Response: Commentary: “Medice, cura te ipsum!” a (mini) review of how white men are portrayed in diversity management research

Résumé

The analytic process unfolded in two stages. First, we conducted structured coding of 560 abstracts to map broad trends in DGM portrayal. Abstracts were used as scoping indicators because they explicitly signal theoretical orientation, problem framing, and normative positioning. Second, we conducted purposive in-depth analysis of 26 full texts selected for their substantive engagement with DGM representation, with the aim of typological refinement (i.e., distinguishing adversarial, dilemma-based, and paradox-oriented framings) rather than representational generalisation. Our coding followed an iterative, reflexive procedure consistent with reflexive thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke, 2006), which prioritises conceptual coherence and theoretical integration over numerical agreement coefficients.Recent methodological work further emphasises that reflexive thematic analysis is a recursive, judgement-based approach that does not rely on intercoder reliability indices as markers of quality (Byrne, 2022;Herzog, Handke & Hitters, 2025). Accordingly, our conclusions should be read as pattern-identifying and exploratory. We regard systematic sampling, expanded triangulation, and fully published codebooks as valuable extensions of, rather than corrections to, the analytic foundation we proposed. Similar staged procedures are common in qualitative scoping work that combines broad mapping with in-depth thematic synthesis. For example, Herzog et al. (2025) conducted a scoping review of thematic analysis practice by screening titles and abstracts across multiple journals, followed by full-text assessment and qualitative synthesis. In addition, our interpretivist use of reflexive thematic analysis aligns with Byrne's (2022) worked example, which emphasises iterative, judgement-based coding and conceptual coherence rather than intercoder reliability as the primary marker of quality.To avoid overextension, we clarify four boundaries. First, we do not claim that adversarial framing is universal within DEI scholarship; we identify a recurring tendency within a bounded corpus. Second, we do not suggest that adversarial framing is normatively illegitimate; structural critique remains indispensable in DEI research. Third, we do not attribute intentional bias to authors whose work we analysed; our concern is with discursive effects and framing patterns, not with motives. Fourth, and directly addressing Bam's concern about the term "disenfranchisement": our use of this term does not refer to numeric representation or structural power loss. It refers to the lived experience of DGMs who perceive themselves as excluded from ongoing DEI processes, even when they are, in principle, in agreement that structural inequalities must be addressed. It is the perceived exclusion from participation in DEI initiatives, and not a claim to equivalent victimhood, that our paper identifies as analytically and practically significant.Our contribution is therefore conceptual: to ask how framing dominant-group actors in predominantly adversarial terms may shape possibilities for accountability, engagement, and coalition-building within organisations.Bam (2025) cautions that importing paradox theory without a structural lens risks depoliticising identity and reproducing hierarchy. We concur that paradox must not function as a neutralising device. In our framework, paradox refers to the simultaneous holding of structurally grounded critique and interdependence. It does not imply equivalence between dominant and marginalised positions, nor does it advocate moral neutrality. Rather, it recognises that organisational change processes often require engaging actors who occupy structurally advantaged positions while maintaining explicit acknowledgment of power asymmetries. Our use of paradox was explicitly situated alongside cooperation theory and social dominance theory (Gildenhuys et al., 2025), both of which foreground inequality and hierarchy.Recent work provides empirical grounding for this position. Creary (2025) demonstrates that when ambivalence about DEI work is unconsciously suppressed rather than consciously embraced, organisations enter a "vicious system" characterised by emotional splitting (i.e., the unconscious partitioning of complex feelings about DEI into binary, all-good/all-bad categories) followed by emotional polarisation and, ultimately, intractable diversity conflict (Creary, 2025). Crucially, Creary shows that adversarial discursive environments are themselves generative of this vicious system: framing DEI participants as either supporters or resistors reproduces the very polarisation that undermines equity work. Paradox framing, in our account, is not an invitation to abandon critique but a structural intervention in this dynamic, one that, in Creary's terms, begins to shift organisations from suppressing to consciously embracing the tension inherent in DEI work. Similarly, Toma, Boroș, and Popa-Roch (2024) identify the resistance of advantaged groups as one of the core detrimental paradoxes of DEI, while simultaneously calling for research that examines how such groups can be brought into DEI processes as agents of change rather than as sources of backlash. Our mini-review responds precisely to this call.We agree with Bam that paradox framing can, under certain conditions, drift toward depoliticisation. This risk underscores the need for empirical research examining when paradox framing sustains structural critique and when it attenuates it -a boundary condition question, not a categorical flaw in the framework.Bam (2025) rightly emphasises that "dominant group members" are not homogeneous and that intersectional differentiation is necessary. Our analytic typology inevitably simplified identity configurations to enable cross-text comparison, a methodological trade-off designed to establish an initial framing taxonomy across a heterogeneous literature. We acknowledge that future research should integrate intersectional analysis more explicitly to prevent reification of DGMs as monolithic actors. Such integration would refine, rather than invalidate, the typology we proposed. Recent work in this journal demonstrates that social-justice and gender-equity beliefs are shaped by race, education, and occupational trajectories in complex, intersectional ways (Jeanlouis, 2025), reinforcing the case for fine-grained, context-sensitive framing analyses that attend to variation within as well as between identity categories.We agree with Bam (2025) that framing itself is an exercise of power. Our review sought to examine how certain discursive configurations may inadvertently constrain the range of roles DGMs can occupy in organisational change narratives. We do not claim that reframing alone resolves structural inequality. Instead, we suggest that framing constitutes one dimension of how accountability and engagement are discursively structured. Our proposal of paradoxoriented framing should therefore be read as an analytic invitation, analogous to what Creary (2025) terms "calling in" rather than "calling out", to examine whether alternative discursive constructions alter patterns of resistance, defensiveness, or coalition formation. Whether such reframing enhances or undermines justice outcomes remains an empirical question, and one we regard as urgent.On the question of timeliness: the article forms part of a larger, ongoing research project and was not designed to coincide with specific political developments. Nevertheless, Bam's (2025) observation that the current moment carries particular risks regarding the political instrumentalisation of dominant-group grievances is well-taken. We share this concern. It is precisely because adversarial framing risks feeding polarisation, and because, as Toma et al.(2024) note, DEI initiatives face increasing resistance that must be understood and engaged rather than dismissed, that theorising how DGMs are framed becomes an urgent analytic and political task, not a retreat from justice.Our mini-review was intended as a conceptually generative, exploratory mapping of framing patterns within a bounded corpus. We hold that in DEI efforts, white men occupy a position of being simultaneously the problem and the problem-solver (which is, in essence, paradoxical) and that this structural tension deserves sustained theoretical and empirical attention. The framing choices that scholars make when portraying dominant-group actors are not neutral:they shape what roles those actors can plausibly occupy in organisational change narratives, and, as Creary's (2025) model of vicious and virtuous systems suggests, they may also shape whether DEI ambivalence is channelled into intractable conflict or into constructive coalitionbuilding. We therefore welcome further work employing systematic sampling, expanded triangulation, and intersectional differentiation to test, refine, or challenge our typology. We are grateful to Bam for the rigour and urgency of his engagement, and for the opportunity to clarify our methodological boundaries and theoretical commitments. This exchange is itself an enactment of the paradox we advocate: holding critique and collaboration in productive, rather than intractable, tension.

Citer ce document

Accès au document

Texte intégral en lecture en ligne, réservé aux abonnés SPHAERO et aux membres de l'institution. Se connecter

Auteur(s)

Statistiques

Consultations : 2

Téléchargements : 0