Within the framework of the working group “Social Pedagogy” and beginning in the winter semester of 2014/2015, we have regularly offered bachelor and master seminars on the topic of “Diversity” at the Institute for Educational Science. During these seminars, we focus on theoretical and practical perspectives on diversity. “Diversity” is derived from the Latin word “diversitas” and means difference.

Diversity-approaches perceive people on the basis of categories (Emmerich/Hormel 2013: 184). Categories are, for example, “nationality”, “ethnicity”, “country of origin”, “age”, “physical constitution”, “gender”, “sexual identity”, or “ideology”. Some of these categories are addressed in the General Act on Equal Treatment (AGG), which came into force in Germany in 2006. In the seminar group, we reflect on sorting people into these and other categories. These categories don’t exist, per se, rather it is we who define, based on classifications, when someone is considered “learning impaired”, for example. Differentiating based on so-called “ethnicities” is also problematic – what does “ethnic” mean? As cultural anthropologist Elisabeth Timm (2000) put it, “it’s always the others who are ethnic”. “‘Koreans in Los Angeles’ are ‘ethnic’, ‘Chinese in New York’, ‘North Africans in Lyon’, ‘Jews in France’ or ‘Turks in West Berlin’” (ibid, 364). Calling something “ethnic” changes it. It creates an “us” and “them” mentality within the framework of a particular understanding of ‘normalcy’. In this seminar, we try to become sensitized to these differentiation practices. We, too, add to alienation, social inequality, and exclusion with the decisions we make (Kourabas/Mecheril 2015). It is these practices of differentiation we aim to become aware of and examine if they lead to social inequality and a lack of participation. This central element of the seminar can be described as reflexive diversity-competence (Beate Aschenbrenner-Wellmann, 2009).

At the same time, we are working on diversity on the organizational level. The challenge is in designing organizations (social work organizations, but also educational organizations such as the university) which do not exclude others. We get to know the approaches “Diversity Management” and “Intercultural Opening”. Diversity management began as a business strategy in the United States during the mid-1980s. Employee diversity is used in a resource-oriented manner and to gain profit in business enterprises and appeal to a wide range of customers. For example, single mothers championing the developments they see necessary in mini vans, which will benefit other single mothers as well (Schmitt/Tuider/Witte 2015). Or a financial institution which purposefully hired employees with a ‘Turkish background’. Those employees are in turn meant to win over customers with Turkish backgrounds (Arslan 2014). Although diversity management usually – but not always – follows economic principles, social justice is at the center of the approach of “Intercultural Opening”. The basic idea stems from a 1995 anthology titled “The Intercultural Opening of Social Services” (“Interkulturelle Öffnung sozialer Dienste”), by Klaus Barwig and Wolfgang Hinz-Rommel. The two authors advocate for a critical look at social services’ organizational structures and at unequal societal structures. Their concept was developed out of a critique. In the 1960s and 1970s, the diversity of language, the different nationalities and socializations of people with international backgrounds was seen largely as a problem, which was to be remedied through a “special pedagogy for foreigners”. “Social Services for Foreigners” and “pedagogical institutions for foreign employees and their families” were created (Mecheril 2010: 56). The children of so-called “guest-workers” were taught separately, in some cases. Barwig and Hinz-Rommel are critical of the creation of special, separate systems. They advocate viewing the diverse population not as a “problem”, social services and other societal institutions should rather be responsible for creating programs accessible to all. Examples for intercultural opening could be extending the internet times for young refugees in pedagogical resident groups, so that they can reach their family members and friends on Skype in other time zones (Schäfer 2013), checking your own facility for accessibility, writing flyers and homepages in easy language, supporting employees who are parents with flexible work hours or the possibility of working from home, recording the support of and taking into account diversity in mission statements, and making that support visible.

During the seminar, we discuss different examples of implementing diversity management and intercultural opening, during which the conflict areas become obvious. Diversity approaches focus on diversity, and therefore on differences between people. By focusing on those differences, however, it can be easy – and dangerous – to categorize people, seeing them first and foremost as “refugee”, “Muslim”, “woman”, “homosexual”. Such categorizations run the risk of being closely connected to stereotypes and lead to viewing everything a person says or does as ‘typical’ of a “refugee”, a “homosexual”, or a “Muslim”. It would be especially problematic if diversity approaches contribute to the creation and maintenance of a binary ‘us’ and ‘them’ difference from the perspective of the dominant culture (Kubisch 2003: 5). We can become aware of this area of conflict by critically broadening our views on the living situations and lives of others and reflecting on how and if we perceive, categorize, and address others. A further danger on the organizational level is that “well-meaning support” can tip: on the one hand, organizations want to cater to the specific needs of a diverse range of people, but on the other hand, target-group-oriented approaches can easily lead to a kind of negative specialization. The discussion of case examples allows questions of discrimination, racism, and participation to move to the center of our discourse, rather than reducing people to their culture.

Students regularly incorporate their own experiences in this seminar. They speak of what studying at the university as a parent is like, how it was to take part in mostly German-language seminars as a non-native German speaker, or of the challenges they face combining a (side) job with their studies. The participants’ experiences are a valuable resource. For one, they show the participants how “connected” we all are to the topic of diversity, and they also can act as impetus for the university’s development. It is a central and future-oriented task, then, to combine the students’ (and university employees’) perspectives together with organizational developments. Several seminar participants have continued working with the topic after the seminar had ended and written qualitative-empirical theses on the topic (see the interview with Kira-Maria Höll and Anne Pike). Examples of topics are “Student Discrimination Experiences at the University” or “Studying as a Young Mother”. The findings from these papers have provided a range of possible approaches for the university and specific, concrete hints on how institutional structures can be co-developed with a diverse student body.

Arslan, B. (2014): Beispiel für interkulturelle Öffnung in der Wirtschaft: Die Deutsche Bank AG. In: Mayer, C.-H./Vanderheiden, E. (Hrsg.): Handbuch Interkulturelle Öffnung. Grundlagen, Best Practice, Tools. Göttingen/Bristol: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, S. 250-251.

Aschenbrenner-Wellmann, B. (2009): Vielfalt, Anerkennung und Respekt. Die Bedeutung der Diversity-Kompetenz für die Soziale Arbeit. In: Sanders, K./Bock, M. (Hrsg.): Kundenorientierung – Partizipation – Respekt. Neue Ansätze in der Sozialen Arbeit. Wiesbaden: VS, S. 47-73.

Barwig, K./Hinz-Rommel, W. (Hrsg.) (1995): Interkulturelle Öffnung sozialer Dienste. Freiburg im Breisgau: Lambertus.

Emmerich, M./Hormel, U. (2013): Heterogenität – Diversity – Intersektionaltät. Zur Logik sozialer Unterscheidungen in pädagogischen Semantiken der Differenz. Wiesbaden: Springer.

Kourabas, V./Mecheril, P. (2015): Von differenzaffirmativer zu diversitätsreflexiver Sozialer Arbeit. In: Sozialmagazin. Die Zeitschrift für Soziale Arbeit 9/10. Schwerpunktheft: Diversity und Soziale Arbeit, S. 22-29.

Kubisch, S. (2003): Wenn Unterschiede keinen Unterschied machen dürfen – Eine kritische Betrachtung von »Managing Diversity«. (Link, ab S. 36) (Stand: 24.04.2013).

Mecheril, P. (2010): Die Ordnung des erziehungswissenschaftlichen Diskurses in der Migrationsgesellschaft. In: Mecheril, P./Castro Varela, M. d. M./Dirim, İ./Kalpaka, A./Melter, C. (Hrsg.): Migrationspädagogik. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz Juventa, S. 54-76.

Schäfer, A. (2013). Die Betreuung unbegleiteter minderjähriger Flüchtlinge als transnational orientierter Hilfekontext. In: Sozialmagazin. Die Zeitschrift für Soziale Arbeit 38, S. 62-71.

Schmitt, C./Tuider, E./Witte, M.D. (2015): Diversityansätze – Errungenschaften, Ambivalenzen und Herausforderungen. In: Sozialmagazin. Die Zeitschrift für Soziale Arbeit 9/10. Schwerpunktheft: Diversity und Soziale Arbeit, S. 6-13.

Timm, E. (2000): Kritik der „ethnischen Ökonomie“. In: PROKLA 120. Zeitschrift für kritische Sozialwissenschaft. Themenheft „Ethnisierung und Ökonomie“ 30, S. 363-376.