Friday, October 21, 2016

Open Practices

This post is a response to a request for my thoughts on the value of open practices and methodologies for putting them into practice. 



1. Do you have any insight into working with educators to help them see the value in open practice, to help share their learning more openly, and how we might scaffold the entire process?  It is in building the compelling case for change that I am having some challenges.  I work to craft messages for specific audiences but I am missing the mark in helping education leaders see the VALUE in open practice. 

My first though on this is that you are not alone in this experience. Proponents of open practice (open anything, actually) have experienced difficulties in translating the idea into practice. People like Stevan Harnad and Peter Suber have talked about the same phenomenon with respect to open publishing, for example. I've had pushback in my own organization when promoting openness. And  I've had numerous people tell me about the same thing when I've presented on this. The objections break down into two major categories:

- first, there is a reluctance to share based on a fear of consequences. Some fear their own work isn't worth sharing. There's a fear of embarrassing oneself and looking foolish in public. Others (quite reasonably) are concerned about violating privacy and confidentiality (aka FOIPP). Others argue that people can speak more freely in private spaces. There is concern about practices (such as sharing of copyright materials) that might have to be discontinued if done openly. And there are concerns about the consequences, such as being fired, if people dislike what they see being shared.

These are legitimate concerns and cannot be dismissed lightly, or at all. People need private spaces. Any discussion of working openly has to include a discussion of when it's possible and appropriate to work privately. At the same time, there's a 'flipping of the switch' that needs to happen. Currently, the default is to do everything privately, and make an exception for sharing. The challenge is to make the default to work openly, and make an exception for keeping things private. This is the trend behind initiatives such as 'open data' and 'open science'.

The key here is that flipping the switch has to be seen as safe. Nobody wants to open up if it's going to blow up on them. There needs to be a space for confidentiality, and there needs to be a sense of security about the implications of being open.

- second, many people simply don't care. This is especially the case among academics, and has been well documented. All else being equal, people will not change their practices. They see no compelling reason to work openly. In addition to exposing them to risk, as noted above, it creates overhead and paperwork. Institutions say they want staff to share openly but in practice are nervous about what staff will share (this is especially strong in government, I can attest) and so they put in policies and procedures (for example, I've see all of these in action: requirement for legal review, requirement for IP screening, requirement for conformity to ADA, requirement for bilingual versions, requirement for institutional wordmark and branding).

Commercial publishers have taken advantage of this and though they also create overhead they have removed much of the work and risk involved in publishing, and they offer reward in terms of promotion criteria and sometimes financial incentives. This only exists for certain categories, however; we don't really see the equivalent for classroom teachers (though things like Discovery Education Network have made some inroads here). And of course they often limit access to those who can pay for it (and create a rights and payment overhead in the process).

To date, at the institutional level, only one strategy has countered this: an openness mandate. We see examples in freedom of information legislation, open data policies, funder requirements for open access publication, and institutional archiving mandates. These requirements create a lot of pushback but create much more openness than we see in the same environment without a mandate. Obviously a mandate is not an ideal strategy. It's hard to argue for the value of something while at the same time being in a position of having to force people to do it.

So, what then?

My best results have come when I ask people to stop thinking of themselves as teachers and start thinking of themselves as learners. By changing the role I am changing how they perceive they might benefit from open practice. That said, it's not one big giant step; it isn't the idea of openness as a default that attracts people, it's the idea of a bit of sharing producing a bit of benefit. So I find that the value is seen in open practices, rather than the concept of openness itself.

For example: when we were developing MuniMall (an online learning, resources and knowledge community for the municipal sector in Alberta) we asked town managers how they got answers to problems that would happen from day to day (where to send a grader for repair, new guidelines for sewer inspection, examples of planning law litigation, etc). The run-away winner was: pick up the phone and call someone they know. There is no questioning the benefit of direct person-to-person sharing. They don't even think of it as 'open practice' (though of course, it is).

It's a small jump from this to seeing the benefit electronic media. A lot of discussion boards operate like this, with a question-answer format (you see this in communities of practice, for example)  but they're cumbersome and people don't use them if the community is too small. We can draw out three examples that do work, providing enough people get involved: direct person-to-person text messaging; text messaging in an open environment such as Twitter; and question-answer sites like Stack Exchange. None of these by itself is sufficient, but the set of them work quite well together, and are often more convenient than making a phone call (especially for people who have a lot of client-facing work and can't stop to answer a call).

In a lot of environments, though, these media are used as broadcast media by the administration. There is a tendency to 'clamp down' on official channels (for example, I've seen cases where administrators terminated a mailing list because it was being used too much). Once people see the benefits of these simple forms of working openly they can be encouraged to take control of them as a means of managing their own learning and development. The technologies that seem to work the best, to my observation, are those which preserve the following values:

- relevance - the communications are directly relevant, when and where needed. They offer means to focus on exactly what you need (that's why we see a progression from text messaging to question-answer sites) in a format that is directly usable (a short web page as compared to a two week class).
- usability - they don't require any extra work to learn how to use. There isn't 'navigation'. The interfaces are intuitive and predictable.
- interactive - they support dialogue, and not just broadcast. Questions can be refined, particular circumstances addressed. They provide a means for the same people asking the questions to also answer the questions.
More here: http://www.downes.ca/presentation/138

Over time, this evolves into open practice. This is a desirable result. But it isn't the goal. The goal is to help people with learning tasks in their day-to-day lives, and to help them reflect on that. As they begin to see what is working for them, they begin to see that it works for others.




2. How does open practice impact knowledge mobilization? Are we able to show that open practice can impact student learning much faster than traditional forms of professional learning for teachers?


This question has a half dozen separate questions built into it. These make it difficult to offer a single response. Here's a quick reprise of some of the questions:

- how are we defining open practice? As suggested above, it's really a suite of tools and methodologies that leads to an overall default of openness.
- is knowledge mobilization a desirable outcome? It has overtones (as does knowledge translation) of the idea of diffusing knowledge from central sources.
- is the objective to learn faster? To learn better? Or to learn better things?
- how would we characterize more traditional forms of professional learning for teachers? None? PD day? Staff room gossip? Board retreats?
- what does it mean to show open learning has had an impact?

My comments will address each of these in turn.

- open practice

As I've suggested above, there are gradations of open practice. It's not something we simply turn on and off. Moreover, it's not clear that 'open practice' as a goal in and of itself is desirable. It is an outcome of various tools and methodologies, but the objective is always to provide learning and performance support. Environments vary, so this discussion has to begin with the question, what would provide learning and performance support? What are we trying to accomplish here?

I've been doing workshops on personal learning with educators in various countries. The hardest thing to do is to shift them from thinking of teaching strategies to thinking of learning strategies. I use a type of format used for software design, working back from objectives to tools to a definition of a minimal viable product (MVP). I find participants focus on access to information they need to do their jobs - calendars, forms, resources. So it leads me to think that, before asking them to work openly, to consider whether they are working in an open environment. It seems to me that they are less likely to share if they're not working in a sharing environment.

This works both ways. A large organization I know embarked on a program "Dialogue on the future of X". They're assembling panels and tiger teams. There's a video and web page and brochure to promote the initiative. But in this entire environment, there is no place for individuals to contribute their comments or take part in the dialogue. I think it would be difficult to promote any sort of open practice after such a process. But maybe this degree of openness isn't desired. There can be many reasons to moderate or control an open discussion; we've seen discussions get really out of control on the internet.

I think understanding the need for openness is the first step, where openness is defined as much as possible in terms of specific types of information and resources, different types of tools and methodologies, and different degrees of openness. Simply being behind a password barrier doesn't necessarily mean something is closed, but if everything is behind a password we need to question what objective the password protection is intended to achieve.

- knowledge mobilization

The origin of 'knowledge mobilization I would say is in the concept of 'knowledge translation', which is essentially the idea researchers and theorists (or consultants and executives, in a dystopian version) create knowledge, which is then 'translated' into practical tools and processes. By using the term 'mobilization' we are agreeing explicitly that knowledge originates not only in the back room, but also in the everyday practices and experiences of practitioners, so that there needs to be a two-way flow of information and communication.

Given such a characterization, the argument to the value of openness is very short: without this communication, which by definition requires a degree of openness, there is no knowledge mobilization, and therefore, no improvement of practices. But even here there is nuance. Some practices require the shared development of expertise (the best way to move a patient, the best use of a Smart Board to collaborate in a class) while in others there is a more regulatory or policy-driven flavour (safety hazard recognition and protocols, gender and diversity issues awareness, terms of employment and contracts).

But moreover, in some cases there simply isn't knowledge, and the deployment of knowledge mobilization might be inappropriate. I think for example of a lot of the 'advice' I received before teaching in First Nations communities. Though there are some culturally-driven tendencies, the generalizations about working on First Nations reserves turned out uniformly to have exceptions. The 'knowledge' of 'teaching in First Nations communities' doesn't exist; at best what we have are shared stories, experiences and histories. So there could and probably should be sharing, sure, but it's something different here.

- objectives

The objective of learning technology and practices (such as 'openness') is very frequently stated to be "faster" learning. It would not take a lot of effort to compile a list of vendors with products and theorists with theories about how to learn a subject faster. It's probably second only to the promises to increase test scores and to help people learn the subject better. These form the basis for an 'outcomes oriented' philosophy of education.

What you may have noticed in the section on 'open practice' above that I did not talk about outcomes; I talked about the need for different types of resources, tools, and degrees of openness. I find a definition of outcomes to be a lot less useful in practice than it might appear to be. The groups of educators I have worked with may have commonalities, but each has a different set of outcomes they require from learning and support resources and technology. The same is true, I would say, of the students in their classroom.

Part of the reason I ask educators to focus on their own training and development needs is that it forces them to recognize this.

Key, I think, to seeing the value of openness is seeing how it contributes to one's own outcomes, rather than to policy or institutionally mandated outcomes. Learning and development is personal in a way that other aspects of employment are not. There's an old naval slogan, "One hand for the ship, one hand for yourself." Learning and development is most often thought of as being the one hand for oneself. It not only prepares a person for their current position, it prepares them for their next position.

- traditional forms of learning

All the data and surveys I see about corporate and professional learning suggest that in-person classes remain the dominant for of learning. The nature and structure of these classes has changed a lot over the last few decades, from lecture and demonstration to a lot more collaborative activities and hands-on work (think of the 3-day f2f session/retreat you just completed).

But as I mentioned above, when a person is on the job (that is, the 95% of the time they are not in a class or at a retreat) the predominant form of learning is simply to 'ask someone'. As people like Jay Cross and Harold Jarche have emphasized, informal learning constitutes the bulk of workplace learning. This is no doubt as true for teachers as it is for board members. It's even true to a large degree for students themselves (through the percentages are different).

I think the process of introducing open practices in a traditional environment is one where the SAMR (Substitution Augmentation Modification Redefinition) model applies. We don't begin by thinking about how we are replacing traditional practices. Instead, we look at these practices and ask where tools, resources and openness can be applied in such a way as to make the traditional practice more effective or more efficient. Only once we have moved to the new environment will other affordances become visible, and at that point we can think of augmenting and ultimately redefining a practice as 'open'.

In a sense we're turning the question of how openness 'can impact student learning much faster than traditional forms of professional learning' on its head. The new practice (whether it's a type of openness or, more likely, a type of technology that will ultimately lead to more openness) would not be implemented unless it 'can impact student learning much faster than traditional forms of professional learning' (or some similar statement of objectives and values).

- impact

Let me quote you: "The second structure we are trying to interrupt is this the 'flow' of learning from Superintendent to Principal to Teacher.  The concept that we need to 'feed' teachers in this way is outdated in a world where teachers can access learning anytime and anywhere.  I argue that a higher yield strategy is to encourage teachers to become self-directed learners and to teach them where to find what they need, how to build a PLN, and how to be savvy in accessing learning online."

I agree with this. It follows, though, that an assessment of the impact is not going to be found in demonstrations of better learning by means of tests or evaluations against a body of content. Nor will it be found in demonstrations of better learning by means of tests or evaluations of their students against a body of content. We're looking for an outcome where teachers become self-directed learners, and the only measure of that is whether teachers direct their own learning (here defined for the sake of argument as knowing "where to find what they need, how to build a PLN, and how to be savvy in accessing learning online", though again this will vary for each of them).

The fundamental question, I think, is whether that (teachers becoming self-directed learners) is valued by administrators and supervisors, and if not currently, then what would lead them to value it.

The answer to this, I would suggest, is created with a two part structure consisting of a value proposition and a logic model.

The value proposition is a statement of what administrators and supervisors actually do value, and how it is measured. The value needs to be stated as outcomes, as concrete and tangible benefits the program produces. We need to be careful not to overgeneralize about this; the 'knowledge' of 'satisfying the needs of administrators and supervisors' doesn't exist. Each will be different: some will be looking for financial efficiencies, some will be looking for improved test scores, some will be looking for better community relations, and some will have very specific learning outcomes they need to see. What's important is that there needs to be a value proposition, something you know the administrators will support.

The logic model is a description of how the effort that will be undertaken leads to a satisfaction of the value proposition. The logic model is necessary because there isn't (and never will be) a strict measurement of cause and effect. You can't measure 'x' in the program and see it correlate to 'y' in the value proposition. What the logic model does is to show how implementation of the program as a whole will implement the value proposition as a whole. It's a way to connect the idea of enabling employees to meet their objectives with the idea of enabling boards and supervisors to meet their objectives.

In my own work I've tried to hit several value propositions over the years with different logic models: self-directed learning (SDL) reduces recruitment costs by enabling a pool of applicants to quality themselves; SDL reduces retention costs by enabling career advancement and personal development; SDL reduces administrative overhead by enabling peer-to-peer knowledge sharing (thus reducing the need for courses); SDL creates motivation by enabling a teacher to be a member of a professional community, motivation results in greater enthusiasm in the classroom, which results in increased motivation on the part of students, and hence better grades. Etc.

In sum…

Open practice isn't a specific thing: it's a set of practices, tools, and policies the combination of which results in what we might call 'openness by default', but which has a specific objective the ability of people to support their own learning and development more easily and effectively than before.

Boards and supervisors might not directly value people being able to support their own learning and development themselves, but they can be shown how this leads to benefits that they do value, such as lower costs and more effective teaching.

All of this needs to be developed and implemented iteratively; there are no general principles. Different learning objectives are supported by different technologies, leading to more or less great degrees of openness, and these will lead to varying board and supervisor objectives in different ways. 

Sunday, October 09, 2016

Diversity and Diversity Training

Donald Clark appears to be settling into the role of the voice of the closed society. His latest foray into this is his recent column arguing that diversity is "wrong-headed". Leaving aside the question of which monoculture we would settle upon were we to do away with diversity (I'm thinking Hopi, maybe, or perhaps Maori) his argument is based on a short-sighted and narrow interpretation of what diversity means.

Clark's point of departure is Goran Adamson’s TheTrojan Horse. It is naturally not available as open content, so we have to rely on additoonal sources to look at the argument. An earlier report of his, Immigrants and Political Participation, he argues "successful assimilation of immigrants mainly is achieved by downplaying the exotic implication of group-based difference." (p.40)

Terri Murray summarizes, "multicultural ideology makes a fetish, like the racial theories of yore, of ethnic diversity... the multicultural view of immigrants doesn’t treat them as individuals who have a basic human need for self-determination; rather, 'the immigrant' is an abstract type, a species, a race." Worse, writes Murray, "When it comes to ethnic groups themselves, the rights of dissenting minorities within these groups are rarely defended. That’s because the multicultural agenda treats ethnic subcultures as homogeneous groups."

Clark takes this one step further, addressing diversity training. He writes, "Major studies from Dobbin, Kalev and Kochan show that diversity training does not increase productivity and may, in fact, produce a backlash. Most don’t know if it works as evaluations are as rare as unicorns"

Clark makes his case in ten points, and we'll address them in turn. The headings are Clark's, not mine.

1. Ideology of Diversity

The case in both Adamson and Clark is that the choice is being force upon us between individual freedom and the rights of a culture to assert itself. We'll revisit this theme many times. But to begin, the argument in favour of diversity is itself being presented as an ideology, against which no dissent is allowed. 

"‘Diversity’ is a word that cannot be questioned," writes Clark. "The rhetoric that surrounds diversity in itself seems to censor debate, a diversity of views being the first victim."

The existence of Adamson's report and Clark's column are, of course, counter-examples to this proposition, and there is no shortage of writing against the concept of diversity available for anyone to read. A quick search reveals the article Against Diversity published by the National Association of Scholars, a similar article published in the Economist, Walter Benn Michaels against diversity in New Left Review, and the list goes on and on.

Indeed, I wonder just what sort of opposition it is that they feel has been prohibited. Some of the more extreme expressions against diversity (of which, again, there have been many) speak of dress codes, language restrictions, and prohibitions against some religions. At a certain point the opposition to diversity tends to blend with outright racism. It is no surprise to see people react poorly to this (though one observes in the Trump and UKIP campaigns a suggestion that even this maay be tolerable).

Clark seems to suggest that this 'ideology' in favour of diversity is what supports the phenomenon of diversity training, despite evidence speaking against it. "The vast amount of time and money spent on diversity training, when evaluated, is found wanting, mostly ineffective, even counter-productive," he writes. It's an old argument, a favourite of the Harvard Business Review set, and not surprising to see it repeated here.

The same could be said (and, indeed, has been said) about training in general. Yet workplace training persists, not because whatever it promotes is held forth as some sort of ideology, but because workplace training officers don't know better, and because managers cling to traditional and outmoded views about training.

It's not surprising at all that forced diversity training can be ineffective; people respond poorly to coercion. But at the same time,  "When attendance is voluntary, diversity training is followed by an increase in managerial diversity," said Alexandra Kalev, a sociologist at the University of Arizona, (once of the researchers cited above).

The 'ideology of diversity' argument is a red herring. It is not based in fact. And it fails as an explanation of the failure of training.

2. Groupthink

Clark writes, "Companies, worldwide spend many hundreds of millions of dollars each year on diversity training. The tragic truth is that most of this is wasted. Groupthink seems to be at the heart of the matter." 

'Groupthink' is a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis to describe what occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment” (p. 9).

Is that what is happening here? Clark cites "groupthink among compliance training companies, who simply do what they do without supporting evidence and tout ineffective ‘courses’. Groupthink in HR, who find it easier to just run ‘courses’ rather than tackle real business problem." This sounds like the problem of a monoculture, not one particular to proponents of diversity.

Indeed, diversity - a broader sense of diversity than the caricature being criticized by Clark here - is often offered as a response against groupthink. As this article states, "Groupthink occurs when a highly homogeneous, cohesive group fails to critically analyse and evaluate alternative ideas for the sake of harmony and conformity. In such a group, disagreement with the consensus is discouraged, which eliminates independent thinking and creativity."

It is important to understand that diversity is more than the mere celebration of exotic cultures. There are many ways in which people can be diverse, and the promotion of diversity is centered around encouragement of distinct perspectives and points of view, not just the elimination of offensive behaviour.

This is called 'thought diversity'. "Thought diversity goes beyond the affirmation of equality - simply recognizing differences and responding to them. Instead, the focus is on realizing the full potential of people, and in turn the organization, by acknowledging and appreciating the potential promise of each person’s unique perspective and different way of thinking”, summarizes a 2013 study by Deloitte Consulting.

3. Ill-defined

It may be that Clark was thinking along similar lines as he wrote his piece, as his next argument focuses on the vagueness of the term 'diversity'.

"One could invoke the idea that individuals are unique, and this uniqueness is paramount. Unfortunately, it then focuses on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies," he writes.

What Clark sees to be doing is drawing a distinction between what might be called individual-based diversity and group-based diversity. Indivisual-based diversity might include a person's unique point of view, perhaps their income level, and the like, while (he says) "But ethnicity, gender and so on are terms associated with the collective, not the individual."

I'm sure this would come as a surprise to people who happen to find themselves Chinese, women, or gay. I still remember seeing a documentary about race, where the speaker was objecting to the idea of people being 'colour blind'. "My blackness is who I am," said the man. "It is myself, it is my identity."

And that's the thing about race, culture, religion, gender, orientation, and the other terms associated, as Clark says, with the collective. There is no 'black collective'. Or, to put it another way, all forms of fiversity apply equally well to the group and to the individual. It is a simple and fundamental point of logic, known since Aristotle, that any property can be used to define a category.

One of the fundamental elements of diversity training is the effort to show people are fundamentally individuals and that it is inappropriate to treat them as though they were all the same. Even in a close-knit community (the Mormons, say, or Cook Islanders) it is a category error to create and apply 'collective' properties (like, say, "all Mormons wear white shirts", or "all Cook Islanders love the ocean") to individuals.

We don't need to define diversity; only people consumed with group identity need to do that. The core idea behind diversity is that we encourage and respect differences between individuals. The prrinciple is the sae whether we are talking about their race or their taste in motocycles.

4, Lazy Cultural Relativism

As someone who has spent a lifetime as one who would be defined as a 'cultural relativist', I can say with assurance that there is nothing lazy about it. It is a constant effort to remind myself that other people may have different values, beliefs, and world-views than I do.

At the same time, I find that my own unique set of values, beliefs and world-views are substantially different from the majority, and I must struggle with this every day as well. For example, I believe that showing McDonalds advertising to children is morally wrong, I believe that people reason by means of similarity and metaphor, not logic and mathematics, and my world view does not include universals or laws of nature.

Clark writes, "a lazy cultural relativism descends, disallowing criticism of illiberal cultural norms. Freedom of speech is under attack from ‘trigger theory’, art is censored, honour crime not ruthlessly dealt with, FGM still prevalent. Any definition of diversity is glossed over and replaced with diversity plans."

This one-paragraph argument is itself lazy and poorly thought out. I understand that some people find the cultural practices of other cultures to be morally repugnant. I recognize they feel that way and may indeed even argue that way. Where we come into disagreement is when the other person represents their moral perspective as fact, and depicts their own culture as obviously superior to the other.

In the case of the four items listed by Clark, there are well-tolerated practices in my own culture, and his own culture, that are equally barbaric, and yet treated as normal. For example, one society that opposes 'honour killings' is fine with 'stand your ground' laws that permit legal homicide. Other societies that condemn female genital mutilation (FGM) as barbaric are fine with the routine practice of MGM (male genital mutilation).

For my own part, I believe that both murder and mutilation are both wrong, yet I have not found one culture on earth that believes these without reservation.

No, cultural relativism isn't lazy. Expressing a sanctimonious belief in your own world view is lazy. One-paragraph dismissals of difficult ethical philosophies are lazy.

5. Not an Intrinsic Good?

Clark argues that diversity is not an "intrinsic good", giving examples where sameness may be preferred to difference.

"Is polygamy better than monogamy? Will your coding team always benefit from having an even gender and ethnic mix or a ruthless focus on competence? Diversity rhetoric praises ethnic presence but could be a substitute for excellence and ideas?"

Clark slips into this short paragraph the old idea that support for diversity means sacrificing excellence. The suggestion is that by focusing on including (say) a person of colour on a team, we may be excluding a more qualified (or more competence, etc.) person who is not diverse.

This proposition depends on the idea that there is one set of properties - coding excellent, for example - that is relevant to team formation, and there are other sets of properties - cultural background, for example - that are not relevant. This presupposition depends in turn on the idea that the relevant set of properties could be identified and that differences in those properties could be measured in a statistically significant way.

And even if we can address all that it may well be that it is better overall to accept a less productive team in support of the principle that teams should be diverse. Because there is always more at stake than the performance of the individual team. If diversity is a value in society as a whole, this value may prevail whether or not it is a value in any particular case.

For example, consider airline pilots. It is arguable that we should ignore diversity in the cockpit because we want excellent pilots. But, first, it is arguable that even if women pilots aren't as good as men (a proposition which I doubt, by the way) it is demonstrably the case that they are good enough. And there is a need for girls to see examples of women pilots as role models.

This depends on the idea that diversity is a social good, of course. I believe it is - but again, this belief isn't a lazy belief, or even a popular belief. It most societies around the world, it is a minority belief. Which is what makes Clark's style in this article all the more astonishing.

6. Diversity as Conservatism

I don't automatically dismiss conservatism as wrong. But if it is, would it be an argument against diversity that it supports conservatism?

"Diversity is a deeply conservative idea masquerading as progressive," says Clark. "It replaces meritocracy with multiculturalism."

Let's stop right there for a moment. The concept of 'meritocracy' is deeply flawed and almost universally misapplied (this is the other part of the argument from the previous section). There are numerous arguments against the concept: it presupposes we can measure merit, it presupposes that merit reflects a person's worth, and it presupposes merit reflects an individual rather than their social of cultural background.

As Yong Zhao says, "The ideal of meritocracy is built on four assumptions. First, a society/authority can correctly identify the merit. Second, there are ways to accurately measure the merit. Third the merit is only individuals’ innate potential plus their efforts. In other words, it has nothing to do with their family background. Fourth, everyone has the same opportunity to develop the merit. None of these assumptions is true."


Moreover, meritocracy is morally wrong. As David Freedman writes, "Smart people should feel entitled to make the most of their gift. But they should not be permitted to reshape society so as to instate giftedness as a universal yardstick of human worth." Moreover, it is the gifts one has received in life that contribute to whatever qualities we call 'merit' - and luck does not convey any sort of moral primacy or quality of judgement. One only needs to observe the behaviour of the wealthy and gifted of British society to see that.

Where Clark is correct is that diversity brings with it difficult choices. As he observes, "From a feminist point of view, diversity may tolerate attitudes, cultural norms and behaviours that may prevent gender equality." Quite so. Nobody is automatically right in a diverse society. Every form of difference needs to, and has the right to, make a case. Ultimately it's about choice and deciding for oneself.

He also writes, " It prevents us from taking a secular view of the world, as we give in to relativism and acceptance." This is not true.I take a secular view of the world, as everyone knows. I also encourage those who wish to pursue a religious view of the world to do so. What 'diversity' means is that they can't force me to be religious, and I can't force them to be secular. Indeed, it's even a matter of bad taste to even try.

"The group trumps the individual," he writes. "It pits the poor against the poor. Ultimately, it is the dull traditionalism of conservatism." It does so only if we view these as struggles in which one or another type of diversity must ultimately prevail. But this is unreasonable. Nobody thinks that it is 'diversity' to hold that Sharia law ought to apply in all cases.

The people who oppose diversity are the ones pitting one group of people against another; they are, indeed, the ones who are representing them as groups in the first place.


7. Diversity does not lead to increased productivity

This was the major point raised by Adamson and others, and yet it begs the question: who said the objective of diversity was to increase productivity in the first place?

So we have Thomas Kochan saying, "There are no strong positive or negative effects of gender or racial diversity on business performance." But big deal. " According to the American Society for Training and Development's 2002 state of the training industry report, only one in 10 companies attempts to create results-based evaluations of its training programs."

Companies engage in diversity training to avoid litigation and human rights cases. They also do it because women and ethnic minorities (among others) are larger and larger parts of their customer base. To work in a global environment pretty much requires understanding of, and acceptance of, other cultures.

The five-year study referenced by Clark earlier and in this section provides an unambiguous statement in support of diversity:
Diversity is a reality in labor markets and customer markets today. To be successful in working with and gaining value from this diversity requires a sustained, systemic approach and long-term commitment. Success is facilitated by a perspective that considers diversity to be an opportunity for everyone in an organization to learn from each other how better to accomplish their work and an occasion that requires a supportive and cooperative organizational culture as well as group leadership and process skills that can facilitate effective group functioning.
The same authors continue:
training programs must help managers to develop the leadership and group process skills needed to facilitate constructive conflict and effective communication... raining programs that improve the skills of managers and team members may be particularly useful, but training alone is not likely to be sufficient. Organizations must also implement management and human resource policies and practices that inculcate cultures of mutual learning and cooperation. 
It's always a good idea to read the articles you cite.

8. Diversity shows virtually no effect

No doubt Clark means to say here that diversity training shows virtually no effect. Then it would make sense to quote Frank Dobbin saying "Practices that target managerial bias through…diversity training, show virtually no effect.”

Clark has cited this study numerous times through the years, though the number of citations it has received (969, according to Google Scholar) suggests that he protesteth too much when he says it was "ignored".  

It is worth noting, first of all, that Dobbin et.al. are not opposed to diversity itself. Indeed, the paper reads as supportive of diversity, with the authors surveying companies to find out what workss. That's why we read not simply that diversity training has no effect, but rather, a range of programs that do have an effect:

The most effective practices are those that establish organizational responsibility: affirmative action plans, diversity staff, and diversity task forces. Attempts to reduce social isolation among women and African Americans through networking and mentoring programs are less promising. Least effective are programs for taming managerial bias through education and feedback. 
Fair enough. But that's certainly not the persepective Clark would have us believe the authors represent.

9. More harm than good

Once again it is not clear whether Clark is talking about diversity in general or diversity training in particular (he appears to conflate the two throughout the article).

I think we can take it as a given that diversity programs, including training programs, can spark a backlash. There is ample empirical evidence of the backlash. The mere presence, for example, of women with an opinion seems to be very threatening to a certain subset of society. It is not surprising to see this in response to training programs as well. 

The anti-diversity backlash isn't unique to diversity training. Human resource writers have observed the backlash to all sorts of diversity programs, not just training. Even when the program is voluntary, it has triggered a backlash. It happens because the people who used to benefit from a monoculture no longer benefit. "The researchers reported that diversity efforts have led to increased numbers of women and minorities attaining managerial positions, but sometimes those efforts “can stimulate backlash among non-beneficiaries who may feel unfairly disadvantaged by these policies,” the report states."

It is not at all clear that this backlash constitutes "more harm than good". There was significant backlash against the freeing of the slaves in the mid 1800s in the United States, but this backlash not mean that the freeing of the slaves caused "more harm than good". Any time an unfairly privileged class of people loses that privilege, there will be a backlash.

10. No evaluation

It is not true that there has been no evaluation of diversity training programs, because then it would be impossible to state - as Clark has done consistently through this article - that diversity training has had no effect. Obviously some evaluation has taken place.

Clark cites another of Kalev's studies, this one a 2008 review of 830 companies. According to this article, the study found "the kind of diversity training exercises offered at most firms were followed by a 7.5 percent drop in the number of women in management. The number of black, female managers fell by 10 percent, and the number of black men in top positions fell by 12 percent."

But even this isn't the condemnation of diversity training Clark contends it is. The article continues:
The analysis did not find that all diversity training is useless. Rather, it showed that mandatory programs -- often undertaken mainly with an eye to avoiding liability in discrimination lawsuits -- were the problem. When diversity training is voluntary and undertaken to advance a company's business goals, it was associated with increased diversity in management.
So not only was there not no evaluation, the evaluation shows that in some cases diversity training let to positive outcomes.

Overall

I get that Clark is trying to be cute, layering the objections to diversity into a series of objections to diversity training. Had he given his writing a bit more effort and thought this intent may have shone through. But it did not, and I am not convinced that he cared.

Many of the articles offered by Clark against diversity training are arguments against the concept of diversity itself. And if you don't support diversity in the first place, you're not going to supporrt the idea of diversity training.

But the problem with diversity training isn't the fact that it is intended to promote diversity.  It can be argued (and I have done so in this post) that diversity itself is substantially valuable (and whether or not it promotes business productivity is irrelevant). You cannot have a fair and just society of any type without diversity, much less one that expects to work and thrive in a global economy.

And the failures of mandatory training are, well, failures of mandatory training. Ascribing the failure to the desire to promote diversity is inaccurate and unsupported by the evidence. Indeed, it feels like the purpose of this approach is to oppose diversity.

Clark is free to oppose diversity. Goodness knows, a substantial portion of his own compatriots do, to the point that they want to expel immigrants from the country (they probably have bad things to say about curry too). If he wants to align with the likes of Elizabeth Theresa May and Nigel Farage, he should just say so. This little dance around diversity training is a sham not worthy of the little effort it took to write.