The Diversity Report: A Look in the Mirror:
Examining the Ethnic/Racial Composition of Our Society

Derek R. Avery
Rutgers University

Sylvia J. Hysong
Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center

Since I (Derek) was a Student Affiliate, I’ve always wondered about the racial and ethnic composition of SIOP. I knew from my limited experiences at the annual conferences that the proportion of minorities was not particularly high but had never seen any information providing a profile of our membership. Several years later, when I became the SIOP historian, my curiosity resurfaced. I thought to myself —wouldn’t it be great to do an article for TIP chronicling the change in membership diversity over the years? Unfortunately, however, I never managed to get my hands on the data to pen such an article. Two years ago, my predecessor in the role of Committee for Ethnic Minority Affairs (CEMA) chair, Mickey Quiñones wrote a column with Winfred Arthur that took a first step towards quelling my wonder (Quiñones & Arthur, 2005). Using data from SIOP’s membership records and the I-O graduate program database, they provided some summary descriptive statistics. Recently, with the assistance of Lane Connor of Personnel Decisions Incorporated, I came across statistics maintained by APA on the membership diversity of Division 14. Around the same time, CEMA member Sylvia Hysong contacted me to inquire about racial and ethnic diversity within SIOP. Given her interest in the topic and my interest in making the column more collaborative, this seemed a perfect opportunity for us to work together. Consequently, the purpose of this collaborative column is to paint a preliminary portrait of our membership. In the process, we hope to identify several challenges for our future.

A Look at the Pipeline

For those who may have missed the article by Quiñones and Arthur (2005) or simply need a refresher, here’s a quick synopsis. Looking at Student Affiliates, our pipeline for the future, their data indicated that 86 out of 2,857 were minorities, or approximately 3%. This number is troubling for a few reasons. First, most I-O graduate programs are located in the United States, where more than 25% of the population consists of ethnic and racial minorities (U.S. Census, 2005). Second, the data Quiñones and Arthur present on SIOP members suggests there was greater minority representation among Members (4.0%) than among Student Affiliates. Third, the proportion of minorities amongst I-O faculty was more than twice as high as that among Student Affiliates (6.8% vs. 3.0%, respectively). Finally, the data on students enrolled in I-O, organizational, or social/organizational doctoral programs revealed that 304 of 1,349, or 22.5% were minorities. Collectively, this means minorities in our pipeline are underrepresented relative to (a) the population as a whole, (b) the current membership, (c) I-O faculty, and (d) the pool of prospective Student Affiliates. Perhaps the most disturbing of these observations is the last, which suggests we could do a considerably better job promoting SIOP to students already enrolled in our doctoral programs.

We should note that Quiñones and Arthur acknowledged significant shortcomings of the data they presented. Specifically, members and graduate programs are not required to indicate their ethnicity and many individual registrants (13% of members and 80% of students) leave this information blank. Thus, the data presented above may be somewhat misrepresentative if some form of systemic nonresponse bias is present. Moreover, their data did not provide specific racial and ethnic group breakdowns or examine membership at different levels (i.e., Associate, Member, and Fellow). Hence, no conclusions can be drawn about the representation of individual minority groups. Furthermore, it is not possible to examine what Cox (1994) refers to as structural integration, the distribution of diversity across various hierarchical levels within an organization.

This final limitation is particularly problematic. When organization membership involves hierarchical distinctions, minorities tend to find themselves better represented at lower rather than at higher levels. This creates what Lau and Murnighan (1998) refer to as demographic faultlines. Because demographic group membership and hierarchical status within the organization tend to be correlated, intergroup status inequality is reinforced and discrimination and prejudice may be exacerbated amongst the organization’s stakeholders (Brewer, 1995). In the case of SIOP, the principal hierarchical classification is whether one is an Associate Member, Member, or Fellow. Thus, a key question is whether minority representation differs significantly across these three levels of membership.

Minority Membership by Levels

The data provided by APA allow us to examine such a question. Consistent with the data presented by Quiñones and Arthur (2005), we must report that a considerable portion of APA members of Division 14 did not specify their race or ethnicity. In fact, 36.7% of Associates, 20.4% of Members, and 4.1% of Fellows (20.7% overall) opted not to indicate their identity group. Nevertheless, that means approximately 80% did provide racial/ethnic information. So, with this nonresponse acknowledged, let’s take a look at the data.

The distributional data are presented in Table 1. Consistent with Cox’s discussion of structural integration, we see minority representation is highest at the Associate level (10.6%). Of these 255 associates, 10 were Asian/Asian American, 13 Hispanic, and 4 Black. Overall minority representation at the next level (i.e., Members) decreased to 7.9%. Of the 1,864 members to report their race/ethnicity, 10 were Native American, 50 Asian/Asian American, 44 Hispanic, and 39 Black. Moving to the fellow level, minority representation decreased further to 5.8%. Of the 325 fellows to indicate their race/ethnicity, 3 were Native American, 7 Asian/Asian American, 6 Hispanic, and 2 Black. Looking at the individual minority groups, relative representation is highest for Asian/Asian Americans and Hispanics at the Associate level (3.9 and 5.0%, respectively). Black representation is highest at the Member level (2.1%) and Native American representation, like that of the White majority, is highest at the Fellow level (0.9%).

Table 1
APA Division 14 Membership by Race and Membership Level
_________________________________________________________

Associate                                           Member

Member

Fellow

_________________________________________________________

White	228	1,716	306
Black	4	39	2
Asian	10	50	7
Hispanic	13	44	6
Native American	0	10	3
Multiracial	0	4	1
Not reported	148	447	14
Total reported	255	1,864	325
Grand total	403	2,341	339

_________________________________________________________

Although we, like Quiñones and Arthur (2005) before us, are hesitant to draw any firm conclusions from this data, a few points are clear. First, minority representation at all levels within our organization is considerably lower than that in U.S. society as a whole, which is about 25% minority (U.S. Census, 2005). Second, hierarchical level and minority representation are inversely correlated within SIOP. Third, any demographic projections, for which one would have to draw upon the aforementioned student data, would forecast a decline in minority representation. In short, the numbers do not paint a particularly pretty picture.

Unfortunately, the trend is not unique to SIOP.  According to the most recent census data, minority psychologists number fewer and fewer the higher the level of education they attain (see Figure 1).  This trend is also reflected in both the scientific community and the U.S. labor force as a whole (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).  This suggests SIOP is part of a larger glass ceiling plaguing minorities in the American workforce as a whole, regardless of industry.  (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1. Psychologist Tabulation by Race and Education

Conclusions

So what should we do about this? Well, let’s take a look at the two contrasting extreme options. On the one hand, we could assume that the race/ethnicity nonrespondents are overwhelmingly or entirely minority. If this were the case, SIOP would be extremely racially/ethnically diverse by nearly any standard (except at the Fellow level where there was very little nonresponse), suggesting little need for wholesale change. That SIOP membership data seem to mirror U.S. census data rather well suggests this possibility is unlikely.  On the other hand, we could assume that there is something about our society or profession creating a “chilling effect,” whereby minorities are disproportionately dissuaded from pursuing careers in I-O or joining SIOP. If this were the case, we would need to assess who we are and everything we do from the standpoint of trying to identify and correct those aspects that dampen interest among minorities. Most of our membership probably would agree that the answer to this dilemma lies somewhere between these two extremes. As I-O psychologists, we are well poised to tackle this dilemma head on. To initiate this effort, we conclude by proposing some ideas for diversifying and structurally integrating our membership. It is our hope that this column will provoke some thought and, more importantly, some action on the part our leadership and membership as a whole.

Capitalize on local connections.  Most of us know from research or experience that, although buy-in from the top is crucial to successfully implementing any initiative, the majority of the work (and thus the change) happens on the front lines, or the local level. Most metropolitan areas with concentrations of I-O psychologists have local I-O psychologist groups (e.g., Metropolitan New York Association for Applied Psychology [METRO], Houston Area Industrial/Organizational Psychologists [HAIOP]), all with members in academia, consulting, and industry (there is a nice listing of these available on the SIOP Web site: http://www.siop.org/IOGroups.aspx). In many cases, most of these local members also belong to SIOP. As an executive board member of my local organization, we (Sylvia and the rest of the board) regularly contend with sustaining the vitality of our membership on a regular basis. In doing so we rely heavily on our local connections to industry and academia to achieve that goal. 

Get them thinking about SIOP early.  Most psychology departments have an undergraduate psychology club or a local chapter of Psi Chi, the national honor society in psychology.  These bright individuals are already interested in psychology and represent an underutilized pool of potential new members. Outreach activities at this level (e.g., the SIOP teaching institute), before students choose a postgraduate career, could capture new and diverse members even if they choose to pursue an allied field such as human resources or organizational behavior. 

Raise awareness of existing opportunities for minorities.  Many existing programs aimed at improving diversity go underutilized simply due to lack of awareness.  For example, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) offer supplements to currently existing grants to improve the diversity of the scientific health care community; although the chances of receiving regular grant funding from NIH are currently barely 10%, the chances of receiving a minority supplement are closer to 75%, primarily because so few people apply for them. In healthcare, it has been suggested that research to improve the application of technology we already have will save more lives than research to discover new therapies and treatment (Gawande, 2007). Perhaps the same can be said concerning means of improving the diversity of our membership.

Take someone under your wing.  Years of research have taught us that mentors have been a critical component of most successful professionals’ careers. This is especially true among women and minorities (Thomas, 2001). Those who have had the benefit of a true mentor—not merely their graduate advisor, but someone who stimulates their thinking, enhances their network, and alerts them of opportunities when they arise—credit many of their successes to something involving their mentor. All of us can remember a time when we needed a break and someone on the inside gave us a leg up; it’s time to pay it forward!

References

     Brewer, M. B. (1995). Managing diversity: The role of social identities. In S. E. Jackson & M. N. Ruderman (Eds.), Diversity in work teams: Research paradigms for a changing workplace (pp. 47–68). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
     Cox, T. H. (1994). Cultural diversity in organizations: Theory, research, and practice. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
     Gawande, A. (2007). Better: A surgeon’s notes on performance.  New York:  Metropolitan Books.
     Lau, D., & Murnighan, J. K. (1998). Demographic diversity and faultlines: The compositional dynamics of organizational groups. Academy of Management Review, 23, 325–340.
     Quiñones, M. A., & Arthur, W. (2005). Increasing diversity at SIOP: The future is now. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 43(1), 97–99.
     Thomas, D. A. (2001). The truth about mentoring minorities: Race matters. Harvard Business Review, 79(4), 98–112.
     U.S.Census Bureau. (2000). Educational Attainment (6 Levels) by Census Occupation Codes. 2000 Summary tables, generated April 23, 2007 by Sylvia Hysong; using Census 2000 EEO Data Tool. Available: http://www.census.gov/eeo2000/index.html.
     U.S. Census Bureau. (2005) American Community Survey. 2005 Summary Tables, generated April 23, 2007 by Sylvia Hysong; using American FactFinder. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov.