Explore the vast range of titles available.

Diversity of practice is widely recognized as crucial to scientific progress. If all scientists perform the same tests in their research, they might miss important insights that other tests would yield. If all scientists adhere to the same theories, they might fail to explore other options which, in turn, might be superior. But the mechanisms that lead to this sort of diversity can also generate epistemic harms when scientific communities fail to reach swift consensus on successful theories. In this paper, we draw on extant literature using network models to investigate diversity in science. We evaluate different mechanisms from the modeling literature that can promote transient diversity of practice, keeping in mind ethical and practical constraints posed by real epistemic communities. We ask: what are the best ways to promote an appropriate amount of diversity of practice in scientific communities?

Philosophers of science have in recent years presented arguments in favour of increasing cognitive diversity, diversity of social locations, and diversity of values and interests in science. Some of these arguments align with important aims in contemporary science policy. The policy aims have led to the development of institutional measures and instruments that are supposed to increase diversity in science and in the governance of science. The links between the philosophical arguments and the institutional measures have not gone unnoticed. Philosophers have even explicitly suggested that institutional measures could be used to increase diversity in science. But philosophical criticisms of the existing institutional instruments have also been presented. Here I review some recent case studies in which philosophers examine actual attempts to increase diversity in science by using institutional measures implemented from the top down—attempts that have failed in one way or another. These studies examine attempts to involve citizens or stakeholders in the governance of science and technology and attempts to increase the number of interdisciplinary collaborations. They draw attention to the limitations of such instruments, calling into question the most optimistic visions of using institutional instruments to increase diversity in science.

Research summary: Strategic dissent represents divergence in ideas, preferences, and beliefs related to ideal and/or future strategic emphasis. Conventional wisdom in strategic management holds that such differences in managerial cognitions lead to higher-quality strategic decisions, and thus to enhanced firm performance. However, 4 decades of empirical research have not provided consistent findings or clear insights into the effects of strategic dissent. Hence, we analyze the relative validity of predictions about these effects from both social psychological theories of group behavior and information processing perspectives on decision-making. Then, we conduct a meta-analytic path analysis (MASEM) based on current empirical evidence. Synthesizing data from 78 articles, we put to rest the notion that strategic dissent leads to positive outcomes for organizations and estimate how negative its effects actually are. Managerial summary: Top management teams (TMTs) set the tone and direction for their firms in important ways. Top managers, however, often disagree over fundamental issues related to strategy. Such strategic dissent affects how important decisions are made, and thus how the firm performs. In more specific terms and contrary to popular belief, strategic dissent creates not only dysfunctional relationships among top managers, but also disrupts the process by which these managers exchange, discuss, and integrate information and ideas in making strategic decisions. In short, firms have not yet generated value through numerous perspectives, ideas, and opinions among their top managers. We discuss interventions that could prove helpful in efforts to benefit from having diverse cognitions in a TMT.

Prior research suggests that board diversity, especially in terms of gender, potentially enhances its effectiveness. However, as a construct, diversity extends beyond gender to encompass board members’ other demographic attributes as well as cognitive features such as attitudes, values, beliefs, knowledge, skills and capabilities. We expect these two sides of diversity, which we label demographic and cognitive, to play a critical role in determining a firm’s corporate social responsibility (CSR) disclosure. For our purpose, CSR performance and disclosure comprise environmental and social dimensions. Our results show that social performance exhibits a positive relation to a board’s demographic and cognitive diversities, while environmental performance relates to cognitive diversity, but not demographic diversity. Moreover, both forms of diversity mediate the positive relationship between social performance and social disclosure quality, while only demographic diversity mediates the positive relationship between environmental performance and environmental disclosure quality.

PurposeThe function of cognitive diversity has not yet been studied to a sufficient degree. To address this gap, the current study aims to answer the questions of how and when team cognitive diversity fosters individual creativity by integrating the intellectual capital view and the inclusion literature.Design/methodology/approachWith a paired and time-lagged sample consisting of 368 members and 46 leaders from Chinese high-tech organizations, a multilevel moderated mediation model was developed to test the hypothesized relationships using structural equation modeling.FindingsTeam cognitive diversity is positively related to individual creativity via team intellectual capital, but this positive indirect effect is obtained only when the inclusive team climate is high.Research limitations/implicationsTeam intellectual capital serves as an alternative mechanism for translating team cognitive diversity into favorable outcomes, and an inclusive team climate plays a pivotal role in harvesting the benefits of team cognitive diversity. Future research could extend our study by adopting a multiwave longitudinal or experimental design, examining the possibility of curvilinearity, considering the changes in patterns over time, and conducting cross-cultural studies.Practical implicationsManagers should take the initiative to assemble a team featuring cognitive diversity when facing creative tasks, and should proactively cultivate an inclusive culture when leading such a team.Originality/valueThis study is among the first to consider the mediating role of team intellectual capital in the cross-level effect of team cognitive diversity on individual creativity and to examine the boundary role of an inclusive team climate with respect to this indirect effect.

Purpose This study aims to examine newcomers experiencing maladjustment due to cognitive diversity, specifically, how maladjustment affects their turnover intentions; the mediating role of reported workplace bullying; and the buffering effect of perceived inclusive practices in the hospitality sector. Design/methodology/approach The authors collected time-lagged data from 403 respondents and analyzed the data through hierarchical regression analyses using statistical package for the social sciences (SPSS) 25.0. Findings Role ambiguity, low self-efficacy and social exclusion could each lead to newcomers’ reported workplace bullying (NRB). Perceived inclusive practices buffered the impacts of role ambiguity and social exclusion. NRB negatively mediated the relationships between role ambiguity and NRB; and social exclusion and NRB. Practical implications Hospitality practitioners should specify work procedures to minimize role ambiguities and record service processes to correct mistakes, reward veterans who help newcomers improve self-efficacy, invite newcomers to develop inclusive practices and review employee comments on third-party platforms to understand factors responsible for turnover intention. Originality/value This study contextualized cognitive diversity into newcomers’ maladjustment-bullying-turnover model in China’s hospitality industry. It highlighted the buffering effect of perceived inclusive practices in the relationships between maladjustment and reported bullying and turnover intentions among newcomers and confirmed the important role of self-efficacy in addressing adverse work events.

PurposeThis study advances research on cognitive diversity from the perspective of public employees by studying the effect of cognitive diversity on team viability, the mediating effect of transactive memory systems (TMS) and the moderating effect of technology integration.Design/methodology/approachWe used SmartPLS to analyze a unique data set from 193 public employees. The information was collected through an online questionnaire administered by the LimeSurvey Professional platform. In addition to analyzing the data through partial least squares structural equation modeling with higher-order latent variables, we analyzed mediating and moderating effects.FindingsThe results show that TMS act as partial mediators between cognitive diversity and team viability. Although technology integration (for both external diffusion and internal integration) moderates this relationship to mitigate negative effects, technological infrastructure does not.Originality/valueThis study expands previous research on TMS and technology integration. Our findings support the significance of TMS and technology integration in a context of cognitive diversity, identify ways to develop good management behavior and assess the results of these practices for team viability. We recommend that public managers in contexts of cognitive diversity work to create effective workplace environments. Training programs can foster TMS capabilities and support implementation of technology integration to improve team viability and results for public service delivery to citizens.

Innovation is a potential source of differentiation and competitive advantage for the hospitality industry. However, the dynamism of the environment forces hotel operators to establish multiple and simultaneous interorganizational relations-portfolio of alliances-in order to provide the accommodation service and develop innovation activities while being efficient, aimed at remaining competitive in dynamic contexts. The benefits obtained, considering the set of relationships from a global perspective, are superior to those addressing alliances from an individual point of view. Bearing this in mind, this study empirically tests how the diversity among the agent's attributes-resources and cognitive schemes-within the portfolio of alliance can affect the introduction of business innovations. It is also analyzed whether the previous experience in collaboration of the hotel firm moderates this relationship. The results reveal that hotel companies must design their partner configuration according to the type of innovation to be introduced, focusing mainly on areas such as service and marketing.

Although literature frequently argues that diversity stimulates innovative work behavior, theoretical perspectives and empirical findings on this relationship remain inconsistent. Based on self-category theory, this study aims to comprehensively investigate when and how team cognitive diversity benefits or inhibits innovative work behavior. We introduced a new context of research (i.e., virtual teams) during COVID-19 and tested a moderated mediation model using a two-wave survey of 238 employees from 56 virtual teams in China. The results indicated that team cognitive diversity negatively related to knowledge sharing, which in turn inhibited innovative work behavior. In addition, openness to experience moderated the relationship between team cognitive diversity and knowledge sharing, such that cognitive diversity positively related to knowledge sharing among employees with a high openness to experience, while it negatively related to knowledge sharing among those with low openness. These findings enrich the existing literature on innovation by clarifying the mechanisms and boundary conditions of team cognitive diversity and innovative work behavior.

Purpose This study aims to determine how cognitive diversity at the workplace influences team creativity. In this regard, the authors examined knowledge sharing and team-focused inclusion through which team members’ cognitive diversity was expected to elevate their positive work outcomes. Design/methodology/approach A quantitative method is used to accumulate the data. The authors surveyed workers and their respective managers at a single China-based food company. The supervisors rated the outcome variables (creativity and team effectiveness) regarding their employees, whereas employees were asked to rate the cognitive diversity, inclusion and knowledge sharing within the workgroup. The final valid sample size (n = 391) consisted of 137 workgroups with an adequate response rate (62.3%). Findings Cognitive diversity is related to team effectiveness but not creativity. The research found that cognitive diversity can increase creativity only through enhanced inclusion and knowledge sharing. Inclusion, likewise, explained the impact of cognitive diversity on effectiveness. Originality/value The originality of the current research lies in its contemporary exploration of inclusion and cognitive diversity and their pathways to team creativity and effectiveness. The social capital theory was applied to explain the proposed relationships.