next »

[ptprof]

The Boston Globe ran an interesting story today discussing the recent publication by Robert Putnam suggesting that diversity hurts civic life.  The Globe quotes Putnam's paper, "those in more diverse communities tend to "distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, 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.""

Putnam describes himself as, "a liberal academic whose own values put him squarely in the pro-diversity camp", so this isn't Ann Coulter saying these things. 

The entire article can be found at;
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2007/08/04/the_downside_of_diversity/?page=full

[larryc]

this isn't Ann Coulter saying these things

But it will be Ann Coulter quoting him!

Putnam is the "Bowling Alone" guy--and isn't that thesis widely discredited? I think in this case he may simply be measuring the effects of urban poverty on people, since these are the areas with the most dense low income housing and hence the greatest diversity. Of course the article has the usual disclaimer where he says he took that into account, but what does that really mean? I am skeptical.

[spork]

Two hundred years ago New Englanders of English ancestry were complaining about how Irish and Scottish immigrants were dirty, poor, and criminal-minded.  There weren't any televisions to huddle in front of, but there were fireplaces.

Putnam's argument, if it can be called that, is old and unscientific.

[daniel_von_flanagan]

I think in this case he may simply be measuring the effects of urban poverty on people, since these are the areas with the most dense low income housing and hence the greatest diversity. Of course the article has the usual disclaimer where he says he took that into account, but what does that really mean?

I don't know what Putnam does, but in most statistical analyses this is very easy; you just make sure that population density is one of the variables (inputs) in the model. - DvF

[tenured_feminist]

I have not read the paper. But I find it quite interesting that a paper with such a large data set and a provocative thesis was published in Scandanavian Political Studies.

Plus, the Globe portrays it as "diversity causes lack of civic engagement." I would hope that Putnam would be smarter than to make a causal argument based on the relationship he perceives.

And Goddess save us all from Harvard liberals.

[mirandaf]

FYI: Here's the link to the article itself:

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/action/showPdf?submitPDF=Full+Text+PDF+%28819+KB%29&doi=10.1111%2Fj.1467-9477.2007.00176.x&cookieSet=1

[beacon1]

I have not read the paper. But I find it quite interesting that a paper with such a large data set and a provocative thesis was published in Scandanavian Political Studies.

Plus, the Globe portrays it as "diversity causes lack of civic engagement." I would hope that Putnam would be smarter than to make a causal argument based on the relationship he perceives.

And Goddess save us all from Harvard liberals.

An argument, by its very nature, means that both parties do not really have an answer. Why is it so hard for diversity pundits to actually acknowledge that there may be downsides?

[angel]

An argument, by its very nature, means that both parties do not really have an answer. Why is it so hard for diversity pundits to actually acknowledge that there may be downsides?

The issue isn't acknowledging downsides. Anyone can just throw downsides out there with little sound or credible evidence to back them up. The issue is the soundness of methodology and argument and the quality of their execution. Some posters above have raised questions about Putnam's methodology and conclusions based on this and previous work. It is a useful point of discussion, though it may not be the one you're interested in having.

[prytania3]

From my own personal anecdotal experiences, I have found these conclusions to be very wrong.

[tenured_feminist]

Beacon1, I am a social scientist. Arguments have certain logical requirements. Specifying whether one is describing causation, correlation, or dynamic relationship is one of them. An argument in the social sciences in fact does imply that the authors believe themselves to have nailed this down. And Putnam, having placed himself pretty clearly in the positivist camp of his discipline, ought to know this.

However, I would assume that this is sloppy reporting rather than a fault of Putnam's. I might have time to look at the paper in the next few days, in which case I may have more specific things to say.

[engineer_adrift]

I state, anecdotally but from long experience, that if your student body is heterogenous, your faculty should be heterogenous.  Students need role models to whom they can relate.

One of my major concerns is that I teach at a school with over 250 tenured faculty, about 20% black students, and three tenured black faculty.  We need more role models whose presence says, "I did it - so can you."

My last two hires have been female, but I have been outbid for the talented black faculty I have aggressively recruited, losing to MIT and USC.

But we need them.  I do believe we need the role models.

Best
EA

[kaysixteen]

The article says that Putnam, when he had originally collected and analyzed his data, was appalled at his own conclusions and spent several years trying to discredit them himself before finally concluding they were what they were and publishing them as is.  As to why some obscure European journal would be publishing them, well... many American journals might well refuse to publish something so obviously likely to be criticized without question by reflexive ideologues.

Larry said that Putnam's conclusions in 'Bowling Alone' have been widely discredited.  I would appreciate some biblio on this, as I found his arguments compelling, myself.

[larryc]

K16: It isn't really my field and I was asking more than saying. But the buzz from my sociologists colleagues about Bowling Alone is that Putnam cherry picked his data to reinforce his predetermined conclusions.

[dr_stones]

Putnam is conceptually correct about the value of social capital.

He is grossly in error about how to measure it.

His version of social capital is, basically, white suburbaness from the 1950s . . . bowling leagues, going to the Elks Club, PTA.

I'd wager that Robert Putnam does country line dancing because it is a bunch of conformist white people doing math together with their feet.

[helpful]

Does the author define diversity, because diversity is much broader than so called race, income, or ethnicity.