International perspectives on positive action measures - European ...

<strong>International</strong> <strong>perspectives</strong> on positive action measures
2.
Contextualising the study
In this chapter we present an overview of the literature and current research and debates
around positive action. A review of EC legislation and policy, including an analysis of the legal
framework of study countries is provided in Chapter 3. However, research that looks at
the effects of the legislation on positive action will be presented in this chapter. We examine
the various meanings and range of positive action, as well as related theoretical debates. The
chapter also highlights important policy developments and implications for the implementation
of positive action measures in some countries involved in this study. The literature review
helped provide sufficient insights into exploring the empirical data collected from the survey
and the in-depth country study. With respect to the country-specific literature on positive action
policy and practices (and legal analyses), consortium partners have assisted with some of
the review of pertinent publications in order to overcome language barriers.
2.1. Conceptualisations of
positive action
The understanding of the term ‘positive
action’ and related terminology
vary significantly across countries,
sectors and discrimination grounds.
This situation is further compounded
by the fact that terms such as ‘positive
action’, ‘reverse discrimination’,
‘positive discrimination’, ‘affirmative
action’ and ‘corrective action’ are
used synonymously in myriad contexts
(Adam 1997; Archibong et al.,
2006a). Alternative labels for positive
action include ‘constructive action’
and ‘structural initiatives’, ‘diversification
strategies’ (Groschi and Doherty,
1999) and ‘mainstreaming projects’
and ‘balancing measures’ (McCrudden
2007). Whilst these terms may be
considered to be related and borderline
cases, Archibong et al., (2006a)
posit that the terms should, however,
remain distinct from positive action
itself. A more detailed description of
some of these concepts is provided in
Chapter 3 under the legal annotation
of the definition.
More broadly, Iles and Hayers (1997)
use the overarching ‘diversity competence
approach’ to describe effective
16
international team working, whereas
Miller and Rowney (1999) prefer to
use ‘managing diversity’. Diversity
management is an emerging paradigm
utilised by human resource professionals
to maximise the potential of
diverse staff in fulfilling the mission of
the organisation (Dhami, et al., 2006;
Thomas and Ely, 2002). Dhami et al.
(2006) define diversity management
as ‘a process intended to create and
maintain a positive work environment
where the differences of individuals
are valued so that all can reach their
potential and maximise their contributions
to the organisation’s strategic
goals’ (p. 22). Whilst positive action
has a legal basis, diversity management
is fundamentally a management
technique, which complements positive
action. Complementary measures
can promote success and sustainability,
and in turn maximise the impact
of positive action (Welsh et al., 1994).
Archibong et al. (2007) describe positive
action as having three significant
conceptual dimensions: the legislative,
the executive or practice, and the political,
which includes its communication
or surrounding debate. They posit
that while the statutory bodies explain
the legislative concept, managers ap-
ply this concept through workforce
diversity measures, but above all
positive action is embedded within a
larger political context. These factors
can impact on the nature of positive
action and initiatives and can lead to
misinterpretation of positive action,
which can in turn result in a lack of,
or limited engagement with, positive
action (Chater & Chater, 1992; Johns,
2005; Archibong et al., 2007).
McCrudden (1986) provides ‘five
types ( 9 ) of positive action … not in
the sense of what is legally permissible,
but in how the term appears to
be used in common parlance’ (p. 223).
Burrows and Robinson’s (2007) work
‘explores some of the ways to conceptualise
positive action measures
in relation to sex discrimination in
the context of the law of the EC and
of Great Britain’ (p. 24). The authors
argue that the EC law is more progressive
and consequently provides insights
into possible legislative reform
in United Kingdom. The authors also
express frustration with the slow pace
9 McCrudden’s typology of positive action: (1)
eradicating discrimination; (2) facially neutral
but purposefully inclusionary policies; (3) outreach
programmes; (4) preferential treatment
in employment and (5) redefining ‘merit’.