Refine
Document Type
- Doctoral Thesis (2) (remove)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2) (remove)
Keywords
- Einfühlung (2) (remove)
Institute
- Erziehungswissenschaften (1)
- Psychologie (1)
The construct diversity describes the collective amount of differences among members within a social unit. The present dissertation is based on the assumption that, through engagement with diversity, people acquire an understanding of what role diversity plays in the societies, organizations, work groups, or other social units they are part of. This understanding of the role diversity plays in a given social unit provides a vantage point from which people will engage with diversity in the future. These vantage points from which people engage with diversity are the general subject matter of the present dissertation. Two main research questions are addressed in this regard: First, whether the role diversity is given in a particular context does have effects on groups and the individual members therein. Second, if such effects exist, it seeks to explore the processes and mechanisms they are based on. Both questions are addressed from different perspectives in the three main chapters of this dissertation. Chapter 5 contains two meta-analyses on the effects of diversity beliefs and diversity climates. Diversity beliefs are individual attitudes that describe the degree to which diversity is ascribed an instrumental value for achieving beneficial outcomes or avoiding detrimental ones. Diversity climates depict such a value of diversity on the group-level. Building on the social identity approach, I explain how diversity beliefs and climates can obviate diversity’s detrimental effects and foster beneficial ones. As both diversity beliefs and climates can cause such effects, they are considered together in the main analyses in the chapter. In the first part of the chapter, a meta-analysis on these moderator effects of diversity beliefs/climates is presented (k = 23). The majority of studies that addressed such effects reported significant results. The patterns of these results showed that, in general, diversity will be more positively related to beneficial outcomes the more it is valued. However, the analysis also revealed that there are at least two types of patterns of this moderation. So far, it cannot be explained which pattern will occur under what circumstances. In the second part of the chapter, a meta-analysis on the main effects of diversity beliefs/climates on beneficial outcomes is presented (k = 71). These effects did not receive much attention in the primary studies. Based on the social identity approach and the fact that diversity is a ubiquitous feature of modern organizations, I argue that they are important nonetheless. The meta-analysis revealed a significant positive main effect of diversity beliefs on beneficial outcomes (r = .25; p < .0001). However, the effect sizes varied considerably across studies. Both moderator and main effects were found across a broad array of outcomes, study designs, levels of analysis, and operationalizations of the constructs involved. They were found irrespective of whether diversity beliefs or diversity climates were considered. The heterogeneity of results in the meta-analyses suggests that there is still much to be learned about when differences in vantage points from which people engage with diversity will have an effect and about the processes that underlie these effects. Chapter 6 is, therefore, predominantly concerned with these underlying processes. Most of the previous research has treated pro-diversity beliefs and pro-similarity beliefs as opposite poles of one underlying continuum. There is, however, evidence that people can hold both types of beliefs simultaneously. Therefore, I propose that both diversity in certain aspects and similarity in other aspects can simultaneously constitute valid and valued parts of an organization’s identity, and that, hence, identifying with the organization can create two forms of solidarity among the employees: organic solidarity – based on meaningfully and synergistically interrelated differences, and mechanic solidarity – based on the common ground that all employees share. Furthermore, I propose that both forms of solidarity can coexist and that both are positively related to the quality of collaboration within the organization. Thus, organizational identification is proposed to influence quality of collaboration indirectly through both organic and mechanic solidarity. These propositions were tested with regard to the collaboration of different teams within two organizations: a German university (Study 1, N = 699) and a Taiwanese hospital (Study 2, N = 591). The results from both studies confirm the predictions. However, the relative importance of each form of solidarity varied across study contexts and across different facets of the quality of collaboration. Chapter 7 also builds on the findings from the meta-analyses and is again predominantly focussed on the processes underlying the effects of diversity beliefs and diversity climates, yet from a different angle. Previously, diversity beliefs and climates have often been discussed with regard to their potential to influence whether diversity will lead to more and deeper elaboration of information within the group. In chapter 7 a theoretical model is developed that complements these cognitive processes by addressing the emotional side of diverse groups. Central to the model is the assumption that group diversity can stimulate group members to engage with each other emotionally, resulting in higher levels of state affective empathy: an emotional state which arises from the comprehension and apprehension of fellow group members’ emotional state. State affective empathy, in turn, is known to lead to a variety of beneficial team processes that can ultimately enhance individual and group-level performance. Thus, the central proposition of the model is that the relationship between diversity and performance is mediated through state affective empathy. The other propositions in the model specify moderators that determine when diversity will indeed have this empathy-stimulating effect. Diversity beliefs and climates are considered second-order moderators that shape the relationship between diversity and empathy through their influence on the first-order moderators. In general, it is proposed that diversity is related to empathy more positively if it is valued by the group or its members. In summary, the results from the meta-analyses in chapter 5, the results from the field studies in chapter 6, and the theoretical arguments presented in chapter 7 can be interpreted such that differences in vantage points from which people engage with diversity can indeed affect groups and their members. Therefore, the first research question of the present dissertation can be answered affirmatively from three different perspectives. However, it also became clear that there is still much uncertainty about the mechanisms underlying these effects. In line with the second research question of the present dissertation, these mechanisms were examined more closely in chapter 6 and 7. The field studies in chapter 6 highlighted the role of identification as the driving force behind the effects of different vantage points on diversity. Furthermore, they also corroborate the proposition that valuing diversity and valuing similarity can be co-occurring phenomena that both influence the collaboration within the group positively. The theoretical model presented in chapter 7 opens up a new emotional way in which diversity beliefs and climates can influence whether diversity will lead to better or worse performance. In sum, therefore, also with regard to the second research question of the present dissertation, progress has been made.
Ausgehend von Brechts Regieanweisung im Gedicht „Das Zeigen muss gezeigt werden !“ befasst sich das erste Kapitel mit dem deiktischen Prinzip im Stück Die Dreigroschenoper. Nachgewiesen wird seine Zeigestruktur, die die Beggar’s Opera von John Gay durch die Bauform der Dreigroschenoper, letztlich aber die Oper als „romantisches Institut“ generell >beybringt<: Es handelt sich bei diesem Werk im Grunde um ein Lehrstück in Form einer Oper. Zur Darstellung kommt, wie sich das zeigt, was schon allgemein bekannt zu sein scheint (Hegel), wie die Oper und das Zeigen selbst. Im Großformat: Soziale Verelendung. In etlichen Kleinformaten: Eine Hochzeit. Oder Eifersucht, Armut, Prostitution, Trunksucht, Liebe und Verrat oder das, was gemeinhin als „Kriminalität“ bezeichnet wird. Die Dialektik von Einfühlung und Verfremdung tritt als Index zutage: Die Beteiligung am Unbeteiligtsein durch das Zeigen „ohne Mitleid“. Das zweite Kapitel nimmt Brechts Kritik der Einfühlung beim Schauspielen auf und stellt sie reformpädagogischen Unterrichtskonzepten gegenüber. Diese Studien zur Didaktik beleuch-ten die ideologischen morphings der Formel „vom Kinde aus“ und arbeiten einen völlig neuen Begriff von Verfremdung heraus. Es geht um die problematische Vorherrschaft von Familiarisierungen durch Zeigen und Verfremden unter dem Fanal einer sich kindgerecht und human ausgebenden Pädagogik – das „Einfühlungstheater“. Kritisiert werden in Rücksicht auf Brechts Theater in Theorie und Praxis die Illusionen, die das >Beybringen< betreffen. Sei es beim „erfahrungsoffenen Lernen“, das auf den Phänomenen stehe (Wagenschein, Rumpf), sei es beim „handlungs- und schülerorientierten Unterricht“ (Meyer) oder aber beim „Methoden-training“ und dem „eigenverantwortlichen Arbeiten und Lernen“ (Klippert). Das Resultat ist, dass diese Einlassungen theoretisch nicht ganz koscher sind. Die Diagnose gilt nicht minder für eine Pilotstudie zum Holocaust als Unterrichtsthema. Favorisiert wird in diesen Reformen der Pädagogik „das Anschauen des Grauens“ (Brumlik). Im Schlußkapitel entsteht aus den gewonnenen Erkenntnissen eine Theorie der Didaktik. Die Didaktik selbst wird auf ihre eigentliche Aufgabe zurückgeführt: Die Deixis. Die Säulen der vorliegenden Arbeit bilden von Anfang an die Schriften von Klaus Prange, werden aber an dieser Stelle mit den Brechtschen besonders pointiert zusammengebracht. Entgegen Pranges Auffassung ist die Artikulation des Zeigens bereits als Elementarform der Verfremdung zu konstatieren. Rezeptionsästhetische Aspekte kommen ins Spiel (Gandelmann), die Rolle von präsentativen und diskursiven Symbolisierungsformen: „Das Zeigen des Zeigens gehört zur Sprache“ (Prange). Und es gehört nicht nur zur Sprache, sondern die Sprache kommt zur Sprache. Sie erfährt durch das Zeigemoment eine Rhetorisierung, gerade weil sie auch klingt. Die Formel „vom Kinde aus“ entpuppt sich vor dem Hintergrund als „leere Benzintonne“ (Whorf): Die Claqueure der Pädagogik der Reformen wähnen sich mit ihren illusorischen Theorien in Sicherheit, „rauchen“ und „trinken“ wie gewohnt weiter und nehmen nicht für wahr, das auch hier das Wesentliche und in dem Fall Gefährliche für die Augen unsichtbar ist: „How to do Things with words“ (Austin) – diese Frage ist von zentraler Bedeutung für die Pädagogik. Der Räuberhauptmann Macheath würde sagen: „Da kannst du was lernen.“