Charles Ungerleider, Professor Emeritus, The
University of British Columbia
[permission to reproduce granted if authorship is acknowledged]
Diversity training is receiving attention as a means of helping people and organizations recognize and respond to implicit and explicit biases, prejudice, and discrimination. It is a positive sign that we are willing to acknowledge and try to overcome our biases and take concrete action to address prejudice and discrimination. Diversity training – called by a variety of names including anti-racism training, multicultural training, etc. – can contribute to improvement in inter-group and inter-personal relations but is no panacea.
Diversity training is extremely varied. There are crucial differences in approach, methodology, intended audiences, and the outcomes sought. The contexts in which training occurs are varied. The variations have an impact on one another and upon the outcomes achieved, suggesting that there are many factors to consider before implementation.
Among the differences in approach are two that illustrate the complexity. One approach includes training that is identity-blind, the other is identity-conscious. The former includes training of at least three types: assimilative, colour-blind, and meritocratic. The identity-conscious approach includes approaches rooted in multiculturalism, anti-racism, anti-oppression, variations that put identity at the centre of the training. The impact on inter-group relations of each of these approaches differs depending upon the intended outcome: reduced prejudice, discrimination, and stereotyping, and increased support for diversity policies. In general, the identity-conscious approach is related to high quality intergroup relations. The effects of identity-blind approaches differ in their impact on the same outcomes.[1]
The global purpose of diversity training is to improve relations with and treatment of a specific ‘outgroup.’ The membership of the outgroups that are the focus for improved relations can differ dramatically along such dimensions as gender, language, skin colour, religion, age, disability, etc. Such dimensions can intersect to produce differences in privilege and discrimination. Factors such as education, social status, economic position, etc. compound the complexity and make identifying the relevant outgroup attributes essential for the design of the training.
Training design must carefully consider the complex relationship among many elements: context, participants, activities, anticipated outcomes, etc. Context incorporates several different dimensions: setting (organizational, educational); whether the training is integrated into a larger initiative or is a stand-alone approach, and whether attendance is voluntary or mandatory. Participant categories distinguish among children, adolescents, college students, adults, and among the latter different occupational groups.
There are many considerations affecting the design of training. Is the training identity-conscious or blind? If the former, does it focus specifically on one group, a collective (medical personnel, criminal justice, teachers, etc.) or does it include everyone in a particular institutional context.
The nature of the training can differ significantly. Some training focuses on encouraging participants to consider the perspectives of members of the outgroup. This often entails imagining how members of the outgroup think or feel or learning how that outgroup has been marginalized and the consequences of the marginalization. Another type of training focuses on performing tasks that are thought to reduce inter-group tension or discomfort. Promoting equal status contact between participants and members of the outgroup by working together on a project or task regarded as important. A third type of training focuses explicitly on exposing participants to examples of individuals that contradict the participants’ stereotypes of the outgroup.
Another common training involves an appeal to the overarching values held by participants (fairness, respectful treatment, cooperation, etc.) and showing how discrimination or other forms of mistreatment are contrary to the professed shared values. Some training is designed to equip participants with the knowledge and technical skill needed to overcome obstacles such as discrimination in hiring or favoring one group of children at the expense of another. Training often combines some or all these techniques as well as others.[2] A distinction is sometimes made between training that seeks to change behaviour (new human resource practices, for example) or changes that seek to change attitudes (increased empathy or liking, for example).
There are many other factors that must be considered in the design of diversity training. Frequency and duration of training are two very important considerations. The qualifications of the trainer(s) are another.
Diversity training works. It produces an effect size of between d= .38 and d= .50 depending upon many of the factors mentioned above and others. To put an effect size of d= .50 in perspective, the probability that a participant in the training group would have less prejudice, fewer implicit biases, or superior skill in interacting with outgroup members, etc. would be about 63% when compared with a similar individual who had not participated in the training. If participants in the training group and their peers who did not participate in the training took a test, about 70% of the participants in the training group would have scores above the mean score of the non-participants.[3]
If training is a well-planned part of a larger effort to make the organization or the setting a more hospitable environment to difference, there is a greater likelihood that the desired outcomes will be achieved.
[1]
Leslie, L. M., Bono, J. E., Kim, Y. (S.), & Beaver, G. R. (2020). On
melting pots and salad bowls: A meta-analysis of the effects of identity-blind
and identity-conscious diversity ideologies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
105(5), 453–471. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000446
[2]
Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L. & Jehn, K. A. (2016). A
Meta-Analytical Integration of Over 40 Years of Research on Diversity Training
Evaluation. Psychological Bulletin, 142(11), pp. 1227-1274.
doi:10.1037/bul0000067
[3]
Magnusson, K. (2022). Interpreting Cohen's d effect size: An interactive
visualization (Version 2.5.2) [Web App]. R Psychologist. https://rpsychologist.com/cohend/