CHAPTER 1
Diversity
"In embracing the diversity of human beings, we will find a surer way to be happy" (Gladwell, 2006)
It is so much easier to communicate and collaborate with people who agree with us or are at least willing to listen to our opinions and perspectives without argument or disagreement. Yet, we cannot simply exclude those who disagree with us from our lives. Often, they are family, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and people we supervise or who supervise us. At times, they may even be the same person, on our side on certain topics and strongly "against" us on others. At other times they may be individuals with whom we must work closely for short periods of time. As a non-tenured beginning faculty at a university there were often senior faculty who did not agree with me (Barrera) or see things as I did. I wanted to keep my job; at the same time I did not want to lose my voice. The tension between these two goals inspired the early development of Skilled Dialogue. I wondered if it was possible to honor my own views without disregarding others that seemed to contradict them.
Were most of your words negative or positive? Were words like "enriching" or "connecting" on your list of words? Why or why not?
Diversity of perspectives, opinions, beliefs or values all too often tends to be associated more with division and diminishment than with connection and enrichment. Yet, how we respond to diversity in any given interaction is more the function of how we understand it than of the presence of differences. Two aspects in particular are important to the understanding of diversity: what we believe to be its nature and what we believe are its roots or source. How we address these can determine whether our dialogue with others is skilled enough to enrich and connect us across our differences or not.
The nature of diversity
Diversity is commonly thought of as an objective attribute. In reality, however, diversity is a relational attribute. That is, it does not exist within a person (e.g., this or that person is diverse) but rather lives in the relational space between persons (e.g., that person is diverse from me).
People (or communities) can only be diverse in reference to a designated group or individual who is also of necessity diverse from them. A man, for example, would be considered diverse (in regard to his gender) in comparison to a woman or group of women. On the other hand, he would not be considered similarly diverse in comparison to another man or group of men. "In a galaxy, the space between two flickering stars ... contains a gravitational pull that shapes their relationship" (Shapiro, 2017, p. 9). Anagolously, it is how people perceive and experience the differences between them that consequently shapes their relationship.
It is only in relationships that diversity's riches can be unleashed and harvested. Diversity is not about "that" person(s) independently of who is interacting with that person; it is and can only be about that person(s) in relation to another. Naming another as diverse simultaneously also names as diverse those who are doing the naming. That is, when I name an individual or group as diverse I am simultaneously also naming myself as diverse (from them). My own views and beliefs become diverse as I encounter views and beliefs different from my own. Diversity is, thus, never about who they are; it is about who we are.
Sources of diversity.
There are, of course, many sources of diversity, not all of which are of similar importance. Some are relatively unimportant, presenting little if any challenge to either communication or collaboration. What foods you eat or whether you believe strongly in set bedtimes for children, for example, makes little or no significant impact on communication or collaboration outside of specific contexts (e.g., if we're planning a joint dinner party or if as a teacher I believe set bedtimes are critical to children's abilities to concentrate).
Other differences, however, have a much stronger impact on communication and collaboration. These are differences that, typically, tend to be associated with social markers such as culture, ethnicity, religion, or lifestyle. These larger differences are typically assumed to be reliable markers of challenges to communication and collaboration. They are not, however, the reliable indicators of diversity's challenges that we believe them to be. While I may be from one culture and you from another we may, for example, have few other salient differences. We may speak the same language, have similar occupations, belong to the same church and participate in the same social activities. On the other hand, we may have the same cultural affiliation yet find significant interpersonal differences disrupting our communication and collaboration. I may, for example, adhere to the traditional values and practices of a culture while you may hold to that same cultural affiliation yet hold values and practices less in conformity with its traditional values and practices. Or, we may belong to different religions and hold very different values.
The authors have found that several sources of differences tend to be more reliable predictors of challenges to communication and collaboration than simple cultural affiliations and other similar external markers (Barrera, Corso, and Macpherson, 2003). They are, consequently, the sources that Skilled Dialogue addresses: funds of knowledge, sense of self, and perceptions and understandings of power.
Funds of knowledge. The first major source of diversity is differences in funds of knowledge; that is, in the knowledge a person brings to specific interactions, particularly that knowledge they believe factual. This knowledge may or may not be directly tied to culture, religion, gender or other such markers. When there are unacknowledged or unrecognized differences between people in the knowledge they believe essential to operate in and make sense of the world, the likelihood of miscommunication and failed collaboration is high regardless of differences in gender, cultural affiliation, religion, or other such categories.
All of us have built funds of knowledge composed of the information we have acquired about (a) the nature of the world around us (e.g., cooperative or not, containing abundant resources or only limited resources); (b) how it works (e.g., what signals opportunity and what does not); and (c) how it is best understood (e.g., what is acceptable and what is not, what signals respect and what does not). These funds of knowledge include information such as the following: information about social roles and rules, values and beliefs about how to best solve problems and make decisions, roles and rules for collaboration, the relative value of verbal and nonverbal communication. They can also include information specific to the content of a given interaction. Someone may, for example, know with absolute certainty that collaboration requires an identified leader while the person(s) with whom they seek to collaborate knows, with equal certainty, that leadership need not be assigned to a single person. When this is the case, the likelihood is high that they will have difficulty or at least high levels of frustration as they attempt to collaborate. Another example might be when one person assumes that what they know about the topic(s) addressed in an interaction is also known in the same way by the person(s) with whom they are interacting and, consequently, assumes there is no need for explanations or clarifications. When unrecognized or unacknowledged, these and other similar mismatches in funds of knowledge increase the likelihood of miscommunication and failed or limited collaboration.
Sense of self. A second source of diversity that commonly challenges communication and collaboration is differences in sense of self; that is, in "how you are, what you hold as important, and how you conceive of meaning in your life" (Shapiro, 2017, p. 9). Our sense of self defines who we are in relation to others and who others are in relation to us as well as how we each perceive the other in relation to ourselves.
Sense of self is a subset of funds of knowledge that is inclusive of principles and values, allegiances, meaningful customs and meaningful memories. It nevertheless deserves its own category because differences in sense of self tend to be less well-recognized or explicitly acknowledged in interactions than other funds of knowledge.
A person's sense of self includes whom they believe themselves to be as well as the status they believe is or should be accorded to that identity (e.g., how I believe others tend to, or should, perceive me, how much power I have or believe I have vis-à-vis those with those I am interacting). It also includes the behaviors associated with personal positive characteristics (e.g., goodness, competence) as well as those associated with negative characteristics (irresponsibility, incompetence). Values, ideals and convictions are also part of our sense of self as are meaningful experiences that have shaped those values, ideals and convictions.
The authors have found that individuals' sense of self can be the most challenging type of differences in regard to communication and collaboration. It is not entirely uncommon at times to sacrifice respectful communication and collaboration for the sake of maintaining a sense of self we wish respected. It can, for example, become more important to be perceived as competent than to communicate respect for another's opinions or views.
If, for example, I have built my sense of self around autonomy and independence and I consequently value those characteristics in others, the likelihood is that I will have tension if not outright difficulty collaborating with someone who does not exhibit behaviors I associate with those qualities or who does not place the same value on them in my opinion. I may judge them to be incompetent or unmotivated and lazy; I may try to get them to buy into my belief of the importance of autonomy, or I may simply not trust that they will get things done and just do things myself. Whatever my response, I will only minimally, if at all, recognize and value any contribution they might be able to make to a joint effort.
Or perhaps I've built my identity on timeliness and order. I will then have trouble working with someone who is more lax about time and pays less attention to orderliness. Similarly, I may believe I'm competent and powerful, or relatively incapable and powerless and feel challenged by someone I perceive to believe differently about themselves. Whatever the core aspects around which I've formed my sense of self, the potential for miscommunication and failed collaboration will increase when I need to work with someone who has adopted different core aspects. As with differences in more general funds of knowledge, not recognizing or addressing these differences easily sabotages communication and collaboration.
Perceptions of and understanding of power. In some ways the most complex source of differences that challenge communication and collaboration is perceptions of and understanding of power (i.e., how I define power, how I believe power is gained or lost, who I believe has power). This area is often the least explicitly addressed in communication and collaboration. Yet, how we perceive and understand power has substantial influence on the success or lack of success of communication and collaboration.
It is common, at least in the U.S., to assume a universal definition of power as power over, be this over our selves, others or our social, workrelated or natural environments. We often also tend to blur distinctions between having power and being competent. Consequently, we exert a great deal of time and energy in learning about and acquiring mastery in areas important to us; i.e., becoming competent, acquiring power in that area. We structure our communication and collaboration efforts in service of such mastery and tend to disrespect those we believe do not exhibit similar mastery.
There is, however, another less-well recognized definition of power: power as power for. This is definition is much less common in the U.S., but is one clearly captured in the Spanish translation for power: poder. Poder refers not just to power over as understood in English but also to power for, or capacity, as in "Yo puedo" ("I can"). Jaworski (2011) makes an interesting point that implies this definition of power: "The facilitator who has done the interior work will 'set the field' for the participants and help them learn the way into that deeper territory through disciplined personal practice" (p. 85).
An important aspect of how individuals perceive and define power is the "model of agency" they hold (Markus and Kitayama, 2003). Models of agency can be put into one of three groups: independent, relational-interpersonal, and contractual-structural (Barrera & Kramer, 2009). These models define four aspects of our actions: their "goodness," consequences, style and sources. It is the latter aspect — the sources of our actions — that is most relevant to the definition of power as discussed here.
From the perspective of someone who holds an independent model of agency, actions are perceived as contingent only on the preferences and motives of the doer of those actions. Power, thus, lies in the doer's ability to select and control his or her actions. In contrast, someone holding a relational-interactional model of agency believes that actions are, or should be, jointly determined and controlled according to the nature of their relationship with those with whom they are interacting (e.g., my actions toward someone would depend on whether or not they are family, for instance). In this case, power is jointly held and is not individually controllable. Finally, a contractual-structural model of agency holds that actions are, or should be, responsive to social roles and obligations independent of either individual mastery or given relationships. It is the group or groups within which a person operates that hold the power to determine actions in any given instance (e.g., a city government).
Many of us operate from more than one model depending on the context of a given interaction. We recognize, for example, that it is a court that holds the power in certain interactions (contractual-structural model of agency). In other collaborative situations, on the other hand, we recognize that power is not solely in the hands of one person (relational-interactional model of agency). Nevertheless, in most cases one model will tend to be our "go to" model when possible.
Given the scope of this text, differences in perceptions and understandings of power, as well as differences in funds of knowledge and sense of self vis-à-vis our understanding of diversity can be only be briefly addressed in this chapter. They will be further addressed, albeit more indirectly, in Part II, as well as in Part III. Readers are also referred to Barrera, I., Corso, R., & Macpherson, D., 2003 and Barrera & Kramer, 2009, which address differences in funds of knowledge, sense of self and perceptions of power in more detail.
Responses to diversity
It is not enough to recognize the source of the diversity between individuals. It is possible to realize that someone has very different funds of knowledge from our own or operates with a different model of agency yet respond to that realization in ways that do not foster optimum communication or collaboration. One person might, for example, acknowledge differences in funds of knowledge yet not be able to connect them with their own funds of knowledge in any meaningful way. This person would simply each leave them side-by-side. For purposes of this discussion, we'll call this type of response an A and B response. Unfortunately, an A and B response can all too easily deteriorate into A vs. B response where the differences are not only responded to as separate but also as contradictory or antagonistic.
A second type of response is one where someone both acknowledges and joins the differences in some meaningful way (A joined with B). This latter response goes beyond simply placing differences side by side, whether with or against each other. It perceives differences as complementary and connects them in ways that bring out what they hold in common as well as what is unique about each.
