benefit your work place?

  3. Share an example of a challenge that you have seen a student encounter related to stereotypes and the job/graduate school application process.

  4. The Challenges of Diversity and Inclusion in the selection process • Bias in the selection process: • Male applicants considered more competent and hireable than female applicants for laboratory manager position (Moss-Racusin et al.) • “White-sounding names” more likely to be selected than applicant resumes with “African American-sounding names” (Bertrand and Mullainathan) • Higher Body Mass Index predicted fewer offers of admission to psychology graduate programs (Burmeister et al.) • Asian American applicant concern that selecting race will reduce chances of admission (USA Today)

  5. What got us thinking about Your Identity @ Work? • Professional Experiences • Protective: “Don’t include information that points to your identity on a résumé” • Reactive: Alumni experiencing discrimination in the workplace • Preemptive: know the possibilities of what could happen and giving students the tools to navigate these systems • We wanted to empower students to make informed choices about how they share their social identities in professional settings.

  6. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • 44,520 total students: 32,281 undergraduate and 12,239 graduate and professional students, 52% men, 48% women, 5.0% African-American, 7.0% Latino/a, 14.0% Asian-American, 2% Multiracial and 21% International • Visible/Non-visible Disabilities • ADHD, Psychological, Mobility/Physical, and LD compose the highest proportion of enrolled DRES students • Approximately 85% of students registered for services have Non-Visible Disabilities • 78 wheelchair users • Over 1000 Registered Student Organizations, many of which are identity based (including professional organizations)

  7. Identifying Collaborators • The Career Center • Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Relations • University Housing • Disability Resources and Educational Services

  8. Guiding Frameworks • Social Identity Development Model (Hardiman & Jackson, 2007) • Social identity is the self-definition based upon membership in a socially defined group • Individuals may move from unawareness to redefining to reintegration (and back) • Both self-defined and other-defined

  9. Understanding Inequality • Oppression & Power (Hardiman & Jackson, 2007) • Groups receive different treatment – privilege or marginalization – based upon social identity • Subtle, pervasive, and normalized • Experiences impact student’s worldviews, interactions • Microaggressionsare an interpersonal form of status inequality (Sue et al., 2007)

  10. Privilege & Awareness • Students with dominant identities may lack preparation for engaging in diverse classroom/workforce • Intercultural competency and knowledge assists students in recognizing their whiteness, maleness, straightness, etc. as identities

  11. Guiding Theories of Change • Social Justice Educational Pedagogy (Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 2007) • Bystander Engagement Theory (Banyard, Moynihan, & Crossman, 2009) • Multicultural Organization Development Model (Jackson, 2006)

  12. Learning Objectives • Social identities: awareness, importance, and articulation • Professional settings: factors of inclusive settings, researching organizations • Disclosure of identity: pros/cons, approaches • Positive bystander: microaggressions, responding to bias

  13. Social identities • Definition of key concepts • Social Identities • Identity Salience • Ascribed/prescribed identities • Examples of social identities • Writing activity • Discussion questions @ table

  14. Professional Settings • Professional panel: search process, “how to” • Alumni panel: lived experiences

  15. Disclosure of identity • Advantages and Disadvantages of disclosure • Practice with a partner • Reflections

  16. Positive Bystander • Definition of microaggressions • Intervention methods: Inner Voices • Decision Making Process

  17. Successful Elements • Collaborators from multiple offices • Articulating learning objectives • Funding • Securing outside presenters (panelists) • Campus resources • Flash drives • Campus swag • Food • Flexible space • Universal design • Interactive activities

  18. What We Learned • Different audience members than expected • Timing is critical • Collaborators • Students • Marketing • Communicating what our program is… • Partnering with student groups • Social media

  19. Marketing

  20. Marketing

  21. Action Plan

  22. Questions? • Thanks for listening! • Arianna Agramonte: agramont@illinois.edu • Bernadette So: bernaso@illinois.edu • CJ Holterman: cjholt@illinois.edu • Ross Wantland: wantland@illinois.edu • Susann Sears: sheft@illinois.edu

  23. References • Burmeister, J.M., Kiefner, A.E., Carels, R.A., Musher-Eizenman, D.R. Weight bias in graduate school admissions. Obesity 2013; 21(5):918-920. • Moss-Racusin, C.A., Dovidio, J.F., Brescoll, V. L., Graham, M.J., and Handelsman, J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 2012;109(41):16474-16479. • MullainathanS, Bertrand M. Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination. American Economic Review. 2004;94(4):991-1013. • The Associated Press. (2011, December 4). Some Asians’ college strategy: Don’t check ‘Asian’. USA Today. Retrieved from http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/education/story/2011-12-03/asian-students-college-applications/51620236/1

  24. References • Sue, D.W. et al. Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice, American Psychologist, 62(4), 2007, 271–286 • Banyard, V., Moynihan, M., & Crossman, M. Reducing Sexual Violence on Campus: The Role of Student Leaders as Empowered Bystanders. Journal of College Student Development 50(4), July/August 2009, 446-457. • Hardiman, R., & Jackson, B. (2007). Conceptual Foundations for Social Justice Education. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity & Social Justice (pp. 35-66). Routledge, New York: Routledge. • Adams, M. (2007). Pedagogical Frameworks for Social Justice Education. In M. Adams, L.A. Bell, & P. Griffin (Eds.), Teaching for Diversity & Social Justice (pp. 15-34). Routledge, New York: Routledge. • Jackson, B. (2006). Theories of Multicultural Organization Development. In B.B. Jones & M. Brazzel (Eds.) The NTL Handbook of Organization Development and Change (pp. 139-156). San Francisco: Pfeiffer.

More Related