Doing Diversity: Creating Spaces,Opportunities,and Change

Abstract

I briefly describe my work on race and racism, and the psychology of diversity. Two key aims have been expanding graduate training for students of color and expanding the focus of scientific theorizing, research, and applications in psychology. I argue that history is important for understanding race-related conflict and progress and that cultural context is both a source of obstacles to inclusion (cultural racism) and an important asset in resisting and coping with these obstacles (resilience). I describe ways in which my career represents “doing diversity.” Specifically, I have (a) helped diversify psychological science through a Minority Fellowship Program that provided PhD training opportunities for more than 1,500 students of color, (b) contributed to understanding psychological issues by spearheading psychological science publications on HIV/AIDS, homelessness, and abortion; (c) contributed to national conversations and understanding of race by advising the U.S. Department of Defense on assessments of racial and ethnic discrimination in the military and President Clinton’s Race Initiative; and (d) helped conceive and create an institute of world-class scholarship on race (DuBois Institute for African American Research) at Harvard University. I conclude by discussing challenges I faced, what I might have done differently, and how my work was meaningful in my career and life.

Keywords

diversity racism culture African Americans military racial discrimination

Describing how I have applied scientific psychology to making the world a better place is extremely challenging. In 1965, I read an article in the The New York Times Magazine in which Dr. Kenneth Clark reported on his work in Harlem—known as HARYOU, which reformed schools in Harlem (e.g., preschool programs, after-school remedial education, employment programs for dropouts). I was quite familiar with his famous “doll studies,” conducted with his wife Mamie Phipps Clark (Clark & Clark, 1950), the results of which were cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision that rejected the “separate but equal” doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and concluded that racial segregation was inherently unequal. Clark’s work inspired me to pursue a PhD in social psychology because I wanted to play a role in addressing the needs of Black people specifically and American society more generally.

Prejudice, Racism, and Principles for Change

I begin by briefly describing my work on race and racism (Jones, 1972, 1997a) and the psychology of diversity (Jones, Dovidio, & Vietze, 2014). This work both informs my approach to promoting structural and organizational change and is influenced by doing the work! As cultural psychologist Richard Shweder observed, “culture and psyche make each other up.” (Shweder & Sullivan, 1993, p. 498). I am a product of a racialized culture, and through that lens, I have sought to affect scholarly understanding of race and institutional structures and processes that are inclusive and generative for our discipline, institutions, and society.

I took a multidimensional approach to prejudice and racism by fleshing out the layered connections among individuals, institutions, and cultures (Jones, 1972, 1997a). These vertical intersections evolve over time and produce horizontal, in-time effects. That is, intergroup relations at a given time are the results of processes that occur over time, the influences of which are metastasized throughout our contemporary understandings and interactions. By this account, racism is persistent and inevitable. We will never be postracial—different histories, power dynamics, and their consequences are perpetually racialized. We can only discern all the ways in which race matters and let that education contribute to the judgments and decisions that people make who wish to diminish this historical intrusion in our contemporary psyches. In my writings I have drawn out these connections and identified their influence over time and across race.

One basic principle underlying this work is that psychological science emerged in a time when those doing the research tended to be almost exclusively White (Jones, 2010). This perspective is exemplified by Kardiner and Ovesy’s (1951) portrayal of Black “mental wretchedness”:

[The] Negro, in contrast to the White, is a more unhappy person; he has a harder environment to live in, and the internal stress is greater. . . . There is not one personality trait of the Negro the source of which cannot be traced to his difficult living conditions. There are no exceptions to this rule. The final result is a wretched internal life. (p. 81, emphasis added)

This conclusion follows from an outsider culture-centric perspective that may not fully grasp the cultural context, sources of resilience, and mechanisms by which integrity of self can be sustained in the face of virulent racism and oppression. It is not surprising to me that research shows that the self-esteem of African Americans is as high as or higher than that of Whites (Twenge & Crocker, 2002). A first principle guiding my work, then, is that psychological knowledge and relevance is enhanced when theorizing and research includes trained members of the subject groups. Hence, one of my aims was to expand access to graduate training for students of color (Jones, 2010; Jones & Austin-Dailey, 2009). The objective was not simply demographic inclusion but altering and expanding the focus of scientific theorizing, research, and applications (Jones, 1992). I believe the field is better when these perspectives contribute to the discipline and its cumulative knowledge and relevance. Research is not only theory testing but also problem solving. The research questions and means for answering them are broadened and thus become more inclusive of the diverse researchers in the field (Adams, Estrada-Villalta, & Ordóñez, 2017; Settles, Buchanan, & Dotson, 2018).

A second principle is that expanding participation of underrepresented, marginalized students in psychology requires more than opening slots to graduate programs. Although it is an important social-justice objective to include psychologists of color in training, doing so without attending to the cultural context of training, theoretical approaches, empirical procedures, analytical frameworks, and practical applications is an incomplete goal. This cultural perspective has been at the forefront of all of my work. In Prejudice and Racism (Jones, 1972, 1997b), I argued that culture was an important consideration for understanding race-related conflict and progress. Cultural context is both a source of obstacles to inclusion (cultural racism) and an important asset in resisting and coping with these obstacles (resilience). We might think of these as meta-training issues that involve cultural competence, self-awareness, and perspective taking. For example, I found that advisors and other mentors were often quite unsure of how to do their jobs. They often undermined the progress of their students by either giving them too much leeway until they actually failed or giving them too many restrictions that stifled their engagement in the research and the application of their experience and insights.

A third principle emanates from a diversity paradigm (Jones & Dovidio, 2018). We characterize a diversity paradigm in several ways: It takes diversity as the standard for “normal”; it identifies potential benefits and costs of diversity. Diversity antagonists focus on the costs and minimize the benefits, whereas diversity advocates focus on the benefits and minimize the costs. This contextualized framework increases understanding intergroup relations and the role individuals play in them, and it recognizes that relations between and within groups are influenced by divergent histories. A diversity paradigm makes human difference a fundamental mediator/moderator of broad psychological relationships, recognizes the benefits to our field, sets context as an important focus for diversity-related research, and acknowledges that differential group histories are important for framing theoretical and research agendas. There is ample scientific evidence that participation by a broad diversity of psychological researchers increases the chances of reaping the benefits of a diversity paradigm.

In the past 20 years, a diversity perspective has become a standard for judging how well institutions are doing. Diversity has been a core principle in my work throughout my career, and these three specific principles have guided my work. The next section provides examples of how these principles can be applied to promote positive change in the world.

Doing Diversity: Make a Positive and Meaningful Difference to the World Beyond Scientific Publication

Throughout my career, I have played a role in creating training opportunities for students of color and contributed to developing a more critical and complex scholarly understanding of the dynamics of race and racism.

Diversifying psychological science

My first major opportunity to contribute to the diversification of psychology came with my appointment as director of the Minority Fellowship Program (MFP) of the American Psychological Association, a position I held from 1977 to 2005. Mentoring and expanded access to the field—the foundation of the MFP—is an important criterion of impact in psychology that often is not considered for psychologists of color (Zárate, Hall, & Plaut, 2017).

The MFP began with a 5-year training grant from the National Institutes of Mental Health that provided 10 training stipends per year for 3 years—a total of 30 students. The MFP concept achieved much more than originally conceived. MFP employed a multidimensional model of training that encompassed selecting capable and committed students, providing maximum funding, and leveraging the funding to increase the number of students we could support. Because the training climate was barren for students of color, we leveraged our support to foster institutional change in departments and universities, empower students to play a role in their training, and facilitate training program development in response to the more diverse cadre of graduate students. Finally, we took an active role in the professional and career development of MFP Fellows.

In 1977, members of ethnic or racial minorities accounted for less than 8% of all earned doctorates in psychology. Over the next 30 years, that percentage more than doubled (17.2%), and 9,518 members of ethnic or racial minorities obtained doctoral degrees. Over that same period, 1,517 MFP Fellows earned their doctoral degrees, accounting for roughly 16% of the total number of doctorates in psychology awarded in the United States to members of ethnic or racial minorities. Members of the MFP advisory committee conducted site visits to the MFP Fellows’ universities as a means of carrying out the program objectives. Typical visits included meetings with department leaders, faculty, graduate students of color, and administration officials. At times, we conducted colloquia on the status of diversity in psychology and described approaches for improving representation and student success. The team negotiated cost-sharing agreements that ensured departmental and institutional commitment and MFP Fellows’ full participation in the life of the department. We advised and mentored MFP Fellows and their advisors alike. The net of these efforts is that we were able to leverage our funding to triple the number of MFP Fellows we could support, while obtaining an impressive 90% degree completion rate.

Over the years, we added professional development activities that helped with the transition to successful professional careers. Evidence for this success is reflected in the number of MFP Fellows who attained high levels of leadership and scholarly success. For example, MFP Fellows have become university presidents, deans, provosts, department chairs, journal editors, external grant recipients, clinical training directors, McArthur Fellows, and a president of the American Psychological Association (APA).

Psychology has changed dramatically in the past 40 years. The MFP played a critical role in galvanizing the efforts to diversify psychology in all aspects. It has been a great honor to have played a major role in this important intervention.

Contributing to public awareness of important psychological issues

Psychological science began examining a variety of social and policy issues in the 1980s. I was in a position to promote this work by organizing the scientists and serving as a catalyst for bringing this science to the public. Three areas stand out: (a) HIV/AIDS, (b) homelessness, and (c) abortion. I discuss each briefly.

HIV/AIDS

In 1988, I joined others in producing an edited special issue of the American Psychologist on psychology and AIDS (Backer, Batchelor, Jones, & Mays, 1988). This volume appeared during a time in which much misinformation about the disease was rampant, and policy was progressing faster than the science. This volume was a vital source of information for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, and administrators. In addition to an overview of the role of psychology in the AIDS health crisis, this volume applied basic psychological science to understanding primary issues such as public health, antibody testing, AIDS and the communities of Black and Hispanic men, intravenous drug abuse, sexual behavior change, stigma, and psychoneuroimmunology.

Homelessness

Homelessness was a major public policy issue and was a focus of Jack Kemp, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) under George H. W. Bush. Psychological research on homelessness ramped up in the late 1980s as psychologists began examining homelessness as a mental health problem. I, along with colleagues Irene Levine and Alison Rosenberg, edited a special issue of the American Psychologist (Jones, Levine, & Rosenberg, 1991) to shed light on the psychological science regarding homelessness and its implications for social policy. Some argued that psychologists’ focus on individuals’ mental issues failed to address the most important structural problems that were, by and large, economic—stable housing, income enhancement, and physical health (Kiesler, 1991). Kemp’s head of the Homelessness initiative at HUD also contributed an article that laid out what the Reagan and Bush administrations had done and what it would take to be successful (Kondratas, 1991). This issue also charted a research course that would continue to educate and guide policy decisions.

Abortion

In 1989, I convened a task force to examine the empirical evidence for the nature of women’s psychological responses to having an abortion. The task force reviewed all of the available methodologically sound studies of the psychological responses of U.S. women after they obtained legal, nonrestrictive abortions. These reviews found that distress is generally greatest before the abortion and that the incidence of severe negative responses following abortion is low and follows an overall pattern similar to that for women with normal term births. Factors associated with increased risk of negative response are consistent with those reported in research on other stressful life events. The findings of the task force report were published in Science (Adler et al., 1990). The work of the task force was important because opponents of abortion rights had presented testimonials by individual women that implied severe regret and depression was the modal response to having an abortion. Psychological science showed this not to be the case.

Finally, we addressed the question of whether a minor could make a responsible abortion decision (O’Keefe & Jones, 1990). At that time, a minor was required to obtain consent from one or both parents to legally obtain an abortion; this requirement was based on the idea that they lacked the mental maturity and capacity to make such an important decision. Our research showed that a 16-year-old was capable of making such a decision without parental consent and that this requirement resulted in more harm than good. Our article helped ease some restrictions on minors’ ability to obtain an abortion. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states may not give parents absolute veto over their daughters’ decisions to have an abortion, and most state parental-involvement requirements include a judicial-bypass procedure that allows a minor to receive court approval for an abortion without her parents’ knowledge or consent.

Contributing to national conversations and understanding of race

Two roles brought me into national-level involvement with issues of race and racial discrimination: (a) being a consultant to surveys of racial discrimination in the military and (2) being an advisor to President Clinton’s race initiative.

Racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination in the military

In 1995, I was invited to provide technical and analytical support to the Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) as they developed and administered a measure of racial and ethnic discrimination for their Equal Opportunity Survey. The survey was administrated to 75,000 military members worldwide in 1996. My contributions, based on my writings on prejudice and racism (Jones, 1972), included advice on measures, analytical frameworks for conceptualizing and assessing experiences of discrimination, attitudes about organizational climate, perceptions and judgments of what constitutes discrimination, when and how it occurs, and how one responds. Undersecretary of Defense Edwin Dorn noted that the survey was a landmark research effort, far exceeding the size and scope of previous surveys of racial/ethnic experiences in the military. Because they planned to administer the survey periodically and to track the results over time, my contribution would “. . . have a lasting effect (personal communication, October 22, 1996).” Unfortunately, to my knowledge, no report of the results was ever publicly released.

In 2015, I was again invited to provide technical and analytical support for an assessment of racial/ethnic harassment and discrimination to be included in the DOD’s Workplace and Equal Opportunity (WEO) surveys. I helped redesign the survey with a research team at the RAND Corporation. The redesigned survey was administered to a large worldwide sample of active military personnel in 2017. A final report is expected in late 2018.

A national conversation on race

In 1998, I was invited to serve as a consultant to the Advisory Board of President Clinton’s Initiative on Race (1998). In that capacity, I hosted a meeting of the Race Initiative Advisory Board at the APA Convention in Chicago in August 1997 and organized a presentation on psychological approaches to understanding race for the September 1997 Advisory Board Meeting (Dovidio, 1997; Jones, 1997a; Sue, 1997). I told the Advisory Board that, on the basis of my research, race can be a divisive concept and has been used to categorize people along a value-based continuum based on faulty analysis and self-interested motives. I reported that although a national conversation on race would be difficult, ignoring it was not an option.

Building world class scholarship on race

In 1972, Harvard President Derek Bok asked me to join a small group of faculty to design a new research institute, to be named after W. E. B. DuBois. We met over several months to sketch out its mission, structure, and principal objectives. Our report was accepted by President Bok, and the DuBois Institute for African American Research was founded in 1975. I served on the Advisory Board until I left the University in 1976. Discouraged by the lack of financial support and inconsistent leadership, many gave up on the idea. But in 1991, Henry Louis Gates breathed new life into the Institute with his far-reaching vision and ability to attract massive resources. The ultimate evolution of the vision we shared in 1974 has become an outstanding intellectual enterprise under the umbrella of the Hutchins Center for African and African American Research and provides the most comprehensive scholarship on the African American and African worlds to be found today.

Conclusion

I conclude by addressing three questions: (a) What kinds of challenges did I face in seeking to do, and in actually doing, this work? (b) What might I have done differently if I were to do it all again? (c) Did I find the work meaningful in my career and in my life, and if so, how? The biggest challenge I faced was the historical legacy of racial indifference, ignorance, and discrimination. I have always believed that if something was fundamentally right, there was always a way to achieve it. The historical legacy was wrong, and correcting it was right. Cultural centrism was perhaps the biggest barrier. I cannot say that I would have done anything differently. I believe the work I have done has had significant and lasting impact, and I accept that for what it is. The work I have done defines my career and emanates from the life I have led. As I noted at the outset, I was inspired by Kenneth Clark and aspired to make a difference in psychology and in society. I believe I have accomplished that goal, to some degree, and thus I am gratified for the many opportunities I have had and the talented, dedicated, and courageous people I have been so fortunate to work with.

Footnotes

Action Editor

Brad J. Bushman served as action editor and June Gruber served as interim editor-in-chief for this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared that there were no conflicts of interest with respect to the authorship or the publication of this article.

References

Adams

Estrada-Villalta

Ordóñez

L. H. G.

(2017). The modernity/coloniality of being: Hegemonic psychology as intercultural relations. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 62, 13–22.

Adler

N. E.

David

H. P.

Major

B. N.

Roth

S. H.

Russo

N. F.

Wyatt

G. E.

(1990). Psychological responses after abortion. Science, 248, 41–44. doi:10.1126/science.2181664

Backer

T. E.

Batchelor

W. F.

Jones

J. M.

Mays

V. M.

(Eds.). (1988). Psychology and AIDS [Special issue]. American Psychologist, 43(11).

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Clark

K. B.

Clark

M. P.

(1950). Emotional factors in racial identification and preference in Negro children. Journal of Negro Education, 19, 341–350.

Dovidio

J. F.

(1997, October 1). Understanding contemporary racism: Causes, consequences, challenges invited presentation. Meeting of the President’s Advisory Board on Race. Washington, DC.

Jones

J. M.

(1972). Prejudice and racism. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Jones

J. M.

(1992). Understanding the mental health consequences of race: Contributions of basic social psychological processes. In Ruble

Costanzo

Oliveri

(Eds.), The social psychology of mental health: Basic mechanisms and applications (pp. 199–240). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Jones

J. M.

(1997a, October 1). The embedded nature of ‘race’ requires a focused effort to remove the obstacles to a United America. Meeting of the President’s Advisory Board on Race. Washington, DC.

10.

Jones

J. M.

(1997b). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

11.

Jones

J. M.

(2010). I’m White and you’re not: The value of unraveling ethnocentric science. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 700–707.

12.

Jones

J. M.

Austin-Dailey

(2009). The minority fellowship program: A 30-year legacy of training psychologists of color. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 15, 388–399.

13.

Jones

J. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2018). Change, challenge, and prospects for a diversity paradigm in social psychology. Social Issues and Policy Review, 12(1), 7–56.

14.

Jones

J. M.

Dovidio

J. F.

Vietze

D. L.

(2014). The psychology of diversity: Beyond prejudice and racism. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.

15.

Jones

J. M.

Levine

I. S.

Rosenberg

A. A.

(Eds.). (1991). Homelessness [Special issue]. American Psychologist, 46(11).

16.

Kardiner

Ovesy

(1951). The mark of oppression. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

17.

Kiesler

C. A.

(1991). Homelessness and public policy priorities. American Psychologist, 46, 1245–1252.

18.

Kondratas

(1991). Ending homelessness: Policy challenges. American Psychologist, 46, 1226–1231.

19.

O’Keefe

J. E.

Jones

J. M.

(1990). Easing restrictions on minor’s abortion rights. Issues in Science and Technology, 7(1), 74–80.

20.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896).

21.

President’s Initiative on Race. (1998). One America in the 21st century: Forging a new future. Retrieved from https://clintonwhitehouse2.archives.gov/Initiatives/OneAmerica/PIR.pdf

22.

Settles

I. H.

Buchanan

N. T.

Dotson

(2018). Scrutinized but not recognized: (In)visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color. Journal of Vocational Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003

23.

Shweder

R. A.

Sullivan

M. A.

(1993). Cultural psychology: Who needs it? Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 497–523.

24.

Sue

D. W.

(1997, October 1). Creating conditions for a constructive dialogue on ‘race’: Toward equal access and opportunities. Invited presentation. Meeting of the President’s Advisory Board on Race. Washington, DC.

25.

Twenge

J. M.

Crocker

(2002). Race and self-esteem: Meta-analyses comparing Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and American Indians and comment on Gray-Little and Hafdahl (2000). Psychological Bulletin, 128, 371–408.

26.

Zárate

M. A.

Hall

G. N.

Plaut

V. C.

(2017). Researchers of color, fame, and impact. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12, 1176–1178.