Essay Editing

Critical Thinking
Name of Student
Name of Institution
Critical Thinking
In her research article entitled “In-group Experts and Peers as Social Vaccines Who Inoculate the Self Concept: The Stereotype Inoculation Model”, Nilanjana Dasgupta (2011) posits that women and minorities would succeed better in disciplines in which they are few in number. Often, having been exposed to other in-group members within those disciplines, they managed to interact and share requisite ideas. Specifically, in-group members would not project those subtle cues that are accentuated by majority-group members. It is these approaches that cause them to feel rejected and out of place. By “in-group”, the author is referring to disenfranchised groups apropos of ethnicity, gender and religion, among others. There is a discussion of the main crux of Dasgupta article, its arguments, as well as a commentary response to the article.
Whether a fair assessment of their work environment or not, women and minorities “. . . behavior and choices are driven by the need to belong and be accepted by others within a community of peers, coworkers and fellow co ethnics, among others (Baummeister & Leary, 1995; MacDonald & Leary, 2005). As such, the absence of feeling a sense of belonging can adversely affect women and minorities. When their professional mobility is impacted negatively, it causes them to feel like tokens; specifically exhibiting the imposter phenomenon (Dasgupta, 2011). Dasgupta cites examples of African American students in predominantly White universities.

Despite being on-par with their White counterparts academically, they harbor feelings of unworthiness and invalidation regarding their achievements. The author utilizes these instances to serve as Dasgupta’s main argument for in-group exposure as a means to breaking the glass ceiling for women, minorities and disenfranchised groups, as a whole.
The author refers to her in-group exposure model as “The Stereotype Inoculation Model” (Dasgupta, 2011). For her, the best way to eradicate feelings of self-doubt, uncertainty and lack of belonging, depends on the ability of women and minorities to be exposed properly to successful in-group members. “For members of a negatively stereotyped group, seeing successful in-group experts defies the negative stereotype, thereby, enhancing their own self-efficacy and motivation to succeed” (Blanton, Crocker, & Miller 2000; Brewer & Weber, 1994). There are ways of strengthening one’s vision of being part of the minorities amidst majority folk. It is possible for individuals to survive in these environments by sharing their own experiences. Therefore, it is clear to understand the women and minorities that are exposed to in-group members in a certain field, will be motivated to pursue a career in that field. The author does not believe that the motivational effects of these types of exposures are necessarily obvious to the individual, “. . . yet the imprint of others ought to be evident in the individuals’ implicit self-conception-making them gravitate toward achievement domains where in-group members are visible and away from domains where in-group members are scarce” (Dasgupta, 2011).
The author believes that the future implications of in-group exposure will be positive. A promotion of “The Stereotype Inoculation Model” will result in an increase of women and minorities in various disciplines; particularly the sciences and engineering. Continued adoption of such policies in education and the workforce will also have a positive effect on retention.The commentary article that will be discussed is called “Interactions with Men and Whites Matter Too”, by Akcinar, Carr, & Walton (2011). While the authors of this article believe there is merit to Dasgupta’s argument for in-group exposure as a means to upward mobility for women and minorities, they also believe that its benefits are limited (Akcinar, Carr, & Walton, 2011). Fore mostly, in fields such as science and engineering, men continue to be in the majority. The readers are equipped with more information through statements such as, “. . . there are simply few female and ethnic minority peers and role models” (Akcinar, Carr, & Walton, 2011). Such beliefs mean that instead of women and minorities being inspired to succeed in these fields, they can become discouraged by the lack of diversity they observe and seek other more inclusive disciplines. Not to mention, they may conclude that the few women and minorities that have successfully broken the glass ceiling have exceptional qualities that are not existent among many females (Akcinar, Carr, & Walton, 2011).
Another argument by Akcinar, Carr, & Waltonis states that “. . . the nature of interactions and relationships with majority-group members may . . . have an important effect on ethnic minorities’ and women’s sense of belonging and success in academic and professional settings” (Akcinar, Carr & Waltonis, 2011). Consequently, if the majority-group is the gatekeeper that decides which people enter and leave these aforementioned settings, it would make more sense to form an alliance with them than solely with in-group members. The authors utilize the example of a female dominated engineering club to argue that the sense of comfort and stability that women feel in these protected enclaves does “. . . not necessarily create a sense of belonging in the field as a whole”. Instead the authors argue that for women and minorities to successfully penetrate fields where they are underrepresented, it is important to expose them to exposure to both in-group and majority-group members. Both the Dasgrupta article as well as the commentary by Akcinar, Carr, & Walton has valid arguments. Indeed, as Dasgrupta posits, women and minorities are inspired and motivated when in-group members have reached success in fields where they are limited in number. While they acknowledge the important role in-group members play in offering opportunities for women and minorities, Akcinar, Carr, & Walton have argued that the disenfranchised groups can also be motivated by majority-group members that are inclusive and accommodative.
The Dasgupta article and Akcinar, Carr, & Walton commentary have laid a foundation for future research to explore in the areas of social cohesion and upward mobility for underrepresented groups. Specifically, there are countless aspects that each article could have explored in terms of individual personality, resiliency, environmental and socioeconomic factors, among others. These concepts may have contributed to those few women and minorities that have broken the glass ceiling. Perhaps, some other internal or external factor(s) that do not involve perceptions of race and not belonging have been instrumental in their driving force to succeed. A weakness specifically pertaining to the “The Stereotype Inoculation Model” is that it assumes that people for the most part emulate those that are more successful than themselves. Not to mention, this model assumes that in-groups are without competition, stereotypes, and sabotage. As mentioned, both the Dasgupta article and Akcinar, Carr and Walton commentary have given much fodder for thought, and opened the discussion to a much broader realm of possible research focus areas.
For future analysis, it is essential to create a connection between these authors so as to understand the concept of in-groups, stereotypes and minorities, among others. Akcinar, Carr and Walton’s text offers enlightenment about disenfranchised groups. They focus on ethnicities, gender and other types of minorities. Apart from education, it is important to ensure that minorities are exposed to in-group professionals so as to thrive peacefully in the society. It is quite easy, as depicted by Akcinar, Carr, and Walton, for minority groups to survive in settings that do not discriminate their existence. The authors manage to acquaint different readers with these various societal challenges revolving around discrimination and segregation. Similarly, Nilanjana’s article also delves into the understanding of stereotypical nature of society in handling disenfranchised parties. They believe that groups such as women and immigrants are considered to be minorities.
Consuming themselves in these in-groups, however, eliminates the ideas of false consciousness. It ensures that various disenfranchised groups manage to fit into distinct settings and acquire a sense of belonging. In-groups, as delineated by these authors, are requisite channels of achieving peaceful co-existence in different societies. These groups also ensure that minorities become well-endowed with skills required for particular fields. For instance; when females socialize with males existing in technical sectors of the economy, they are bound to adapt and acquire some of these skills, despite the cliché nature of societies. Akcinar, Carr, and Walton offer their input on the importance of in-groups in an educational setting. It is important for students to interact and socialize with one another so as to lead bearable lives in their schools. When they separate one another based on issues such as gender, race and sexual orientation, it is impossible to enhance progressivism in these institutions.