Oslo Pride 2024 Talks

Understanding Minority Stress

Laura

Reflections from event hosted by Bufdir, Pride House, Oslo June 2024. Norwegian research by SINTEF opening up intersectional approaches to addressing discrimination.

Reflections from the event hosted by Bufdir, Pride House, Oslo 24.06.2024

Oslo Pride brought down the house this year – if you were at the Pride Parade this year I am sure you would agree. This year for Pride, Oslo Kommune pulled out all the stops. June in Oslo was full of events, talks, engagements, mini-festivals, parties and of course the Pride Parade on the 29th June.

The most memorable event we attended was hosted by BUFDIR with SINTEF AS:

Lansering av rapporten «Erfaringer med minoritetsstress”.

This event included a presentation on the core findings of a Norwegian report on the impact of minority-stress in the workplace focusing on intersectional identities (BIPOC, LGBTQ+).

Minority Stress is a concept that refers to the unique stress experienced by individuals from marginalised groups due to societal discrimination, prejudice and systematic inequalities. It encompasses external stressors, expectations of rejection, and internalized stigma. Stress responses can manifest psychologically, leading to anxiety and depression, and may also impact physical health and behaviour.

This definition comes from INTERFEM Sweden – a non-profit association which believes that understanding and addressing Minority Stress is crucial for promoting well-being and creating supportive environments for marginalised individuals.

One of the obstacles to efforts of specialist #DEI associations such as INTERFEM Norge has been the lack of research and case studies from Norwegian research institutions. As Nina Bahar (Communications Advisor, Municipality of Oslo, INTERFEM Norge board-member) commented:

This research isn’t telling us anything new, we already know what minority stress is and how it impacts us. But now we have a report that can translate it to others.

In summary, the report by SINTEF highlights how minority stress is a distinct risk factor for many mental and physical health issues in the workplace, such as anxiety and depression. Researchers argue even more research is needed to understand the nuances of the Norwegian context today.

However, the SINTEF report (2023) is sufficient to make the case for societal (and employer) responsibility to address this inequality of experience. We have just over 5 years to demonstrate that Norway is capable of meeting its commitments to the UN Agenda 2023. Currently the SDG Index shows that Norway’s ranking for SDG 8: Decent work and economic growth is still in the orange zone. Ensuring intersectional experiences are addressed and not just focusing on the low-lying fruit of gender in isolation of ethnicity and other forms of discrimination is critical.

The experts (DEI advisors, mental health professionals, public health advisors, researchers) are saying that an intersectional consideration of discrimination, bias and exclusion of minorities is essential. Many women still experience discrimination in the work place, but being a woman is not being a minority. Addressing subconscious bias, racism, and discrimination should not be on the shoulders of individuals who are racialised and discriminated against.

SINTEF researchers explained that the data shows a pattern of negative outcomes:, such as: poor self-esteem – social isolation due to lack of support – heightened mood volatility – relationship problems – increased substance misuse.

The responses of people experiencing minority stress over a protracted amount of time can be seen to have two main responses:

Response (-):

  • Hiding minority identity, trying to blend in, not attract attention, hide/don’t socialise, isolate, increasing poor self-esteem and higher chances of risky sexual behaviour.

Response (+):

  • people with more agency are drawn to activism to compensate for the lack of services and support.
  • The study found that some choose to stand up and fight for their rights (at work, at home and in society).

NB: in the work place this positive response often takes extra energy, risks and effort which is often ignored by employers/colleagues.

The panelists: Skeivt kristent nettverk; Senter for likestilling ved Universitetet i Agder; Skeiv Verden; and psychologist specialist Winnie Nyheim-Jomisko – clarified what this research means in practice:

  • Perceived discrimination is often accumulated and internalised by individuals who are minorities in the workplace.
  • Curiously, the study analysed where stresses were coming from not just who experiences them
  • Evidence that discrimination often comes from partners, peers, colleagues and wider society
  • Minority stress is found to affect individuals and couples

The panel spoke about the kind of advice and guidance needed to improve information about how to self-care and manage your own self-image. Dr Nyheim-Jomisko explained that:

Learning how to self-care is essential to prevent minority stress from affecting your self-belief in your competencies, skills and ability to thrive in the workplace or in your personal relationships.

The finalcall to action from the panelists was:

  1. Share the knowledge – use the research it’s the first of its kind in Norway
  2. Take initiative – check the policies at your workplace
  3. Create more tools/solutions for how we implement best-practice in the workplace
  4. Design more courses on behavioural change to improve the experiences of minorities in Norway
  5. Finally, political lobbying is crucial.

In summary our 3 take-aways from the day are:

1. Core finding: intersectionality adds complexity leading to unique challenges

2. Minority stress factors can come from partners & peers with cumilative effects over time

3. Do more of what works: pride, pushing for change, spread minority joy – minoritetsglede

Unlimiter Spotlight

Unlimiter Suad Abdi founder of MIO has the impressive task of measuring the social impact of cultural-competency training in the field of dual-diagnosis (addiction and mental health) support services. Suad is a lighthouse, bringing expertise and direct services where it’s needed the most. MIO is a social enterprise supported by Tøyen Unlimitedproviding 1-2-1 and group support for recovery from long-term health problems for residents of East African origins.


Calling for more open dialogue on impact reporting

Open dialogue – an essential pushback to myopic impact reporting practices

Senior advisors reflect on what is lost when focusing solely on efficiencies for scaling programme evaluation from individual projects up to analytics for effective systems change.

Open dialogue is an essential pushback to myopic impact reporting practices, solely promoting financial effectiveness.

Since the SDGs and the UN Agenda 2030 kicked off in 2015, there has been a growing trend of prioritising linear knowledge production methods over programme evaluation centred on participation and democratic processes of community inclusion.

We, Elisabeth Gade (NORAD) and Laura Marano (Norge Unlimited), have been reflecting on the practical implications of this trend or this bias towards big data and a technicist approach to the age-old challenge of efficiency over quality. The pragmatism of relying solely on “scientific evidence” of efficiencies (such as an effective altruism philosophy) should be opened to public debate. We need more open dialogue about the pitfalls that lie ahead if we continue to disregard or systemically devalue experiential knowledge over controlled scientific experiments such as RCTs (Random Control Trials).

Like the weather, predictability and early warning systems are never perfect. In fact on the 2nd of July the Washington Post shared a really insightful map of the USA illustrating how weather forecasting is geographically limiting. The accuracy of weather forecasting depends on where in the US you live, coastal areas have weather patterns that are easier to predict.

This is proof to the point that scientific systems of predictability are essential and save thousands of lives every year. But…they are not fit for purpose in all contexts (or in this case geographies).

With this analogy of the weather, clearly one can choose indicators that speak to a personal way of knowing, ones habits and behaviours or choose to blow with the wind and just wing it…or listen to intuition – that guttural, physiological level of what feels right. A bit like my morning routine of:

  1. Check Yr
  2. Open a window
  3. Actually, look out of the window and up at the sky
  4. Decide how to dress my 7 year old for school…

The conundrum – always the same. Do I just go with Yr that seems to think it’s raining right now, but the sun is actually shining? Or should I just do what I always do? Overdress my child with way too many layers of wool, then cotton and finally a waterproof/windproof/snowstorm-proof of some kind?

The logic – you can’t be too prepared right!?

A sense of being informed, to then make a decision that impacts someone else other than myself, seems to be a sensible thing to do. Obviously. Billions of humans (like you and I) are making such mundane choice every day without questioning why we look to the app before we check-in with our common sense.

Our work involves a lot of communication between a plethora of interest groups with sometimes conflicting worldviews. It is often the case that we choose to move beyond the statistics and headlines using mainly quantitative data. The traditionally linear knowledge systems of modern era economic theory are ineffective in offering the contextual analysis necessary for making sense of the complexity of today. 2023 saw our planet earth crossing 6 of the it’s “planetary boundaries”. This year we continue to experience the hottest temperatures ever recorded. As we type this, Hurricane Beryl is tearing through the Caribbean and southern states of the USA at unprecedent speeds due to this phenomenon of high temperatures.

How we respond in a crisis continues to improve but remains imperfect.  Like weather forecasting you can never be 100% sure of what to expect in all corners of the world all the time. Therefore, in our day to day we are incrementally becoming systems thinkers and innovators or disruptors (i.e. that person who asks the awkward questions). Our training, education and experience teaches us to be mindful of nuance, diversity, participation, the importance of thorough research of the context (the root causes of the social challenge, history, diversity of language and geography) and how to make the invisible (intangible yet material/consequential) visible in complex programmes.

A systems thinking approach is essential for measuring progress on the SDGs. Considering the innate biases of the technologies we are so reliant on, qualitative methods should be prioritized and even preferred when donors/ grant givers/ fund managers require place-based social entrepreneurs or NGOs to share evaluation data. This is not news – an institutional critique of a more scientific approach to philanthropy offers an eloquent reminder of the risks of a winner-takes-all approach to reporting systems that do not adjust to scale. We often must adjust our tone and narrative to the specific audience we are connecting with. This requires an adjustment to what is considered a proportional expectation of an entrepreneur’s or an NGOs’ capacity, resources and a sensitivity to their team member’s self-efficacy and resilience to changing goalposts.

Frameworks for project/programme evaluation should encourage more data collection practices that are mindful of the:

Quality of data

  • Ethical implications of the design process
  • Positionality of the researcher
  • Legitimacy in claims of identity (i.e. who is included or excluded in the term local community)
  • Considerate and inclusive of the intersectionality of participants

As a way of improving contextual understandings of what is happening at a neighbourhood level or a village level, practitioners* often know the value of localised modes for interpreting information and gathering data/evidence. In readings for my masters dissertation at UiO (2022) I learned that AbdouMaliq Simone’s “people as infrastructure” can be a valuable frame for investing in urban regeneration. When the dichotomy of urban-rural and informal-formal is blurred and too simplistic the best means of progress towards a shared goal (such as the UN agenda and SDGs for instance) is a co-created participatory approach. Embracing participation is about prioritizing the process of being included in practice, rather than document successes by focusing solely on the product or solution (e.g. an agreement, a partnership, a policy paper, a home solar electric system).

* practitioners, meaning: social workers, public health officers, social entrepreneurs, project managers and community organisers.

We are aware of the privilege of Norway’s near universal access to mobile data and affordable technology (public/free wifi, 5G etc). Easy access to technology is a societal advantage, nevertheless we need to be mindful of not making assumptions of knowing it all. We argue that evaluation frameworks based solely on big data and the ability to filter what is most material to a project or programme is a strategic advantage. It is important to ask the question of what could be missed? or better – what is lost in this process?

Time and resources could be invested in standing back to reflect on the scale and proportionality of a programme’s evaluation requirements (in dialogue with stakeholders). There needs to be an ethical consideration of what is working best for the target group and what is working best for funders.

When we choose to focus on the interests of the most disadvantaged and the most excluded in a society we need to be mindful of the invisible barriers created by funding processes. Applying frameworks that account for qualitative methods and participatory ways of knowing is an important start to ensuring the credibility of data and the validity of findings.