Flexibility Viability – Peer Review of The Micromanagers
Alexis, Brad, Keyi, Feiyu
Milestone #4
Part 1: Summary
● The draft explores issues revolving around equity and inclusion within our university and the measures the university has taken to increase diversity and inclusion efforts at UCSB=
● Interviewees were selected from a pool of ‘higher-education’ employees at the University and were comprised of mostly asian women and hispanic men
● Interviewees share their challenges and perspectives about diversity through Zoom and
in-person meetings through which they recalled their upbringing in foreign countries
which included various instances of negative bias and struggles regarding equality.
● Emphasizes how UCSB is an HSI (Hispanic Serving Institution) and AANAPISI (Asian American Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institution), in order to put a spotlight in the measures that UCSB takes to battle inequality
● Participants mention instances of unfair treatment and mockery against them for traits such as accents or speech patterns when they first arrived at the university, but also end by mentioning that the University is taking steps in the right direction each year with more diversity, but that overall there is still work to be done
Part 2: Quality Evaluation
Strengths:
● Detailed interviews, personal experiences – Allows to reader to engage and immerse themselves into the paper, really getting to know/a feel for the interviewee’s past
● Variety of interviewees (age and ethnicity) – Provides a broad perspective on the subject of discrimination and inequality through interviewees who have grown up in different eras
● Interviews did not focus only on challenges but also the focus on improvements in diversity and inclusion efforts from UCSB, providing more context to the entire situation at the university.
Weaknesses:
● Slow to get to the main point – Although providing context is important, the problem the group is facing should be addressed quickly, within the first introduction paragraph instead of making the entire introduction sort-of split into three paragraphs in the first page, and only mentioning the issue of inequality once in a single sentence towards the bottom of the page.
● Some formatting issues that make it a bit more difficult to really flow with the paper; EX: “participants’ research was a small consideration when choosing interviewees. Finding participants who had backgrounds in social sciences and humanities was a small consideration” can be meshed into one sentence to keep flow smooth and make it easier for the reader to digest.
● Provide source for statistics found in the paper; “only 36%”; “only 20%”
Part 3: Feedback – Suggestions
● Maybe link interview findings with the textbook/ literature (Social Identity/ Social Categorization)
● Add suggestions on actions that could be taken by UCSB – Since the paper ends off on a note that there are still barriers for minority groups at UCSB, perhaps include some examples of what the university should do, or perhaps were suggested by the interviewees to do in order to mend this.
● Delve a little more on how UCSB became and HSI and AANAPISI – Explore the history university’s efforts to become an HSI and AANAPISI just as much as the interviewee’s recalled history including equality issues were explored./
● Perhaps include statistics on diversity and inclusion at UCSB, such as enrollment and retention rates of minority students and faculty in order to provide context for the diverse-situation at the university.
