Diversity and Inclusivity in Psychology - Coursework Example

Diversity and Inclusivity in Psychology Number Diversity and Inclusivity in Psychology In psychology diversity refers to the differences in the physical, emotional, psychological and mental qualities of individuals and the disparities they create in individuals. Human beings are of different races, have different thoughts, live or survive in different places, have different levels of temper, emotional intelligence, occupations, incomes, languages, beliefs, education, gender and sexual orientation among other qualities. Inclusivity refers to the integration of individuals with these diverse qualities in social settings or other similar media. It advocates for tolerance among members of the society as a way of learning from each other in order to achieve social acceptance and better understanding within and across communities. This paper will apply examples relating to issues of inclusivity and diversity in psychology to critically evaluate whether an emphasis on difference or sameness better aids our understanding of human behaviour. Diversity in organizations Globalization has resulted in many organizations ensuring that they allow diversity within ranks as a way of responding to the expansive impact of equally diverse client-base. The diversity can be attributed to a number of organizational benefits such as higher level of satisfaction by clients who feel they are well represented, exhaustive decision-making, better ability to attain strategic goals, enhanced organizational outcomes by employees and clients who have a sense of belonging, and a more solid benchmark (Snyder, 2010). However, while ensuring diversity is easy, tampering its extremeness with the sameness in commonly acceptable behaviours that can facilitate better understanding of human behaviour remains a difficult task. Regardless, creating an environment where all communities feel accepted and respected and enjoy similar opportunities is arguably the key to understanding human behaviour (Miville, & Ferguson, 2014). Allowing different communities of people to coexist with minimal controls allows individuals to exhibit their behaviour in a freer way, especially for members of communities that live far away from others or those that consider themselves an out-group. Mainstream groups can learn the behaviour of minority communities, for instance, when the latter are given same treatment and focus by the leadership or social structures (Snyder, 2010). However, the sameness in inclusion will more likely blur their unique behaviours especially if they are presented on similar platforms as majority communities than when they are left on their own, in their natural settings to share the fruits of their diversity within the community in which they belong (Hussey, Fleck, & Warner, 2010). Inter-group rivalry Conversely, human beings have a basic inclination towards inclusion and often find a sense of belonging in diverse settings where inter-community ‘rivalry’ pushes individuals with the same behaviour together. This would hinder understanding of human behaviour across communities, especially if every individual or community considers their behaviour to be superior to others. However, this is not normally the case for people whose proximity leads to their dependence on others for assistance as it is the case in most social settings. According to Miville and Ferguson (2014) inclusion improves social acceptance, greater altruism, and effective team engagement. When individuals are truly included in a social setting, be it school or a religious gathering or a work setting, they are more expected to shake off their unique qualities which make them different and share more information about their behaviour using “same,” common tools of interaction. Despite these positive impacts of inclusion in enabling better understanding of human behaviour, achieving sufficient inclusion remains daunting. Strong social beliefs and the lack of psychological support among members of the dominant group, who are naturally biased in favour of their own behaviour, normally hinder effective understanding of human behaviour (Snyder, 2010). Social stratification and the diversity it creates present a mix of different competing behaviours, which arguably hinders effective understanding of behaviours which are beyond one’s own community. People generally gravitate toward or have a higher affinity to those who have similar qualities as them. In different social settings, therefore, sameness in inclusive settings supports better understanding of human behaviour because it eliminates the differences brought about by diversity which may serve as ideal hurdles in such discourses. In business organizations, Grace and Gravestock (2008) noted that it is natural for those who have similar psychological abilities or intellectual prowess learn the behaviour of their colleagues faster than when they are exposed to individuals they consider as diversely inferior. Importance of differential hiring The development explains the reason behind many intellectually superior leaders recruiting and promoting individuals who have the ability to learn their behaviours, beliefs and traits and act along those lines (Thomas, 2011). As such, many inclusive settings like organizations unintentionally develop prototypes for efficiency which supports sameness bias and restrict diverse candidates for jobs, vital assignments, and advancements because understanding their behaviour requires extra effort. Such sameness limits the understanding of human behaviour to that pool of individuals, while cushioning it from important lessons about the behaviour of members of other equally important communities (Snyder, 2010). As a result, attempts to achieve seamless interactions with ‘those who matter’ such as one’s teachers, classmates, business partners, doctors or therapists become harder. As Thomas (2011) noted, reversing exclusion trends which impede positive diversity and improve maximum human understanding of behaviour requires that people who occupy positions of significance should ask themselves about who they engage to do particular tasks? Who really deserves promotion? How can a greater level of diversity in different positions or based on individual capacities be achieved? How can better understanding of behaviour of various colleagues be achieved? What kind of information about differences brought by diversity will be important? Who has been left out of the decision-making process? Whose input has been obtained and whose has be left out? And how best can better understanding of behaviour be built? All these questions underscore the need for diversity in every social setting as a way of guaranteeing better understanding of behaviour other than the ones which individuals are accustomed to. By contrast, an application of sameness to the questions will result in some communities being left out of important causes in an inclusive setting (Thomas, 2011). In such an eventuality, the behaviours of those particular individuals will remain hidden from the dominant groups. Subtle biases According to Snyder (2010), subtle biases which may not hinder human understanding of behaviour naturally exist, even where resources are distributed equitably. When minority-group students constantly assemble at some point within the university to discuss a topic covered in class, for instance, their sameness usually hinders their effective understanding of the behaviour of the mainstream community in an inclusion. Paludi (2013) said the group will, however, learn more about the behaviour of members of their own community in the short-term. By contrast, another inclusive group that seeks out genuine discussions with communities other than its own particularly in a diverse social setting will learn the behaviour of the other communities and use the same language as them. These are manifestations of sameness which facilitate a greater level of understanding of behaviour across communities. Differences due to diversity generally create an environment where various communities have equitable opportunities to take part in social practices that enhance behaviour understanding beyond one’s community. In a formal environment such as schools, however, the dominant groups normally take precedent in virtually all behaviour patterns. As such, observing the behaviours of members of minority communities who feel they are excluded from vital conversations and decision-making processes can be easier (Paludi, 2013). How the minority seek to reverse dominant behaviour offer vital lessons about their level of intellect, emotional intelligence, temper or irritation, endurance and or beliefs. In such a scenario, sameness would only serve to hide these important behaviour patterns from the general view in the society. Leadership behaviour Similarly, diversity can be an important determinant of the behaviour of supervisors or leaders in a social setting or organization. Unlike open, liberal-minded individuals, conserved leaders do not usually interact more freely with individuals who they consider as falling out of their communities in one way or another (Miville, & Ferguson, 2014). As such, they tend to seek decision-makers from their own community and judge those who are different more unfavourably, let alone attempting to learn their behaviour. The subjects also tend to resent such leaders and are generally too reluctant to learn their behaviour too due to the differential treatment, acts of discrimination, poor support, and weak relationship quality on the side of the leaders. The resulting situation favouring sameness is unfavourable, considering that it would facilitate short-term intra-community understanding at the expense of uniform behaviour understanding among people from different communities (Paludi, 2013). The consequential subtle bias which is the consequence of unconscious attitudes and traditions usually creates sameness, which then impedes natural behaviour understanding. Interestingly, the strategy of reversing the skewed understanding of behaviour is arguably based on sameness rather than difference factors. To neutralize real or perceived exclusion as a hindrance to understanding behaviour, it is obvious that the sameness strategies of ironing out the psychological differences which keep people apart and put the individuals in question at par. Eliminating individual behavioural differences in skills, knowledge, self-esteem, endurance and language barrier demands regular training or professional development including teambuilding, which bring the people in question to some level of sameness (Miville, & Ferguson, 2014). In most cases, individuals whose behaviours differ from that of their own community in terms of political or economic power generally have some level of sameness in higher efficiency and productivity, which are part of pure professionalism. At standard levels, these sameness qualities improve better understanding of the behaviour of individuals and their implications in any organization (Thomas, 2011). According to Snyder (2010) differences are paramount in human behaviour, but having people with the right mind-sets to occupy crucial positions in institutions in order to balance sameness based on professionalism with favourable differences caused by diversity is normally difficult because many people hold on to their biased understanding of behaviour of members of out-groups. However, constant updating of the basic knowledge through training and get-togethers on how to nurture and or maintain sameness in the treatment of colleagues is the vital milestone. Dominant behaviour influences Through inclusion, the subtle biases sometimes prompt members of an out-group to adopt sameness attitudes through learning of the dominant behaviours which would otherwise not conform to one’s own in a diverse situation where differences are rife. In most cases, as a method of coping (achieving sameness), individuals who are dissimilar from the mainstream population would forfeit their own behaviour trends for commonly acceptable trends of the mainstream population so as to fit in (Paludi, 2013). Females, for example, usually assume masculine behaviours of toughness in an inclusive environment in order for them to cope and be as successful. But when diversely different people tailor their behaviour to reflect that of the homogeneous majority, the resulting situation impairs the positive results of having group diversity, which is the result of the existence of the wide pool of human behaviours to learn from. As Paludi (2013) noted limiting stunted long-term learning of human behaviour as a consequence of conformity with dominant behaviour trends, candid discussions about the challenges facing each community is normally attributed to better learning of behaviour and acceptance of the same irrespective of their uniqueness. This is especially true where diverse people have been trained, motivated and integrated into teams which put them on the same pedal in terms of thinking and problem solving strategies under an inclusive organization. In order to stimulate learning of human behaviour even where people are joined together by certain beliefs and systems, group leaders who allow abstract differences to exist by asking of the people of creativity facilitates effective learning of behaviour (Thomas, 2011). While the benchmark is enquiring about the right questions, learning about the behaviour of that particular person will only take place when one listens to the reactions in a positive way, even where the responses reverse the “acceptable” behavioural practices. Psychology Classrooms As Grace and Gravestock (2008) stated inclusion of individuals from different cultural backgrounds in an educational setting enhances the scientific objectivity and validity of human psychology to respond to the seemingly ‘unusual’ or new behaviour. On their part Hussey, Fleck and Warner (2010) said the differences created by diversity enables students the opportunity gain emotionally and psychologically by developing internal controls and the right personality to tolerate the new behaviour trends. In addition, the differences trigger cognitive development among members of different communities who, by virtue of being exposed to diverse populations, are usually more persuaded to try to understand their unique behaviour and even behave as they do. Yet, exposure of individuals to people with culturally diverse roots and perspectives stimulates learning of different approaches to issues. Unlike sameness which exposes people to the same way of doing things, learning diverse behaviour through inclusion places individuals on the right pedestal to be receptive of the wider behavioural diversity in global sectors for even greater degree of learning (Grace, & Gravestock, 2008). The end result is the learners finding it easier to cope with virtually everyone in social settings such as schools, places of worship and conferences which all contribute significantly to self-understanding and overall social tolerance within wider society. Despite the importance of diversity in learning human behaviour, most of the current structures of diversity such as educational syllabuses have some element of sameness which normally remains unchanged for many decades (Paludi, 2013. As a result, many teachers are still unwilling to alter the arrangement of their classrooms or reform their pre-conceived thoughts regarding the behaviour of culturally diverse people. Regardless, unlike the relatively negative outcomes of learning behaviours in an environment where differences stemming from diversity are kept within groups, inclusion facilitates the growth of knowledge and understanding of human behaviour across groups, provided each group feels its interests are subject to some kind of sameness with that of others. Conclusion Generally, diversity without inclusivity will result in individuals keeping their behaviour patterns to communities in which they belong. The result is that they will make modest progress in learning the behaviour(s) within that particular group because they have some sameness. Such closed communities will be inclined to learn from their intra-community behaviour differences, but suffer alienation from other groups. The end result is that the group will be literally closed to others and thus, diversity-based behaviour learning will be minimal. By contrast, inclusivity exposes people to different behaviours practiced by diverse communities and thus facilitates better understanding of the behaviours of people from other groups. However, there is a likelihood that exposure of people to different behaviours which is normally the impact of diversity will generate some sameness and stunt uninterrupted understanding of behaviour. This is especially the case where dominant forces and the biases they attract seek to thwart equitable learning of the behaviours of minorities. In such scenarios, the latter group normally shake of their own unique behaviour patterns in favour of the dominant ones, thus unknowingly hindering uniform understanding of different human behaviour brought about by social diversity. References Grace, S., & Gravestock, P., (2008). Inclusion and Diversity: Meeting the Needs of All Students Key Guides for Effective Teaching in Higher Education. New York: Routledge. Hussey, H.D., Fleck, B.K.B., & Warner, R.M., (2010). Reducing Student Prejudice in Diversity- Infused Core Psychology Classes. College Teaching, 58(3), 85-92. Miville, M.L., & Ferguson, A.D., (2014). Handbook of Race-Ethnicity and Gender in Psychology. New York: Springer Science & Business Media. Paludi, P.M., (2013). Psychology for Business Success. Sydney: ABC-CLIO. Snyder, R.C., (2010). Positive Psychology: The Scientific and Practical Explorations of Human Strengths. New York: SAGE, 2010 Thomas, N.L., (2011). Measuring the Diversity Inclusivity of College Courses. Research in Higher Education, 52(6), 572-588. Read More