Search results

Compared to Whites, People of Color (POC) in the USA face substantial cultural, structural and institutional challenges on their paths to entrepreneurial success. Many of these challenges have their roots in institutional racism—pervasive discriminatory practices and policies found within institutions. Institutional theory suggests that organizations gain access to institutions and resources when they conform to “appropriate” business practices. How does the reality of institutional racism square with institutional theory when many of those institutions, like banks, are fundamentally afflicted by racist practices and norms? Can another institution, the family, act as a resource substitute to provide POC business owners the necessary resources for success?

Focusing on White-, Black- and Asian-American business owners, the authors analyze data from the USA. Census's Annual Business Survey.

Despite vast performance differences between POC- and White-owned businesses, family firms of every racial group outperform their same-race nonfamily counterparts. Idiosyncratic resources families bring into family firms, known as familiness, appear to help mitigate the challenges to entrepreneurial success that POC face.

Policy makers should consider specific types of support different entrepreneurs require given the kinds of hurdles racial minorities continue to face in the USA.

Despite scholarly attention on family firm heterogeneity, there is scant research on race.

This research is one of the first to explore the implications of institutional racism on institutional theory and the first to employ this concept within the context of family firms.

The purpose of this study is to examine how doctoral students in the biological sciences understand their research skill development and explore potential racial/ethnic and gender inequalities in the scientific learning process.

Based on interviews with 87 doctoral students in the biological sciences, this study explores how doctoral students describe development of their research skills. More specifically, a constructivist grounded theory approach is employed to understand how doctoral students make meaning of their research skill development process and how that may vary by gender and race/ethnicity.

The findings reveal two emergent groups, “technicians” who focus on discrete tasks and data collection, and “interpreters” who combine technical expertise with attention to the larger scientific field. Although both groups are developing important skills, “interpreters” have a broader range of skills that support successful scholarly careers in science. Notably, white men are overrepresented among the “interpreters,” whereas white women and students from minoritized racial/ethnic groups are concentrated among the “technicians.”

While prior literature provides valuable insights into the inequalities across various aspects of doctoral socialization, scholars have rarely attended to examining inequalities in research skill development. This study provides new insights into the process of scientific learning in graduate school. Findings reveal that research skill development is not a uniform experience, and that doctoral education fosters different kinds of learning that vary by gender and race/ethnicity.

While current scholarship on innovation typically examines its antecedents, the purpose of this paper is to provide a more complete account by advocating for social impacts as a critical component of the sociological study of innovation.

This study adopts a conceptual approach to illustrate the ways in which innovation may generate unequitable outcomes. The authors illustrate the purpose of the paper by discussing strategically selected examples that are intended to reflect prominent themes and topics in the relevant literature.

The analysis suggests that while innovation yields many positive benefits, pervasive narratives about its virtues can be overstated when, in fact, innovation may generate adverse effects for particular social groups by reproducing or exacerbating inequality. The authors provide a more complete account of innovation by naming social impacts as a critical component of its sociological study and discussing examples that illustrate how innovation can produce disadvantageous effects by race, gender and social class. The authors move forward the discussion of social impacts by elaborating conditions in which innovation is likely to reproduce the status quo as well as ameliorate negative impacts.

While many studies have explained the conditions that foster innovation, this study pushes the boundaries of the study of innovation – a timely topic for practitioners and scholars in the fields of not only sociology, but management, education and public policy. Accordingly, we move forward the discussion of the social impacts of innovation by identifying the ways in which innovation is likely to reproduce structural inequalities.

Inequalities can have a cumulative effect that leads to the presentation and subsequent progression of mental health difficulties. The detrimental effects can be compounded in the healthcare environment if staff lack an awareness of patients’' inequalities, and therefore, educating staff is of particular importance. The development of awareness training requires a deep understanding of staff perceptions of patient inequalities in a secure mental health care setting and the impact that this can have on mental illness.

The study was carried out using a qualitative design, where staff were asked to complete a 22-question survey from which the output is analysed using thematic analysis. In total, 100 patient-facing staff members working in a secure mental health facility completed the survey.

The results highlight that staff employed in a secure mental health care setting have an understanding of patient inequalities and how these can impact on patients in both the short and longer terms. The results highlighted the importance of awareness by staff and how an increase can have a significant benefit on the quality of the care provided within secure mental health facilities.

There is an increasing awareness of the impact of inequalities on mental health and how this can influence a patient’s journey. This study involving staff employed in a secure care mental health facility highlights the role of staff awareness of inequalities and also underlines the importance of understanding the key role of staff awareness in mental ill health.

The events sector is an innovative and dynamic working environment that requires a creative and diverse workforce to help it thrive. However, in the main, the events workforce is not diverse, with evidence suggesting that most leaders continue to be White and male. There has been no previous research exploring the experiences of ethnically diverse professionals in this environment. This paper aims to draw on the theory of racialised organisations to begin to address this gap and amplify the voices of ethnically diverse events professionals.

Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 ethnically diverse event managers working in the UK events industry.

Covert and overt forms of racism and discrimination remain ubiquitous within the culture of event organisations, and in a number of guises, ranging from regular racialised microaggressions to more subtle forms of exclusion. The events industry needs to do more than pay lip service to neoliberal notions of diversity and acknowledge the ways in which racial relations of power shape the industry and the experiences of individuals within it, and design interventions to address these issues.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to apply the theory of racialised organisations to the events industry, recognising the centrality of race and racism to events organisations and careers. In so doing, it offers essential insight into race and ethnicity in this sector and contributes to ongoing efforts to integrate race and racism within theorising in management and organisation studies.

Worker cooperative practitioners and developers often claim that democratic worker ownership advances egalitarianism within and beyond the workplace, but most of the empirical evidence in the USA is based on ethnographic case studies or small-scale surveys. This study aims to leverage the first national survey about individuals' experiences in these unique firms to test for the presence of inequalities by gender, race and immigration status in the broader sector.

The study uses a 2017 survey comprising a sample of 1,147 workers from 82 firms. This study focuses on measures of workplace benefits that capture material and psychological ownership, wealth accumulation, wages, workplace autonomy and participation in governance. This study uses ordinary least squares regression models with fixed effects alongside pooled models to determine the effects of gender, race, immigration status and the intersection of gender and race on these outcomes, both within and between firms.

This study finds no evidence of wage gaps by gender, race or immigration status within worker cooperatives, with job type, tenure and worker ownership status instead explaining within-firm variation in pay. Still, this study documents sector-wide disparities in material and non-material outcomes by gender, race and immigration status, reflecting differences in individual-level human capital and job characteristics as well as widespread occupational segregation and homophily.

The paper offers a novel contribution to the literature on workplace empowerment and inequality in participatory firms by analyzing race, gender and immigration status in the most robust dataset that has been collected on worker cooperatives in the USA.

Librarianship’s dominant conception of the freedom to read is governed by a liberal principle of noninterference, wherein free readers are those who face no intentional intervention in their choice of materials. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how this account fails to adequately capture systemic threats that impoverish people’s reading lives.

This conceptual paper deploys informal argumentation to expose a flaw in the dominant account of the freedom to read. The author uses a case study of comparative titles or comps, an editorial decision-making and justificatory convention that reproduces racial inequality in Anglophone trade publishing.

Comps present one example of how everyday norms and practices of literary production render people’s reading lives pervasively unfree, even absent some intent to interfere in them. The going account of the freedom to read calls, at best, for a greater diversity of book-commodities from which consumers may choose. However, the comp case suggests that this distributive remedy will be insufficient without relevant changes to the institutional arrangements that condition readers' choices in the first place.

This paper draws together insights from Library and Information Science, political philosophy and print culture studies to illuminate limitations in librarianship’s standard conception of the freedom to read. This reveals the need for an alternative, structural account of that freedom with significant implications for practice.

This paper illuminates the mechanisms through which marketing practice and institutions produced, normalized and institutionalized systemic racism in support of imperialism, colonization and slavery to provide impetus for transformational change. Critical race research is drawn on to propose paths toward decolonial and anti-racist research agenda and practice.

The paper integrates multidisciplinary literature on race, racism, imperialism, colonialism and slavery, connecting these broad themes to the roles marketing practices and institutions played in creating and sustaining racism. Critical race theory, afro pessimism, postcolonial theories, anti-racism and decoloniality provide conceptual foundations for a proposed transformative research agenda.

Marketing practices and institutions played active and leading roles in producing, mass mobilizing and honing racist ideology and the imagery to support imperialism, colonial expansion and slavery. Racist inequalities in market systems were produced globally through active collusion by marketing actors and institutions in these historical forces creating White advantage and Black dispossession that persist; indicating an urgent need for transformative anti-racists and decolonial research agendas.

Covering these significant historical forces inevitably leaves much room for further inquiry. The paper by necessity “Mango picked” the most relevant research, but a full coverage of these topics was beyond the scope of this paper.

Marketing practitioners found themselves at the epicenter of a crisis during the Black Lives Matter protests. This paper aims to foster anti-racist ad decolonial research to guide practice.

This paper addresses systemic and institutional racism, and marketplace inequalities – urgent societal challenges.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, the paper is the first in marketing to integrate multidisciplinary literature on historical forces of imperialism, colonization and slavery to illuminate marketing’s influential role in producing marketplace racism while advancing an anti-racist and de-colonial research agenda.

This paper aims to provide a historical overview of AA, its purpose and benefits, the legal rationale for the SCOTUS ruling and what it means for colleges and the workplace regarding equitable opportunities for minority groups (which include women, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians and other low-income populations), as they aim for the “American dream”.

SCOTUS decision and rationale, along with literature.

The race-based affirmative action (AA) precedent was recently overturned by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in the case of Students for Fair Admission (SFFA), Inc. vs President and Fellows of Harvard College/University of North Carolina. SCOTUS ruled that race cannot be a specific basis for college admission. In other words, public and private colleges and universities will no longer be able to consider “race” as a factor in deciding which qualified applicants should be admitted to enhance the diversity of their student body.

This is an original analysis.

This special issue explores how marketing thought and practice have contributed to systemic racism but could alleviate racially insensitive and biased practices. An introductory historical overview briefly discusses coloniality, capitalism, eugenics, modernism, transhumanism, neo-liberalism, and liquid racism. Then, the special issue articles on colonial-based commodity racism, racial beauty imagery, implicit racial bias, linguistic racism and racial imagery in ads are introduced.

The historical introduction is grounded in a review of relevant literature.

Anti-racism efforts must tackle the intersection between neo-liberalism and racial injustice, the “raceless state” myth should be re-addressed, and cultural pedagogy’s role in normalizing racism should be investigated.

To stop perpetuating raced markets, educators should mainstream anti-racism and marketing. Commodity racism provides a historical and contemporary window into university-taught marketing skills.

Anti-racism efforts must recognize neo-liberalism’s pervasive role in normalizing raced markets and reject conventional wisdom about a raceless cultural pedagogy, especially with the emergence of platform economies.

Little previous research has tackled the history of commodity racism, white privilege, white ideology, and instituting teaching practices sensitive to minority group experiences.