MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4253631950 · doi:10.1353/ces.2011.0005

Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and Challenges of Diversity (review)

2011· article· en· W4253631950 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Jillian Paragg

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian ethnic studies · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueCanadian Identity and History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMulticulturalismCohesion (chemistry)Diversity (politics)SociologyEthnic groupCultural diversityEpistemologyCommunity cohesionSocial psychologyEnvironmental ethicsPsychologyAnthropologyPhilosophy

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Reviewed by: Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and Challenges of Diversity Jillian Paragg Jeffrey G. Reitz, Raymond Breton, Karen Kisiel Dion and Kenneth L. Dion, with the collaboration of Mai B. Phan and Rupa Banerjee. Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and Challenges of Diversity. New York: Springer, 2009. vii + 194 pp. $139.00 hc. Canada is unique in that it has adopted an official state-initiated policy of multiculturalism. However, the authors of Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and Challenges of Diversity argue that certain behavioural assumptions that are inherent in this policy need to be addressed. In the first chapter, the principal author, Jeffrey Reitz, outlines the central thesis of the book by stating that a theory of human behaviour regarding the dynamics of inter-ethnic relations underlies the philosophy of multiculturalism and multicultural policy. Advocates of multiculturalism presume that when individuals maintain strong ties with their ethnic communities, there are positive consequences for their social and psychological well-being as well as for their attachment to broader society. Thus diversity is assumed to have a positive influence on social cohesion. However, Reitz and his colleagues argue that in order for policy makers to formulate effective multicultural policy, it is necessary to know whether the underlying theoretical assumptions are actually reflected in Canadian society. Therefore, they seek to test whether these assumptions are empirically valid. This analysis is important for the advancement of discussions around multiculturalism and multicultural policy in Canada. A central strength of Reitz et al.’s volume is how they approach their analysis. Debates around multicultural policy and multicultural policy formulation tend to centre around whether the current policy “works.” However, the authors recognize that solely engaging in debates as to whether the current policy “works” fails to get to the core of what needs to be considered in discussions on multicultural policy formulation: whether multicultural policy “works” is dependent on the validity of its inherent assumptions. In their analysis, the authors valuably move beyond the usual superficial debates of whether multicultural policy “works,” meaningfully advancing discussions occurring in multicultural studies. For their analysis, Reitz and colleagues use data collected from Statistics Canada’s 2002 Ethnic Diversity Survey which surveyed over 41,000 Canadians, asking [End Page 300] them questions regarding their ethnic self-identification, ethnic community ties, and sense of attachment to Canadian society, among others. Each chapter in the volume is a separate investigation by individual authors. This format is problematic in that the chapters, at times, felt disconnected. Although the chapters were all framed as investigations into the assumptions of the theory of human behaviour that underlie multiculturalism, there was a detachment between the individual authors’ own analytical agendas and the central thesis positioned by the first chapter. Only in the final chapter are the individual contributions tied in with the central thesis of the volume. Perhaps the authors could have included a discussion at the end of each chapter in order to bring their findings into line with the goal of the volume as a whole instead of leaving it to the last chapter. Another strength of the volume are the findings of the study itself. From their analysis of the survey data, the authors found that some of the behavioural assumptions inherent in multicultural policy were confirmed and some were disproven. For example, respondents who gave more importance to their community’s culture and customs had a strong sense of belonging in Canada, leading to social cohesion. However, the development of a specifically Canadian identity appears to be slowed down by ethnic attachments. As Reitz states, the findings suggest that “diversity promises positive contributions to social cohesion, but it also presents significant challenges” (157). The findings of the study are significant for multicultural studies in Canada and for policy makers. Not all of the inherent assumptions of multicultural policy are validated. In the final chapter, the reader is also provided with a useful and practical discussion of the findings’ implications for policy in order to fully realize multiculturalism in Canada. Overall, it is imperative that the main findings of the study are included in policy discussions on multiculturalism, as they will enable the formulation and adoption of more effective multicultural policy...

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,993
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,020

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0030,006
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0030,003
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,360
Tête enseignante GPT0,347
Écart entre enseignants0,013 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian ethnic studiesMême sujetCanadian Identity and HistoryTravaux en français237 207