Research on racialized emotions and racialized organizations has begun to inform how we understand social interactions in the workplace and their implications for racial inequality. However, most research to date focuses on the experiences and coping strategies of racial minority workers, especially when confronted with instances of racial prejudice and discrimination. We extend research on racialized emotions in the workplace by mapping the stages of belonging/unbelonging white workers go through when they encounter instances of racial discomfort or perceived prejudice in the workplace. This is an important contribution to the study of race and work because existing research suggests the deleterious effects for people of color when white people experience negative emotions such as threat, fear, and anxiety in interracial encounters. Drawing on interview data with 56 white teachers in a metropolitan area in the U.S. Southeast, we document a process of racialized belonging. This is a process whereby white workers experienced varying degrees of surprise, confusion, frustration, and fear resulting from interracial—and some intraracial—experiences with coworkers as well as students. We note how the process is informed by racialized imprinting prior to workplace entry and followed by racialized emotions and racialized coping. Racial composition of the workplace also played a role, though the process looked similar across contexts. We argue that by accounting for white workers’ prior life experiences as well as organizations’ involvement in accommodating their emotional expectations, the way white workers behave when race becomes salient to them can be better understood and addressed.
Women faculty of color face a double bind as they endure both racism and sexism, creating dual oppression. These multiple disadvantages result in women of color being exposed to higher rates of career-limiting setbacks than their counterparts (i.e., white women), including devaluation of their scholarly work, increased service responsibilities, exclusion from career development opportunities, and constantly having their competency questioned. Their low representation and discouragement to continue in the professoriate due to harmful work environments also results in a “leaky pipeline”. Thus, women faculty of color have to utilize specific resilience strategies to mitigate these biases. However, many of the coping techniques used to generate resilience often result in injurious consequences. For instance, to demonstrate high competence, women of color often take on risky assignments (i.e., glass cliff) that results in them becoming hypervisible (i.e., judged more harshly than white women in similar positions). Other coping behaviors, such as the Strong Black Woman race-gender schema, often results in anxiety and depression, while code-switching, to feel accepted by the white dominant workspace, leads to a diminished sense of identity. Though these multiple identities result in stacked disadvantages in the workplace, there remains a gap in management literature on the intersectionality between race and gender. This void, consequently, silences the voice of women faculty of color and the unique challenges they face. Furthermore, it hinders the opportunity to make changes on a systemic level. In this symposium, we explore women faculty of colors' resilience-building tactics, the added double-bind they create, and individual and organizational practices that can help alleviate this paradox in order to promote their career development and well-being.
Women faculty of color endure gendered racial (intersectional) trauma in the workplace that often results in posttraumatic stress symptoms (e.g., cognitive intrusions and avoidance) and poor work outcomes. However, organizational interventions often place the onus on the worker to alleviate such deleterious stressors rather than eradicating its discriminatory practices on a systemic level. Oppressive and psychological injurious practices toward women of color in academe include isolation from academic networks, epistemological exclusion, and invisible labor. Facing both sexism and racism, women faculty of color are also uniquely ascribed stereotyped gendered racial roles (e.g., Strong Black Woman and lotus blossom) and are more sexually harassed and objectified than White women and men of all races and ethnicities. Such harmful encounters elicit trauma-induced safety checking coping behaviors that prioritizes the needs of the dominant group over that of their own. A multilevel trauma-informed approach, however, could attenuate the psychological demands of the worker and generate accountability at organizational and management levels. As such, this symposium will highlight the use of intersectionality theory and the public health intervention model (primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions) as an integrated framework to cultivate trauma informed organizations, thereby mitigating re-traumatization and promoting the well-being and career advancement of women faculty of color.
Abstract Before the 1990s, research on the early identification and prevention of severe behavior disorders (SBDs), such as aggression, self-injury, and stereotyped behavior, among young children with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD), was mostly done with children 3 years or older. More recent work suggests that signs of SBDs may occur as early as 6 months in some infants. The present study combined a cross-sectional and longitudinal approach to examine SBDs in 180 young children aged 4–48 months recruited through mass screening, then receiving an interdisciplinary evaluation and six-month follow-ups for one year. Twelve potential risk factors related to SBDs were examined. Eight of these risk factors, including age, gender, diagnosis, intellectual and communication levels, visual impairment, parent education, family income, were differentially related to scores for Aggression, SIB, and Stereotyped Behavior subscales on the Behavior Problems Inventory (BPI-01) at initial interdisciplinary evaluation. BPI-01 scores decreased over the year for 57% of the children and increased for 43%. The amount of decrease on each BPI-01 subscale varied with age, gender, and diagnosis.
As organizations increasingly focus on, and revise, their approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion, the role, and everyday efforts of incorporating neurodiversity into DEI initiatives has received increasing attention. Simultaneously, the 'work' that people engage as they meet, collaborate, and build workplaces for and with neurodivergent employees warrants attention. More specifically, if an employee or leader has espoused values around neurodiversity, what workplace behaviors would best reflect this espoused value? What workplace practices should neurotypicals engage in and/or reflect upon to demonstrate that they value neurodivergent workers and that they don't want to reduce them to the ideals about 'limitations' associated with their neurodivergence? In this chapter, I draw on findings from secondary data (e.g., archival and observations) about change agents addressing stigma within the autism employment landscape. My goal is twofold: (a) to highlight practices that neurotypicals engage to demonstrate value for neurodivergent workers within an organizing framework (BRIDGE); and (b) to suggest directions for practice and future research based on this organizing framework. To do so, I first review research on stigma related to neurodivergence. Then, I present and describe the BRIDGE framework and its practices that are rooted in stigma theory and research.
