CCBC-Net Archives
Multiculturalism and Definitions of Fairness
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Charles Bayless <charles.bayless_at_ttmd.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:17:20 -0500
This is such a wonderfully hydra-headed conversation. Lots of issues raised which are pertinent to the whole conversation but seem also to deserve a conversation of their own.
One thing I see running through much of our conversation is what appear to me to be differing ideas of what constitutes "Fair" or "Just" as in, "what constitutes a fair outcome or a just outcome?" This is something I have worked with over the years in international business. When you have a multi-country or multicultural team, you can quickly get hung up on these differences of interpretation of what constitutes a just decision or outcome as opposed to focusing on the nominal business concern that brought people together as a team in the first place.
The sociologist/philosopher Jonathan Haidt has done some quite interesting research in this area. What he has observed, and it matches my experience, is that while occasionally disagreements arise because of differences in access to facts or different goals and objectives, in a large percentage, and I would say the majority of times, people are actually pretty close on the facts and usually pretty close on the goals (though their priorities might differ). Haidt has been trying to understand why there is a perception of sharp polarization when people are so close on so much of the background. What he has discovered is that the motivating polarization has to do with differing definitions of fairness. Even when you make sure that people have the same facts and same goals, they can often be diametrically opposed because of different interpretations of what constitutes fair and therefore what constitutes an acceptable solution. And the polarization arises because people with one model of fairness find it incomprehensible why people with another model should arrive at such a different conclusion when the facts seem so plain to them. Hence the frequency of ad hominem attacks and attempts at ostracism.
My synthesis, based largely on Haidt's research, is that there are three fundamental models of perceived fairness. All three have relevance in different circumstances. Most people affiliate with one model more than the others, but most people do use the different models in different contexts.
The three fundamental models of fairness are that we believe an outcome to be fair 1) when everyone has the same outcomes (or proportionate outcomes), 2) when eveyone has the same opportunities to achieve desired outcomes, or 3) when everyone is subject to the same process to achieve outcomes. Each of the three models differs on intepretation of four predicates. When achieving outcomes, how much of the outcome is determined by Historical Circumstances (HC), how much based on Current Context (CC), how much based on Individual Interest/Motivation (IIM) and how much based on Individual Capability (IC). All four are clearly factors in an outcome but people differ based on their belief of the relative importance of the four to each other and also based on how subject they deem any of the four to modification through individual or collective action.
If you think outcomes are inherently the result of IIM and IC and that HC and CC are relevant but not easily changed, then likely you are more oriented towards Model 3 where process fairness is paramount. If you think that IIM and IC are only marginally relevant and HC and CC are determinative, then you are much more likely to orient towards Models 1 and 2.
There are several challenges arising from the three models related to incompatibility and inconsistency. The actions necessary to rectify differences in opportunity are incompatible with a system that treats every participant equally (process fairness). You cannot treat everyone equally
(Model 3) AND also give one group benefits not available to another (to address Models 1 or 2). A further challenge is that individuals tend to use all three models, sometimes inconsistently, in different contexts. Most people want model 3 when dealing with strangers, but are quite comfortable using models 1 and 2 within the family. Parents may be firmly in the process equality camp as a general rule but they also will not elect to hold their six year old to the same standards as their twelve year old when it comes to household chores for example.
With regard to our discussion of diversity and multiculturalism, books, awards and publishing, I am seeing all three models in play simultaneously. There is no objectve, empirical evidence that either the publishing industry at large or the many awards committees are systemically biased against any particular group (by race, or religion, or disability, etc.). It is equally true that what data we do have indicates that the outcomes in terms of books published and awards made, also do not match simple population demographic profiles. If you are more inclined towards Models 1 or 2, then the simple existance of variance from the demographic profile is sufficient evidence that there is a bias in the process whether it is apparent or not. If you are more oriented towards Model 3, then you are not surprised at all that there is a variance from the demographic profile. Elite performance in all fields always differs from simple demographic profiles and is therefore not evidence on its own that there is any necessary concern about the integrity of the process.
All of this is exacerbated yet further by the fact that the publishing industry is both 1) in flux, and 2) commercial. People go where the money is and that does not necessarily comport with what might be perceived as desirable outcomes in terms of fairness. If the commercial success of a book is materially determined by its reception by those that are highly educated and high income, then while understandable, it still might not feel right.
In our discussion, it comes down to the question: Is it wrong if publishers, agents and award committees apply the same process to everyone but the outcomes are disparate based on opportunity or capability? For those who define fairness and justice as a function of impartial application of process, then disparate outcomes are fine if there is no evidence of process corruption. For those who define justice as proportionate outcome, then disparate outcomes can never be acceptable. For those who define justice as a function of equality of opportunity, then disparate impact is evidence that there were likely unequal opportunties at the beginning, even if the process itself was impartial.
The importance arises from the proposed solutions that flow from these different models. If you believe outcomes are being achieved through Model 3, then there is no inherent action that needs to occur because the outcomes are deemed fair. If you are inclined towards Model 1 then you are likely looking towards changing performance metrics or using quotas so that equality of outcomes is achieved. If you are inclined towards Model 2, then likely the solutions are going to be oriented towards special programs of encouragement (set-asides, funding, mentoring, etc.) on a transitional basis to address the consequences of past HC and CC.
I don't have a particular conclusion from this, merely the observation that something like this variance in fairness models seems to be in play in our discussions. One of the things Haidt has found is that people with a passionate commitment to one model or another (regardless of which model), often have a tendency to demonize those not having an equal commitment to that model. His observation is that people often mistake differences in definitions of fairness as differences in levels of goodness or badness.
Regardless of what the evidence and data might tell us, as long as we are operating with different models of fairness, then it is challenging to reach agreement on meaningful action.
Charles
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 13:17:20 -0500
This is such a wonderfully hydra-headed conversation. Lots of issues raised which are pertinent to the whole conversation but seem also to deserve a conversation of their own.
One thing I see running through much of our conversation is what appear to me to be differing ideas of what constitutes "Fair" or "Just" as in, "what constitutes a fair outcome or a just outcome?" This is something I have worked with over the years in international business. When you have a multi-country or multicultural team, you can quickly get hung up on these differences of interpretation of what constitutes a just decision or outcome as opposed to focusing on the nominal business concern that brought people together as a team in the first place.
The sociologist/philosopher Jonathan Haidt has done some quite interesting research in this area. What he has observed, and it matches my experience, is that while occasionally disagreements arise because of differences in access to facts or different goals and objectives, in a large percentage, and I would say the majority of times, people are actually pretty close on the facts and usually pretty close on the goals (though their priorities might differ). Haidt has been trying to understand why there is a perception of sharp polarization when people are so close on so much of the background. What he has discovered is that the motivating polarization has to do with differing definitions of fairness. Even when you make sure that people have the same facts and same goals, they can often be diametrically opposed because of different interpretations of what constitutes fair and therefore what constitutes an acceptable solution. And the polarization arises because people with one model of fairness find it incomprehensible why people with another model should arrive at such a different conclusion when the facts seem so plain to them. Hence the frequency of ad hominem attacks and attempts at ostracism.
My synthesis, based largely on Haidt's research, is that there are three fundamental models of perceived fairness. All three have relevance in different circumstances. Most people affiliate with one model more than the others, but most people do use the different models in different contexts.
The three fundamental models of fairness are that we believe an outcome to be fair 1) when everyone has the same outcomes (or proportionate outcomes), 2) when eveyone has the same opportunities to achieve desired outcomes, or 3) when everyone is subject to the same process to achieve outcomes. Each of the three models differs on intepretation of four predicates. When achieving outcomes, how much of the outcome is determined by Historical Circumstances (HC), how much based on Current Context (CC), how much based on Individual Interest/Motivation (IIM) and how much based on Individual Capability (IC). All four are clearly factors in an outcome but people differ based on their belief of the relative importance of the four to each other and also based on how subject they deem any of the four to modification through individual or collective action.
If you think outcomes are inherently the result of IIM and IC and that HC and CC are relevant but not easily changed, then likely you are more oriented towards Model 3 where process fairness is paramount. If you think that IIM and IC are only marginally relevant and HC and CC are determinative, then you are much more likely to orient towards Models 1 and 2.
There are several challenges arising from the three models related to incompatibility and inconsistency. The actions necessary to rectify differences in opportunity are incompatible with a system that treats every participant equally (process fairness). You cannot treat everyone equally
(Model 3) AND also give one group benefits not available to another (to address Models 1 or 2). A further challenge is that individuals tend to use all three models, sometimes inconsistently, in different contexts. Most people want model 3 when dealing with strangers, but are quite comfortable using models 1 and 2 within the family. Parents may be firmly in the process equality camp as a general rule but they also will not elect to hold their six year old to the same standards as their twelve year old when it comes to household chores for example.
With regard to our discussion of diversity and multiculturalism, books, awards and publishing, I am seeing all three models in play simultaneously. There is no objectve, empirical evidence that either the publishing industry at large or the many awards committees are systemically biased against any particular group (by race, or religion, or disability, etc.). It is equally true that what data we do have indicates that the outcomes in terms of books published and awards made, also do not match simple population demographic profiles. If you are more inclined towards Models 1 or 2, then the simple existance of variance from the demographic profile is sufficient evidence that there is a bias in the process whether it is apparent or not. If you are more oriented towards Model 3, then you are not surprised at all that there is a variance from the demographic profile. Elite performance in all fields always differs from simple demographic profiles and is therefore not evidence on its own that there is any necessary concern about the integrity of the process.
All of this is exacerbated yet further by the fact that the publishing industry is both 1) in flux, and 2) commercial. People go where the money is and that does not necessarily comport with what might be perceived as desirable outcomes in terms of fairness. If the commercial success of a book is materially determined by its reception by those that are highly educated and high income, then while understandable, it still might not feel right.
In our discussion, it comes down to the question: Is it wrong if publishers, agents and award committees apply the same process to everyone but the outcomes are disparate based on opportunity or capability? For those who define fairness and justice as a function of impartial application of process, then disparate outcomes are fine if there is no evidence of process corruption. For those who define justice as proportionate outcome, then disparate outcomes can never be acceptable. For those who define justice as a function of equality of opportunity, then disparate impact is evidence that there were likely unequal opportunties at the beginning, even if the process itself was impartial.
The importance arises from the proposed solutions that flow from these different models. If you believe outcomes are being achieved through Model 3, then there is no inherent action that needs to occur because the outcomes are deemed fair. If you are inclined towards Model 1 then you are likely looking towards changing performance metrics or using quotas so that equality of outcomes is achieved. If you are inclined towards Model 2, then likely the solutions are going to be oriented towards special programs of encouragement (set-asides, funding, mentoring, etc.) on a transitional basis to address the consequences of past HC and CC.
I don't have a particular conclusion from this, merely the observation that something like this variance in fairness models seems to be in play in our discussions. One of the things Haidt has found is that people with a passionate commitment to one model or another (regardless of which model), often have a tendency to demonize those not having an equal commitment to that model. His observation is that people often mistake differences in definitions of fairness as differences in levels of goodness or badness.
Regardless of what the evidence and data might tell us, as long as we are operating with different models of fairness, then it is challenging to reach agreement on meaningful action.
Charles
---
You are currently subscribed to ccbc-net as: ccbc-archive_at_post.education.wisc.edu.
To post to the list, send message to: ccbc-net_at_lists.wisc.edu
To receive messages in digest format, send a message to...
ccbc-net-request_at_lists.wisc.edu
...and include only this command in the body of the message:
set ccbc-net digest
CCBC-Net Archives
The CCBC-Net archives are available to all CCBC-Net listserv members. The archives are organized by month and year. A list of discussion topics (including month/year) is available at http://www.education.wisc.edu/ccbc/ccbcnet/archives.asp
To access the archives, go to:
http://ccbc.education.wisc.edu/ccbc-net
and enter the following:
username: ccbc-net
password: Look4Posts
Received on Mon 10 Feb 2014 12:18:49 PM CST
