By Authors: Damon J. Phillips (University of Pennsylvania); Aruna Ranganathan (University of California, Berkeley)
Interviewers: Aditi Chandrasekhar (McGill University); N.G. Yamini (Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode)
Article link: https://doi.org/10.1177/00018392251347282
How did the idea for this paper emerge? At what point / stage in your research journey did you begin to see the need for greater attention to marginalized populations in management research? Were there particular experiences, debates, or scholarly conversations that shaped your interest in this topic?
We were honored to be invited to write about “diversity” as part of ASQ’s 50th anniversary. As we began our discussions, it quickly became clear that we wanted to broaden the topic to focus instead on marginalized populations in management research, given the field’s traditional emphasis on elites. This was also where we felt we had more expertise, including our own publications in ASQ that mirrored the trajectory of the field.
For Aruna, the process of trying to publish her dissertation on handicraft artisans in India was particularly illuminating. Conducting the literature review revealed a clear paucity of research on marginalized populations, which made it challenging to situate and write up her own work. The publishing process further underscored the difficulties associated with this kind of research. This experience made her passionate about the topic.
“This lens reinforced a sense that our field was predominately rooted in the study of elites, such that it has not always been clear where or how quality research on marginalized populations fit.”
For Damon, the perspective was shaped by having written papers over the past three decades on both elites and those who are marginalized, as well as having advised students focused on both groups. This lens reinforced a sense that our field was predominately rooted in the study of elites, such that it has not always been clear where or how quality research on marginalized populations fit. This likely limited the robustness of our theories – something also noted in a paper with Kylie Hwang that focuses on entrepreneurship.
Moreover, during a Congressional testimony he participated in during the summer of 2022, it was clear that policymakers were keenly interested in what management research can tell us about traditional and marginalized citizens. There was a disconnect between the focus on contemporary policymakers and the traditional focus of management research.
Analytically, how did you decide on the six dimensions of marginalization presented in the paper? What were some of the key challenges you encountered while developing a paper that both conceptualizes the phenomenon and advocates for a broader research agenda?
The six dimensions of marginalization, and the importance of intersectionality as a path forward, emerged over the course of several conversations. In these discussions we focused in particular on exemplary papers we admired – work that did not follow the grain but instead pushed our understanding of organizational theory forward through its attention to marginalized populations. These were hard conversations, since we do not view the six dimensions as exhaustive (indeed, in the paper we discuss other dimensions we considered but ultimately chose not to include).
Our goal in writing the paper was to draw attention to the need to integrate marginalized populations in mainstream management research, and by highlighting this need, invite more scholars to attend to such populations when choosing research topics and fieldsites. We also realized that the audience for our article included reviewers and editors. The conceptualization of the phenomenon (and the articulation of the six dimensions) was in service of this goal – by clearly specifying what we mean, we hoped to generate interest and provide greater conceptual clarity.
Being reflexive is an approach that is appreciated within qualitative or interpretive traditions (such as, ethnography): how did reflecting on your positionalities influence the way you approached interacting with and/or presenting the topic of marginalized populations in your research over the years? What has changed, if anything?
First, reflexivity informed our essay – we were acutely aware that we, as authors, work at elite business schools in the United States and that the papers we cite and hold up as exemplars in our essay are likely shaped by our networks and academic circles – there are likely many other exemplary management pieces studying marginalized populations that we have not encountered and were thus unable to cite and laud. Indeed, exemplary articles that have not been on our radar are consistent with our thesis that a focus on elites creates biases and blindspots.
Second, reflexivity has informed our individual research. For Aruna, when doing research in India, she tries to take detailed notes documenting her positionality in the field – as an upper-middle class, educated, US-returned, Indian woman, how is she being perceived by her informants? How is this perception affecting the responses they give in interviews or their behaviors? Aruna’s view is that differences will always exist between the researcher and the subjects in the field – but being sharply aware of the differences, and systematically documenting them, can help in interpreting findings from the research.
“Aruna’s view is that differences will always exist between the researcher and the subjects in the field – but being sharply aware of the differences, and systematically documenting them, can help in interpreting findings from the research.”
Similarly for Damon, identity and positionality has had a palpable influence on his work on jazz music. This not only affected interview responses, but also the type and depth of archival material he had access to as a Black American male business scholar, amateur musician, who has resided in elite universities for over half his life. Among the lessons learned is the importance of meticulously documenting the data collection process, and articulating that process to other scholars so that we can collectively understand the scholar’s role in the production of their work.
What is your advice to experienced researchers for whom working with / among marginalized populations may be relatively new? Would the same advice apply to doctoral students or early-stage researchers as well —if not, what are some different considerations they could keep in mind?
Our advice is three-fold. First, be mindful that working with marginalized populations often involves working with different types of data. For example, some of the questions that require one to focus on marginalized populations may require different methodologies that an archival scholar is accustomed to, since there is typically more robust archival data on business elites than on marginalized populations.
“Ultimately, a healthy field should understand elites, “main street,” and those who are marginalized.”
Second, while there can be a value in and of itself for studying marginalized populations, to also remember the long-term value to our core management theories when we interrogate our assumptions and evidence with marginalized populations in mind. Ultimately, a healthy field should understand elites, “main street,” and those who are marginalized.
Third, try to find collaborators who have more experience or familiarity with studying marginalized populations – that will aid in accumulating tacit knowledge with respect to both doing the research and writing about it. Our other piece of advice is to be open-minded when doctoral students or junior colleagues suggest projects studying marginalized populations – these opportunities might be ripe for advancing our organizational theories!
Interviewer Bios:
Aditi Chandrasekhar is a PhD student in the Strategy & Organization department at McGill University’s Desautels Faculty of Management. Her research explores organizing for sustainability through qualitative studies surrounding land-based and community-based entrepreneurship among Indigenous communities in Canada and rural farming communities in India.
N.G. Yamini is a PhD candidate in Organizational Behaviour & Human Resource department at the Indian Institute of Management Kozhikode. Her work examines how cultural value and authenticity are socially constructed, claimed, and contested in the handicraft industry. Drawing on an ethnographic study of Mysuru wood-inlay factories and showrooms, her research adopts a sociomaterial lens to contribute to craft scholarship in organization studies.