Scrutinized but not recognized: (In)visibility and hypervisibility experiences of faculty of color

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2018.06.003Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Faculty of Color (FOC) experience hypervisibility as diversity tokens.

  • FOC feel invisible because of social/professional and epistemic exclusion.

  • Lacking control over one's (in)visibility results in distress.

  • FOC work harder to counter exclusion and create positive visibility.

  • FOC use strategic invisibility to remove themselves from negative environments.

Abstract

Because of their minority group status and underrepresentation, faculty of color (FOC) are tokens and as such, are highly visible within the academy. Paradoxically, token status may result in their being made to feel simultaneously invisible (e.g., accomplishments are unimportant, lack of belonging) and hypervisible (e.g., heightened scrutiny). Drawing from 118 interviews, we identified six themes related to how Black, Hispanic/Latinx, Asian, and American Indian faculty members at a single, predominantly White, research-intensive university, describe issues of (in)visibility at work. FOC experienced hypervisibility when they were treated as Tokens and used to represent diversity within the institution, and they felt invisible when they experienced Social and Professional Exclusion and Epistemic Exclusion (i.e., lack of recognition for their scholarship and achievements) from colleagues. FOC responded to tokenism and exclusion using three (in)visibility strategies: Strategic Invisibility (i.e., disengaging with colleagues while remaining engaged with their scholarly activities) to remove themselves from negative environments; Working Harder to prove themselves, counter exclusion, and create positive visibility; and Disengagement (i.e., removed effort from work). Our analysis suggests that a lack of control over one's (in)visibility is problematic for FOC. In response, FOC may attempt to increase or decrease their own visibility to counter such experiences, often with some positive effects.

Introduction

Although many universities have been engaging in efforts to increase the number of faculty of color on their campuses, the data suggest that they remain largely underrepresented in the academy. For example, 2013 data from the National Center for Education Statistics (U.S. Department of Education, 2013) indicate that White, non-Hispanic faculty hold 75% of all full-time faculty positions, whereas they represented 64% of the U.S. population at that time (U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). Asians are also overrepresented (10%) compared to their representation in the population (5%). In contrast, Blacks are underrepresented in the academy (4%) compared to their rates in the population (13%), as are Hispanics (4% of faculty vs. 16% of the population), and American Indians (0.4% of faculty vs. 0.9% of the population). Being a numerical minority in a workplace is associated with a number of stressful experiences and mistreatment (Kanter, 1977) and being a low status group member is an important factor in predicting when minority stress will occur (Seyranian, Atuel, & Crano, 2008). Given the low representation of faculty of color at predominantly White institutions, and the low status of faculty of color within the academy, our study sought to examine whether faculty of color experience (in)visibility within the workplace, and if so, what forms it might take. We use “(in)visibility” to refer to the range of experiences that include invisibility, visibility, and hypervisibility. We addressed this research question using a large qualitative study of 118 faculty of color at a research-intensive, predominantly White university.

Visibility refers to the extent to which an individual is fully regarded and recognized by others (Brighenti, 2007; Simpson & Lewis, 2005). Visibility can be advantageous and empowering when it facilitates having voice, or the ability to speak and be heard, and when one can control how they are perceived and represented (Lollar, 2015). Often, marginalized groups seek to increase their visibility as a means of gaining recognition and power (Simpson & Lewis, 2005). However, visibility can be constraining and disempowering when individuals or groups are made hypervisible (Brighenti, 2007; Simpson & Lewis, 2005). Ryland (2013) described hypervisibility as “scrutiny based on perceived difference, which is usually (mis)interpreted as deviance” (p. 2222) and is the result of an individual being recognized for their ‘otherness’ or deviance from the norm. Hypervisibility is associated with heightened scrutiny and surveillance where failures are magnified and individuals lack control over how they are perceived by others (Brighenti, 2007; Kanter, 1977; Lewis & Simpson, 2010).

Visibility and invisibility are also inherently connected to power (Lewis & Simpson, 2012) and the nature and function of (in)visibility depends on whether one is in a powerful dominant group or a marginalized one. Invisibility often disadvantages marginalized group members by denying them recognition, legitimacy, authority, and voice (Lewis & Simpson, 2010; Simpson & Lewis, 2005). However, because norms are based on powerful dominant groups, invisibility works in favor of dominant group members because that which is “normal is unmarked, unnoticed…” (Brighenti, 2007, p. 326). For dominant group members, invisibility reinforces these norms, leaves their privilege unquestioned and unchallenged, and allows them to maintain their power and authority (Simpson & Lewis, 2005). Further, dominant groups can render marginalized groups invisible and/or hypervisible to maintain their privilege; this process of delegitimizing marginalized groups is especially likely to occur as marginalized groups seek to increase their visibility and recognition (Lewis & Simpson, 2010).

Visibility, hypervisibility, and invisibility are not mutually exclusive. Rather, individuals could be visible in one context and invisible in another, or they might be simultaneously hypervisible as outsiders and invisible with regard to having authority (Lollar, 2015; Stead, 2013). Further, (in)visibility is engaged in relationship with others and can be strategic, with individuals deciding when to blend in (i.e., be invisible) and when to stand out (i.e., be visible; Stead, 2013). Individuals may also seek to manage their visibility by controlling which aspects should be observed and by whom (Brighenti, 2007). Clair, Beatty, and MacLean (2005) note that “people experience a feeling of authenticity when they can be fully ‘themselves’ in public” (p. 79). As a result, when marginalized group members manage their visibility by keeping some aspects of themselves hidden, it is often with tradeoffs to their sense of authenticity and belongingness within the organization or social group.

In organizations, visibility is also connected to systems of recognition and reward, with favorable visibility increasing the likelihood that an employee's successes will be recognized and rewarded (Turner, González, & Wood, 2008). Faculty of color, as an underrepresented group that lacks power within the academy, may be hypervisible due to their race and other markers that distinguish them from dominant group members (e.g., gender for women faculty of color). At the same time, their marginalized group status may render them invisible in terms of their personal identities, personhood, or work performance. As a result, achievements warranting recognition may be largely unnoticed, whereas potential mistakes and missteps, whether real or merely perceived by dominant group members, may be amplified and receive heightened scrutiny.

Because faculty of color are a numerical minority within academic settings, Kanter's (1977) theory of proportional representation can be used to frame their experiences. In her study of women in a corporate organization, she noted that gender composition affected how women were treated. In particular, she noted that when women were minorities within their workgroup (1%–35% of the group was women), and especially when they were tokens (1%–15% were women), they experienced a number of stressors not found in women who worked in groups with a greater proportion of women. Importantly, Kanter theorized that the increased stress experienced when women were numerical minorities was due to their heightened visibility; that is, because of their small numbers, these individuals were easily noticed and marked as different from the majority (i.e., hypervisible). She found that numerical minority women experienced performance pressures in which they felt under scrutiny and were deemed to be representatives of their group; as a consequence, these women felt the need to work harder to prove their worth and that of their group. This phenomenon is similar to that of stereotype threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995), or the concern that one will confirm a negative stereotype about one's group, which is associated with performance pressures and stress. Kanter also noted that numerical minority women experienced boundary heightening because men overestimated the similarities between themselves and other men and exaggerated differences between themselves and women. This resulted in women's exclusion, social isolation, and being treated as outsiders. Finally, numerical minority women experienced role entrapment in which they were viewed in terms of stereotypes about women and their opportunities were limited to those fitting women's gender roles.

Kanter's (1977) theory generated a tremendous amount of research and further refinement of her theory. For example, Seyranian et al. (2008) noted the importance of not only group size, but also group status, in the experience of minority or token stress. In particular, they theorized that regardless of their numerical size, low status groups can be considered minorities because they are likely to encounter obstacles and challenges as a result of their low status. Yoder (2002) noted that tokenism effects are, at least for women, partially due to their low status, particularly when they work in non-traditional occupational contexts. Others have found that tokenism effects apply only to disadvantaged, low status minority groups. That is, when high status minority group members are tokens in an occupational context (e.g., men in nursing), they experience heightened visibility and sometimes stereotyping, but not token stress effects, such as marginalization, social exclusion, or performance pressures (Heikes, 1991; Williams, 1992, Williams, 2013; Yoder & Schleicher, 1996).

Although much of the research on tokenism and its related negative outcomes has examined gender tokens (e.g., Archbold & Schulz, 2008; Wallace & Kay, 2012), there have been some studies examining racial tokens. Consistent with findings on women, research supports that people of color experience similar stressors (i.e., discrimination, stereotyped treatment and expectations, exclusion, and fewer opportunities) related to their token status (Jackson & Stewart, 2003; Kelly, 2007; Stroshine & Brandl, 2011; Turner et al., 2008). Moreover, race-related token stress is associated with a variety of deleterious outcomes, including performance pressures, feelings of rejection and isolation, loss of identity, and depressive symptoms (Jackson & Stewart, 2003; Jackson, Thoits, & Taylor, 1995; Kelly, 2007).

Among faculty of color, research has found that they were expected to engage in stereotyped activities (e.g., related to race and diversity), had to work harder to be perceived as legitimate scholars, and experienced racism and prejudice from their colleagues (Joseph & Hirshfield, 2011). Further, Eagan Jr and Garvey (2015) found that the stress faculty of color experienced from discrimination was associated with lower productivity, even after controlling for perceptions of the workplace climate and pressure to work harder. Together, the existing literature suggests that faculty of color may face visibility-related stressors due to their small numbers and low status within academia.

The minority stress model suggests that, in addition to general stressors experienced by all people, stigmatized minority groups experience additional stressors due to their group membership (Meyer, 2007). These identity-based stressors include rejection, prejudice, and discrimination. Such stressors may affect individuals' outcomes in a manner similar to general stressors. That is, they may challenge goal-related efforts and deplete coping resources, resulting in a wide range of negative physical and psychological health consequences (Juster, McEwen, & Lupien, 2010; Lazarus & Folkman, 1984). Identity-based stressors may cause additional distress because they challenge individuals' sense of self and require that they make decisions regarding the concealment or expression of identities (Meyer, 2007). This suggests that for members of marginalized and underrepresented groups within a work setting, (in)visibility may be an intermittent and/or chronic stressor related to their identity as a marginalized minority group member (Harrell, 2000; Meyer, 2003).

Although there is a small, but growing, body of research on visibility and invisibility experiences in the workplace, the empirical literature addressing (in)visibility among faculty of color is scarce. To address this dearth of empirical research, we examined the (in)visibility experiences and responses reported by 118 Asian, Black, Hispanic/Latinx, and American Indian faculty at a single research-intensive, predominantly White university. By using (in)visibility as the framework for this research, we are able to consider both how individuals in positions of power work to maintain systems of inequality and how individuals in marginalized positions work to counter them. Conceptualizing faculty of color as having agency in their responses to tokenism shifts the existing literature which has posited their responses as primarily reactive. An additional contribution of this study is the examination of faculty experiences within this particular research-intensive university context, where faculty face pressures related to the volume and quality of publication and grant productivity in addition to high teaching and service demands. Further, our study's focus on a large number of faculty of color who are diverse along a number of dimensions allowed us to examine differences by race, gender, and nativity. Finally, our study may also speak to reasons for the low number of faculty of color among the professoriate, as organizational research suggests that a history of tokenism, stigma, and negative (in)visibility contribute to difficulties recruiting and retaining employees from underrepresented social groups. For example, among university faculty, underrepresentation and the negative experiences of token faculty contribute to eligible doctoral candidates opting out of academic careers (Brunsma, Embrick, & Shin, 2017; Jayakumar, Howard, Allen, & Han, 2009) and contribute to current faculty of color leaving. Thus, understanding (in)visibility experiences of faculty of color and how they respond to such experiences is crucial to their recruitment, promotion, and retention. Ultimately, diversifying the nation's faculty will require an understanding of the unique stressors they face, including (in)visibility stressors.

Section snippets

Participants

Participants were 118 tenure-track faculty of color at a single research-intensive, predominantly White university. At the time of the data collection, 19% of undergraduates at the university were racial minorities, 17% of graduate students were racial minorities, and 24% of the faculty were racial minorities. Similar to national statistics on faculty representation in higher education (U.S. Department of Education, 2013), the faculty at the institution we studied were 14% Asian, 5% Black, 4%

Results

In the results, we discuss six themes across three broad areas — Tokenism, Exclusion, and (In)visibility Responses to Tokenism and Exclusion — in which faculty of color talked about their experiences in ways that relate to issues of (in)visibility. Tokenism captured ways in which faculty of color were used by others as visible minorities, often to promote diversity. Exclusion included discussions of ways in which others treated faculty of color as if they were invisible by excluding them

Discussion

The results of our study suggest that issues of visibility and invisibility are central to understanding the experiences of faculty of color. We note that our results are not exhaustive of the types of experiences faced by faculty of color because of their low numbers and low status within academia. We see evidence of many other forms of mistreatment (e.g., discrimination, incivility) and coping responses (e.g., confrontation) within our data. The six themes we presented here, however, were

Conclusions

Our results suggest that hypervisibility (i.e., tokenism) and invisibility (i.e., exclusion) are negatively experienced by faculty of color. Consistent with the minority stress model (Meyer, 2003), these forms of (in)visibility are stressors experienced because of faculty members' social identities as women and men of color, and as stressors, they have psychological and work consequences. To counter these experiences, some faculty of color responded strategically to increase their positive

References (59)

  • N. Daukas

    Epistemic trust and social location

    Episteme

    (2006)
  • I. Diaz et al.

    It's not us, it's you: Why isn't research on minority workers appearing in our “top-tier” journals?

    Industrial and Organizational Psychology

    (2013)
  • K. Dotson

    A cautionary tale: On limiting epistemic oppression

    Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies

    (2012)
  • K. Dotson

    Conceptualizing epistemic oppression

    Social Epistemology

    (2014)
  • M.K. Eagan et al.

    Stressing out: Connecting race, gender, and stress with faculty productivity

    The Journal of Higher Education

    (2015)
  • M.J. Finkelstein et al.

    Taking the measure of faculty diversity

    (2016)
  • N. Ghavami et al.

    An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses

    Psychology of Women Quarterly

    (2013)
  • B.G. Glaser et al.

    The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research

    (2017)
  • R. Granfield

    Making it by faking it: Working-class students in an elite academic environment

    Journal of Contemporary Ethnography

    (1991)
  • A.G. Greenwald et al.

    With malice toward none and charity for some: Ingroup favoritism enables discrimination

    American Psychologist

    (2014)
  • T. Gruber

    Academic sell-out: How an obsession with metrics and rankings is damaging academia

    Journal of Marketing for Higher Education

    (2014)
  • S.P. Harrell

    A multidimensional conceptualization of racism-related stress: Implications for the well-being of people of color

    American Journal of Orthopsychiatry

    (2000)
  • E.J. Heikes

    When men are the minority: The case of men in nursing

    The Sociological Quarterly

    (1991)
  • P.B. Jackson et al.

    A research agenda for the Black middle class: Work stress, survival strategies, and mental health

    Journal of Health and Social Behavior

    (2003)
  • P.B. Jackson et al.

    Composition of the workplace and psychological well-being: The effects of tokenism on America's Black elite

    Social Forces

    (1995)
  • U.M. Jayakumar et al.

    Racial privilege in the professoriate: An exploration of campus climate, retention, and satisfaction

    The Journal of Higher Education

    (2009)
  • T.D. Joseph et al.

    ‘Why don't you get somebody new to do it?’ Race and cultural taxation in the academy

    Ethnic and Racial Studies

    (2011)
  • R.M. Kanter

    Men and women of the corporation

    (1977)
  • H. Kelly

    Racial tokenism in the school workplace: An exploratory study of Black teachers in overwhelmingly White schools

    Educational Studies

    (2007)
  • Cited by (182)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Parts of this research were conducted by Isis H. Settles while in the Department of Psychology, Michigan State University. Portions of this manuscript were completed while the NiCole T. Buchanan was on sabbatical leave as a Senior Visiting Scholar with the University of Michigan's Institute for Research on Women and Gender and the Department of Psychology.

    This research received funding the ADAPP-ADVANCE office at Michigan State University and from the Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives at Michigan State University. We thank Paulette Granberry Russell for her support of this research project.

    View full text