The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment: A Dialogic Analysis of Equal Opportunity Discourse in Oklahoma

Using a dialogic lens, this study explored the competing discourses surrounding the Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban. Focus groups interviews were conducted and findings revealed that Oklahoma residents varied in their discursive positions regarding the ban on affirmative action. Affirmative action w...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Howard journal of communications 2017-10, Vol.28 (4), p.356-373
Main Authors: Van Gilder, Bobbi J., Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Admissions policies
Affirmative Action
discourse
Discourse analysis
Equal opportunity
Equal rights
Human agency
Legislation
Morality
Prejudice
Protection
Race
relational dialectics
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5e777d193a821d0f0ecfd120d5b86468deec0456006d24b21c106a85fc79dfa53
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5e777d193a821d0f0ecfd120d5b86468deec0456006d24b21c106a85fc79dfa53
container_end_page 373
container_issue 4
container_start_page 356
container_title The Howard journal of communications
container_volume 28
creator Van Gilder, Bobbi J.
Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.
description Using a dialogic lens, this study explored the competing discourses surrounding the Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban. Focus groups interviews were conducted and findings revealed that Oklahoma residents varied in their discursive positions regarding the ban on affirmative action. Affirmative action was discursively constructed as both a protection from prejudice and as an inherently prejudiced policy in and of itself. Four dialectical tensions were found to influence individual's positions: (a) individual agency and structural constraints, (b) acknowledgment of progress and recognition of failures, (c) commitment to individuals and commitment to free enterprise, and (d) legal protection and individual morality. Importantly, the interplay of these competing discourses animated individuals' understandings of, and opinions about, affirmative action legislation.
doi_str_mv 10.1080/10646175.2017.1300966
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_infor</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1952106508</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1952106508</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5e777d193a821d0f0ecfd120d5b86468deec0456006d24b21c106a85fc79dfa53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMlOwzAQQCMEEqXwCUiWOKeMkzhxOBGgLFKlXsrZcr1QlyRO7RSUv8dRC0cOo5nDm-1F0TWGGQYKtxjyLMcFmSWAixlOAco8P4kmOOQ4y7PydKzzLB6h8-jC-y0AYErLSdSsNgotP2u-sQ1HldbGNbw3XwpVoje2RQ-8RVWjWhmiv0MVejK8th9GoKrl9eCNR1aj-W7Pa7TsOuv6fWv6IWBe2L3zCpn2b8FldKZ57dXVMU-j9-f56vE1Xixf3h6rRSzSlPYxUUVRSFymnCZYggYltMQJSLKm4VUqlRKQkRwgl0m2TrAI73FKtChKqTlJp9HNYW7n7G6vfM-24ZZwr2e4JEmgCdBAkQMlnPXeKc06ZxruBoaBjWbZr1k2mmVHs6Hv_tBnWm2Drm_rasl6PtTWacdbYTxL_x_xAymnf3g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1952106508</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment: A Dialogic Analysis of Equal Opportunity Discourse in Oklahoma</title><source>Taylor &amp; Francis</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>Van Gilder, Bobbi J. ; Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Van Gilder, Bobbi J. ; Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.</creatorcontrib><description>Using a dialogic lens, this study explored the competing discourses surrounding the Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban. Focus groups interviews were conducted and findings revealed that Oklahoma residents varied in their discursive positions regarding the ban on affirmative action. Affirmative action was discursively constructed as both a protection from prejudice and as an inherently prejudiced policy in and of itself. Four dialectical tensions were found to influence individual's positions: (a) individual agency and structural constraints, (b) acknowledgment of progress and recognition of failures, (c) commitment to individuals and commitment to free enterprise, and (d) legal protection and individual morality. Importantly, the interplay of these competing discourses animated individuals' understandings of, and opinions about, affirmative action legislation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1064-6175</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-4649</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1080/10646175.2017.1300966</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: Routledge</publisher><subject>Admissions policies ; Affirmative Action ; discourse ; Discourse analysis ; Equal opportunity ; Equal rights ; Human agency ; Legislation ; Morality ; Prejudice ; Protection ; Race ; relational dialectics</subject><ispartof>The Howard journal of communications, 2017-10, Vol.28 (4), p.356-373</ispartof><rights>2017 Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC 2017</rights><rights>2017 Taylor &amp; Francis Group, LLC</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5e777d193a821d0f0ecfd120d5b86468deec0456006d24b21c106a85fc79dfa53</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5e777d193a821d0f0ecfd120d5b86468deec0456006d24b21c106a85fc79dfa53</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27922,27923,33772</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Van Gilder, Bobbi J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.</creatorcontrib><title>The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment: A Dialogic Analysis of Equal Opportunity Discourse in Oklahoma</title><title>The Howard journal of communications</title><description>Using a dialogic lens, this study explored the competing discourses surrounding the Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban. Focus groups interviews were conducted and findings revealed that Oklahoma residents varied in their discursive positions regarding the ban on affirmative action. Affirmative action was discursively constructed as both a protection from prejudice and as an inherently prejudiced policy in and of itself. Four dialectical tensions were found to influence individual's positions: (a) individual agency and structural constraints, (b) acknowledgment of progress and recognition of failures, (c) commitment to individuals and commitment to free enterprise, and (d) legal protection and individual morality. Importantly, the interplay of these competing discourses animated individuals' understandings of, and opinions about, affirmative action legislation.</description><subject>Admissions policies</subject><subject>Affirmative Action</subject><subject>discourse</subject><subject>Discourse analysis</subject><subject>Equal opportunity</subject><subject>Equal rights</subject><subject>Human agency</subject><subject>Legislation</subject><subject>Morality</subject><subject>Prejudice</subject><subject>Protection</subject><subject>Race</subject><subject>relational dialectics</subject><issn>1064-6175</issn><issn>1096-4649</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMlOwzAQQCMEEqXwCUiWOKeMkzhxOBGgLFKlXsrZcr1QlyRO7RSUv8dRC0cOo5nDm-1F0TWGGQYKtxjyLMcFmSWAixlOAco8P4kmOOQ4y7PydKzzLB6h8-jC-y0AYErLSdSsNgotP2u-sQ1HldbGNbw3XwpVoje2RQ-8RVWjWhmiv0MVejK8th9GoKrl9eCNR1aj-W7Pa7TsOuv6fWv6IWBe2L3zCpn2b8FldKZ57dXVMU-j9-f56vE1Xixf3h6rRSzSlPYxUUVRSFymnCZYggYltMQJSLKm4VUqlRKQkRwgl0m2TrAI73FKtChKqTlJp9HNYW7n7G6vfM-24ZZwr2e4JEmgCdBAkQMlnPXeKc06ZxruBoaBjWbZr1k2mmVHs6Hv_tBnWm2Drm_rasl6PtTWacdbYTxL_x_xAymnf3g</recordid><startdate>20171002</startdate><enddate>20171002</enddate><creator>Van Gilder, Bobbi J.</creator><creator>Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.</creator><general>Routledge</general><general>Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>WZK</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20171002</creationdate><title>The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment: A Dialogic Analysis of Equal Opportunity Discourse in Oklahoma</title><author>Van Gilder, Bobbi J. ; Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5e777d193a821d0f0ecfd120d5b86468deec0456006d24b21c106a85fc79dfa53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Admissions policies</topic><topic>Affirmative Action</topic><topic>discourse</topic><topic>Discourse analysis</topic><topic>Equal opportunity</topic><topic>Equal rights</topic><topic>Human agency</topic><topic>Legislation</topic><topic>Morality</topic><topic>Prejudice</topic><topic>Protection</topic><topic>Race</topic><topic>relational dialectics</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Van Gilder, Bobbi J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>The Howard journal of communications</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Van Gilder, Bobbi J.</au><au>Jackson-Kerr, Roni K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment: A Dialogic Analysis of Equal Opportunity Discourse in Oklahoma</atitle><jtitle>The Howard journal of communications</jtitle><date>2017-10-02</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>356</spage><epage>373</epage><pages>356-373</pages><issn>1064-6175</issn><eissn>1096-4649</eissn><abstract>Using a dialogic lens, this study explored the competing discourses surrounding the Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban. Focus groups interviews were conducted and findings revealed that Oklahoma residents varied in their discursive positions regarding the ban on affirmative action. Affirmative action was discursively constructed as both a protection from prejudice and as an inherently prejudiced policy in and of itself. Four dialectical tensions were found to influence individual's positions: (a) individual agency and structural constraints, (b) acknowledgment of progress and recognition of failures, (c) commitment to individuals and commitment to free enterprise, and (d) legal protection and individual morality. Importantly, the interplay of these competing discourses animated individuals' understandings of, and opinions about, affirmative action legislation.</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>Routledge</pub><doi>10.1080/10646175.2017.1300966</doi><tpages>18</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1064-6175
ispartof The Howard journal of communications, 2017-10, Vol.28 (4), p.356-373
issn 1064-6175
1096-4649
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1952106508
source Taylor & Francis; Sociological Abstracts
subjects Admissions policies
Affirmative Action
discourse
Discourse analysis
Equal opportunity
Equal rights
Human agency
Legislation
Morality
Prejudice
Protection
Race
relational dialectics
title The Oklahoma Affirmative Action Ban Amendment: A Dialogic Analysis of Equal Opportunity Discourse in Oklahoma
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-14T10%3A44%3A33IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_infor&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Oklahoma%20Affirmative%20Action%20Ban%20Amendment:%20A%20Dialogic%20Analysis%20of%20Equal%20Opportunity%20Discourse%20in%20Oklahoma&rft.jtitle=The%20Howard%20journal%20of%20communications&rft.au=Van%20Gilder,%20Bobbi%20J.&rft.date=2017-10-02&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=356&rft.epage=373&rft.pages=356-373&rft.issn=1064-6175&rft.eissn=1096-4649&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080/10646175.2017.1300966&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_infor%3E1952106508%3C/proquest_infor%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c338t-5e777d193a821d0f0ecfd120d5b86468deec0456006d24b21c106a85fc79dfa53%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1952106508&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true