The DOI matches its Crossref record; 83 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Multi-layered Exploration of the Diversity Management Field: Diversity Discourses, Practices and Practitioners in the UK
Abstract
This paper presents a multi-layered exploration of the diversity management field in the UK. In doing so, it aims to address two problematic tendencies in the current diversity research: the focus on single-level explorations, and the polarization between critical and mainstream approaches. Using Bourdieu's concept of field, I develop a theoretical framework that conceptualizes the field of diversity management in three constituents: diversity discourse, diversity practice and diversity practitioners. The framework is used to analyse empirical evidence generated through semi-structured interviews with 19 diversity managers of large private-sector companies. This study reveals the presence of a gap between the diversity discourse and practice, and the absence of any standard set of qualifications and skills requirement for practitioners. The findings demonstrate the twofold role of discourse in drawing the boundaries of the diversity management field. First, it is instrumental in constructing diversity management as distinct from equal opportunities. Second, the use discourse functions as a mechanism to control the entry of practitioners into this field, which otherwise has low entry barriers. The paper offers a contribution to management research in general and equality and diversity research in particular through its original use of Bourdieuan sociology in an empirical study.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Outline of a Theory of Practice
Bourdieu, P. (1977) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511812507 · Cited by 27,606
Basics of Qualitative Research
Ozanne, J. L., Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1992) · Journal of Marketing Research · doi:10.2307/3172751 · Cited by 17,850
(1990) · Cited by 11,110
Corsaro, W. A., & Bourdieu, P. (1992) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579985 · Cited by 9,964
An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.
Camic, C., Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1993) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2074573 · Cited by 9,324
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.38-0863 · Cited by 3,903
Milliken, F. J., & Martins, L. L. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.5465/amr.1996.9605060217 · Cited by 3,413
Practical Reason: On the Theory of Action
Bowen, J. R. (1999) · American Anthropologist · doi:10.1525/aa.1999.101.4.876 · Cited by 2,835
Edelman, M., Bourdieu, P., Thompson, J. B., Raymond, G., & Adamson, M. (1992) · Contemporary Sociology · doi:10.2307/2075589 · Cited by 2,803
(1999) · Cited by 2,467
Cited by
An Emic Approach to Intersectional Study of Diversity at Work: A Bourdieuan Framing
Tatli, A., & Özbilgin, M. F. (2012) · International Journal of Management Reviews · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00326.x · Cited by 352
Self-citationDiscourses of Diversity, Equality and Inclusion: Trenchant Formulations or Transient Fashions?
Oswick, C., & Noon, M. (2014) · British Journal of Management · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00830.x · Cited by 272
Metadata
- Authors
- Tatli, A.
- Venue
- British Journal of Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2010-12-17
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 238-253
- ISSN
- 1045-3172 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1906059461
- Cited by
- 257
- References
- 83
- FWCI
- 29.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Multi-layered Exploration of the Diversity Management Field: Diversity Discourses, Practices and Practitioners in the UK. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00730.x
- The paper
- Tatli, A. (2011). A Multi-layered Exploration of the Diversity Management Field: Diversity Discourses, Practices and Practitioners in the UK. British Journal of Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2010.00730.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.