A reflection on diversity

Diversity is most often considered in racial and ethnic dimensions, certainly due to the stark change from almost exclusively white campuses in the early twentieth century to the multicultural campuses of today (Chang, Millem & Antonio, 2011:45). However, the dynamics of diversity is inherent in every student interaction and encompasses much more than just racial and ethnic dimensions. A diverse student body is usually considered to be one in which a number of different cultures are represented and practiced, and an understanding of how to harness student diversity in the context of access, participation and social cohesion is crucial. By their nature, diverse societies are complex and prone to conflicts of interest; hence, a view of diversity simply as a source of richness and variety can be naive and simplistic (Mdepa & Tshiwula, 2012).

According to Milem, Chang and Antonio (2005:6) the vitality, stimulation and educational potential of an institution are directly related to the composition of its student body, faculty and staff. The distribution of individuals in a particular organizational context plays a crucial role in shaping the dynamics of social interactions that occur in these contexts. Chang (1999) found that, with regard to higher education institutions (HEIs) the likelihood of students engaging with students who are from different backgrounds increases as the compositional diversity of the campus increases. Hurtado, Dey and Trevino (in Milem, Chang & Antonio, 2005) explain that campuses with high proportions of white students provide limited opportunities for cross-racial interaction and restrict student learning experiences across social and cultural lines. On campuses that lack a diverse population of students, underrepresented groups have an increased chance of being viewed as tokens. Tokenism contributes to the enhanced visibility of underrepresented groups, the exaggeration of group differences and the alteration of images to fit existing stereotypes. On predominantly white campuses, the fact that students of colour are underrepresented can produce both negative social stigma and “minority status stressors” that adversely affect student achievement (Fries-Britt & Turner, 2001; Smedley, Myers & Harrell, 1993). The institutional culture of campuses with, for example, predominantly white students can influence the sense of belonging of the minority groups as the institutional culture will be perceived as the dominant culture.

60

The diversity of culture is influenced by the complexity of its composition. The concept of a dominant culture refers to the culture of the most influential group in society. The dominant culture needs not to be supported by the majority of a society’s people as their culture, but rather, it is the culture of the group that is powerful enough to define the cultural framework. Social norms or institutions perpetuate the dominant culture and thereby legitimise it (Anderson & Taylor, 2004:70). Subcultures usually co-exist with dominant cultures and they often share some characteristics. Predominantly they represent parts of the population whose cultural system differs from that of the dominant culture. By preference they often, but not necessarily always, have distinctly different sets of norms and ways of life (Anderson & Tyler, 2004:71). Perceptions regarding minority groups, or the subcultures, unfortunately lead to negative associations and stereotyping.

Stereotypes can be defined as psychological representations of the characteristics of people that belong to particular groups (McGarty, Yzerbyt & Spears, 2002). There are three principles guiding the social psychology of stereotyping. No perspective shares all principles to the same degree, rather different perspectives sample from each of the principles to greater or lesser degrees. The three guiding principles are as follows:

 Stereotypes are aids to explanations – this implies that stereotypes form to help the perceiver make sense of a situation;

 Stereotypes are energy-saving devices – the role of a stereotype in this principle is to form to reduce effort on the part of the perceiver;

 Stereotypes are shared group beliefs – this implies that stereotypes should be formed in line with the accepted views or norms of social groups that the perceiver belongs to (McGarty et al., 2002).

The role stereotypes can play within society and within individuals, is significant and explains why people act the way they do at particular times. Berkowitz (2004:5) explains that misperception of the social environment occurs when there is either an overestimation or an underestimation of the behaviours and attitudes of others. Within this context, it is important to mention that HEIs are more influential when they offer students a social and intellectual atmosphere that is distinctively different from that with which they are familiar. Such an atmosphere creates greater discontinuity for students and subsequently improves the chances for enhanced cognitive and identity

61

development. For example, when students encounter novel ideas and new social situations, they are pressed to abandon automated scripts and think in more active ways (Milem, Chang & Antonio, 2005:8). A 2004 study tested psychological explanations of the impact of diversity by drawing upon theories of minority influence (Milem et al., 2005:8). Minority influence theories contend that when minority opinions are present in groups, cognitive complexity is stimulated among majority opinion members. It was indicated that diversity does have a positive effect on cognitive complexity, particularly when group discussions include an issue with generally different racial viewpoints (Milem et al., 2005:8). The importance of interventions to enhance contact between diverse student populations is highlighted in this discussion. It is not only preparing students for the world outside campus, but it plays a role in stimulating cognitive complexity.

In an attempt to enhance interracial contact, the concept of social integration can be investigated. Tinto (1993) defines social integration as the amount of personal contacts and interactions students have with their peers and with academics, whether the students are motivated or enjoy being at university. This can also be looked at from the point of view of student attendance and the extent to which students participate actively in class - all matters related to student engagement - which in turn is defined by Barkley (2009) as the intersection of motivation and active participation. Martin (2006) agrees that factors showing student engagement depict students' willingness to participate in routine academic activities, such as attending class, submitting required work, and following lecturers' directions in class.

The Contact Hypothesis and the resulting Contact Theory, of Gordon Allport (1954) is still viewed by many social psychologists as one of the most effective strategies for improving intergroup relations (Reicher, 2007). The theory is based upon the following premises. Prejudice is taken as the root cause of undesirable intergroup relations. In cases where intergroup relations do not embody the ideals of social inclusion, cohesion and respect for social differences as espoused by democratic regimes, intergroup contact can improve intergroup relations by reducing, if not altogether eliminating intergroup prejudice (Allport, 1954). The rationale for the Listening, Living and Learning programme is based upon the Contact Hypothesis.

62

The aim is to broaden the experience of students on campus regarding diversity and to bring them in contact with those who are different in terms of so many factors – race, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, faculty, language, country of origin. These experiences may lead to a reduction in prejudice, stereotyping and discriminatory attitudes.

In light of the above reflection on diversity, a discussion of the possible role of LLL as an intervention strategy will follow.