Hackett, Paul M

Rabenu, Edna

University of Gloucestershire Research Repository 

This is a pre-print (draft) version of the following unpublished document and is licensed under All Rights Reserved license:Rabenu, Edna and Hackett, Paul M (2017) The philosophical and psychological status of facet theory's mapping sentence as illustrated in a case study of workplace discrimination. In: 16th International Facet Theory Conference, June 26-29, 2017, Netanya Academic College, Israel. (Unpublished) EPrint URI: http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/4568Disclaimer The University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material.  The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited.  The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights.  The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT.The philosophical and psychological status of facet theory’s ŵappiŶg seŶteŶce as illustrated in a case study of workplace discriminationFacet Theory Association16th International Facet Theory ConferencePaul HacketEmerson College, Boston, USAVisiting Professor:  University of Gloucestershire, Cheltenham, UK; University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UKEdna RabenuNetanya academic college, Netanya, IsraelPurposes of the research1. Explicate a mapping sentence within a purely philosophical understanding. 2. Discuss the differences between the philosophical (declarative mapping sentence) and the psychological (standard mapping sentence).3. Demonstrate mapping sentence through application to the concept of discrimination in the workplace. Basic definitions • Facet theory is a method by which the components of a problem or the issue under investigation can be defined formally (Guttman, 1957). • The definitional framework for formally defining a ĐoŶteŶt uŶiǀerse is Đalled a ͚mapping sentence .͛ The mapping sentence serves as a guide for formulating hypotheses, to create structured assumptions, to plan and collect observations, and to analyze data (Levy, 2005). Philosophical understanding of mapping sentencePhilosophically, the mapping sentence is a structural ontology. Ontology – ͞OŶtologǇ is the study and formal explication of a domain of content in terms of its more fundamental or basic categorial components as these may be understood at this fundamental level and as their meaning may be further revealed through consideration of more sub-ordinate, particular, or evident categorial eŶtities͟  ;HaĐkett, 2016, p. 2). Philosophical understanding of mapping sentenceIn application to any substantive area of research, a mapping sentence may also be seen as a mereologicalstatement.Mereology - ͞MereologǇ is the sǇsteŵatiĐ aŶd eǆpliĐit investigation, analysis and resulting understanding of the relationships within a structured ontology, in terms of the part to part, part to whole, part to context, part to background, and part to observation range, relatioŶships͟ ;HaĐkett, 2016, p. 3). A mapping sentence embodies the logical inter-relationship between its components (Hackett, 2016).Mapping sentence of the theoretical content of Philosophical understanding of the mapping sentenceFrom: Paul Hackett, 2016, p. 4. Hermeneutic consistency refers to the ability to achieve a coherent explanation of an informational source.A declarative mapping sentenceThe declarative mapping sentence was developed in Paul s͛ research over the last decade.  A declarative mapping is a comprehensive philosophical, qualitative and / or quantitative, depiction of a content universe. Qualitative means non-numerical, i.e., narrative, impressionistic, conceptual. A declarative mapping may be transformed into a (standard) mapping sentence when a set of pertinent facets are specified, an element is selected from each facet and these elements are brought together in the form of a propositional sentence ;HaĐkett, the deĐlaratiǀe ŵappiŶg seŶteŶĐe …Ϳ Why a declarative mapping sentence? Provides a structure for qualitative and philosophical enquiries, mitigates against imprecise thinking:  • Enabling a clear research design that thoroughly and comprehensively addresses the research domain• Allows research findings to be interpreted within the theoretical framework of their design• Facilitates comparison with other qualitative/philosophical research that uses this approach• Offers cumulative findings • Provides greater possibility of hermeneutic consistencyComparison of attributes of the Declarative Mapping Sentence and the General Mapping SentenceDeclarative Mapping Sentence Standard Mapping SentenceConcerned with variables and concepts from a single content universeConcerned with variables and concepts from a single content universeConcerned with all possible variables in a content universeConcerned with variables sampled from a content universeGuides the categorization of all content and other variables from a multivariate content universeGuides the stratified sampling of content variables from a multivariate content universeMay address any form of information that possesses a categorial structureIs concerned with multivariate human experiences responsesMainly involves the analysis of qualitative and theoretical data but may involve quantitative dataIs concerned with the analysis of quantitative dataFacilitates the generation and analysis of primary data and the analysis of secondary dataConcerned mainly with the generation and analysis of primary dataFrom Paul M.W. Hackett The Declarative Mapping SentenceWorkplace discriminationDiscrimination in labor market involves the concept that personal characteristics of the worker (such as race, ethnic background and sex) that are unrelated to productivity, are also valued in market. (Arrow, 1973).Workplace discriminationMapping sentenceIn the present demonstration we attempted to develop a framework of Workplace discrimination. Based on the literature we distinguished six basic facets to define the Workplace discrimination domain: A - statusB - modeC- sourceD-focusE-awarenessF-referentFacet a- status • Discrimination occurs ͞toǁard soĐial ŵiŶorities oŶ the ďasis of their ŵiŶoritǇ status ŵeŵďership͟ ;LiŶdseǇ et al., p. 5). Specifically, discrimination could essentially take place against individuals who are a social minority in a certain organization but are not included in populations protected by law, for instance ͞stars͟ ;a subgroup of high performers who contribute disproportionately to an orgaŶizatioŶ͛s output) (Rabenu & Chernyak-Hai, 2016). Therefore, we defined the first element: a1: minority in organization.• Employee that works in a state or municipality covered by legislation that prohibits workplace discrimination (e.g. for gay employees), is an important factor whether he/she perceives and reports workplace discrimination (Ragins, & Cornwell, 2001). However, although 50 years have passed since the Civil Rights Act, employment discrimination still  persists (Lindsey, King, McCausland, Jones, & Dunleavy, 2013) such as gender discrimination in wages and access to organizational power (Hultin, & Szulkin, 1999) . Accordingly, we defined the second element: a2: protected groups • The classification of blue or white-collar discriminate between those two types of workers. Also older workers are discriminated (for example, differential rates of training incidence amongst older and younger workers, Urwin, 2006). Thus, we defined the third element: a3: groups with limited powerFacet b- mode • Overt disĐriŵiŶatioŶ, ĐaŶ ďe defiŶed as ͞a ĐlearlǇ exercised form of unfair treatment with visible struĐtural outĐoŵes͟ ;VaŶ Laer & Janssens, 2011, p. 1205). Therefore, we defined the first element: b1:overt• Subtle discrimination is defined as ͞Ŷegatiǀe or ambivalent demeanor or treatment enacted toward social minorities on the basis of their minority statusmembership that is not necessarily conscious and likelǇ ĐoŶǀeǇs aŵďiguous iŶteŶt͟ ;JoŶes, Peddie, Gilrane, King, & Gray, 2016, p. 1591). Accordingly, we defined the second element: b2: subtleFacet c- source͞everyone plays a part in the process of subtle discrimination at work and, as a result, bears some responsibility in addressing and remediating it͟ ;JoŶes, 2017, p.1). Thus, we defined the elements: c1: employees; c2:colleagues; c3: employersFacet d-focusIntentionality means the extent to which the discrimination is iŶteŶtioŶal. ͞…there are various constructs in the literature… that reflect …iŶteŶtioŶal, aŶd unintentional manifestations of disĐriŵiŶatioŶ͞ ;JoŶes, 2017, p.7)Therefore we defined the elements: d1-intentionaly- d2-unintentionalyFacet e- awarenessSince the discrimination is sometimes subtle, it is difficult to be attributed as discrimination. The target is not always aware that he/she has been discriminated. For example, Afro-Americans were not primed to attribute everyday mistreatment to their race (Deitch, Barsky, Butz, Chan, Brief, & Bradley, 2003). Therefore we defined the elements: e1-aware;  e2-unawareFacet f- referentThe discrimination exists throughout the employment cycle (attraction, selection, inclusion, and retention phases)(Lindsey et al., 2013). Also, there is considerable evidence that supervisors discriminate against some employees by giving them undeservedly low performance appraisals (Cappelli, & Tavis, 2016). For instance, the evaluator tends to give higher scores to those perceived as similar to him, such as race (see: Kraiger & Ford, 1985; Landy & Farr, 1980). Therefore, we defined the first element: f1: Job related resourcesDamage to the worker's resources (budget, information, etc.) may ultimately harm functioning. For example, stars are targets of behaviors such as avoidance (Exline, Zell, & Lobel, 2013Ϳ aŶd ͞out-of-the-loop͟ eǆperieŶĐes ;e.g., iŶteŶtioŶallǇ eǆĐluded froŵ iŶforŵatioŶ known to other coworkers; Jones, Carter-Sowell, Kelly, & Williams, 2009Ϳ ǁhiĐh iŵpaĐt star s͛ task performance over a period of time  (Garg, 2016). Accordingly, we defined the second element: f2: actual performanceDiscrimination steŵs froŵ people s͛ Ŷatural Ŷeed to ďeloŶg aŶd, oŶ oŶe haŶd, to prefer those who are similar to them and, on the other hand, to be separate from those unlike them (Rabenu & chernyac-Hai, 2016). Those employees who are perceived as ͞out-group͟ members, are targets of unfavorable bias, and are generally discriminated against. Out-groups ŵeŵďers͛ disĐriŵiŶatioŶ is said to ďe part of soĐial ideŶtitǇ proĐesses ;so Đalled ͞iŶ-group favoritism͟Ϳ (Rabenu & chernyac-Hai, 2016). Thus, we defined the third element: f3: interpersonal relationshipThere are negative intrapersonal consequences of subtle discrimination (Jones, Peddie, et al., 2016), for example impaired well-being (Deitch, et al., 2003). Therefore, we defined the last element: f4: intrapersonalMapping sentence- workplace discrimination

The philosophical and psychological status of facet theory's mapping sentence as illustrated in a case study of workplace discrimination

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Gloucestershire Research Repository