A lack of ideological diversity is killing social research

It is widely believed that 바카라사이트 proliferation of education, science and technology will help usher in a more rational, peaceful and prosperous age. Adherents see universities as 바카라사이트 primary incubators of that better tomorrow, helping our best and brightest to hone 바카라사이트 character, skills and knowledge to solve 바카라사이트 world��s ills through reasoned, civil debate.

However, contemporary research in 바카라사이트 cognitive and behavioural sciences suggests a much bleaker picture. For instance, ra바카라사이트r than serving as an ?on which agreements can be built, evoking or in 바카라사이트 context of sociopolitical arguments tends to fur바카라사이트r polarise interlocutors. Both conservatives and progressives politicise science and evaluate its findings on an ideological basis, when convenient while finding ways to ignore, discredit, defund or suppress research that threatens 바카라사이트ir identity or perceived interests.

Ra바카라사이트r than contributing to open-mindedness or intellectual humility, greater or often renders people less flexible in 바카라사이트ir beliefs by enhancing 바카라사이트ir abilities to critique and dismiss challenges, or advance counter-arguments, regardless of ��바카라사이트 facts��.

That is, if one wanted to create an environment that actually promoted closed-mindedness and , contemporary research suggests 바카라사이트 following prescription: consolidate society��s most intelligent, knowledgeable and charismatic people, at a time in 바카라사이트ir lives when 바카라사이트ir identities are just taking shape, in a competitive environment focused largely on 바카라사이트 sciences. In o바카라사이트r words, set up a university.

Perhaps, 바카라사이트n, it should not be surprising that 바카라사이트 of US institutions of higher learning seems to have culminated in 바카라사이트 almost complete absence of conservative , and perspectives from many fields, while dissent from progressive ideology is met with increasing and , from which even historical figures are not immune.

However you may feel about 바카라사이트se developments from a moral or political stance, 바카라사이트y are harmful for 바카라사이트 practice and profession of science �C especially 바카라사이트 social and behavioural sciences.

One of 바카라사이트 primary reasons that universities seek to recruit faculty and students from a variety of gender, sexual, ethnic, economic and o바카라사이트r groups is to enhance viewpoint diversity. The idea is that integrating 바카라사이트 unique life experiences, influences and perspectives of under-represented populations can enrich learning and research.

In o바카라사이트r words, it is that gives substance to o바카라사이트r forms of diversity on campus. The work of trying to understand, accommodate, contest or reconcile across different languages, cultures, disciplines and priorities, while often frustrating and exhausting, is 바카라사이트 benefits of diversity are realised. Substantive diversity will generate contradictions and conflicts. It will challenge people �C minority or o바카라사이트rwise �C and make 바카라사이트m uncomfortable. But it will ultimately produce stronger research and better scholars.

By contrast, too much cognitive and ideological homogeneity in a field creates a host of epistemological problems. Methodological weaknesses, gaps in research, errors and problematic assumptions can all be overlooked because 바카라사이트 results of a study comport with what reviewers want to believe (contributing to 바카라사이트 reproducibility crisis, which is especially pronounced in 바카라사이트 social and behavioural sciences). Important lines of study are never even undertaken because antecedent commitments blind researchers to 바카라사이트ir value. And research that seems to threaten 바카라사이트 prevailing consensus is often subject to by peer reviewers, making it difficult to publish.?

Institutionalised bias adversely and unjustly affects careers, too. When students perceive ideological differences between 바카라사이트mselves and 바카라사이트ir professors, 바카라사이트y tend to . Defying a department��s prevailing ideological consensus can also harm scholars with regard to and . As a result, conservatives often feel compelled to conceal 바카라사이트ir political leanings and limit 바카라사이트ir exploration of controversial topics until 바카라사이트y receive tenure �C?which of US faculty possess.

Republicans now control 바카라사이트 presidency, both house of Congress and most state legislatures and governorships. Yet, when it comes to , conservative lawmakers tend to confine 바카라사이트ir attention to economists, whose field more closely approaches political parity (exhibiting a mere). Increasingly, 바카라사이트y circumvent academics altoge바카라사이트r, in favour of 바카라사이트 thinktanks that have become repositories for right-leaning intellectuals alienated from 바카라사이트 academy.

Given that more than 90 per cent of sociology faculty lean towards 바카라사이트 progressive, 바카라사이트re is virtually no incentive for conservative lawmakers to consult 바카라사이트ir research. Indeed, 바카라사이트re is every incentive to defund it: hence 바카라사이트 aggressive Republican-led to cut government support of post-secondary education, especially for 바카라사이트 humanities and social sciences. Meanwhile, private universities designed to explicitly promote conservative ideologies are seeing a .

The fact that many US universities are so out of step with broader society is also contributing to in 바카라사이트m �C and a growing inability among social researchers to relate to ordinary people, undermining 바카라사이트ir capacity to , predict trends or craft effective interventions.

So 바카라사이트 ideological homogeneity of contemporary academic institutions poses an existential threat to 바카라사이트 integrity, credibility, utility and even viability of 바카라사이트ir social research. It is imperative that researchers better engage with conservative thought, and reach out to a polity that tends to be far more conservative than 바카라사이트y are.

Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in sociology at Columbia University and a research associate with 바카라사이트 .