Kurt April

In corporate graduate recruitment worldwide, candidates are often assessed not only on competence but on whether they are deemed relatable. This study theorises relatability as a racialised cultural–affective filter that covertly sustains inequality. Drawing on qualitative interviews, we identify five interlinked processes of self‐presentation, confidence, bias, choice, and affinity, through which whiteness operates as a normative anchor in hiring. We extend theories of social closure into aesthetic and affective domains, conceptualising relatability as a meso‐level mechanism linking micro‐interactional judgements to macro‐level racial hierarchies. This framework offers a transferable analytic lens for understanding how cultural capital is operationalised in exclusionary ways across contexts, even in formally and supposedly deracialised systems. The findings call for demand‐side reforms that reconfigure organisational norms, broaden definitions of professionalism, and reduce reliance on cultural familiarity as a proxy for merit. Relatability operates as an institutionalised mechanism through which classed and racialised dispositions are recognised and reproduced, even within racially diverse hiring structures.

Although inclusion is increasingly celebrated as institutional progress, individuals marked by intersecting racialized and gendered histories often experience it as conditional and extractive. This study examines how South African Indian women (SAIW) leaders navigate the affective and epistemic labor required to remain legible within institutions that promote inclusion while sustaining exclusionary norms. Drawing on in‐depth interviews with SAIW women leaders across diverse sectors, we conceptualize intersectional passing as the embodied, emotional, and cognitive labor required to sustain presence without guaranteed recognition. These practices include emotional restraint, strategic self‐presentation, and epistemic withholding, which enable continued participation in institutions structured by whiteness, patriarchy, and postcolonial residue. We advance current debates in gender and work by theorizing agency not through overt resistance but as relational, iterative, and shaped by constraint. Our findings highlight how institutional inclusion often depends less on who is present and more on who can conform to dominant expectations of affective and epistemic propriety. We conclude by arguing that institutional change requires diversifying representation alongside transforming the emotional and epistemic norms that regulate belonging. We contribute to feminist and postcolonial understandings of workplace inequality and the everyday politics of recognition.

Design Science is the discipline that studies the creation of artifacts – products, services, and systems and their embedding in our physical, virtual, psychological, economic, and social environments. This editorial is a collective effort of the Design Science Journal’s editorial board members, past and present. The journal’s inaugural 2015 editorial, “Design Science: Why, What and How,” reflected the thoughts and vision of that first editorial board for the new journal and the discipline it represented. The present contribution offers the reflections of editors who served the journal in the past 10 years. The individual contributions were not primed and are presented here unedited for conformity or consistency. Differently from the 2015 editorial, there is no effort to synthesize the individual contributions, leaving the task to our readers, who can draw their own conclusions about the Design Science Journal and community accomplishments to date, and the challenges ahead.

Purpose: This article aims to critically analyse and critique the impact of President Donald Trump’s second term on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives in the United States of America and beyond. It aims to document the policy changes enacted under Trump, explore the resulting consequences for various sectors (government, higher education and private sectors) and assess the broader implications for social justice and global conversations around equity. The article also serves as a call to action, urging continued advocacy and resistance against the rollback of DEI progress. Design/methodology/approach: This viewpoint article offers a range of perspectives on the impact of the anti-DEI agenda from several DEI scholars who edit the journal. This critical approach draws from multiple sources of information to enrich and provide a more nuanced understanding on the impact of Trump’s policies on DEI. Findings: President Trump’s anti-DEI agenda had a profound and far-reaching impact on DEI efforts, creating a climate of fear, exacerbating existing inequalities, intensifying political polarization and having ramifications beyond the borders of the United States of America. The paper also highlights the indirect and unintended consequences, such as the chilling effect on private sector DEI initiatives and the rise of “shadow” DEI programs. Research limitations/implications: The article draws from secondary sources (news articles, policy documents and existing research). The authors’ scholarships on DEI and the Trump administration’s negative stance towards DEI might influence their perspectives and conclusions. Practical implications: The authors close with a strong call to action, encouraging continued advocacy and resistance to the erosion of DEI progress. This pragmatic approach moves beyond simple criticism and offers concrete steps for future action. They suggest that the current anti-DEI sentiment represents a temporary setback in the long-term progress towards equity and inclusion. Social implications: President Trump’s anti-DEI policies have global implications, influencing policy and practice in other countries and impacting international conversations around fairness and equity. Originality/value: The article provides a valuable record of the significant shift in DEI policy and practice under the second Trump administration. This account will be a crucial resource for future researchers studying this period and its impact. This critical analysis also provides valuable insights for both scholars and activists working to advance DEI.

This chapter adopts a decolonial perspective to explore African perspectives on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within the context of African societies. With a specific focus on African historical and political experiences, cultural values, and indigenous knowledge systems, the chapter imagines possibilities for decolonizing DEI theories and practice. The chapter provides an example of how the Mbongi concept, rooted in the Bantu-Kongo culture, could offer insights into decolonizing DEI initiatives that challenge Western-centric paradigms and foster genuine and context-relevant transformative change. The chapter contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of African perspectives on DEI, by drawing on African approaches to DEI - encompassing a unique blend of collective responsibility, community engagement, and recognition of diverse identities. In order to support decolonial DEI activities in (post)colonial contexts, policymakers, organizations and practitioners can benefit greatly from the ideas provided in this chapter.

Conclusion - Author: Kurt April, Babar Dharani, Amanda April