Does Diversity Hiring Decrease Ideological Diversity?

Christopher C. Hull asks if diversity-driven hiring is the cause of declining viewpoint diversity in higher education.

On the Varieties of Diversity: Ideological Variations in Attitudes Toward, and Understandings of Diversity

Three studies explore the possibility that attitudes toward “diversity” are multidimensional rather than unidimensional and that ideological differences in diversity attitudes vary as a function of diversity subtype. Study 1 ( n = 1,001) revealed that the factor structure of attitudes toward 23 diverse community features was bidimensional. Factors involving demographic and viewpoint diversity emerged. Conservatives reported more positive attitudes toward viewpoint diversity, and liberals more positive attitudes toward demographic diversity. Study 2 ( n = 1,012) replicated Study 1 findings, and extended Study 1 results by showing attitudes toward the general concept of diversity predicted attitudes toward demographic diversity but not viewpoint diversity. In Study 3, 386 participants rated how relevant a set of features was to their prototypical understanding of diversity. A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) revealed people discriminate between viewpoint, demographic, and consumer diversity. Conservatives perceived viewpoint features as more relevant to “diversity,” whereas liberals perceived demographic features as more relevant.

Assessing Viewpoint Diversity in Search Results Using Ranking Fairness Metrics

The way pages are ranked in search results influences whether the users of search engines are exposed to more homogeneous, or rather to more diverse viewpoints. However, this viewpoint diversity is not trivial to assess. In this paper, we use existing and novel ranking fairness metrics to evaluate viewpoint diversity in search result rankings. We conduct a controlled simulation study that shows how ranking fairness metrics can be used for viewpoint diversity, how their outcome should be interpreted, and which metric is most suitable depending on the situation. This paper lays out important groundwork for future research to measure and assess viewpoint diversity in real search result rankings.

Change of perspectives (News Performance)

Field of application/theoretical foundation: Analyses of change of perspectives are theoretically linked to the news performance and democratic function of the media (McQuail, 1992). This construct is related to viewpoint diversity and the normative expectation that different views should be presented in news coverage (Napoli & Gillis, 2008). In addition, more recent analysis focus on different perspective articulated in user comments, often linked to theories of deliberation (Baden & Springer, 2015). References/combination with other methods of data collection: Perspective change in news coverage is measured i) directly (e.g., by asking whether change of perspective is presented in an article) or i) indirectly by coding different perspective (e.g. statements including different viewpoints). Indirect measures can also be used in automated approaches (Möller et al., 2018). Example studies: Baden & Springer (2014); Humprecht (2016) Table 1. Study summaries Author(s) Sample Unit of Analysis Values Reliability Baden & Springer (2014) Content type: Online news coverage on selected key events and user comments Outlet/country: 5 German newspapers (Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Welt, TZ, Die Zeit, Spiegel) Sampling period: Feb– July 2012 Sample size: 42 news articles, 384 user comments News article: max. 2 main interpretative frames (the text’s ‘central organizing idea’) User comments: main frame Object of problem definition Logic of evaluation: inspired (Good is what is true, divine & amazing) popular (Good is what the people want) moral (Good is what is social, fair, & moral) civic (Good is what is accepted & conventional) economic (Good is what is profitable & creates value) functional (good is what works) ecological (good is what is sustainable & natural) Logic of (inter)action: believing (interactions between the mind & the world) desire (interaction btw the mind & objects) ought (interaction btw the mind & people) negotiation (interaction btw people & the social world) exchange (interactions btw people & objects) technology (interactions btw objects & the world) life (interactions btw people & the natural world) Authors coded coverage consensually User comments: M(Holsti) = 0.78 Problem definition’s object: Holsti=0.60 Logic of Action: Holsti = 0.56 Evaluation logic: Holsti=1 Humprecht (2016) Content type: Political routine-period news Outlet/ country: 48 online news outlets from six countries (CH, DE, FR, IT, UK, US) Sampling period: June – July 2012 Sample size: N= 1660 Unit of analysis: Political news items (make reference to a political actor, e.g. politician, party, institution in headline, sub?headline, in first paragraph or in an accompanying visual) News items are all journalistic articles mentioned on the front page (‘first layer’ of the website) that are linked to the actual story (on second layer of website) Only one perspective (because underlying topic is uncontroversial) One perspective (of a debated/controversial issue, no opposition voice) Different perspectives mentioned (different sides, voices, camps, perspectives mentioned but not elaborated) Co-presence of speakers with opposing views (expressed in separate utterances) in the same article. Story shows clear attempt at giving a balanced, fair account of debated/controversial issue by including diverse viewpoints and statements) Cohen’s kappa: M = 0.64 References Baden, C., & Springer, N. (2014). Com(ple)menting the news on the financial crisis: The contribution of news users’ commentary to the diversity of viewpoints in the public debate. European Journal of Communication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323114538724 Baden, C., & Springer, N. (2015). Conceptualizing viewpoint diversity in news discourse. Journalism, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884915605028 Humprecht, E. (2016). Shaping Online News Performance. In Palgrave Macmillan. Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-56668-3 McQuail, D. (1992). Media Performance: Mass Communication and the Public Interest. Sage Publications. Möller, J., Trilling, D., Helberger, N., & van Es, B. (2018). Do not blame it on the algorithm: an empirical assessment of multiple recommender systems and their impact on content diversity. Information Communication and Society, 21(7), 959–977. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1444076 Napoli, P., & Gillis, N. (2008). Media Ownership and the Diversity Index: Outlining a Social Science Research Agenda (No. 5; McGannon Center Working Paper Series).

The Three Beliefs

Three beliefs shape much of what occurs on campuses. Taken together, these three beliefs make up a worldview that readily compromises certain values (like respect for free speech and viewpoint diversity) when they are viewed as conflicting with the goals of protecting against claims of harm. The first belief is that any action to undermine or replace traditional frameworks is by definition a good thing. The second belief is that, absent the hand of discriminatory actors, all group-level outcomes would be equal. The third belief is in the primacy of identity, which is commonly invoked through race, ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity.