Interesting piece. I'm trying to find the original study so see how he
arrived at these conclusions. Does anyone have a link to that? I can't
seem to find it ...
Venky wrote:
This should make for an interesting discussion! :)
Venky (the Second)
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=090507A
Diversity's Dark Side
By John Luik : 11 Sep 2007
For at least the last twenty years the cultural and political
elites of the United States have championed the cause of
multiculturalism by claiming that diversity was something that
made all of us better.
I can think if many ways it's made me better. It *is* challenging,
though, I really must say. It requires work and flexibility and a hugely
open mind, but I think it's worth it in the long run. We need to
understand how others think and communicate and make decisions so we are
less inclined to drop so many bombs on people. History demonstrates that
humans really don't have a good record in this respect. We overreact far
too much, and I would hope that diversity would teach us to not do that.
Perhaps I'm wrong (as this article certainly suggests!)
Little effort was ever made to define
precisely just what was meant by diversity, difference or most
crucially "better." Nor was there any significant research that
provided empirical support for the claim that multiculturalism
and diversity translated into better people, better communities,
better organizations and businesses or a better country.
I'm not sure about the hard core science involved, but just based on
personal experience I'd have to say that diversity is better. It's
certainly more interesting! :)
But now a considerable amount of solid evidence about
multiculturalism is in, and it suggests that far from something
positive, it is a corroding and corrupting influence on just
about everything that it comes in contact with, from social
capital, trust, and community spirit to altruism, volunteering,
friendship and even happiness.
Seems a bit sweeping here to say "just about everything" ...
I grew up in New York and lived in Boston and San Francisco. All three
of those regions of the US are quite diverse and there's no way that you
could describe those areas using the above paragraph to the exclusion of
all else. It's extreme to say the very least. There are big problems,
sure, but how about balancing some of this out? It's reading too one
sided for me.
That's the startling conclusion from Harvard's Robert Putnam best
known as the author of Bowling Alone. According to Putnam a
variety of research from the United States, Canada, Australia and
Europe
Nothing about India, China, Korea, or Japan? And is he saying that
Australia represents Asia? And does "Europe" represent only Western
Europe or both East and West? How about South America? Africa?
shows that ethnic diversity is associated with lower
social trust, lower "investment in public goods," less
reciprocity, and less willingness to contribute to the community.
In workplace situations diversity is associated with "lower group
cohesion, lower satisfaction and higher turnover."
I wonder if he studied more monolithic societies to juxtapose the two?
Putnam's own research in the United States, confirms this
international picture.
How could research /in the United States/ confirm an /international/
picture and leave out most of the world? That makes no sense.
In the Social Capital Community Benchmark
Survey carried out in 41 US communities ranging from Bismarck,
North Dakota to Boston and involving 30,000 individuals, Putnam
found that the "more ethnically diverse the people we live
around, the less we trust them." This translates into nine
particularly troubling behaviors, including reduced confidence
in government and in one's ability to influence politics, reduced
voter registration and interest in social change, lowered
expectations about the willingness of others to work together
cooperatively, less charitable giving and volunteering, fewer
close friends, a reduced quality of life and more time spent
watching television. Indeed, one could hardly come up with a list
of behaviors more likely to undermine democratic society.
Sure, I see some of these things in the US, no question, but I wouldn't
describe the US (or any other relatively diverse society) that way. It's
just part of the picture. And, by the way, I see many of these very same
problems right here in good ol' /monolithic/ Japan. And it's very
obvious, too.
But the consequences of the multicultural diversity extend beyond
its effect on social and community engagement. For instance,
criminologists have found that effective community policing is
much more difficult in areas with increased ethnic diversity.
[Of course it is open to defenders of multiculturalism to argue
that Putnam's findings are skewed by the fact that poverty, crime
and diversity are themselves interconnected, making causal
conclusions difficult. But Putnam's research show that even in
comparing equally poor and equally crime-infested neighbourhoods
the outcome is the same "greater ethnic diversity is associated
with less trust in neighbours."]
This is one area that I'd love to explore more. There's far less violent
crime here in Japan than there was when I lived in the US. And I feel
safer, too. But there is plenty of other types of crime, though.
Putnam's findings should not come as a surprise. For instance,
studies from business, which has been one of diversity's greatest
champions, have shown that diversity produced few if any positive
effects on business performance. One major study even concluded
that industry should move beyond trying to build a business case
for the benefits of diversity and multiculturalism, since there
was no empirical evidence to support such a case.
In part this is due to the fact that homogeneous teams tend to
outperform diverse groups because diverse groups often suffer
from communication and process problems. As psychologists
Katherine Williams and Charles O'Reilly have noted "The
preponderance of empirical evidence suggests that diversity is
most likely to impede group functioning."
I experience this here in Japan every day. However, I'd rather we mix in
teams and reduce our productivity a bit than have monolithic teams
separated by a total ignorance of other cultures and ways of doing
business. We have to work together eventually, right? I mean, sooner or
later, teams will butt heads and cross paths, right? Also, after an
initial period of confusion, I can point to a growing number of
instances where productivity has /increased/ as a result of the
diversity I'm experiencing.
As a champion of multicultural diversity, Putnam finds his
results disturbing and he has been reluctant to publish them. The
only place to find them is in a speech reprinted in the academic
journal Scandinavian Political Studies. And even there the data
is not provided, only summarized. Putnam told the Financial Times
that he "had delayed publishing his results until he could
develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of
diversity."
He needs to publish his data so it can be critically analyzed. And I
think he needs to publish his stuff /before/ going to the press, too. :)
Very interesting issue, though, for sure. I can go back and forth on
some of it ...
Jim
--
http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris
