Work-life issues have important implications at both organizational and individual levels. This paper provides a critical review of the work-life literature from 1990 onwards through the lens of diversity, with particular focus on disparities of power induced by methodological and conceptual framings of work and life. Our review seeks to answer the following questions: What are the gaps and omissions in the work-life research? How may they be overcome? To answer these questions we scrutinize blind spots in treatment of life, diversity and power in work-life research both in positivist and critical scholarship. In order to transcend the blind spots in positivist and critical work-life research, we argue the case for an intersectional approach, which captures the changing realities of family and workforce through the lens of diversity and intersectionality. Our theoretical contribution is three fold: First, our review demonstrates that contemporary framing of life in the work-life literature should be expanded to cover aspects of life beyond domestic life. Second, our review explains why and how other strands of diversity than gender also manifest as salient causes of difference in experiences of the work-life interface. Third, our review reveals that social and historical context has more explanatory power on worklife dynamics than micro-individual level of explanations. Work-life literature should capture the dynamism in these contexts. We also provide a set of useful recommendations to capture and operationalize methodological and theoretical changes required in the work-life literature.
This paper presents an emic approach, which is sensitive to the emergence of new categories of difference, in intersectional study of workforce diversity. The paper first provides a comprehensive review of the literature on diversity at work in the business and management field, identifying that this literature is predominantly etic in nature, as it focuses on pre‐established, rather than emergent, categories of difference. Next, an emic approach to researching diversity at work is offered. In offering an emic approach, the key distinction the paper makes is the direction of the investigation. Unlike the dominant etic approach, which adopts pre‐established (ex ante) diversity categories, the emic perspective proposed identifies emergent and situated categories of diversity ex post, as embedded in a specific time and place. In order to operationalize the emic approach, the use of the Bourdieuan theory of capitals is suggested, and a five‐step research guide is presented.
This paper presents a multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field in the UK. In doing so, it aims to address two problematic tendencies in the current diversity research: the focus on single-level explorations, and the polarization between critical and mainstream approaches. Using Bourdieu's concept of field, I develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes the field of diversity management in three constituents: diversity discourse, diversity practice and diversity practitioners. The framework is used to analyse empirical evidence generated through semi-structured interviews with 19 diversity managers of large private-sector companies. This study reveals the presence of a gap between the diversity discourse and practice, and the absence of any standard set of qualifications and skills requirement for practitioners. The findings demonstrate the twofold role of discourse in drawing the boundaries of the diversity management field. First, it is instrumental in constructing diversity management as distinct from equal opportunities. Second, the use discourse functions as a mechanism to control the entry of practitioners into this field, which otherwise has low entry barriers. The paper offers a contribution to management research in general and equality and diversity research in particular through its original use of Bourdieuan sociology in an empirical study.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.