Introduction

Patterns of migration, internationalization, and globalization are rapidly diversifying populations in almost every national context. For employers, educators, policymakers, and indeed diversity scholars, these processes raise important questions regarding which models of diversity foster harmonious integration between people while minimizing the risks of systematically disadvantaging or disempowering any one particular social group (Plaut 2010). A rich literature on diversity ideologies and models has emerged, usually comparing the impacts of identity blindness (i.e. colorblindness), which minimizes the importance of racial, ethnic, or social group membership, with identity consciousness (i.e. multiculturalism), that acknowledges, values, and respect groups differences (Plaut et al. 2009, 2018). Empirical research on diversity models has largely followed a colorblindness vs. multiculturalism paradigm, whereby each approach has advantages and disadvantages for different social groups (Wolsko et al. 2000; Cho et al. 2018). In many cases, multicultural approaches are often more strongly favored by members of non-dominant groups, but may trigger discrimination, racism, threat, and bias in some social settings (Plaut et al. 2011; Kaiser et al. 2013). Conversely, groups who more likely to endorse colorblind models of diversity are often less quick to notice racism and discrimination (Ryan et al. 2007), thus placing ethnic and racial minorities at a disadvantage (Apfelbaum et al. 2010, 2012).

The traditional colorblindness-multiculturalism dichotomy therefore creates a seemingly unappealing tradeoff, with each diversity model clearly empowering some social groups while disadvantaging others. In an attempt to expand on this paradigm, scholars have introduced polyculturalism—an ideology that focuses on the relationships, connections, and interactions between social groups—as a possible third diversity model (Rosenthal and Levy 2012; Morris et al. 2015). While studies show that endorsement of polyculturalism can explain unique variance in a wide variety of social attitudes, the efficacy of polycultural models of diversity are, as with colorblind and multicultural models, inconsistent across social groups (Bernardo et al. 2016; Rosenthal and Levy 2016; Healy et al. 2017). Hence, and even with the introduction of polyculturalism, there is potential great value in synthesizing additional diversity ideologies that empower a wide range of social groups while minimizing the risk of status threat, discrimination, and racism in ways that are unique from colorblindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism.

Parallel to the literature on diversity ideologies and models, scholars of globalization are engaging in debates on the impacts of globalization on different social groups. Under some contexts, studies show how processes of globalization can create intergroup threat (Sharma and Sharma 2010), particularly when it is a reflection of imperialism/colonialism and its consequences (Smith 2016). Yet, there are growing arguments that propose that globalization can provide a social environment that is distinct from the national context, and that this environment produces positive sociopsychological outcomes in some contexts (Sassen 2007; Sassen and Van Roekel-Hughes 2008). While the links between globalization and diversity are well-established (Abu-Laban and Gabriel 2002), the relationship between globalization and its associated spaces, scales, and subjects with diversity ideologies is currently under-addressed by diversity and inclusion research.

To that end, this article provides a theoretical discussion of the relationships between globalization and diversity, and in doing so proposes a globalization diversity ideology that is distinct from colorblindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism. While it is unlikely that any new diversity ideology will present a panacea to managing diversity in all situations, the proposed globalization ideology may reduce the instances wherein some groups profit at the expense of others, and, as explained below, be effective in fostering positive diversity in contexts where intergroup relations are particularly hostile.

The paper is split into three main sections. The first provides a brief review of existing diversity ideologies. The following section bridges the gap between globalization and diversity ideology research, and in doing so provides a clear definition of the proposed globalization diversity ideology. Then, and in order to illustrate the potential impact of the proposed ideology, the paper reviews existing studies that indicate the contexts wherein globalization can foster positive diversity. In doing so, this paper engages with discourses that view globalization both as a possible source of empowerment (Sassen 2007; Anderson 2011), and equally as a product of colonialism and subjugation (Banerjee and Linstead 2001; Weiss 2015). Finally, the paper considers the limitations of the proposed definition, particularly in light of the scope of empirical papers on the subject to date, which has been mainly in education and management contexts.

Diversity ideologies and models

The literature highlights three different ideological approaches to diversity. The origins and definitions of each ideology, as well as their established strengths and weaknesses, are briefly summarized below. For clarity in this paper, the implementation of a diversity ideology is referred to as its corresponding diversity model.

Colorblindness and multiculturalism

The traditional paradigm in diversity models considers ideologies that advocate different levels of group difference salience. Colorblindness ideologies, which generally are associated with low group difference salience, suggest ignoring, or at least reducing the significance of group categories and membership. Colorblindness is based on the belief that prejudice is a result of group category differences, the impacts of prejudice can be reduced by de-emphasizing group differences (Allport 1954). Decades of research has resulted in different forms of colorblindness (Rosenthal and Levy 2010), including: colorblindness that emphasizes similarities, or a common ingroup between individuals from different groups (Nier et al. 2001); an assimilative approach to colorblindness that supports members of all groups adopting the mainstream or dominant culture (Neville et al. 2000); and colorblindness that minimizes between-group differences by viewing people as unique individuals, rather than as members of specific groups (Schofield 1986).

Colorblindness has also been described as manifesting through two separate dimensions. Neville et al. (2013) propose that colorblind racial ideologies can, on the one hand, be characterized by color-evasion, which denies potential racial differences and emphasizes similarities. Color-evasion strategies, which effectively minimize or deny the existence and impact of ‘race’, can increase racial microaggressions towards minorities and increase discomfort in the presence of diversity (Sue et al. 2009). On the other hand, power-evasion colorblindness denies racism “by emphasizing the belief that everyone has the same opportunities” (Neville et al. 2013, p. 457). Power-evasion downplays the role that social structures and racism play in society, and in doing so can lead to increased prejudice among the majority groups, and heightened internalized oppression among minorities (Speight et al. 2016).

Alternatively, and by typically promoting higher group difference salience, multiculturalism ideologies of diversity promote and value the maintenance of separate group identities. Multiculturalism recognizes group differences, and asserts that exposure to and appreciation of different social groups promotes positive social attitudes (Gutmann 1994; Modood 2016). As with colorblindness, multiculturalism can be implemented in a number of ways. For instance, multiculturalism can simply promote learning about diversity and the differences between social groups (Wolsko et al. 2006). In other cases, multicultural ideologies can highlight and promote the benefits and contributions of diversity in general (Bloemraad et al. 2008; Vorauer et al. 2009). Finally, other forms of multiculturalism can facilitate nondominant or minority groups maintaining their uniqueness while integrating into the larger social context (Berry 2005, 2011). These three forms of multiculturalism are referred to as “important differences”, “appreciate contributions”, and “maintain cultures”, respectively (Rosenthal and Levy 2012).

Due to the seemingly polar approaches to diversity that colorblindness and multiculturalism offer, it is common practice for empirical studies to directly compare the efficacy of both ideologies. While recognizing the range of definitions of colorblindness and multiculturalism in diversity research (Plaut et al. 2015), meta-analyses and comprehensive reviews of existing literature facilitate the summary of which social groups tend to support which ideologies, and the circumstances under which each ideology may remedy or trigger discrimination, racism, and poor intergroup relations. Broadly speaking, members of the majority or socially dominant group are more likely to endorse colorblind ideologies (Ryan et al. 2007). Indeed, colorblindness can remedy issues of discrimination and racism through promoting the ideal of an equitable society where group membership or minority status do not predict social outcomes (Knowles et al. 2009). At the same time, however, reviews find that colorblindness can disadvantage minority groups since it can lead to reduced sensitivity to racism and discrimination, increase social dominance of the majority group, and increase identity threat among minorities (Apfelbaum et al. 2012). On the other hand, multiculturalism is usually more strongly endorsed by ethnic and racial minorities (Wolsko et al. 2006). While members of the socially dominant group do endorse multiculturalism in some cases, it can also create majority-group threat when it is perceived as impacting national identity (Verkuyten 2005), or when it triggers feelings of exclusion since multiculturalism is associated primarily with minority groups (Plaut et al. 2011). Thus, and while multiculturalism can empower minority groups, lead to greater detection of explicit racism and discrimination, and encourage positive intergroup communication, it can also have a negative impact when it sparks feelings of threat and exclusion among the majority or socially dominant group, which in as of itself leads to social hostility.

Yet, it is essential to recognize that the colorblindness-multiculturalism paradigm is not a zero-sum game where dominant groups might benefit while non-dominant groups are exposed to disadvantage, and vice-versa. There are also many cases and contexts where support for either ideology has diverging or mixed results (extensive details and nuances can be seen in meta-analyses and theoretical reviews, e.g.: Rattan and Ambady 2013; Sasaki and Vorauer 2013; Plaut et al. 2018; Whitley and Webster 2019).

To that end, neither colorblindness or multiculturalism are universally effective at facilitating positive and constructive diversity, since each approach has advantages and disadvantages for different social groups, depending on the context presented. While the plethora of studies comparing colorblind and multicultural ideologies provide important insights in facilitating diversity, they often present a dichotomy whereby each choice can be favored by the socially dominant group while being rejected by minorities, or vice versa.

Polyculturalism

In light of the mixed findings and theoretical concerns regarding the colorblindness-multiculturalism duality (Verkuyten 2009; Ryan et al. 2010), the literature has considered polyculturalism as a third diversity ideology that distances debates from the colorblindness-multiculturalism duality. The polyculturalism ideology was first proposed by scholars (Kelley 1999; Prashad 2002, 2003; Flint 2006) who analyzed the historical connections between different groups, arguing that intercultural relations have long been part of social norms. To that end, polyculturalism, much like multiculturalism, recognizes group differences, but instead of focusing on and valuing these differences, polyculturalism emphasizes the connections between groups due to past and present intergroup contact, communication, and influence. Polyculturalism diversity ideologies are analogous to policies that encourage dialogue and interaction between distinct social groups, placing particular value on mutual influence (see “interculturalism” in: Morris et al. 2015).

Following the establishment of polyculturalism as a diversity ideology, a growing number of studies have evaluated its efficacy in a variety of circumstances. Studies have found polyculturalism to have positive, albeit mixed impacts, on diversity and intergroup contact (e.g. Osborn et al. 2020). For example, studies show that endorsement of polyculturalism is associated with reduced prejudice towards sexual minorities (Healy et al. 2017) and less sexist attitudes (Rosenthal et al. 2014). Furthermore, a series of studies on 694 racially diverse undergraduate students in the US (Rosenthal and Levy 2012) found that endorsement of polyculturalism to be significantly correlated with many measures of positive intergroup contact, including lower social dominance orientation, greater willingness for intergroup contact, and stronger appreciation for and comfort with diversity, for all ethnic groups.

While early studies on polyculturalism suggest its efficacy in a number of situations, some studies provide mixed results, particularly outside the US context. In Colombia, a study on 423 adults shows how endorsement of polyculturalism is positively associated with better attitudes towards people from other countries and friendship intentions towards immigrants (Rosenthal et al. 2019). However, endorsement of polyculturalism was also positively associated with higher social dominance orientation (SDO), which frequently leads to increased racism and poor intergroup dynamics (Pratto et al. 2006). Similarly, studies on high school and college students in the Philippines (N = 302) found polyculturalism to be positively associated with more positive attitudes to people from other countries and higher SDO, simultaneously (Bernardo et al. 2013).

In a review of studies on polyculturalism, Rosenthal and Levy (2013) suggest that one of the potential drawbacks of this ideology is its focus on potentially negative or damaging histories. For example, if polyculturalism draws attention to historical ties between groups, then highlighting negative relationships or oppression between groups—be it through wars, colonization, slavery, genocide, or otherwise—could be damaging for intergroup relations. The possibility of such an option can help explain some of the mixed results above, as well as in the US. For instance, studies on 394 adults in the US found endorsement of polyculturalism to be negatively associated with intergroup anxiety and support policies that negatively impact Muslim Americans such as racial profiling and limiting tourist visas from Islamic countries (Rosenthal et al. 2015). Given the social tension surrounding Muslim Americans—particularly post 9/11—these results may present somewhat contrasting patterns for Muslim and Black Americans, though neither of these studies compare the groups directly.

Summary: future directions for diversity models

The short review above highlights that none of the three commonly evaluated ideologies are universally effective at fostering positive diversity. In light of this reality, scholars have recommend combined approaches that integrate a variety of aspects from different models (Rosenthal and Levy 2010, 2012). However, it is not clear that adopting such an approach, or indeed implementing polyculturalism diversity models, will be effective in all contexts, especially if there are deeply entrenched intergroup tensions or a history of conflict, racism, or discrimination. There is therefore a need to consider widening the scope of existing diversity ideologies, and in particular, identifying diversity ideologies that may be effective in challenging circumstances.

Globalization and diversity

While there is no singular accepted definition, globalization broadly refers to the exchange of people, technology, goods/services, culture, and information, and the resulting increasing links and interconnections that transcend geographic and cultural borders. For clarity, this paper considers globalization as a complex process rather than a tangible outcome (e.g. Held and McGrew 2007; Sutton 2012; McGrew and Lewis 2013). Diversity, on the other hand, is a more static concept that can be viewed as an outcome or end goal. Diversity is the practice or condition of having, being composed of, or including people of varying backgrounds. The communication between individuals in diverse settings leads to globalization, and globalization—through the exchanges of people, technology, information, and cultures—advances diversity. In this way, globalization and diversity (i.e. the process and the outcome) are understood as highly interrelated but distinct social conditions that are in a process of co-production. Indeed, while processes of exchange in globalization lead to increased diversity, the diversification of any social context leads to increased exchanges between groups, thereby accelerating globalization. In other words, the processes and outcomes of globalization and diversity are distinct, and in a form of co-production where each influences the other simultaneously (Hay and Marsh 2000).

The premise of this paper is that a potentially effective way of addressing some of the challenges or limits that arise from dichotomous (or indeed, with polyculturalism, trichotomous) approaches to diversity may come from considering models of diversity ideologies in the context of globalization. The reasons for adopting such an approach are twofold. The first reason lies within how globalization and diversity are intrinsically related to one another, as explained above. Owing to the relationship between the two, discourse on diversity ought to be considered in the context of its co-productant, globalization. Indeed, since diversity and globalization can be seen as two distinct but related phenomena, a discussion of the relationships between them is legitimate and likely to have consequences for diversity ideologies and theories. Scholars have already adopted such an approach, noting the relationship between globalization and diversity (Kim and Bhawuk 2008). In particular Berry (2008) adopted this stance in a theoretical paper that considers the relationships between globalization and acculturation. The paper proposed that the assimilation of non-dominant social groups is not a necessary consequence of globalization; a claim that has been since supported by empirical studies (e.g. Gillespie et al. 2010; Ozer and Schwartz 2016). These studies indicate how considering acculturation in the context of globalization facilitated further development of theories of acculturation. Accordingly, the current paper suggests that considering diversity in the context of globalization can provide insights for the development of diversity ideologies.

The second reason for considering globalization and diversity together can be understood by considering literature on the context of globalization. Indeed, processes of globalization occur in contexts whose social order and context are increasingly distinct from that of the traditional local or national context (Appadurai 1996; Sassen 2003). In other words, the social context of globalization creates global spaces, which can be understood as social contexts that are characterized by globalization.Footnote 1

Global spaces, as created by globalization, facilitate sets of interactions between individuals that are distinct from those in non-globalized spaces. These distinct interactions can, for many, have a positive impact on diversity. This claim is underpinned by the way in which global spaces facilitate the creation of a form of “intercultural personhood” that facilitates positive dynamics of stress-management, adaptation, and growth for individuals in the face of diversity (Kim 2008; Jones 2009). While global spaces have diverging consequences for minority and non-dominant social groups (Sassen 2007), it is possible that they provide some individuals with the opportunity to temporally or culturally ‘leave’ a disadvantageous social context, thus creating a way in which globalization can be a source of empowerment (Sassen and Van Roekel-Hughes 2008).

Conceptual analyses of how globalization, globalism, and global spaces impact relations between social groups have also been framed as consequences of The Cosmopolitan Canopy. Through urban ethnographies, sociologists have described how public spaces in cities and urban centers have become increasingly racially, ethnically, and socially diverse (Anderson 2011). Instead of suggesting that this amounts to social tension, the resulting ‘cosmopolitan canopy’ offers “respite and an opportunity for diverse peoples to come to do their business” (Anderson 2004, p. 14). Cosmopolitan canopies in this sense can be viewed as urban global spaces with potentially positive consequences for intergroup contact. Indeed, studies of diverse schools in the UK argue how the cosmopolitan canopy can contribute to social mixing, conviviality, and cross-group friendships (Hollingworth and Mansaray 2012); in the Indonesian-Philippine archipelago, cosmopolitan canopies can facilitate cross-ethnic and inter-religious harmonies in urban centers (Lawrence 2011); and studies of favelas in Brazil argue that globalized cosmopolitan canopies can facilitate the shared goal of civic improvement between social groups (Lima 2019). As argued further in this paper, global spaces, such as those experienced in the cosmopolitan canopy, are distinct from multicultural, colorblind, and polycultural spaces.

Some scholars have also indirectly suggested how globalization can create new paths for interculturalism and diversity. Kastoryano (2018), for example, argues how ‘solidarity beyond borders’ can catalyze a sense of community and belonging based on shared global identification. In parallel, there is a growing discourse on interculturalism as a critical response to multiculturalism (Antonsich 2015), that moves beyond a passive coexistence of diverse cultures towards relations based on shared values and mutual respect (Modood and Meer 2012; Modood 2021). While these studies do not focus specifically on globalization, they indicate that interculturalism—as a product of globalization—could shape new models for diversity.

In addition, the context of globalization has also been linked to diversity through diversity management theory, which promotes a work culture that reflects diversity in wider society (Ewoh 2013). Where society is characterized by globalization, diversity management theory suggests recreating and fostering global culture in the workplace, since such an approach is likely to promote equality and acceptance of racial and ethnic minorities (Özbilgin et al. 2013). These theories suggest that globalization facilitates the identification of common meanings and values that can potentially promote mutual understanding (Mor Barak 2016). In particular, adopting a global work culture or identity are suggested to promote better intergroup relations in the work context (Shokef and Erez 2006). A similar theoretical stance was proposed in order to use the common context of globalization and migration in order to facilitate positive diversity in urban centers that are characterized by migration (Landis 2008). To that end, globalization in the context of diversity management theory and migration arguably reflect similar ideas to theories about the context of global spaces.

These studies raise important questions: in the instances where global spaces avail positive diversity outcomes, what kind of diversity ideologies and models represent their social reality? To what extent is globalization-induced diversity similar to the three well-established ideologies and models? And, particularly given the extensive evidence that globalization and global spaces can incur identity threat and disempowerment for minority and non-dominant social groups (Sharma and Sharma 2010; Roach 2017), under what context might ‘globalization diversity’ may be effective? In order to answer these questions, and indeed provide the necessary theoretical groundwork for the development and testing of a globalization diversity instrument, the paper now uses the definition of globalization and global spaces in order to conject potential traits of a globalization diversity ideology.

Defining a globalization diversity ideology

A unique globalization diversity ideology can be synthesized by considering the two axes upon which lie the already-established diversity ideologies. The first axis for diversity ideologies is given by group difference salience, with colorblindness and multiculturalism lying at opposing ends of this scale. The second axis concerns the denial or acceptance of asymmetrical interactions and influences between groups. Indeed, many (though not all) articulations of colorblindness that deny the asymmetrical influences that different groups have on one another either by acknowledging group categories while ignoring status, or by ignoring group categories entirely (i.e. power evasion and color evasion, respectively: Neville et al. 2013). Similarly, critics of multicultural diversity note that many manifestations of multiculturalism do not sufficiently acknowledge power disparities and unequal participation between different social groups (Barry 2002; Pakulski 2014).

In contrast to most manifestations of multiculturalism and colorblindness, polyculturalism broadly acknowledges asymmetries between groups. By focussing on “the many connections among groups due to past and present interactions and mutual influence” (Rosenthal and Levy 2010, pp. 223–224), polyculturalism is distinct from multiculturalism and colorblindness since the historical context of group interactions and mutual influence reflect and acknowledge group asymmetries. This distinction contributes to the particular efficacy of polyculturalism in intergroup relations where other diversity models may create challenges or trigger negative social responses.

Based on the analogy of two axes or dimensions of diversity, polyculturalism and multiculturalism are similar in their higher levels of group difference salience, but different in that the former is typically more effective at acknowledging group asymmetries. Colorblindness fills a third rubric by placing low emphasis on group difference salience and ignoring group asymmetries. Yet, with two independent axes or dimensions, simple arithmetic leads to four possible diversity ideologies, implying a potential ideological gap that could be used to identify a fourth diversity ideology.

Based on the analogy of two axes or dimensions of diversity, the ‘missing’ ideology—which I define as the globalization diversity ideology—has two main characteristics: first, it places low importance on group membership; but second, does so while acknowledging potential asymmetries in status and interactions. In this way, the missing ideology is related to colorblindness as polyculturalism is related to multiculturalism, but it is distinct from colorblindness on its ideological focus. Table 1 illustrates these ideological differences.

Table 1 Diversity ideology definitions and example measures/items according to group difference salience and primary focus of ideology
Full size table

For illustration and comparative purposes, Table 1 includes examples of items that have been used to measure colorblindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism ideologies (for further examples of items and instruments, see: Rosenthal and Levy 2012, p. 16; Hahn et al. 2015). Note that while the two axes are portrayed in the table as discrete, there may be significant overlap in practice. Indeed, there are often differences between versions of diveristy ideologies in the same class, with some diversity models sharing characteristics with more than one ideology. Moreover, this two-dimensional representation with its selected dimensions is just one of the many representations of diversity ideologies. Indeed, other paradigms may present similarities and differences between the models in alternative ways (just for example, intergroup conflict and group difference salience: Dovidio et al. 2003; Everett 2013). Table 1 should therefore be viewed as four quadrants, with significant variation within each quadrant and potential overlap between different quadrants.

This paper argues that the missing ideology—which has been labelled globalization—reflects the type of diversity that manifests in global spaces (i.e. social contexts characterized by globalization). Empirical examples of globalization diversity are given below in order to support this argument. However, in the absence of an agreed and tested measure for globalization diversity, it is instructive first to consider practical definitions and questionnaire items that reflect it.

To that end, by considering social identity theory (Tajfel and Turner 1986) and social categorization theory (Turner et al. 1987), it is possible to suggest that example items may focus on the development of a shared global or international identity (Shokef and Erez 2006; Lisak and Erez 2009). This categorization is distinct from colorblindness insofar as it is not necessarily assimilationist; indeed, and unlike colorblindness, focus on a shared global identity does not contradict forms of acculturation that recognize, or in some cases even celebrate group differences (i.e. integration, separation, or marginalization in global acculturation models: Berry 2008; Harush et al. 2016). Alternatively, and in light of the discussion on globalization, these items may also: focus on the connections between different individuals (rather than groups or cultures); reflect the mutual influence that individuals have on one another in shared global spaces; and focus on the exchange and movement of people from all parts of the world. They also may reflect some aspects of interculturalism, where individuals from diverging groups establish positive relationships through shared values of mutual respect (Kastoryano 2018; Modood 2021).

In addition, and given the studies that highlight the role of a belief in a global space in creating positive diversity (Diamond 2021, 2023; Diamond and Kislev 2021, 2022), the items in Table 1 can also explore individual beliefs in the existence and pertinence of the global space. Each of these possibilities reflects different aspects of globalization while offering approaches to diversity that are ostensibly distinct from the three established ideologies. To that end, Table 1 shows the potential similarities and differences between a globalization diversity ideology and colorblindness, multiculturalism, and polyculturalism ideologies.

While the proposed globalization ideology ostensibly reflects processes of globalization and the unique social context of global spaces (Sassen and Van Roekel-Hughes 2008), it is important to recognize that the development of an empirical measure for this ideology may not necessarily reflect every definition of globalization, or indeed the literature on global spaces. Moreover, such an ideology measure, even if successfully constructed, may not necessarily explain for unique variance in measures of intergroup relations, discrimination, racism, or other social phenomenon, when compared with existing ideologies. Indeed, it is important to note studies that partially conflate or find strong relationships between support of globalization and each one of: multiculturalism (e.g. Moghaddam 2008); the convergence and merging of cultures (i.e. as a form of colorblindness, see: Niezen 2008); and endorsement of polyculturalism (e.g. Hao et al. 2016). Therefore, and in order to substantiate the value of pursuing the development of a globalization ideology measure, the paper reviews empirical research that reflect diversity in the context of globalization.

Globalization diversity ideologies in empirical studies

Research that demonstrate how the context of globalization can facilitate diversity has been conducted in primarily two contexts. The first concerns studies in globalization, business, and diversity management, and the second includes studies on diversity in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Broadly speaking, the studies link the development of global identities, the endorsement of globalization, or the emergence of global spaces to positive sociopsychological outcomes. Although none define a globalization diversity ideology or construct the concept of a globalization diversity model, it is possible to juxtapose the definitions proposed into this paper into the context of the studies, and as such build a case for the formal development of a globalization diversity ideology.

Globalization diversity and global identities in management

Examples of globalization diversity are evident in a group of studies that connects the development of a global or international identity with positive social outcomes in diversity management settings. Notably, studies propose that a sense of global identity facilitates the identification of inter-group similarities and positive teamworking norms (Glikson and Erez 2013), and that perceived membership of a common ‘global ingroup’ increases feelings of shared identity (Lisak and Erez 2009). In addition, a study on 317 MBA students of 32 nationalities found that individuals who score higher on measures of global identity and characteristics are more likely to emerge as leaders in diverse work settings (Lisak and Erez 2015). In each of these examples, positive outcomes emerge where individuals can identify a shared global work setting (i.e. a shared global space) or a shared global identity. In these studies, the focus on commonality causes individuals from different groups to favour and attribute positive traits to one another (see also: van Dijk et al. 2017).

Additional studies on MBA students are instrumental in demonstrating the potential impact of globalization diversity particularly on intergroup contact. One study assigned 317 MBA students into 83 nationality-diverse teams to complete a series of managerial tasks (Harush et al. 2018). Structural equation modelling indicated that the salience of global identity indirectly reduces levels of relational conflict, through the measured levels of perceived proximity. That is, individual who espouse a global identity—and see it as a shared space that increases their proximity to individuals from different outgroups—experience more positive intergroup contact. Of interest here is the fact that the measures used in this study focus on the global as a shared construct or identity, but without deliberately highlighting group difference salience (i.e. globalization diversity in Table 1). Using the terminology define above, the impacts of globalization diversity in this study are mediated by the perceived proximity between participants.

While these studies point at the possible advantages of a globalization diversity model, there is some heterogeneity within the samples. In each of the studies, participants who do not experience the global space or endorse its contents and characteristics do not experience the reported benefits of such an approach to diversity. As such, it is important to note the possibility of fostering global identities through educational and training projects. To that end, an additional study followed MBA and graduate students (N = 1221) from 17 universities in 12 countries as they participated in an online 4-week diversity training module (Erez et al. 2013). Data regarding participants’ global identitiesFootnote 2 and cultural intelligenceFootnote 3 were collected prior to participation, at the end of the taught contents, and 6 months following completion. Hierarchical linear modelling found that the training immediately increased both cultural intelligence and measures of global identity across participating countries, with significant effects being recorded 6 months later. While this study does not establish a causal relationship between global identities and cultural intelligence, it demonstrates how it is possible to develop global identities, and is therefore indicative of the possibility of implementing globalization diversity models through training. Particularly given recent studies indicating a relationship between cultural intelligence and global identities (Yüksel and Eres 2018; Yari et al. 2020), this study provides evidence regarding both the feasibility and potential impacts of a globalization diversity ideology.

Globalization diversity in the context of STEM

Examples of globalization diversity are also apparent in studies that investigate discrimination, inequality, and intergroup relations in the context of STEM. These studies note that the global, universal, or international contexts of STEM work or studies facilitate positive intergroup contact. Some of these examples are of particular importance for understanding the potential of globalization diversity since they provide empirical investigations of globalization diversity for minority populations with no prior selection; indeed, the studies in diversity management may have hidden selection effects since they focus primarily on MBA students or professionals who have strong educational backgrounds, and do not take minority groups into special account.

For example, two recent studies conducted on minority high school students in Israel aged 14–18 collected questionnaire data to test the relationships between different perceptions of STEM with willingness to work and study with the outgroup (Diamond and Kislev 2022), and anticipated discrimination in STEM fields (Diamond and Kislev 2021). In the former study, where data was collected for minority students (N = 246), willingness to work and study with the outgroup was regressed on the extent to which students perceived STEM to be global and international. The analyses found agreement with these statements to be significantly associated with a willingness to work or study with the outgroup. At the same time, the study finds that cooperative perceptions of STEM (as measured by agreement with the statement “There is cooperation between different groups of people in STEM in Israel”: Diamond and Kislev 2022, p. 8) are not associated with willingness to integrate with the outgroup. In the latter of the two studies, a similar approach was used to examine the relationships between perceptions of STEM and anticipated discrimination, comparing results for minority and majority-group students (N = 380). This study found that global and international perceptions of STEM to be associated with reduced levels of anticipated discrimination, but only for students with the highest levels of minority salience. Similarly, Diamond (2020, 2021) found global perceptions of STEM to be significantly associated with better educational outcomes. In these studies, Diamond and Kislev argue that the students, by immersing into STEM contexts—which can be understood as global spaces—minority students are able to partially circumvent the local/national context that is characterized by poor intergroup relations, and a lack of interest (or indeed rejection) of shared social contexts (see: Smooha 2016). Of particular interest is the significant relationship between what appears to be an endorsement of a ‘global and international’ environment and positive attitudes to intergroup cooperation, while its multiculturalism/polyculturalism counterpart (i.e. the perception of STEM as cooperative, that highlights group difference salience) is insignificant. To that end, these studies indicates how a possible form of a globalization diversity ideology may be effective where multiculturalism or polyculturalism-based approaches are ineffective. Moreover, they reflect the success of STEM-based peace projects attribute their success to the ‘global’, ‘international’, or ‘universal’ nature of STEM (e.g. Cohen 2005; Sriharan et al. 2009; Martiniuk and Wires 2011; Langer 2018) as a means for bridging between rival groups.

Similar conclusions can also be drawn from qualitative research conducted in Israel. One ethnographic study on minority youth (aged 15–18) visiting high-tech companies as part of an extra-curricular program found that student encounters with STEM employees increased academic motivation and interest in STEM careers (Diamond 2023). According to the study, minority students became interested in STEM as a way of achieving social equality through being considered as ‘equals’ in their chosen profession (i.e. low group difference salience), and through espousing identity with a global company that could afford socioeconomic mobility (i.e. a shared global identity). Similarly, a study conducted on nurses, nursing assistants, and physicians working in hospitals and retirement homes included 44 interviews with minority (N = 37) and majority-group (N = 7) employees, and sought to establish how they cope with manifestations of the regional conflict in professional circumstances (Darr 2018). In order to mitigate the impact of racism, all of the workers agreed that religious, national, and cultural divides play a minimal role in their day-to-day work and social ties with colleagues, thus facilitating professional relationships that might not have occurred outside of the hospital or retirement home setting (coined “the neutral work environment”, see: Darr 2018, p. 840). When instances of racism do occur, for example with patients, the participants adopt split-ascription strategies in order to abstract and distance themselves from the reality of ethno-national conflict and social tension.

In both of these examples, the youth and healthcare workers, respectively, seek and adopt strategies that would allow them to separate their social positionality in their work environment from the structural discrimination, and allows people from different groups to focus on the importance of the cooperation and relationships between them. In both studies, the globalization of STEM (Drori et al. 2003) facilitates minimizing social group differences together with the focus on connections and relationships between workers, or shared identities as STEM professionals. They are thus reflective of a possible globalization ideology for diversity. These strategies and stances adopted by the participants in both studies do not erase the presence of institutional discrimination or negative consequences of the ethno-national conflict, but provide a possible way of addressing some of its associated challenges.

Globalization diversity for minorities in STEM can also be seen in research on women working in STEM in globalized contexts (i.e. global spaces). Interviews (N = 121) conducted researchers in STEM fields from five continents establish how women can partially avoid gender-based discrimination by entering the global sphere (Zippel 2017). STEM, as a global space, can reduce the gender salience for women by placing emphasis on research capabilities or prestige, rather than minority salience. Zippel’s (2017) analyses indicate both low importance on group difference (e.g. being perceived first as scientists, or belonging to a prestigious research institution, rather than women or minorities), while focusing on the importance of shared identities, connections, interactions, cooperation, and mutual influence between individuals from different contexts. Accordingly, the diversity presented here—that assists in reducing some cases of gender-based discrimination—may be congruent with the proposed globalization diversity ideology (see: Table 1).

Discussion, conclusions, and future directions

This paper aims to provide the necessary theoretical groundwork to facilitate the expansion of the colorblindness-multiculturalism-polyculturalism paradigm in diversity ideologies and diversity models research. The review of existing theoretical and relevant empirical studies should encourage scholars to consider the potential development of an instrument for a globalization diversity ideology and corresponding globalization diversity model, thus creating a four-model approach to analyzing diversity. Yet, the limitations of this review and existing empirical research raise several important questions that should guide this process.

First, and while the distinction between globalization diversity and other ideologies are theoretically clear, this does not guarantee its uniqueness: the studies reviewed here do not check for correlations between endorsement of globalization diversity and other ideologies. Indeed, emerging studies have found correlations between polyculturalism and positive views of globalization (Bernardo 2019), and as such, the development of a globalization diversity ideology will require future studies to establish its uniqueness from existing ideologies. Moreover, with few exceptions (e.g. Diamond and Kislev 2021, 2022), the studies included do not compare the impacts of globalization diversity with other models. Thus, in order to establish potential benefits of the globalization ideology, future studies will need to check whether endorsement of globalization diversity models can account for unique variance in measures of social wellbeing.

Second, the available empirical studies are relatively limited in the scope of their social contexts (i.e. management diversity and STEM). This could ostensibly be attributed to the fact that the globalization of business (Jones 2009) and STEM (Drori et al. 2003) avail to the creating of global spaces and promotion of globalization diversity. Nonetheless, the limited range of these studies raises the question whether globalization diversity would be impactful in other situations. As such, future research needs to establish the potential relevance of the globalization ideology in additional settings.

Third, it is notable that many of the empirical studies on globalization diversity in STEM rely on data from Israel (i.e. Sriharan et al. 2009; Martiniuk and Wires 2011; Darr 2018; Diamond 2021, 2023; Diamond and Kislev 2021, 2022). While this highlights the need to investigate globalization diversity in contexts outside of Israel, it may also give an initial indication of the contexts wherein globalization diversity ideologies may be most effective. Many of these studies argue that the global aspects of STEM present a route for leaving the Israeli context, or at least to reduce its salience. In other words, amplifying globalized aspects and sub-contexts within Israeli society reduces the salience of the Israeli-Arab conflict, with positive effects for diversity and intergroup relations. To that end, it may be that globalization diversity is more effective when it provides such a route to circumvent intergroup tensions, or avoid institutional discrimination or racism. Indeed, the STEM example outside of Israel demonstrates how the global, in some cases, can help women in global STEM careers reduce the negative impacts of gender-based discrimination (Zippel 2017). As such, future studies on globalization diversity in a variety of national and social contexts are likely to contribute to the debates on when and under which circumstances globalization is empowering and/or threatening for different social groups (Sassen and Van Roekel-Hughes 2008; Sharma and Sharma 2010; Anderson 2011; Smith 2016). The establishment of a globalization diversity ideology would provide an additional angle for addressing these debates.

Finally, it is crucial to reflect on how globalization and global spaces may pose a particular challenge or threat for some minority groups. While the studies cited in this paper present the globalization diversity ideology as a possible for minority groups, the lived experiences of minorities in global spaces, diverse settings, and cosmopolitan settings depend on individual and group identity. In many instances, asymmetrical interactions between different social groups have posed challenges for minorities in the contexts of globalization and diversity, particularly when it poses a threat to national and/or indigenous identity (Sharma and Sharma 2010; Sharma 2016). The development of the globalization diversity ideology can contribute to the research on minorities in global contexts.

Once these limitations are addressed, a globalization diversity ideology may assist, in some contexts, in addressing a key challenge in diversity research: choosing diversity models that do not empower one social group at the potential expense of another (Plaut et al. 2018). While the introduction of polyculturalism improved on the options available in the colorblindness-multiculturalism dichotomy, the three-way approach still necessitates adopting different aspects of different models to suit each situation (Rosenthal and Levy 2010, 2012). The introduction of a fourth option—the globalization ideology—will broaden the choices available.