You are on page 1of 10

Importance and benefits of diversity

Diversity can be defined as people coming together from different races, nationalities,
religions and sexes to form a group, organization or community. A diverse organization is
one that values the difference in people. It is one that recognizes that people with different
backgrounds, skills, attitudes and experiences bring fresh ideas and perceptions. Diverse
organizations encourage and harness these differences to make their services relevant and
approachable. Diverse organizations draw upon the widest possible range of views and
experiences so it can listen to and meet the changing needs of its users. The
encouragement of diversity benefits society.
In society today, most people view diversity as a good thing because it gives people the
chance to experience different things outside of what they are normally accustomed to.
Diversity in America is openly viewed as a beneficial bacterium, so many backgrounds and
not knowing which ones are good and which ones are bad.
Diversity as a wide component is a tricky thing to use and understand because it has both
negative and positive effects on society such as education, violence and employment.
People have to dig deep to figure out what exactly the effect will be in the end and be
patient to wait and see.
Studies show that the lack of cohesion between races, sexes and cultures is due to mistrust,
stereotyping, and more within-culture conversation and language problems. When these
problems are not paid attention to it may lead to an inability to endorse ideas, the inability
to gain agreement on decisions, and inability to take united action. In the educational
system it is very important that there is a wide array of diverse groups in the classroom, It
is important to have a diverse student body, not only to create a realistic setting but also to
encourage people to grow outside their boundaries and learn something new about a culture
they may not be familiar with. (Pendulum 1). By accomplishing this in the classroom you
can avoid child unawareness and actually enlighten them about other things that go on
around them with people they may be friends with or know. Another factor in a less diverse
student population is bullying. Students who are different are often targets for bullying.
Often when people lack knowledge of things that they are not accustomed to they are quick
to judge or stereotype and make ignorant decisions. Diversity is a positive thing, not
something to fear (Pendulum 1).
The different aspects of diversity are very important. People of diverse racial and ethnic
backgrounds have been an integral part of Penn State School of Nursing for many years
(Our History of Diversity 1). From so small to something bigger, diversity plays a major
role everywhere every day. In some colleges diversity has been around for many years
regardless of what social, racial and ethnic differences there were. Children exposed to
diverse cultures in the classroom learn to understand different points of view, which is an
important part of education (Canadian Teachers 1). This can sum up why diversity in the
classroom is such an important part of a childs development, by the child being exposed to
diverse cultures the child can get a better understanding of why the child dresses this way,
acts that way or cant eat this or that. The result is that children will question their own
beliefs and understand how their own culture influences the way they see the world
(Canadian Teacher 1).

Diversity can create curiosity. By being exposed to different people and cultures, a student
may want to learn more about a particular group which can give them insight into how and
why things work as they do and possibly a way to change them for the better.
For some students being in a diverse school or college can prepare them for the real world,
where they can take a stance on a subject and be able to voice their opinion from an
informed point of view, It enhances Americas economic competitiveness (On the
Importance of Diversity in Higher Education 1). Everyone has something unique about
them to bring to the table, and with everyones strengths being used together they can
make anything better. One single person cant always do things alone and with the different
talents of a diverse community something with potential can be strengthened. Overall,
diversity in their student bodies, faculties, and staff is important for them to fulfill their
primary mission: providing a quality education (On the Importance of Diversity in Higher
Education 1). A quality education does not come without learning something about race,
religion, and culture or what is expected and what is not. Having a diverse school setting is
beneficial because you learn more and so operate in the real world with a better view and
understanding.
Diversity is not being encouraged throughout America; in fact some cultures would rather
have contact only within that family or race, or even that religion. Some people are not
persuaded that their children need to be in a diverse setting or experience one. In todays
global society, without any prior knowledge of other people; when a person actually gets out
into the real world their often stuck with a limited view of the world, and what to expect. In
reality, the work place has every gender, ethnic group and religion. It is like saying if you
say the wrong thing you may think it is funny and others will find it offensive, you have to
understand why if effects someone else that is of a different background. Learning about
other countries and other cultures is part of the public school curriculum. Having children
from other countries and cultures in the classroom can be a positive experience for teachers
and students (Canadian Teacher, 1). It is proven that by valuing diversity, organizations
bring benefits to the people they work with, their local communities, as well as to
themselves.

Society is diverse just because of the existence of people; there are differences even within
the same group. For example: One in five adults and one in 20 children are disabled in
some way (Valuing Diversity 1).
One in 12 people are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds, and figure rises to one
in eight of under 16 year olds(Valuing Diversity 1).
One in 20 people who have a religious belief belong to a faith community other than
Christian (Valuing Diversity 1).
One in four people are under 16 and one in six are under 65 (Valuing Diversity 1).
Diversity is not always just what background you come from but is any unique difference
between human beings. Diversity includes physical appearance, religious belief, and race but
your opinions and thoughts and the impact they make on society are also part of diversity.
We learn from people who have different experiences, beliefs and perspectives on things.
Diversity enriches the educational experience(On the Importance of Diversity in Higher
Education 1). By hearing different opinions from people who you may totally disagree with,

they can possibly persuade you to their side or at least get you to understand what their
argument is really about. Diversity promotes personal growth and a healthy society(On
the Importance of Diversity in Higher Education 1). Diversity changes stereotypes in
communities, what people once thought can easily be changed and can bring the
community much closer because of it. It strengthens communities and the workplace(On
the Importance of Diversity in Higher Education 1).
An approach to understanding diversity is something much like Newcombs theory of social
attraction. Similarity on attributes such as attitudes, values, and beliefs will facilitate
interpersonal attraction and liking, and vice versa. (Mannix, Neale 1). Diversity may be
beneficial but it does not work if people take a liking to others that are okay just like them,
having to do with race, attitudes, views and beliefs.
In his classic research on cultural diversity, Harry C. Triandis found that members of
culturally dissimilar groups were less likely to be attracted to one another and had more
difficulty communicating with each other than members of culturally homogeneous groups
did (Mannix, Neale 1). Different cultural groups will find it slightly uncomfortable to talk
about what they celebrate and believe in because the other person does not share the same
beliefs as they do. It makes it harder for them to talk and often they are being judged
because it is not something that would normally interest them or does not interest any other
cultural background.
One study has revealed that immigration and diversity not only reduce social capital
between ethnic groups, but also within groups themselves (Leo 1) this means that
regardless of ethnic background, diversity is often affected within smaller groups. Even
communication between the members in the same group is affected. They are not as willing
to talk openly about certain things because they think people cannot relate to them or
would not understand or cannot be trusted. The problem is not ethnic conflict or troubled
racial relations, but withdrawal and isolation(Leo 1). There are some people that live in
more diverse settings that tend to keep to themselves more and shut everyone out. Putnam
says, people in diverse communities tend to withdraw even from close friends, to expect
the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and
work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform
more, but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily
in front of the television(Leo 1). Diversity can affect a person in a negative way. For
example, a person may start to feel as if they cannot turn to close friends or family because
they do not hold the same traditions as everyone else, and since they are different there is
not anyone they can express themselves to. So instead of communicating with others they
would rather bottle it up and settle with being unhappy and withdraw from the general
society.
Most authorities tend to disagree with this; they believe that diversity is more beneficial to
society than it is harmful. From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political
leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger (Jonas 3). Diversity is
the many differences that different backgrounds hold. Within those backgrounds are
differences that make and improve people. We should celebrate the differences and learn to
work together.

http://www.teenink.com/opinion/environment/article/465407/The-Importance-andBenefits-of-Diversity/

Diversity, social interaction and solidarity


For many reasons, society is becoming more diverse in terms of culture, religion,
gender-norms and lifestyle. Increased diversity will have an impact on social
interaction and the integration of societies. Diversity is a political concern but, as yet,
decision-making does not rest on a sufficient, sound basis of knowledge.
Society is becoming more diverse owing to, among other factors, increased cross-border
mobility, less-rigid gender roles, improved living standards and individualization processes. The
diversity of lifestyles, value systems and experiences has consequences for social interaction,
and the self-conception and internal integration of societies ; however, its precise impact is in
many ways unclear. Intensified research is urgently needed as the effects of diversity are often
the subject of controversial political debates.
1

Value of Diversity in Dispute


Researchers are equally divided as regards the dangers and opportunities arising from growing
societal diversity. Some sociologists have voiced doubts about whether individualized and
ethnically diverse societies are capable of ever being integrated. In the United States, empirical
studies have shown that ethnic diversity can be accompanied by low levels of trust among
citizens and in societal institutions . However, other studies have shown that regional economic
dynamics are improved by population heterogeneity and a climate of tolerance. Here, diversity is
linked with creativity, openness and vitality; multicultural towns act as both magnets for the
cultural and economic elite, and breeding grounds for new ideas . The key difference between
these positions lies within the assumed capacity of societies to constructively use the potentials
arising from increasing diversity.
2,3

4,5

To date, knowledge about the factors that affect this capacity, and about how individuals, social
groups and societies deal with diversity, is limited. Little is known about how social interactions
are affected by diversity, how individuals experience diversity, and how it affects their thinking
and actions. In particular, there is a lack of systematic comparative research on different
constellations and contexts. This is the starting point for several lines of research focusing, for
example, on cities as places where ethnic diversity is experienced in a concentrated form. How
do people in different contexts experience ethnic diversity? Under what conditions does migration
background, ethnic origin or ascription play a role in social interactions? What kinds of
interactions occur across ethnic boundaries and when? What role does the immediate spatial
context play, i.e. a more homogeneous or heterogeneous composition of the population of
residential areas? What significance do these experiences, and direct interactions between people
of different origins and lifestyles, have in terms of attitudes towards society?

Contact across Borders

Zoom Image
Diversity is nowadays a normal feature of urban life.
Cate Gillon, Getty Images

Certain assumptions of conflict theory suggest that foreigners are perceived as a threat or that
they arouse resentment. An alternative research framework assumes that people in diverse
contexts present opportunities that can be utilized in different ways. Contact in the form of
strong and weak ties or even fleeting everyday encounters is crucial for civilized forms of
coexistence in diverse societies. The mechanisms through which heterogeneity interacts with
trust or willingness to co-operate must be investigated more deeply.
Until now, studies have often been restricted to presenting correlations between attitudes or
facts without determining whether they are causally related and, if so, what mechanisms are
responsible for example, observing that, in areas with a heterogeneous population, trust in
state institutions is limited and assuming that the one causes the other. Interdisciplinary research
that integrates ethnological and other social scientific and psychological approaches appears
promising in determining mechanisms and causal relations. Contact theory, which was developed
within social psychology, is crucial. It assumes that positive, cooperative contact between
individuals identifying with different groups can foster positive attitudes in both groups towards
the other and possibly also to cooperation and solidarity generally. Evidence from Northern
Ireland mirrored in studies in the United States and Canada suggests that where highquality social contact between different ethnicities occurs, there is a higher level of social trust.
In other words, high-quality contact between different population groups can combat negative
effects of diversity .
6,7

Studies have often been restricted to presenting correlations between attitudes or


facts without determining whether they are causally related.

Zoom Image
Diversity is nowadays a normal feature of urban life.
S. Vertovec, MPI Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity

The Choice of Friends


Social network research is also helpful in examining diversity within societies. Researchers in this
field have identified several factors that determine the shape of personal networks: opportunities
for contact, a preference for social relationships with similar people (the homophily principle) and
the attraction of social relationships with people of a higher status . To this end, interethnic
contact might be facilitated by mixed residential areas. However, if there are ethnic hierarchies,
in which immigrants and members of ethnic minorities are trapped at the bottom, this might
reduce the willingness of higher- status, long-term residents to engage in such interactions.
Furthermore, the way in which individuals define the homo- geneity they seek in their social
networks needs to be clarified: is it based on a common national or regional origin or religious
group, or on interests and lifestyles that have nothing to do with the drawing of ethnic boundary
lines?
8

Beyond Boundaries

Zoom Image
How do fleeting encounters that characterize modern city life affect attitudes?
fotolia / Kate Shephard

Ethnic divisions among people are social and political constructions, and are thus subject to
struggles and change . Consequently, the quality and quantity of interactions across social
borders are not purely individual decisions. Furthermore, they can be determined by social
contexts, including local neighbourhoods and schools with differing compositions. More research
is needed to determine more precisely how structural conditions and political interventions shape
the ways in which diversity is experienced, and how different actors could thus influence
interactions and linkages across borderlines.
9

In the 1970s, researchers investigated a different community question . At the time, people
were worried about the impact of urbanization on personal networks and resultant solidarity.
Since then, many studies have shown that the level of solidarity in the supposedly
heterogeneous, impersonal cities is no lower than in rural areas. In a similar manner, individuals
and social groups who today experience difficulties with increased ethnic and migration-based
diversity in their surroundings might find ways to deal with it in a constructive manner tomorrow.
10

https://www.mpg.de/19440/Diversity_interaction_solidarity

Trust in a diverse society

Sociologists have traditionally thought about the consequences of ethnic diversity in


one of two ways. The conflict model claims that the more that diverse groups
interact, the more social tension there will be. The contact model, on the other
hand, suggests that the more that different groups interact, the less they will fear
each other. Unsurprisingly the first model is favoured by conservatives to justify
restrictions on immigration, while liberals often call on the second in arguing for
multicultural education.

Then came Robert Putnam. Around the turn of the century, the American sociologist
and his colleagues interviewed 30,000 people in 41 communities across America.
Their data challenged both approaches. Putnams results discredited the idea that
greater diversity is correlated either with increased inter-ethnic hostility or with
greater understanding. Rather they suggested that it is associated with an erosion of
trust across the board. Other things being equal, Putnam discovered, more diversity
in a community meant less trust both between and within ethnic groups. The more
diverse a community, the less socially engaged were its members they voted less,
did less community work, gave less to charity, and had fewer friends. Most strikingly,
people in more diverse society people were more distrustful not just of members of
other ethnic groups but of their own, too. According to Putnam, diversity seems to
trigger not in-group/out-group division, but anomie or social isolation. To put it
another way, In more diverse settings, Americans distrust not merely people who do
not look like them, but even people who do.
Putnams research, and the suggestion that too much diversity undermines trust and
mutual regard has been seized upon by critics of immigration such as David
Goodhart and and Paul Collier. Putnam himself delayed publishing his full details for
more than five years, fearful of its political implications.
More recent empirical research has, however, questioned the Putnam argument.
The latest such study comes in the work of Patrick Sturgis, Professor of Research
Methodology and Director of the ESRC National Centre for Research Methods.
Sturgis and his colleagues investigated the relationship between diversity and trust
in London, a city with a justifiable claim to be the most ethnically diverse, not just in
the UK, but in the world. It is, they write, because we can be certain that ethnic
diversity is unusually high and, therefore, part of everyday life for its residents that
we have chosen to focus our analysis on neighbourhoods in London. If living in an
ethnically diverse neighbourhood causes people to distrust and avoid one another,

they reasoned, then we should be certain to find evidence of the phenomenon in


London.
The study discovered the opposite relationship to Putnam. Once Sturgis and his
colleagues had allowed for social and economic deprivation, then ethnic diversity
is positively related to social cohesion, with significantly higher levels of cohesion
evident as ethnic heterogeneity increases. The relationship between diversity and
cohesion is age related. The positive effect of diversity is strongest among younger
people and weakest among the oldest people, and is, indeed, marginally negative
for those over 85.
Our overall conclusion, the authors write, is that ethnic diversity does not, in and of
itself, drive down community cohesion and trust. In fact, in the highly diverse
neighbourhoods that characterize modern London, the opposite appears to be the
case, once adequate account is taken of the spatial distribution of immigrant groups
within neighbourhoods and the degree of social and economic deprivation
experienced by residents.
We should no more view Sturgis research as demonstrating that diversity creates
trust than we should have seen Putnams work as having demonstrated that
diversity undermines trust. Both studies are restricted by geography, one being a
study of American neighborhoods, the other of London neighboruhoods. Equally
importantly they are studies restricted by history. As I have suggested before, a key
problem in many studies of diversity is that each offers only a snapshot of attitudes
at one moment in time. Diversity, though, is not a static phenomenon but the
character and meaning, and our political response to it, changes over time. So, in
thinking about the Putnam data, we need to remember that

Over the past few decades, we have witnessed the demise of


movements for social change, the rise of identity politics, the
atomization of society, a loss of belief in universal values, all of
which has led to civic disengagement and a greater sense of
anomie. The real problem, then, may not be diversity as such but
the political context in which we think about it.

The real issue raised by such studies is the need to think far more carefully, and
subtly, what we mean by diversity, trust and cohesion. These are all complex terms
with multiple meanings but which in both academic and popular discourse all too
often become stripped of that complexity and subtlety. Such studies reveal the need,
too, to think not just sociologically but also historically, and not to imagine that either
the way we conceive of particular concepts at a particular moment in time, or their
impact on attitudes, relationships and social structures are given. Nor should we
ignore the political context in which these debates take place. Notions of diversity,
trust and cohesion do not come prepackaged but only emerge against particular
political and historical backgrounds. That is why a historically static understanding of
these issues is so stripped down and impoverished.
Most importantly, perhaps, we should be wary of those commentators who take such
studies, especially single studies, and use them as evidence for grand political
claims about immigration and diversity. These studies should become part of the
debate. But of themselves they settle nothing.

You might also like