Diversity in cultural diversity research: a scoping review

ABSTRACT

Cultural diversity has the potential to influence important individual and group outcomes in sport contexts. Prior to examining these relationships, a clear understanding of how cultural diversity is defined and measured is required. Recognizing equivocal findings in relatable domains (organizational psychology), the present study reviewed empirical articles that examined cultural diversity in small group contexts (e.g. sport teams, work groups) to determine how culture-related diversity has been defined and measured, and to identify potential correlates that could subsequently be examined in sport. In total, 109 articles met the inclusion criteria and were reviewed. Only 40 articles (37%) clearly defined culture or related terms (e.g. race, ethnicity, nationality). The majority of studies (n = 71, 65%) used mathematical indices or categorical descriptions (n = 29, 27%) for diversity measurement, and some of the most common correlates included group performance (n = 54, 50%), cohesion (n = 10, 9%), and satisfaction (n = 10, 9%). We discuss the importance of providing clear definitions of culture-related terms in future cultural diversity research in sport contexts and elaborate on the consequences of inconsistent categorical measurement. Several future research directions are proposed that consider the transferability of the identified correlates to sport contexts.

KEYWORDS:

• Culture
• race
• ethnicity
• nationality
• sport groups
• group dynamics

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1 As will be argued for later, and for the purpose of clarity, we initially use the term culture (and therefore cultural background and cultural diversity) to encompass terms such as ethnicity, race, and nationality. Important distinctions among these terms will be highlighted in subsequent sections.

2 Blau’s index reflects the categorical nature of diversity as variety and is calculated as follows: 1 – ∑p_i², where p is the proportion of team members belonging to a self-reported referent group and i is the number of different referent groups on a team.

3 The coefficient of variation reflects the asymmetrical nature of diversity as disparity and is calculated by dividing the standard deviation of an attribute by its mean. For a more detailed description of these measures, please see Harrison and Klein (2007).

4 On sport teams, individuals are likely to vary in their degree of collectivist orientation. That is, some athletes may strive for individual accolades, while others may believe their team’s collective performance is what is most important. For illustrative purposes, we discuss these two extreme ends of the spectrum, although it is recognized that individual athletes would vary along a continuum of collectivism.

5 Each of the first three authors were current sport psychology graduate students who had previous experience with extensive literature reviews.

6 The sum of study samples is greater than the total number of articles (N = 109) due to some studies using more than one sample of participants.

7 The sum of the number of articles using different types of measurements is greater than the total number of articles (N = 109) due to some studies measuring diversity using multiple methods (e.g. mathematical indices and Likert scales).

8 This number includes studies that examined team effectiveness and success.

9 We speculate that researchers may use categorical measurement of diversity because: (a) it is relatively parsimonious compared to other measurement techniques (e.g. math indices) and/or (b) they are relying on past measurement practices to choose their measurement method.

10 Given our study did not consider qualitative studies, these recommendations are intended for quantitative examinations of cultural diversity specifically.