Introduction
The elaboration of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) has become exceedingly dynamic in contemporary society, where it involves all corners of life, as can be observed in the workplace, schools, and all other aspects of life. The realization of and encouragement of diversity follows moral principles, just as it goes a long way in defining the height of success in the organizational framework and the society at large (Warren et al., 2023). In this essay, we may tentatively identify a particular EDI policy objective to tackle one specific diversity feature that encourages further examination and more proactive policies. At the same time, it will evaluate the performance of two psychometric tools and critically assess their effectiveness, which is inherent to evaluating the results of the suggested policy objective. By immersing in this search, the presented essay tries to add its voice to the evolving debate on EDI and submit thoughts and ideas on practical tools and approaches that would allow for creating an EDI-conducive space.
Proposed EDI Policy Goal
Definition and Significance of the Selected Diversity Characteristic
For this EDI policy goal, SES will be used as diversity, a multi-stratum characteristic embracing one’s economic income, educational attainment, and occupation. Indeed, SES stands at a pinnacle of importance because it determines the economic and social wealth owned by individuals that can create opportunities for entering particular social structures. To recognize economic stratification as a diversity factor, understanding the background of the heterogeneous nature of social reality requires understanding the delicate interplay between socio-economic disparities and the broader social dynamics.
Rationale for Choosing the Specific Goal
The reason why SES is preferred to be the focus of the EDI policy goal is that SES affects every area of life in society and all stages of the life trajectory of every person. In addressing SES inequalities, organizations, and institutions bypass systemic hurdles toward an equal playing field. Besides that, SES as a dimension of diversity has a standalone role and is a site of convergence of other forms of diversity, such as race and gender, making it a strategic point of intervention to address multi-scalar inequality.
Alignment with Broader EDI Objectives
The proposed objective blends exceedingly well with the overall EDI goals, which seek to note that authentic diversity and inclusion encompass more than just physical traits. Integrating SES into the EDI frameworks would make the policy more comprehensive and include several aspects of intersectionality and many identity factors (Fuentes et al., 2020). This alignment emphasizes creating an atmosphere where new breeds from various socio–economic categories are given equal opportunities to succeed and grow. Additionally, efforts within the SES context can lead toward a more substantive and systemic EDI approach, implying long-term changes in society as an entirety and not only on a few superficial modifications. Ultimately, a concern for SES – becoming an EDI policy target – greatly reflects the general aspiration of making inclusive environments that transgress the age-old borders appropriate to raise persons of all backgrounds and orientations high.
Psychometric Tool 1
The Socio-Economic Status Index (SESI) evolves as the first psychometric instrument under review, a highly reliable tool for evaluating an individual’s socio-economic position. After understanding the socio-economic indicators used by SESI, it is essential to realize that the factors integrate income, level of education, and occupation in defining socio-economic status. Regarding achieving the socio-economic status-focused EDI policy objective, the ruler makes an at least critical part like individuals and their classification depending on their monetary and social resources. Its feature that could measure the multidimensional nature of SES makes it a powerful tool for ensuring the evaluation of the implementation of the policy towards the debility of socio-economic distinctions (Avvisati, 2020). On the other hand, while SESI has particular strengths, its limitations are also there, some of which are possible cultural bias on the translation of socio-economic indicators and oversimplification of complex socio-economic relationships, thereby failing to capture appropriate dynamics in different communities with diverse characteristics. Therefore, a careful analysis of such strengths and weaknesses should considered to comprehensively assess the tool’s utility in the context of the proposed EDI policy goal.
Psychometric Tool 2
Social Mobility Scale (SMS) is the second of the psychometric tools under analysis; a measure that targets the socio-economic capacity of an individual in ascending or descending the social hierarchy, both at a single point in time and over various periods (Matamoros-Lima et al., 2023). This tool allows seeing socio-economic status dynamically when it has little to do with the present position in society but with attitude towards it and equity, appreciation, or obnoxiousness that explains potential mobility. The significance of the targeted EDI policy objective can be ascribed to its ability to evaluate existing discrepancies and how effective such interventions are in generating upward socio-economic mobility among varying population groups. The SMS emphasis on mobility is consistent in shortening intergenerational cycles of disadvantage and one-up the bound based on this approach. However, the tool has its weaknesses, including its inability to describe the objective truth associated with mobility in subjective terms and oversights involved in adjusting the context details for the progress in socio-economic advancement. We must recognize some of the strengths and limitations of the SMS for the evaluation of the whole SMS to be complete in its formulation of the proposed EDI policy goal.
Comparative Analysis
A comparison of the SESI and the SMS shows that while these two are discrepant, they tend to be complementary. Although SESI mainly includes a static perspective on socio-economic status, representing a picture of the status quo of an individual as of one point in time, SMS further adds a dynamic level to the concept by looking at mobility opportunities given over the lifetime of the individual (Kim et al., 2022). Their level of efficacy in measuring the efficiency of the proposed EDI policy goal relies on the ingeniousness of socio-economic inequities. It is important to note that SESI is good at classifying people based on their current position, upon which a clear understanding of the perceptions that are currently found can be achieved. In contrast, the SMS also extends the scope by weighing in the potential for social mobility to bring about durable change. The same applies to a common feature: they both factor in socio-economic aspects, yet they differ and call for a more fulsome examination. With a collective approach, using the two tools could help better understand socio-economic dynamics. This way, the dynamics would be based on swiftness and the static nature. This would integrate the static with the dynamic approaches to yield a comprehensive and robust assessment of the EDI policy.
Conclusion
Finally, the proposed EDI policy objective targeting socio-economic status is a comprehensive systematic intervention for inequities. SESI and SMS represent enriching insights, whereby SESI undermines a profile of any current disparities while SMS bears the facts about the possibilities for social mobility. SESI and SMS approaches have unique strengths and challenges, but combining these two can give a better understanding of the socio-economic dynamics. Such quality evaluations of these psychometric tools highlight that the static and dynamics of observations, that is, SES, provide a comprehensive assessment. The policy choice of implementing EDI, using the knowledge from these tools, requires creating an environment naturally conscious of existing gaps and one committed to boosting upward vertical mobility. This broad scope, to which the approach outlined in this article fits, supports the more general diversity-related objectives and facilitates sustainable change within organizations and society.
References
Avvisati, F. (2020d). The measure of socio-economic status in Pisa: A review and some suggested improvements. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-020-00086-x
Fuentes, M. A., Zelaya, D. G., & Madsen, J. W. (2020b). Rethinking the course syllabus: Considerations for Promoting Equity, diversity, and inclusion. Teaching of Psychology, 48(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320959979
Kim, Y., Jung, J., & Na, J. (2022). Socio-economic status differences in psychological responses to unfair treatments: Behavioral evidence of a vicious cycle. PLOS ONE, 17(6), e0268286. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0268286
Matamoros-Lima, J., Willis, G. B., & Moya, M. (2023). Rising and falling on the social ladder: The bidimensional social mobility beliefs scale. PLOS ONE, 18(12), e0294676–e0294676. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294676
Warren, M. A., & Warren, M. T. (2023). The Ethic model of virtue-based allyship development: A new approach to equity and inclusion in organizations. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(3), 783-803.
write