Talk:Superdiversity

Conflict of interest?

'A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject'. Yes I conduct research on superdiversity. Is this a problem? I thought experience of a topic would be welcome. Sorry if I have misunderstood a policy.BrumEduResearch (talk) 13:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think there is a high probability of a possible conflict of interest where a single contributor to an article also seems to be closely affiliated to the subject and is posting blacklisted links, which in turn get removed by a bot and get reverted by said contributor. I just tagged to get these concerns addressed. FelisLeo^Talk! 14:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry. I think the problem link was the Wordpress blog but the bot said I could revert. It is written by an academic so I thought it would be ok. I can leave the article alone if my expertise is a conflict of interest. BrumEduResearch (talk) 14:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The sort of "close connection" that would represent a COI would be one where you are associated with the person who originated the concept, or are part of the team shepherding it at the university where it was coined, if the concept hadn't already gotten off the ground sufficiently to meet the notability guidelines, and the article appeared to be a possible attempt by you to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for bringing it the attention that it didn't already have. A COI concern would also arise if you might represent the topic in a biased manner, should it be a topic with any potential to carry a political or sociological agenda. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The concept is off the ground for sure. Vertovec's article has 1050 citations on Google Scholar. That's a lot for a social science paper. I have met Vertovec once at a conference but am not associated with him. BrumEduResearch (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

See http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=superdiversity&btnG=&as_sdt=1,5&as_sdtp=. BrumEduResearch (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Excessive quotation

About half this article is a long quotation. It sits at the heart of the article, defining and discussing the concept, surrounded by a little supporting detail about academics currently working in the field. I believe this falls outside Wikipedia's guidelines for non-free content and outside the general principle that Wikipedia's text should be in editors' own words. I could try to copy-edit it, but this would be better done by someone who can follow Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#How to write acceptable content: once you've collected the information you wish to add, preferably from several sources, try to put those sources aside so that you can write the text in your own words. NebY (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Neologism issue

Hi FelisLeo, Largoplazo and NebY. As you've expressed concerns about this article, you might be interested in this request for comment, which partly concerns the use of the term "superdiversity". Cordless Larry (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

And more broadly, can we discuss whether we think this term meets the criteria for inclusion as an article? It does seem to have a lot of coverage online. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Right, since no one has commented in a week, I'm going to remove the neologism tag from the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

How do we get rid of the 'close connection' tag too? Anything I can do? BrumEduResearch (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Keep. You could, for one, get more editors with experience on the subject to participate whilst keeping an eye on WP:NOR. This article having one sole contributor for 90% of the article sticks out like a sore thumb. That being said the tag probably won't keep the article from developing anyway. So why remove it? It's not devaluing your contributions at all. FelisLeo^Talk! 08:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

As someone who often struggles in vain to attract other editors to contribute to ethnic group articles, I think FelisLeo's suggestion is easier said than done, but I support the view that you shouldn't worry too much about the tag. I'll try to contribute to the article as and when I can. For what it's worth, the concept seems to be reasonably well established in the sociological literature, and I've found myself using this superdiversity literature as source material in a number of articles, so I'm grateful that this article made me look into the topic more, BrumEduResearch. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Super diversity is a social science term

According to interviewees this just isn't clear? http://www.mmg.mpg.de/online-media/diversity-interviews/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 08:06, 9 March 2016‎ (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question (if it is a question), Yonk. Can you try expressing it in a different way? Cordless Larry (talk) 08:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm referring to the claim: Superdiversity, or super-diversity, is a social science term and concept

In a Review of the #superdiversity conference 2014 the author states

It seems to be still unclear what ‘super-diversity’ exactly is (beyond being a ‘summery-term’). Is it an analytical ‘lens’ to observe ‘diversified diversity’ in societies? Is it a normative concept to develop research and policy agendas? Is it a critical approach to challenge nationalistic perspectives of societies?

In Diversity Interviews (Max Plank Institue)

Thomas BLOM HANSEN (Amsterdam) (for example) states

I think diversity can be an advance, especially if used to dissolve or challenge some of the hidden presuppositions about the homogeneity of the native populations in Europe. We need to get beyond the notion that minorities ‘have’ diversity whilst the natives do not. Conceptually, we may point out that the notion of the “normal citizen” is a kind of sociological fiction that is widely deployed in the social sciences. But diversity as such is not really a social science concept.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources that refer to superdiversity as a concept, though. Some of them are amongst these search results. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

If their are reliable sources who say it isn't a social science term and reliable sources that say it is then we can come to the conclusion that not all social scientists agree. I don't think a google search of use of the word proves it to be a social science concept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 19:03, 16 March 2016‎ (UTC)

A Google search doesn't, but the reliable sources it provides do. If you can find high-quality sources such as peer-reviewed journal articles that dispute that it is a concept, then please do provide them. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I added this quote about the term being used both in an empirical and a normative sense. I think that partly addresses your concern. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Interview with Mette Louise Berg (University of Oxford)

M: Then, is ‘diversity’ just a Zeitgeist term – a post-multiculturalism policy catch phrase (as in ‘integration and diversity’ policy), a corporate tool (as in ‘diversity management’), or can it be a concept that can help structure and advance social scientific analysis? B: I think it is a Zeitgeist term. There is no doubt about that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 19:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You've lost me. This article is about the term "superdiversity", not the term "diversity". Moreover, those interviews aren't really equivalent to the peer-reviewed journal articles that establish that superdiversity is a social science concept. As WP:RS states, when available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

So where are the peer reviewed journals?Yonk (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Some are referenced in the article.BrumEduResearch (talk) 09:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Jan Blommaert is using diversity and super diversity in the same context?

Interview with Jan Blommaert (Tilburg University (The Netherlands) - Babylon, Center for the Study of Superdiversity)

A: All this is very fundamental stuff. The second question is about diversity as perhaps just a Zeitgeist term – a post-multiculturalism policy catch phrase or a corporate tool for diversity management. The question is: can it be a concept that can help to structure an advanced social scientific analysis. You partly have answered that question.

B: Yes. I mean it's clear that it is all of those things. It is a fashionable catch word. “Super”-diversity, in particular, is becoming extraordinarily sexy as a notion to use, even if what is hidden behind it has nothing whatsoever to do with super-diversity as we understand it. It is also becoming a marketing tool and what not. The word is just all over the place, you see. And at the same time I think it is a paradigm. It is a social scientific paradigm of which I have outlined the strength on several occasions.

Yonk (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Intersectionality and superdiversity: What's the difference?Yonk (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion The different histories, interpretations and developments of intersectionality and superdiversity emerged as key to explain their different points of entry to understanding social practice. All speakers highlighted that superdiversity was a nascent term still too closely associated to its inventor and had not yet benefitted from decades of critical debate and refinement like intersectionality.

Yonk (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's a new concept. What is your point?BrumEduResearch (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No a nascent concept. Yonk (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

"Super Diversity" and Open Border Advocacy?

Interview with Sarah Neal (University of Surrey, UK)

S: Is ‘diversity’ just a Zeitgeist term and how do you assess the capacity of the term for advancing social science? N: Conceptually diversity/superdiversity works as a troublemaker concept if you like. It immediately reflects populations and places as being unfinished. It emphasizes that populations and identifications and localities or places are always in processes of arrival or becoming and. In that way superdiversity is significant because it gets to the idea that nobody can be untouched by human mobility, that we’re all caught up, that nations and identifications and identities will all be caught up and shaped by processes of mobility and migration. Nobody’s untouched by it. It's like early nineties maybe late eighties when they argued that we’re all migrants now. I think superdiversity is a coming extension of that Stuart Hall idea that we’re all part of human mobility even those people who never have been migrants. So I think the superdiversity phrase entails that multiple composite identities and that national identities are always something that’s going to be contested. Local identities are always something that’s going to be contested and unfixed.

Yonk (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Review of the #superdiversity conference 2014

At first, after the so-called ‘backlash against multiculturalism’ (Vertovec; Wessendorf 2010), there is still a large demand for new ways of looking at societies that are ‘getting increasingly complex, composite, layered and unequal’ (Sigona 2013). Old ‘multiculturalistic’ policies and research agendas, which had a simplistic view on group identities of immigrants and ethnic minorities, simply do not fit the reality anymore. Based on the observation of ‘new and changing migration variables’ (Vertovec 2007), such as the configuration of migrants’ origin, legal status, human capital, gender etc. and their dynamic interaction, ‘super-diversity’ brings in a new understanding for a strong transformative ‘diversification of diversity’ (Vertovec 2014).

another value of ‘super-diversity’ is that the concept ‘naturally’ rejects methodological nationalism: using a ‘super-diversity lens’ does not mean to analyse migration-driven diversity from the inside, e.g. within a national frame setting, but throughout a social transformation view of global interactions. This outside-in perspective seems to be much more appropriate in an age of international migration, globalization and transnationalism.

Yonk (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

The nation is a racist mechanism both internally and externally in the way it includes and excludes, ah, the nation it comes form the   word natio which means to be born is a racist concept. To move beyond that is one of the settled tasks.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FESYiuwjetE Yonk (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand's "Superdiversity Stocktake section

I added

The economic arguments in the Superdiversity Stocktake have been critiqued by Wellington economic consultancy Tailrisk Economics in a paper TheSuperdiversityMyth

I don't understand the reason for it's removal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 03:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

As I explained in this edit summary, it is not clear how notable the report is. There are many reports and papers that we could discuss in the article, but really they need to have been the subject of coverage in secondary sources to demonstrate that they are noteworthy. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the talk page - blogs are generally not considered reliable sources

Michael Reddell (Croaking Cassandra) has been a senior analyst at the Reserve Bank of NZ for almost 30 years. He appears on national TV TV One's Q & A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 18:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia allows minority opinion. As The Paper Super Diversity Myth argues, in a land based economy an inflow of migrants leads to income flowing to the owners of land. This would include banks and the property construction sector. Theoretically a well resourced sector could starve a minority opinion?Yonk (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but those minority opinions need to have been the subject of secondary coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"article is about concept not about New zealand".    

So it is a concept without context? Super-diverse Auckland in global study

The findings in Chen's research are controversial, after all we are talking (some might call it double-talking) about large scale immigration and it's economic effects on a developed land based economy (the "last bus-stop before Antarctica"). It is in the interests of wikipedia's readership to hear two sides (otherwise the article is just a promotional pamphlet).

Yonk (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add the material - that was PamD - but I'd point out that the article doesn't actually say anything about the report's claims about the impacts of immigration. It's really just pointing out the report as an example of the use of the term "superdiversity". Cordless Larry (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

but I'd point out that the article doesn't actually say anything about the report's claims about the impacts of immigration

So the article might be improved by adding Chen's findings (and any notable critique)?

The key propositions, as we understand them, are: 
Superdiversity is economically beneficial for New Zealand
‘Investment’ is needed to maintain the ‘diversity dividend’
More diversity is inevitable and is to be welcomed
The benefits from superdiversity need to be more widely understood and better communicated. Yonk (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole point of "superdiversity lens" is that it overlooks (intentionally?) the people of the nation (an exercise in not seeing the wood for the trees). In that way it is insidious propaganda -promulgated by elites and vested interests? Yonk (talk) 19:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I Filed a RFC then removed it as I wasn't sure whether it was the correct process.Yonk (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

References

Is The Superdiversity Stocktake really social science research or an exercise in PR? Has it been peer reivewed (other than The Superdiversity Myth?) Surely this is a better example?Yonk (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that the Superdiversity Stocktake is peer-reviewed. We'd need a strong source to say that it was an exercise in PR. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:49, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Remember that that section of the article is about researchers and research institutes that conduct research on superdiversity - of which the Superdiversity Centre for Law, Policy and Business is one. The article doesn't actually say anything about the findings of the "stocktake". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of "Superdiversity"

So far this article will leave most of Wikipedia's readership none the wiser. I came across this article Superdiversity and why it isn’t:Reflections on terminological innovation and academic branding by Aneta Pavlenko, Temple University. It says: Chapter to appear in the volume Sloganizations in Language Education Discourse. Please do not cite without the author’s permission but feel free to share the chapter and to provide feedback. So she may not want it used in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonk (talk • contribs) 00:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty common statement that academics put on draft papers, in case they change before publication. It will be fine to cite it once it's published, but until it is it probably doesn't meet our reliable source requirements in any case. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

What I've done in the meantime is to start a section on criticisms of the concept, based on one of the sources that Pavlenko cites. Once her chapter is published, it should probably be added. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)