CIICPD 2023

scrutinised, isolated and marginalised by the dominant group. More specifically, this model focuses on how people at the margins of multiple intersecting identities differ in their experiences of oppression compared to people with a single disadvantaged identity (Wilkins-Yel et al., 2019). This phenomenon is described as the general failure to “fully recognize people with intersecting identities as members of their constituent groups” (Purdie-Vaughns and Eibach, 2008, p. 381), which results in numerous challenges that persons with multiple subordinate identities are confronted with. Such challenges range from marginalisation to misrepresentation and disempowerment. Another factor that may be of interest here is the one of intersectional travesty. In this context, Gopaldas and DeRoy (2015) state that only an intersectional perspective has the potential to expose instances of intersectional travesty, i.e. the ridicule, stereotyping and generally inferior quality of representation granted to intersections of historically oppressed identities” (p. 25). In view of its multifaceted interplay of dimensions, work and study-related factors and roles, the HEAD Wheel lends itself well to detect both intersectional invisibility and intersectional travesty. Unsurprisingly then, both concepts are strongly interrelated with implicit bias that can be described as “attitudes or stereotypes that impact understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner” (Raphael and Oyeku, 2020, p. 35). It refers to both favourable and unfavourable stereotypes that affect the unconscious assessment of others, frequently resulting in unintended consequences. Such automatic biases are normally tied to identity-based characteristics, such as race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, country of origin and physical ability. Therefore, it is vital to recognise the biases inherent in the way each of us receives and processes information. For this reason, a number of concepts have proven helpful. One tool that can be seen as an explanation model of such processes is the ladder of inference (Argyris, 1976; Argyris, 1977; Senge et al, 1994). It allows individuals to reach conclusions about others and their world. In doing so, it categorises facts and events on the one end of the continuum, and action, theories and synthesised concepts on the other. Not only is the ladder of inference frequently climbed subconsciously, but it was also found that individuals are generally unaware of the reflexive nature of using adopted beliefs to influence current action and future perceptions (Brewer and Schwandt, 1997). A further approach useful in reducing the complexity involved and encouraging a reflective process without jumping to hasty conclusions is the DIVE Strategy, which will be sketched out in more detail below. 2.3 The DIVE Strategy In the following, the four-step process of description, interpretation, verification and explanation, known as the DIVE Strategy (Figure 2), which analyses and reflects on cultural differences (Brewer and Cunningham, 2009; Downey et al., 2012) is outlined. At the first step of the DIVE Strategy, the challenge is to describe one’s observations in as much detail as possible and without passing either positive or negative judgement or evaluation. The second step is the one of interpretation, where students are asked to take multiple perspectives on the origin and significance of a specific practice at place. It is sought to encourage students to slow down on their predefined judgement

117