A spectre is haunting Europe: proposals to address diversity
A letter from research to policy
by SUS.DIV, the European Network of Excellence on "Sustainable Development in a Diverse World" www.susdiv.org
Dr Dino Pinelli, Senior researcher, Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei
Page 1 of 10
Summary of policy insights
A spectre is haunting Europe: the spectre of diversity. While parties with open xenophobic agenda are increasing their support across Europe, the leaders of two major European countries, David Cameron and Angela Merkel, have recently taken strong positions against multiculturalism questioning the possibility of living next to each other while keeping and enjoying differences. Indeed, if humans beings have always and always will be diverse (la condition humaine!), globalisation is bringing this diversity into our everyday life. We travel to distant places, we live next to people born elsewhere, we consume goods and see images originating from the other side of the globe. The ever growing flows of people, capital, goods, services, images and ideas increase diversity in religious, linguistic and cultural terms and challenge established equilibria. The nation-state, as the modernity tool to constrain and organise diversity, is at stake. Classical notions of national identity and citizenship are undermined and new global actors and networks put at strain the ability to define and enact policies on a national scale. The world of separate, monosemantic nation-states is yielding to a multicultural interconnected global society, sometimes slowly and sometimes too rapidly. The European Union, born in the aftermath of WWII to overcome the limitations of nation-states and remedy the excesses of nationalism, could celebrate its internal diversity 1 but it is in deep difficulties to adjust to new sources of diversity. Also at international level there are reasons for concern. While the UNESCO Declaration on Cultural Diversity says that "the cultural wealth of the world is diversity in dialogue" and that diversity is "one of the roots of development" 2, some speak of a 'clash of civilizations', and cultural and religious differences are often claimed behind a number of international conflicts. Our network brought together over 30 research institutions from a variety of disciplines and cultural backgrounds over the last five years to analyse these issues under the framework of sustainable development understood as a positive long-term vision of a society that is more prosperous and more just, and which promises a cleaner, safer, healthier environment"3. Overall, our research shows that diversity is compatible with the long-term sustainable development of our societies and that diversity can be an asset for current and future generation. We have found concrete evidence that diversity can contribute to prosperity, creativity and growth at different levels: that diversity may improve decision-making in small teams,4 that companies can manage diversity effectively for better economic performance, 5 that productivity and wages are higher in regions and cities with a more diverse population, both in the US and the EU. Regarding the latter, we found that the 1990-2004 inflow of migrants to US caused an increase of US workers wages of 0.7%. Focusing on cities, we found that increasing by 5% the probability that two randomly picked individuals are of different ethnicity (less than what happened in London over 1991-2001) leads to an increase of wages and rents in a range between 5% and 10%.6 Our research also shows that this outcome is not a necessity. Institutions, policies and structures needs to be re-designed to allow different cultures to express themselves, interact, communicate and exchange in a positive manner. Specifically, it requires the re-invention of:
1 2
The EU Treaty for instance speaks of the "rich cultural and linguistic diversity" of the Union (Art. 3), and of the "flowering of cultures" (Art. 167) Unesco (2001) Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, 2001, Art. 3. 3 van Londen and de Ruijter (2010), Sustainabile Diversity, in The Sustainability of Cultural Diversity. Nation, Cities and Organizations, Janssens M., Bechtoldt M., de Ruijter A., Pinelli D., Prarolo G., Stenius V.M.K (eds), Edward Elgar Publishing ltd, London, UK. 4 Homan A.C., van Knippenberg D., van Kleef G.A. and De Dreu C.K.W. (2007) Bridging faultlines by valuing diversity: Diversity beliefs, information elaboration, and performance in diverse work groups, Journal of Applied Psychology 92: 1189-1199. 5 Zanoni P., Nilsson A., Janssens M. and Whlin N. (2010) Towards sustainable diversity in organizations: Lessons from good diversity management practices, in Janssens M., Bechtoldt M., de Ruijter A., Pinelli D., Prarolo G. and Stenius V.M.K. (eds) The Sustainability Of Cultural Diversity. Nations, Cities and Organizations (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited). 6 Ottaviano G.I.P. and Peri G. (2005a) Cities and Cultures, Journal of Urban Economics 58: 304-337; Ottaviano G.I.P. and Peri G. (2006) The Economic Value of Cultural Diversity: Evidence from US Cities, Journal of Economic Geography 6: 9-44; Bellini E., Ottaviano G.I.P., Pinelli D. and Prarolo G. (2009) Cultural diversity and economic performance: evidence from European regions, FEEM Working Paper No. 63. Ottaviano GIP, Peri G (forthcomin) Rethinking the effect of immigration on wages, Journal of the European Economic Association
Page 2 of 10
The forms and understanding of the polity. The modern project of the nation-state impinges on the presumption of a community sharing a set of values. Diversity challenges this view. We should accept that common values are not possible. If multiculturalism (that accept differences while trying to constrain, control and circumscribe them) shows its limit, the return to an assimilation model is both unfeasible and unacceptable. We should move towards a coordinative model where compatibility of views and practices is the basis for living together. The focus should be on establishing effective and fair conditions for negotiations and ensuring the political participation and effective incorporation of everybody into the social and economic life. This requires a broader understanding of democracy based on political participation, dialogue and public interaction; it brings to the fore the local level of decision-making where actors themselves are more likely to be in the position of confronting and make decisions on compatible actions on specific issues. At the European level, it implies looking at the EU a mediator, organiser and coordinator of interests that are relevant to the union. Cities, besides regions, should be able to sit at the table without intermediation. The types and structures of social relationships. Both in policy and public debate there is strong emphasis on the potentiality of intercultural dialogue. The concept of 'intercultural dialogue' is however subject to profound misunderstandings. First, 'inter-cultural' may be taken as implying that cultures exist as separate essences disregarding the relational and dynamic nature of identities. By insisting on 'otherness', certain practices of inter-cultural dialogue may end up reinforcing existing barriers. Rather, policies and practices for dialogue should be flexible and open. Emphasis should be on creating occasions and possibilities for multicultural encounters and learning. Second, 'dialogue' presumes equality. Yet, cultural differences are formed by and reflect the power and hierarchy-making processes. Emphasis on dialogue and diversity could be a tool to veil fundamental issues of inequality and may end up producing and reproducing social hierarchies. Rather, dialogue cannot disregard social hierarchies and should primarily be about fighting inequality and injustice. The structures of research and its relationship with policy-making. Research is ill equipped to deal with the complex and multifaceted nature of diversity and finds it difficult to have a say in the highly ideological and polarised debate around it. Paralleling last centurys progress in the natural sciences, social sciences are challenged to move into multidisciplinary and multi-perspective teams, including policy-makers and other stakeholders. This shift requires fundamental changes in research policy and academic reward structures (peer reviews and careers). Furthermore researchers should acknowledge that they are part and parcel of society. While their legitimacy as experts will rely on rigour, increased transparency and accountability in research process, researchers should abandon the pretence of neutrality and take an explicit position in the political game. This will help attract interest and increase influence.
Page 3 of 10
Proposals for new policy strategies to address diversity
We focus here on the conditions for moving towards social sustainability, intended both as a constituent element of sustainable development and as a pre-condition to reap the economic benefits of diversity. To this end, we have identified five key questions, related respectively to integration, governance, intercultural dialogue, inequality, and the relationship between research and policy. In what follows, we first develop a general perspective on diversity and derive three principles for policy-making. We then discuss the five key questions. General perspective: three principles for policy-making on diversity Always and everywhere people construe reality by classifying events, situations and objects, by drawing (imaginary) lines between same and different, between us and them, between me and others. We include and exclude. These processes of inclusion and exclusion are both the source and the product of collective behaviour and cultural traits. In this context, the power to define a situation is very important. Categorization is in many ways constitutive of the interpretation of reality and the positioning of different groups within it. The power to categorize people is a resource and a (coping) strategy that individuals and groups employ to maximize their own interests. What is at stake here is the power of imposing a vision of the world through principles of division (including the unequal access to and control of scarce resources).7 The labelling of individuals and groups in terms of ethnicity, culture, nationality, gender, age and class is a striking example of social categorization, either internalized or strategically advocated or imposed. Social allocation and individual appropriation of characteristics and competences go hand in hand; the result is that most people speak, think and act in terms of the categories put forward by society and tradition. This diversity is created and maintained by a combination of the following ordering criteria: correspondence or analogy, complementarity, contrast, and hierarchy. The latter implies that hierarchy/inequality is always a component of diversity, they are always bedfellows, they are coconstitutive. Because the relative weight of each of these criteria may change from situation to situation, existing (socio-cultural) constructions are complex and dynamic, especially nowadays in a globalising and localising world. In short, diversity is the cornerstone of a multi-layered dynamic social fabric. Three principles for policy-making: Diversity is a constituent part of todays society. Diversity cannot be ignored, constrained, put apart, or negated. Diversity is dynamic and socially constructed. Cultures should not be taken as pre-given, fixed and monolithic entities that uniquely determine the identity and lives of individuals. Individuals are bundles of orientations that evolve dynamically within social, political and economic processes and contexts. Class, gender, race, profession, and personal roles can be equally important. What matters is that individuals have the freedom to decide which identity they want to emphasize in which situation. Hierarchical relations are a component of diversity. Diversity policies cannot ignore social hierarchies and power relations. At the same time, diversity is also made of contrasts (that should be managed) and complementarities (that can be exploited).
Bourdieu P. (1991) Language and symbolic power (Cambridge, USA: Harvard University Press).
Page 4 of 10
QUESTION 1: Integration. Should we really search for commonality (of values, perspectives and practices)? Nowadays societies seem to be losing sight of what ties them together. The increasing variety of values, practices, and interests seems to challenge their cohesion. Traditional policy models to control, contain and govern this diversity are in crisis and called into questions. To illustrate this point, we discuss these models using a standard fourfold typology (segregation, assimilation, marginalisation, integration).8 The first model is the 'segregation' model, under which policy encourages/mandates one or more (cultural) groups to keep separated from the rest of society in one or multiple domains. The apartheid system in South Africa, where separation was mandatory, represents the extreme case. Forms of segregation may also emerge endogenously and be accepted by policy leading to eg, ghettos in urban areas. The model is questioned both on empirical grounds (undermining interactions and limiting reciprocal knowledge the model leads to lower trust and hence to negative socio-economic outcomes9) and because, by assuming some incompatibility between racial and cultural groups, it lacks legitimacy in democratic society. The second model is the 'assimilation' model, in which minority groups are expected to completely absorb and incorporate into the local culture. The French model, presenting the French citizen and state as the ideal for everybody, is often put forward as an example of an assimilation policy. Similarly to the segregation model, this model is now questioned both from an empirical viewpoint (as not all differences disappear as time passes) and a legitimacy one (as it does not recognise and respect differences). Marginalisation, which consists in excluding a group from the rest of society while also eroding its cultural identity (as in the case of Roma in Europe or native people in the US), adds together the problems and limitations of the first two models. A fourth model, the 'integration' model (or 'multiculturalism') comes then at the forefront as a way to remedy the shortcoming of both the segregation and the assimilation model. Integration is indeed at the cornerstone of European policy towards migration.10 The model implies a two-ways direction in which the majority group also assimilates cultural elements from the minority groups, and stresses the freedom of minorities to maintain own identity and cultural practices, also through legal provisions. Scholars have highlighted how the ultimate goal remains however to constrain diversity and reduce differences to something that can be managed and controlled 11. Given existing power relations, the danger is that this call for integration masks an underlying attempt to define other segments and features as `foreign', as misplaced, even as illegitimate, producing and re-producing social hierarchies in society. In this context, policies to grant rights to minorities, promoting their language and cultural activities are often resulted in reinforcing barriers and creating islands rather than fostering interconnection12. Cameron (we have encouraged different cultures to live separate lives, apart from each other and apart from the mainstream) and Merkel ([we thought] people would live side-by-side happily) critical views seem both to reflect this latter weakness of the model. Our View We think that all traditional models, while pursuing different goal and practices, tend to be based on the same two assumptions: that minority members' identities are tied to their cultural group and that there exists a well defined local cultural context in which they are required to accommodate. In this sense, both Cameron and Merkel suggested remedies seem simply go in the direction of reinforcing the assumed majority culture (migrants should learn German; making sure that immigrant speak the
8
Jannses M. and Zanoni P. Facilitating Intercultural Encounters within a Global Context: Towards Processual Conditions, in Sustainable Cities. Diversity, Economic Growth and Social Cohesion, Janssens M., Pinelli D., Reymen D.C. and Wallman Sandra (eds), Edward Elgar, London, UK. 9 Alesina A. and Zhuravskaya E (forthcoming), Segregation and the Quality of Government, American Economic Review; Uslaner, E (forthcoming), 'Diversity, Segregation, Trust, and Altruism, Cambridge University Press, UK. See also the key-note speech at the Final EURODIV Conference, Milano, October 2010. 10 Recently confirmed in Council of the European Union (2009), Stockholm programme. The Stockholm Programme An open and secure Europe serving and protecting the citizens, Council doc 16484/1/09. 11 de Ruijter A. (1995), Cultural pluralism and citizenship, Cultural dynamics, 7(1), pp 215-31. 12 Our project has for instance looked at the Bolivian and Swedish policies. See The Sustainability of Cultural Diversity, Chapters 5 and 14.
Page 5 of 10
language of their new home and ensuring that people are educated in the elements of a common culture and curriculum), and therefore the assimilation side of integration, without questioning the fundamental underlying assumptions. Yet, an established literature, particularly in anthropology, provides ample evidence that question these hypotheses. Firstly, that culture does not exist in the holistic, totalising and essentialist meaning that encompasses and permeates all aspects of everydays life and determines ones identity. Secondly, that recent migrations are no longer signed by unidirectional settlement (either temporary or permanent in one country) but are multidimensional in nature, implying that interaction between individuals from minority and majority take place in international networks13. Future policies need to acknowledge that the culture of one person or collectivity is always a hybrid, always in flux, always ambiguous and that the image that each culture is a territorial, homogeneous entity with clear boundaries is not in line with current global conditions. There are only cultural orientations, separate combinations of opinions and practices, changing more or less from situation to situation. From this perspective, a co-ordination model is to be preferred to the integration model. The coordination model only deals with compatibility of views, and in particular, practices and it does not involve a search for commonality or even convergence of values. It recognises that living together means basically carrying out mutually related relatively compatible actions. It searches compatibility by building effective negotiations and interaction on specific issues of common interest without asking the actors to develop a shared system of basic values or common world view and without pre-establishing their positioning due to their cultural background. The focus is on the interactions and negotiations between people with different cultural orientations rather than on the freedom of 'cultures' to maintain identity and traditions. The commonality of issues (a lively neighbourhood; ensuring stable livelihood), rather than commonality of values, provides the connecting net. Culture is seen as an instrument, an organizing vehicle for a diversity of interests, views, and practices. To ground this model empirically, we studied nine cities, in Europe (London, Rome, BanskaBistrika, Dortmund, Antwerp, Stockholm) in comparison with Baroda in India and Chicago in the US14. The cases show how local systems providing a multiplicity of economic and identity options and allowing flexibile negotiations and interactions between individuals and groups help to strike a delicate equilibrium between interrelad-ness and separated-ness in turn sustaining the social and economic thriving of the city or the local system. Implications for policy and policy-making The focus should be on establishing effective and fair conditions for negotiations between groups and individuals and ensure the political participation and effective incorporation of everybody into the social and economic life rather than on cultural discourses (including the attribution of cultural rights or the search for convergence of cultural difference). Cultural discourses may create rigid boundaries and stress differences reducing the possibility of finding compatibility of actions. Authorities and other actors should promote the development of competences that enable all parties to deal adequately with difference with the result that the other is not denied, excluded or banned, but is treated and respected precisely as another subject.
13 14
For a review and discussion, see Janssens and Zanoni (2009), cit. Janssens M., Pinelli D., Reymen D.C., Wallman S. (2010), Sustainable Cities. Diversitty, Diveristy, Economic Growth and Social Cohesion, Edward Elgar, London, UK. Bracalenti R, Montuori M. A., Saraceno N, Staderini D. Wallman, S (2009) squilino Pigneto. Modelling Neighbourhood Systems. EDUP Multimedia, Roma.
Page 6 of 10
QUESTION 2: Governance. How policy-making should adjust to the new complexity? The contexts in which processes of governance, management and policy developments take place are increasingly marked by networks, shifting power configurations, and differentiated multicultural arenas. New actors are brought to the fore and the classical segregated co-existence of state and market gives way to new dialectics between public and private regulations (Kooiman, 1993). At the same time the nation-state collapses and is transformed into a complex institutional framework on multiple levels (vertical re-bordering) (Marks, 1993). These processes challenge the modern understanding of the polity based on the idea of a single, monolithic nation-state possessing a single set of interests and values. The classical rational model in representative democracies, where decisions are assumed to be taken by the elected in the pursuit of the common good, is at stake. Our view We think that it is necessary to switch from a conception of decision-making based on the classical rational model to a (strategic) interaction model. The interaction model assumes that solutions and problems become relevant in a process of decision-making only if they are represented by actors (whether political parties, trade unions, sects, government bodies). This implies that the definitions of reality adhered to by the various parties are an important basis for the course of the decisionmaking. As a result, successful decision-making depends not only on the content of the decision but just as much on the quality of the decision-making process itself. The interaction model is not concerned with the common good per se. Rather, recognizing the possibility of competitive or even antagonistic cooperation between the actors actually exposes the common good as the interest of an actor who is attempting to impose his or her definition of the situation on others. The interaction model aims at the coordination, combination, harmonization, and reconciliation of the interests of the various actors who depend on one another for the satisfaction of their demands or the realization of their objectives/goals. The term 'well understood proper interest' is used deliberately. Otherwise there would probably be a permanent situation of short-term profit seeking without the awareness of long-term interdependencies. Given mutual dependence the interaction model needs a mediator or coordinator able to ensure a rich interactive environment that takes into account a multi-actor perspective in which as many interested parties as feasible take part on a particular issue. In this process of political rescaling, it is difficult to see a specific priority of the nation-state relative to other levels of governance and decision-making. Rather, cities, as the nodes of global network and the places where differences come into contact and interact, are increasingly acknowledged a crucial role and are assuming a new agency in the political debate15. Implications for policy and policy-making: A broader understanding of democracy based on political participation, dialogue and public interaction is needed at all levels. Without questioning the legitimacy of the elected, this principle advocates for a new form of (reciprocal) legitimisation that allows all the other actors (civil society organisations, NGOs, grassroots movements) representing specific interests in society to be accommodated within political processes. At the European level, the EU should be conceived as a mediator, organiser and coordinator of interests that are relevant to the union. It is not a matter of erasing differences, but rather of enacting negotiation tables on specific issues guaranteeing fair conditions of negotiation for the different parties. Nation-states have their position at the table, but not on exclusive conditions. Cities, besides regions, should be able to sit at the table without intermediation.
15
See for instance the speech of the Spanish minister of territorial policy Manuel Chaves at the 2010 European Local Government Summit, asking for "a more active role" of cities "outdated pyramid model" of EU governance.
Page 7 of 10
QUESTION 3: Intercultural dialogue. What role could it have in diverse societies? Intercultural dialogue has a crucial role to play in our diverse societies. Absence of dialogue deprives populations of the benefit of new cultural openings, necessary for personal and social development. Segregation and self-exclusion lead to a climate hostile to human rights and fundamental freedoms. Dialogue also helps to counteract stereotypes and prejudice and to establish the groundwork for trust, which is only built through concrete and positive interactions. Intercultural dialogue is attracting exponential interest in policy, 16,17 academia and the media. The European Union declared 2008 as the European Year of Intercultural Dialogue and activities and policies related to it are mushrooming at the European and member state levels. 18 The Council of Europe, the OECD and UNESCO as well as a number of NGOs and civil society platforms have made intercultural dialogue the centre of their strategies for diversity. Practices range from specific projects such as events and media programmes that showcase different cultures and cultural expressions to events that are intended to abolish social and cultural barriers of language, racism, discrimination or political insularity, and to enhance exchanges in schools and at the workplace. Our View We agree that intercultural dialogue is a necessary feature of diversity policies. However, we also think that the tendency to frame intercultural dialogue in ethnic terms may end up reinforcing separation rather than promoting encounter. In particular, we studied the targeting of intercultural dialogue by national and city councils in the context of festivals.19 Our research reveals that such events tend to lead to a decrease in community involvement and a resulting decrease of intercultural relations in the neighbourhood. This is because they tend to promote, through stereotyping, the belief that there is a cultural otherness intrinsic to communities, resulting in marginalizing, isolating and segregating such communities. At a more macro level, other scholars have used similar arguments to criticise religion-centred political approaches for building peace in troubled areas of the world. It is shown how the stress on religion, by downplaying non-religious values and affiliations, has strengthened the position of the religious establishments and increased the sense of distance between communities.20 We advocate a broader conceptualisation of intercultural dialogue, framed in terms of encounters among people (with different cultural orientations) rather than as dialogue between 'cultures'. Encounters are not necessarily formal; they can happen in environments such as churches, sports, schools, cafes, streets and all sorts of urban spaces. Our research on urban areas shows how local systems that facilitate encountering and interactions resulted in higher level of identification, participation and solidarity in the local community, across cultural and ethnic boundaries.21 Implications for policy and policy-making: Interventions to promote intercultural dialogue should shift away from culture- and ethniccentred undertakings. The focus should be on facilitating and promoting the full range of possibilities for concrete (informal) interactions among peoples with different cultural orientations in spontaneous situations and around shared challenges in the daily lives they share.
16 17
Council of Europe (2008) White Paper on Intercultural dialogue, p. 17. European Commission, (2007) An Agenda for Culture in a globalising world, COM(2007) 242 final. 18 European Institute for Comparative Cultural Research (ERICarts) Sharing Diversity. National approaches to Intercultural Dialogue in Europe, Study for the European Commission. 19 Kchler S., Krti L. and Elkadi H. (eds) Every Days a Festival! Diversity on show (Sean Kingston Publishing). 20 Sen A. K. (2006) Identity & Violence. The illusion of destiny (London, UK: Penguin Books ltd). 21 Bracalenti R., Montuori M. A., Saraceno N. Staderini D., Wallman S. (2009) Squarci 3. Esquilino e Pigneto. Modelling neighbourhood system (Roma, Italy, Edup srl).
Page 8 of 10
QUESTION 4. Inequality and diversity. Are they synonyms? Both diversity and inequality refer to the state or quality of being unlike. Their meaning and understanding in public discussion are, however, very different. While diversity generally refers to differences of a cultural nature, inequality recalls social stratification, unequal access to resources and asymmetric power relations. While diversity is often celebrated in international documents, inequality has a generally more negative nuance.22 Diversity and inequality are also separated in both research and policy. The diversity literature uses words such as multiculturalism, identity, respect and recognition. It largely ignores words such as underdevelopment, justice and exploitation which are typical of the literature on the distribution of wealth and opportunity. Diversity policies also tend to neglect underlying power and economic differences. For instance, the recent European agenda for Culture makes no reference to issues of inequality. 23 The risk is that diversity is used as an umbrella concept under which any source of difference could be subsumed with no attention to the structural inequalities of diverse groups. The celebration of diversity may end up simply veiling fundamental inequalities and social stratification. Our view Diversity and inequality are not synonymous. Differences may be also complementary, as we discussed earlier. We think that research and policy should no longer ignore the strict, bidirectional relation that exists between diversity and inequality. Since hierarchy is one of the criteria for differentiation (see p. 4); "diversity is always a bedfellow of inequality".24 Indeed, evidence shows that views and practices ignoring this relationship are misleading. Our research in the US and France shows the need to locate diversity research and policy into hierarchymaking processes highlighting how practices of diversity may continue to reinforce rather than reduce inequality.25 At a more micro-level, studies on diversity training indicate that providing people with information about out-group members culture may actually reinforce group stereotypes and prejudices and that cross-cultural workshops can be threatening to the dominant groups and provoke their backlash. The celebration of diversity helped us to focus on the positive qualities of individuals, not groups of people, and this is crucial as it recognizes the agency of minority individuals. It also helped to challenge the taken-for-granted assumption that the goal should be assimilation of the uncivilized "other" into the civilized "us". However, it is clear that this is not sufficient and may even be counterproductive. We think that it is now necessary to bring the diversity and inequality agendas together, in particular: Any diversity policy (e.g., anti-discrimination measures; intercultural dialogue initiatives or other) needs to consider, address and partially neutralise the inequitable effects of peoples disadvantaged social-economic backgrounds. Otherwise, it may have no or counterproductive effects. Institutions and organisations should continually self-assess to identify and challenge structural factors that (mechanically or intentionally) reproduce inequalities and stratifications. The risk is that an assimilation agenda may enter through the back door. Differences will be cast as deviant (tolerable exceptions at best), requiring ethnic minority individuals to unilaterally adjust in order to assimilate.
22 23 24
For instance, the Preamble to the EU Treaty mentions "equality" as a one of the universal values. European Commission, (2007) An Agenda for Culture in a globalising world, COM(2007) 242 final. van Londen S., de Ruijter A, cit, p. 14.
25
Bowman P. J & Betancur J.J (2010) Sustainable diversity and inequality: Race in the USA and beyond; and Rousseau O. & Mukherjee S.R. (2010) The French debate on diversity, in Janssens M. et al (2010), cit. Page 9 of 10
QUESTION 5: Research and policy. What possibilities for evidence-based policy on diversity issues? The ideal of 'evidence-based' policy is attracting increasing attention in the policy debate. At the European level, the European Commission is asked to justify its policy proposals on the basis of a thorough assessment of their potential consequences. This "impact assessment" is now a major element in all policy negotiations. In the field of diversity, research indeed could play a great role in providing evidence for robust policy-making by removing grounds for misunderstandings, debunking myths and stereotypes, and exploring the differential and unintended impact of policies. However, diversity research is still ill equipped to achieve these tasks. Research in social sciences is prevalently mono-disciplinary, carried out by single researchers or by small teams and policymakers and other stakeholders are rarely included in research processes. Yet, diversity is inherently complex, multifaceted and multilayered. This means that no single discipline or perspective can address it in a comprehensive and satisfactory way. Also, reflecting the complexity of the issues at stake, research insights for policy are also complex. Yet, the highly polarised debate calls for simple messages. Researchers' refinements do not find a political audience and are often considered irrelevant by policy-makers (and may in fact be irrelevant at times). Our view We advocate fundamental changes in diversity research. Such changes call into question research policy, as well. We draw here primarily on our experiences and network-wide reflections. Firstly, research should move from being a mono-disciplinary endeavour to establishing large multi-disciplinary teams that address diversity in its complexity. The inclusion of representatives from minorities should also be pursued in order to bring critical paradigms and perspectives to the table, de-centring analysis and raising challenges on taken-for-granted assumptions. SUS.DIV tried this, bringing together researchers from a variety of disciplines and cultural backgrounds. Our experience shows that the current reward structures discriminate against multidisciplinary and policy oriented research (careers and journals largely being organised by discipline) and against researchers from the periphery (the international system largely being inspired/dominated by anglophone sources from the US and the UK). Secondly, researchers should accept being part in and parcel of the political process and should disclose their own perspectives. Being a party in the process will help attract interest and increase influence. Legitimacy of research will rest on rigour as well as on strengthened transparency and accountability of the research process. For this to happen, the research process needs to open up and to adopt participatory research designs that include all stakeholders all the way from the early stage to peer reviews. 26 This will also help sharpen the research questions and enrich the empirical material by mobilising valuable knowledge outside the academy. Delivering on the above is the primary responsibility of research. Research needs to change the way it operates, how it interacts with the policy world and how it communicates to the outside. But policy has also a great role to play in accompanying and favouring change. We see in particular the following: Policy-makers should take initiative for reconsidering criteria for academic career assessment to favour policy-relevant research, and for restructuring journals and publications towards multi/inter-disciplinarity (including new journals) Research funding structures should also change. The selection stage already appropriately favours multi-disciplinary teams with well-developed plans for dialogue with policy-makers and stakeholders. However, performance criteria used in itinere and ex post are primarily based on academic publications, which weigh negatively on the performance and future prospects of multi-disciplinary and policy-oriented endeavours.
26
Funtowicz, S.O. and Ravetz, J.R. (1990) Uncertainty and Quality in Science for Policy (Kluwer Academic Publishers, the Netherlands).
Page 10 of 10
