Evidence Base Camp: Day 3 Sifting Sessions Julia Morris – Research Unit Julia Wire – Research Unit Patricia Hughes – National Police Library

Research question What interventions have been shown to be effective in tackling barriers to career progression experienced by under- represented groups?

Today… 1.Present outcomes of initial searches What happened while you were away… 2.Collaboratively develop sift criteria 3.Collaborative sifting Get a view of what our search has returned Refine sift criteria if required 4.Individual sifting

From there… 18/10/2013 – ProQuest 1441 (ti(BME OR Black OR minorit* OR ethnic* OR inequalit* OR equalit* OR exclusion OR exclude* OR (represented AND (over OR under OR inadequat* OR insufficient*)) OR "disadvantaged group*" OR "protected characteristic group*" OR diversity OR marginali?e* OR "social exclusion" OR LGBT OR lesbian* OR gay* OR bisexual* OR transgender OR "sexual orientation" OR disempower* OR transvestite* OR tokenism OR women OR gender OR female* OR disability OR impairment OR race OR GRT OR "gypsy romany traveller*" OR gyps* OR traveller* OR age OR depriv* OR religion* OR faith* OR national* OR belief* OR maternity OR pregnancy OR "flexible working" OR "civil partnership" OR dominan* OR class OR Asian* OR civilian* OR "support staff") OR ab(BME OR Black OR minorit* OR ethnic* OR inequalit* OR equalit* OR exclusion OR exclude* OR (represented AND (over OR under OR inadequat* OR insufficient*)) OR "disadvantaged group*" OR "protected characteristic group*" OR diversity OR marginali?e* OR "social exclusion" OR LGBT OR lesbian* OR gay* OR bisexual* OR transgender OR "sexual orientation" OR disempower* OR transvestite* OR tokenism OR women OR gender OR female* OR disability OR impairment OR race OR GRT OR "gypsy romany traveller*" OR gyps* OR traveller* OR age OR depriv* OR religion* OR faith* OR national* OR belief* OR maternity OR pregnancy OR "flexible working" OR "civil partnership" OR dominan* OR class OR Asian* OR civilian* OR "support staff")) AND (ti((Career* OR employment OR vocation* OR job* OR remuneration OR salary) AND (Progress* OR advanc* OR promot* OR ((personal OR professional OR lateral) AND development) OR opportunit* OR senior* OR leader* OR success* OR selection OR speciali* OR rank OR mobility OR retention OR upwards OR ladder OR "continuous improvement")) OR ab((Career* OR employment OR vocation* OR job* OR remuneration OR salary) AND (Progress* OR advanc* OR promot* OR ((personal OR professional OR lateral) AND development) OR opportunit* OR senior* OR leader* OR success* OR selection OR speciali* OR rank OR mobility OR retention OR upwards OR ladder OR "continuous improvement"))) AND (ti((Obstacle* OR barrier* OR hurdle* OR wall* OR block* OR "glass ceiling" OR obstruction* OR hindrance*)) OR ab((Obstacle* OR barrier* OR hurdle* OR wall* OR block* OR "glass ceiling" OR obstruction* OR hindrance*))) AND (ti((tactic* OR intervention* OR strateg* OR initiative* OR procedure* OR approach*)) OR ab((tactic* OR intervention* OR strateg* OR initiative* OR procedure* OR approach*))) AND (ti(("systematic review*" OR "literature review*" OR trial* OR RCT OR experiment* OR evaluat* OR "best practice*" OR "good practice*" OR effective* OR assess* OR "What Works" OR impact OR success* OR "meta analysis")) OR ab(("systematic review*" OR "literature review*" OR trial* OR RCT OR experiment* OR evaluat* OR "best practice*" OR "good practice*" OR effective* OR assess* OR "What Works" OR impact OR success* OR "meta analysis")))

We refined the career progression tier as we were finding a lot of the results weren't focused on career progression in the workplace, there was lots on equality in education for example. Introduced the PROXIMITY operator ‘NEAR’ (i.e. within a specified number of words) in this tier – to narrow as opposed to using AND. We considered leaving out the barriers tier to avoid missing hits by being too narrow with our range of barrier synonyms - but it made the search too broad (c.5000+). So finally we added the barriers tier back in and took out some of the more specific words that weren't having any impact on the search e.g. pregnancy, maternity, lesbian, traveller, checking the impact (on numbers and relevancy of returns) word-by-word. AGE in particular returned many false hits where the context was not to do with under-represented groups at all. Thus tier 1 was sharpened to just be about under-represented groups in particular (rather than broader issues of 'equality‘ etc.). Also narrowed/focused by use of NEAR too. Although similar number of total returns (and still some false hits for you to sift out as well as decisions on quality), the returns are more relevant. Have NOT run on other platforms due to the numbers still returned, and constraints of the Camp.

… to here! 04/11/2013 – ProQuest 1205 (TI(BME OR black OR minorit* OR ethnic* OR (represented NEAR/2 (over* OR under* OR inadequat* OR insufficient*)) OR diversity OR women OR gender OR female* OR disab* OR impairment* OR race OR religio*) OR AB(BME OR black OR minorit* OR ethnic* OR (represented NEAR/2 (over* OR under* OR inadequat* OR insufficient*)) OR diversity OR women OR gender OR female* OR disab* OR impairment* OR race OR religio*)) AND (ti(((career* OR employ* OR vocation* OR job* OR occupation* OR staff OR profession*) NEAR/3 (development OR progress* OR advanc* OR opportunit* OR success* OR ladder OR promot* OR select* OR mobility OR retention OR retain*))) OR ab(((career* OR employ* OR vocation* OR job* OR occupation* OR staff OR profession*) NEAR/3 (development OR progress* OR advanc* OR opportunit* OR success* OR ladder OR promot* OR select* OR mobility OR retention OR retain*)))) AND (ti((Obstacle* OR barrier* OR hurdle* OR block* OR "glass ceiling" OR obstruction* OR hindrance* OR constrain* OR discriminat* OR exclusion OR exclude* OR disadvantage* OR equality OR inequality)) OR ab((Obstacle* OR barrier* OR hurdle* OR block* OR "glass ceiling" OR obstruction* OR hindrance* OR constrain* OR discriminat* OR exclusion OR exclude* OR disadvantage* OR equality OR inequality))) AND (ti((tactic* OR intervention* OR strateg* OR initiative* OR procedure* OR approach*)) OR ab((tactic* OR intervention* OR strateg* OR initiative* OR procedure* OR approach*))) AND (ti(("systematic review*" OR "literature review*" OR trial* OR RCT OR experiment* OR evaluat* OR "best practice*" OR "good practice*" OR effective* OR assess* OR "What Works" OR impact OR success* OR "meta analysis")) OR ab(("systematic review*" OR "literature review*" OR trial* OR RCT OR experiment* OR evaluat* OR "best practice*" OR "good practice*" OR effective* OR assess* OR "What Works" OR impact OR success* OR "meta analysis")))

Final search terms Search terms 1.(BME OR black OR minorit* OR ethnic* OR (represented NEAR/2 (over* OR under* OR inadequat* OR insufficient*)) OR diversity OR women OR gender OR female* OR disab* OR impairment* OR race OR religio*) AND 2.((career* OR employ* OR vocation* OR job* OR occupation* OR staff OR profession*) NEAR/3 (development OR progress* OR advanc* OR opportunit* OR success* OR ladder OR promot* OR select* OR mobility OR retention OR retain*)) AND 3.(Obstacle* OR barrier* OR hurdle* OR block* OR "glass ceiling" OR obstruction* OR hindrance* OR constrain* OR discriminat* OR exclusion OR exclude* OR disadvantage* OR equality OR inequality) AND 4.(tactic* OR intervention* OR strateg* OR initiative* OR procedure* OR approach*) AND 5.("systematic review*" OR "literature review*" OR trial* OR RCT OR experiment* OR evaluat* OR "best practice*" OR "good practice*" OR effective* OR assess* OR "What Works" OR impact OR success* OR "meta analysis")

Group work Building our inclusion criteria

Sift criteria - recap Sift criteria are a series of questions that help you decide if the abstract you are reading is useful to the research question and should be ‘called’ (the full paper requested). Questions in your sift criteria will often map across to the key elements or tiers of your search. The same set of questions are applied to all abstracts to attempt to remove bias/ overt ‘judgement calls’. Typically, a lot of papers identified by the search are excluded at this stage of the process.

Research question What interventions have been shown to be effective in tackling barriers to career progression experienced by under-represented groups?

Factors in our question 1. Underrepresented groups 2. Career progression 3. Tackling barriers 4. Interventions 5. Effectiveness / What works So our sift criteria needs to address each of these points… …and we may need to be careful about how we phrase our questions… …and remember – we can refine our criteria as long as changes are consistently applied across the sift

Inclusion Criteria QuestionAnswerAction Q1. Is the paper focussed on career progression of under- represented groups? NoExclude YesGo to Q2 UnclearExclude Q2. Does it include interventions to tackle barriers to career progression? NoExclude YesGo to Q3 UnclearExclude Q3. Does the paper include empirical assessment of the intervention? NoExclude YesInclude UnclearCan’t exclude Flag: Other exclusions:

1 st abstract Franklin Oikelome et al. The equality effects of the 'hyper-formalization' of selection, 24 BRITISH JOURNAL OF MANAGEMENT. 333, (2013) Keywords: Economics/Empirical research/Employees/Employment opportunities/Ethnic minorities/Personnel management/Recruitment Abstract: This paper explores how formalization of employee selection procedures for the purpose of ensuring equality of opportunity can become so extensive that the intended outcome of fairness is undermined. Drawing on empirical evidence from a large media organization, the analysis reveals the detrimental impact of formalization in relation to the recruitment of ethnic minority staff. While the existing literature describes how, during recruitment of employees, the circumvention of formal equality procedures can occur through managerial neglect and manipulation, the analysis in this paper shows that, paradoxically, circumvention can also occur through compliance with procedures. This new category takes three forms (robotic, defensive and malicious) and appears under conditions of excessive formalization - the term hyper- formalization is coined to describe this. The paper develops new concepts that add to understanding of the limitations of equality and diversity procedures, and brings fresh challenges to some of the liberal assumptions about the efficacy and desirability of formalization for achieving fairness.

2 nd abstract Evelyn G. Chiloane-Tsoka,. Cultural Observations facing Women Managers: A South African Perspective, 10 GENDER & BEHAVIOUR. 4949, (2012). Keywords: Awards & honors/Employees/Equality/Gender/Human relations/Leadership/Perceptions/Power/Psychology/Society/South Africa/Studies/Women Abstract: The South African National Policy Framework for Women's Empowerment, Gender Equality and women emancipation by government, present the opportunity for women to make useful of business and political advantages to their benefit. A knowledge gap was identified during literature study regarding factors that affect women in leadership positions. Also barriers inhibiting women's advancement beyond glass ceiling. The policy document on women advancement is a direct attempt by government to influence and direct the course of events in the labour market today, by introducing measures that can promote the success of professional women towards their career path. The methodology used was of a quantitative approach. The findings showed that there are many cultural barriers and recommended some organisational change approach that could be relevant in addressing the current problems faced by management in providing solutions in addressing their diverse workforce, especially women in leadership positions.

3 rd abstract Terrie C. Reeves et al. Muslim women's workplace experiences: implications for strategic diversity initiatives, 32 EQUALITY, DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION. 49, (2013). Keywords: Cultural diversity/Discrimination/Employment opportunities/Human resources/Islam/Muslims/Religion/Sociology/Spirituality/Stigma/Training/Women/Work place/Workers Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to examine Muslim women's decisions to wear headscarves, known as hijab, in the workplace. The decision to wear hijab may result in a stigmatized identity, so the paper also aims to examine perceived or experienced discrimination and impact on employment outcomes. Design/methodology/approach : Using qualitative methodology to capture nuances, the study was based on demographic responses and semi- structured interview questions by 79 Muslim women physicians and other healthcare professionals. Findings : The paper finds that many factors influenced their decisions, but Muslim women had a wide variety of views in terms of the hijab and adherence to Islamic precepts. Those who wear hijab reported negative experiences of intolerance and discrimination. The decision to wear hijab was subsequently associated with perceived discrimination that would limit one's employment opportunities. Practical implications : Religion is one diversity categorization that can be invisible yet still has a significant impact on workers and their engagement in the workplace. Organizations engaged in strategic diversity initiatives may need to better understand specific nuances of diversity concerning religious expression and the potential psychological toll hiding those expressions may have on workers. The paper's findings have implications for personnel selection, training, and managing interpersonal relationships in the workplace. Originality/value : Religious expression is an under-studied workplace diversity facet, especially when disclosing religion is a choice that may result in being stigmatized. There has been research on workplace treatment of Muslims and the influences of spirituality, but no research that examined the decision to wear hijab and the associated workplace consequences

4 th abstract Christine L. Williams et al. Gendered Organizations in the New Economy, 26 GENDER & SOCIETY. 549, (2012). Keywords: Careers/*Management/*Petroleum/*Petroleum Industry/*Security/*Sex/*Sexual Inequality/*Teamwork/*Workplaces/2983: feminist/gender studies/sociology of gender & gender relations/article/Gender/gendered organizations oil and gas industry women scientists new economy/Studies/Women Abstract: Gender scholars draw on the "theory of gendered organizations" to explain persistent gender inequality in the workplace. This theory argues that gender inequality is built into work organizations in which jobs are characterized by long-term security, standardized career ladders and job descriptions, and management controlled evaluations. Over the past few decades, this basic organizational logic has been transformed. In the so-called new economy, work is increasingly characterized by job insecurity, teamwork, career maps, and networking. Using a case study of geoscientists in the oil and gas industry, we apply a gender lens to this evolving organization of work. This article extends Acker's theory of gendered organizations by identifying the mechanisms that reproduce gender inequality in the twenty-first- century workplace, and by suggesting appropriate policy approaches to remedy these disparities.

5 th abstract Katrinell M. Davis,. An End to Job Mobility on the Sales Floor: The Impact of Department Store Cost Cutting on African-American Women, , 19 FEMINIST ECONOMICS. 54, (2013). Keywords: Black Americans/*Employment/*Females/*Job Change/*Organizational Structure/*Sociodemographic Factors/*Stores/*Working Women/*Workplaces/2959: feminist/gender studies/feminist studies/article/Women/Workers behavior/Sociology/Teenagers Abstract: Much of the literature regarding the employability of African-American women focuses on how demographic factors like single parenthood, limited social capital, and low levels of education diminish their employment options. This study engages this literature by exploring the role that institutional factors, including state action and cost-cutting strategies in the workplace, play in shaping the structure of job opportunities available to high school-educated African-American women. Focusing on department store workers in the San Francisco Bay area, this case study highlights how shifts, including the increasing contingency of employment between 1970 and 2000, have constrained African-American women's experience and progress in this low-skilled workplace.

Issues 1.Barriers to career progression – much is already known about what the barriers are so the focus should specifically be on interventions to tackle those barriers. 2.Contextual issues e.g. location – some papers focus on specific locations or populations e.g. women in Afghanistan – flag 3.Recruitment – it was agreed that recruitment is included in our understanding of career progression 4.Workplace interventions – organisations should have an involvement in delivering the intervention so interventions outside of the workplace should be excluded e.g. those that take place in schools

Inclusion Criteria QuestionAnswerAction Q1. Is the paper focussed on career progression of under- represented groups? NoExclude YesGo to Q2 UnclearExclude Q2. Does it include workplace interventions to tackle barriers to career progression? NoExclude YesGo to Q3 UnclearExclude Q3. Does the paper include empirical assessment of the intervention? NoExclude YesInclude UnclearCan’t exclude Flag: contextual issues Other exclusions:

Individual sifting (handouts)

Individual sifting (the real thing!) We are sifting hard copies of the abstracts Highlighters are provided – highlight the reference number: – Green for ‘include’ – Orange for ‘unsure’ – Leave ‘excluded’ abstracts blank Fill in your sift template to keep track of what you have sifted Please return all of the abstracts, sift templates and highlighters at the end of the day!

Recording our sifting… Each abstract is numbered Pages are numbered Some abstracts overlap from one page to another – if you don’t have the whole of an abstract in your pile, make a note of this on your sift template… Any questions, just ask!