Current Debates on Classifying Diversity Management: Review and a Proposal

This paper discusses various theoretical approaches to diversity management, analysing their similarities and differences. I start with a review of certain previously presented classifications, and then proceed to describing the different approaches in more detail. In this paper, I propose that the various viewpoints can be categorized into three groups: 1) practitioner/consultant approach, 2) mainstream approach, and 3) critical approaches. Although there are differences within these groups, in particular regarding the critical approaches, these differences appear less significant than those between the groups. Those representing the first group are mainly interested in how to get most out of a diverse workforce, while those in the second group focus on the effects of diversity on performance or work group functioning. While some of the mainstream writers can be rather critical towards earlier research, they hardly ever discuss or even recognize the wide ranging criticism put forward by critical scholars. The critical researchers, then, remain a rather scattered group who do not always share much more than a conviction that the mainstream research keeps missing highly significant issues. Nonetheless, in order to increase our understanding of how different persons can and do work together, more dialogue is required between the varying standpoints.

Basic Income Grant in Namibia, a Viewpoint on the Proposal and on the Work of the BIG Coalition

This thesis studies the basic income grant proposal in Namibia. The proposal suggests a monthly grant of N$100 (approximately 10€) to all those Namibian citizens who do not receive the state pension. This thesis concentrates on the Basic Income Grant (BIG) Coalition and on its work. The formation and transformation of the coalition during the time period between 2003 and 2009 is analyzed with the help of data collected during two field work periods in 2008 and 2009. The data includes interviews, newspaper articles, observations and other background material. The analysis of this material is mainly conducted from organizational viewpoint. The final part of the thesis applies the results to the theory of Mosse, whose propositions about policy and practice will be discussed in relation to the basic income grant pilot project. The thesis argues that social legitimacy has been a vital resource for the work of the BIG Coalition and it has sought for it in various ways. The concept of social legitimacy originates from the resource dependence perspective of Pfeffer and Salancik, who propose that organizations are dependent on their environments, and on the resources provided by the surrounding environment. This thesis studies the concept of social legitimacy in the context of resource dependence theory. Social legitimacy is analyzed in the relations between the coalition and its environment, in the formation of the coalition, in the responses towards criticism, and finally in relation to the propositions concerning policy and practice. The work of the coalition in the pilot project will be analyzed through the propositions of Mosse concerning policy and practice. The results will describe and analyze key events in the formation of the BIG Coalition from the South African proposal until the end of the basic income pilot project. This BIG pilot project conducted in 2008-2009 is one of the most well-known activities of the coalition. The clashes between the coalition and its environment will be analyzed through four case studies. It will be shown that the project has been conducted in order to gain more legitimacy to the basic income grant proposal. The conclusion questions the legitimacy of the BIG Coalition as a research and development organization, and requests for more transparent research on the basic income proposal in Namibia.