Jönköping International Business School

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

Cross-Unit Analysis

In this section the authors will identify the main emerging patterns across all research units, discuss the empirical results in accordance with the theoretically predicted patterns in the context of all four HEIs studied, as well as examine the findings within the framework of the proposed theoretically developed DM in HEIs model presented in the theory section (Figure 2).
Firstly, a pattern consistent across all research units is the still prevalent classification of all diversity efforts under the terms “equal opportunities”, “equal treatment”, “equality and diversity” or “inclusion”, as opposed to the modern term “Diversity Management” (Hutchings & Thomas, 2005; Pitts & Jarry, 2007; Yang & Konrad, 2011). This is however understandable, as the aforementioned are the dominant terms in the HR practice of today as well as the legal requirements and documentation. Nevertheless, it seems to prove that this concept in all its full meaning, as defined in the theory section, (Yang & Konrad, 2011) is still very new and cannot be expected to be comprehensively integrated in organisations, especially HEIs where this idea is even less familiar.
However, DM is present to some extent in all HEIs studied, regardless of how it is titled. A recurring pattern consistent across all research units appears to be DM becoming a necessity for survival in the education market, rather than an exception or additional activity which can create a competitive advantage; unless it is probably practiced on a higher than average level with special emphasis on it, which however was not observed in any of the research units studied.
Another noteworthy pattern is one which mostly emerges from two research units and entails the coupling of diversity with education quality. While in essence it is an empirical match to the business-case motivator-pattern covering impact on learning outcomes, it seems to have more significance than just being one of the several motivators for DM (Gurin et al., 2002). This is because education quality, when formulated this way, is one of the most fundamental concepts in the educational setting. It could possibly be equated to the “maximisation of shareholder value” concept in the business context, as these aims capture the ultimate goal of each organisation. Therefore, relating diversity management to such a crucial element of the whole education system appears to signify that some HEIs attribute a fairly high importance to it. Hence, they implicitly recognise all the aspects that contribute to the impact of diversity in this context, all stemming from the fact that the core component of the establishment is knowledge, which according to theory is directly affected by a diverse composition and in addition interaction of minds with diverse backgrounds.
Being aware of the fact that no valid generalisation can be done from studies that entail a qualitative analysis of only a few research units (Yin, 1994), some theoretical categories can still be suggested when looking at the differences between the results pertaining to each institution studied. It appears that three profiles can be identified in terms of how diversity is viewed and consequently how diversity management is carried out. The first HEI profile would entail mainly ethical and moral considerations as grounds for DM, and promotion of diversity as a part of the social mission of education institutions (Hutchings & Thomas, 2005; Goodman, 2001). The second profile would include HEIs that are motivated both by ethical convictions and business-case motivators, either explicitly or implicitly, and having varying levels of each. And the third profile would entail a unique organisational setting where a fairly even mix of different nationalities is created, hence making diversity a very culturally ingrained phenomenon, with the HEIs fostering diversity as a natural, inherent value (Point & Singh, 2003).
This study was aimed at exploring a subject that is mainly perception-based, for it looked at the reasons why organisations would act in certain ways, based on their own opinion. Without stearing off too far into psychology theories which is beyond the scope of this research, the empirical observations have led to a conclusion that the main motivators for DM are therefore highly influenced by the perceptions of the phenomenon of diversity itself, which is in turn affected by the relevant environmental variables, i.e. the ethno-racial make-up of the organisation or percentage of different nationalities. Some of the different possible ways of viewing diversity clearly materialised in this study, with some results being even unexpected and surprising, i.e. the complete integration of a multicultural environment to the extent that diversity is not an issue any more, rather a natural part of the organisation, as observed in JIBS. In addition, diversity was observed to be viewed as a moral value that has to be fostered and encouraged (Hutchings & Thomas, 2005; Goodman, 2001). For other research units it seemed to be one of many organisational phenomenons having an impact on the performance and goals of the HEI, accordingly receiving the corresponding treatment like any other issue – action plans and progress measurement.
Hence, the results obtained stemmed from a fairly wide spectrum of factors influencing the actions of HEIs – values, direct or indirect influence on goals, expectations of certain benefits or gains, as well as compliance to external requirements. These empirical observations were to a high extent predicted in the theoretical model for DM in HEIs proposed in the theory section (Figure 2), which was created by the authors of this study drawing on the research and the analyses by, e.g., Pitts (2005), Pitts and Jarry (2007), Yang and Konrad (2011), Ivancevich and Gilbert (2000), Wrench (2002), Ruben (1999), Strazzeri (2005), and Stewart and Carpenter-Hubin (2000), the first five sources discussing the general and business context of diversity and the last three specifically the educational setting.
The model includes all the elements that explain the motivations of the HEIs studied. It covers values and mission, competitive strategy and performance, as well as external influences that all can be reasons behind diversity management. However, the model also recognises the different levels that these motivators arise from. Competitive strategy, for example, is a direct motivator as HEIs can use DM to excel in the market, while the social mission of HEIs can be the basis for fostering diversity to be set as one of the goals in this respect for the university, where then a longer causal chain is involved, i.e. DM is practiced due to a set objective, and this objective has been derived from the social agenda of the HEI (Ruben, 1999; Stewart & Carpenter-Hubin, 2000).
Hence, it appears that the proposed model in all its complexity does indeed function in the predicted ways in reality, proving that the issue of diversity and its management is not as simple as it might appear. Consequently, the key motivators for diversity management

READ Assumptions for redesigning traditional physics laboratory practical activities

1 Introduction
1.1 Background to Problem
1.2 Problem .
1.3 Purpose
1.4 Delimitations
1.5 Research Questions
2 Theoretical Framework
2.1 Diversity Defined
2.2 The Social Justice Case for Diversity .
2.3 The Business Case for Diversity
2.4 The Impact of Cultural Diversity on Organisational Performance
2.5 Diversity Management
2.6 Rationale for Diversity Management
2.7 Diversity Management Initiatives .
2.8 Diversity and Performance Measurement
3 Methods .
3.1 Method Selection
3.2 Limitations of Chosen Method
3.3 Validity and Reliability
3.4 Conducting the Study
3.5 Research Unit Selection .
3.6 Data Collection
3.7 Interview Question Design
3.8 Data Analysis
3.9 Theoretically Predicted Patterns
4 Empirical Findings
4.1 Jönköping/JIBS.
4.1.1 Diversity Management Initiatives .
4.1.2 Rationale for Managing Diversity .
4.1.3 Observed Effects (and/or Measurement) of Diversity Management .
4.1.4 Diversity Management and Strategy
4.1.5 Future Aims and Improvements .
4.2 Halmstad University
4.3 Gothenburg University .
4.4 University D
5 Analysis
5.1 Within-Unit Analysis
5.1.1 Jönköping International Business Schoo
5.1.2 Halmstad University
5.1.3 Gothenburg University
5.1.4 University D
5.2 Cross-Unit Analysis
6 Conclusions
7 Recommendations