Competing diversity indices and attitudes toward cultural pluralism in Europe

• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-02-2019-0087
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• Pages: 1029-1046
• Subject Matter: HR & organizational behaviour,Employment law,Diversity,equality,inclusion
• Author: Ádám Németh,Dávid Sümeghy,András Trócsányi,Gábor Pirisi

Competing diversity indices

and attitudes toward cultural

pluralism in Europe



Ad

am N

emeth, D

avid S€

umeghy, Andr

as Tr

ocs

anyi and G

abor Pirisi

Department of Human Geography and Urban Studies, University of P

ecs,

Pecs, Hungary

Abstract

Purpose –The purpose of this analysis is to collect and classify the most important diversity indices, outline

the logical connections between them and answer the following question: How much will the results differ if the

authors use different indices for explaining the same dependent variable (attitude toward cultural pluralism),

and what kind of relationships are observable in the European societies?

Design/methodology/approach –The diversity indices are good for compressing information on the

number and shares of ethnic groups in a given setting into singlenumbers in order to use them as independent

variables. However, it matters which index the authors choose because it can make a meaningful difference in

the assessment of the potentialimpacts of diversification. Our empirical study (based on 43 European countries

and 160 regions) concluded that the correlation coefficients between the most important indicesare above 0.8.

Thus, in practice, none of them gives a fundamentally different answer to the question: how does diversity/

diversification influences people’s attitudes toward multiculturalism.

Findings –By linking these results with the European Social Survey database the authors concluded that the

more diverse a population in 2014 was, a more positive attitude toward multiculturalism was expressed.

However, if the authors focus on the dynamics of diversification, the spread of points is much greater and

polynomial (U-shaped curvilinear) trendlines are better suitable to grasp the relationships. It means that people

tend to react very differently to similar societal changes in those regions where a moderate degree of

diversification took place.

Originality/value –International migration and ethno-cultural diversification are hotly debated issues in

contemporary Europe, and there is a growing interest in understanding their possible social, economic and

political outcomes. A question of key importance for the social sciences to adequately answer the challenges is

the capability to measure these processes in a quantitative way as well. This paper helps decide which diversity

index might be the optimum solution for a given research project.

Keywords Methodology, Ethnicity, Europe, Immigration, Diversity, Quantitative

Paper type Research paper

Research context and the aims of this paper

While post-war global migration was comprised mainly of “large numbers moving from

particular places to particular places”(e.g. Algeria–France, Turkey–Germany), since the

1980s, we have witnessed more people in “small numbers moving from many places to many

places”(Vertovec, 2011). The increasing complexity of international migration, in terms of

source and destination areas, migration channels and the social characteristics of people who

move, has obviously led to further diversification in the expanding cities of the West

(Vertovec, 2007). In recent years, and particularly since the 2015 refugee crisis, there has been

a growing interest almost everywhere in Europe to understand the potential impacts of these

phenomena. While the soft approach of social anthropology gains insight into this complex

Diversity and

attitude of

cultural

pluralism

1029

The research of



Ad

am N

emeth was supported by the National Research, Development and Innovation

Office –NKFIH, PD 115951.

The project has been supported by the European Union, co-financed by the European Social Fund

Grant no.: EFOP-3.6.1.-16-2016-00004 entitled by Comprehensive Development for Implementing Smart

Specialization Strategies at the University of P

ecs.

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/2040-7149.htm

Received 23 February 2019

Revised 19 November 2019

8 July 2020

Accepted 6 November 2020

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion:

An International Journal

Vol. 41 No. 7, 2022

pp. 1029-1046

© Emerald Publishing Limited

2040-7149

DOI 10.1108/EDI-02-2019-0087

issue from a bottom up perspective (Eriksen, 2008), another group of researchers attempts to

explain the processes along the quantitative line of macro-level analyses. Although the debate

about the use of statistical data and the quantitative methodology continues, most

researchers agree that social sciences need to further address the social, economic and

political impacts of diversity.

The purpose of this analysis is to gather and categorize the major diversity indices found in

the international lite rature and outline the logi cal connections betwee n them. The

classification is based on the findings of Desmet et al. (2009), while Schaeffer (2013)

provided the initial idea for weighting. How much will the results differ if we use these

competing indices –as independent variables –for explaining the same dependent variable?

In addition, the paper reflects, on the basis of the European Social Survey (ESS), on how the

general attitude toward cultural pluralism relates to the extent of diversity and the direction

of diversification in Europe.

An anchor for the conceptualization of the attitudes toward cultural pluralism

Although its roots date back to the classic works of T€

onnies (1887) and Durkheim (1897),

social cohesion –in the modern sense of the notion –emerged as a relatively new concept in the

1990s (Pahl, 1991). As the landmark report of the Bertelsmann Foundation (2013)

summarized, a cohesive society is characterized by resilient social relations, a positive

emotional connectedness between its members and the community and a pronounced focus

on the common good. It short: it is “the glue of society”. Although this understanding is

expressed in the work of an increasing number of sociologists (Chan et al., 2006;Dickes and

Valentova, 2013;Dragolov et al., 2016;Schiefer and Noll, 2017), its essence is difficult to grasp

empirically.

Jenson (2010) described five broad dimensions of social cohesion: perceived social

exclusion, perceived economic and ethno-cultural tensions, interpersonal trust, participation

in society (civic engagement and political activity) and the sense of community (attachment to

people in the local area, e.g. interpersonal and intergroup contacts). Therefore, in the context

of today’s rapidly diversifying societies, tolerance, openness and the attitudes toward

immigration or cultural pluralism can be considered important indicators of the fifth pillar of

social cohesion. Since the strength of community cohesion is a precondition of successful

integration and the social and economic development (Fermin and Kjellstrand, 2005),

identifying challenges facing the recognition of difference, the acceptance of diversity and, in

a wider context: the diversity–cohesion nexus is a major task for social scientists.

The discussion of what are the potential effects of ethnic diversity on social cohesion has

been explored extensively in the literature (Gijsberts et al., 2012;Laurence, 2014;Sturgis et al.,

2014;Schaeffer, 2014;Harell and Stolle, 2015 etc.). A lot of attention was given, for example, to

Putnam’s paper (2007), which claimed that although diversity is likely to have cultural and

financial benefits in the long run; in the short run, it tends to reduce social capital through the

weakening of mutual trust and solidarity. According to Miguel and Gugerty (2005),Adams

et al. (2010) etc. it is easier indeed to trust in people who are ethnically and culturally similar to

oneself. Thus, the “theory of in-group favoritism”(see, e.g. McPherson et al., 2001)–in relation

to the “threat theory”which focuses on the conflict-potential over resources with the out-

group –predicts the erosion of trust and social cohesion in diverse environments (Quillian,

1995;Esses et al., 1998;Koopmans and Schaeffer, 2015). These theories sharply contrast the

“contact hypothesis”, which emphasizes the positive effects of heterogeneity (Pettigrew and

Tropp, 2006;Hewstone, 2009;Koopmans and Veit, 2014 etc.). Its motive lies in tolerance

developed by everyday interactions and mutual understanding, which can result in the

strengthening of solidarity and mutual trust. To provide answers to these research questions

and test the hypotheses, quantifying diversity and its temporal change is essential.

EDI

41,7

1030