Den kreative klasse: Forskelle mellem versioner
Content deleted Content added
udvidet en smule |
småret |
||
Linje 61:
=== Påstande tilbagevist ===
Andre har med udgangspunkt i
:"''The poorest performing concept in the creative class theory is the tolerance measure, so poor that only the number of foreign-born residents related to any one of the five economic variables. ...Out of these 15 tests, 12 of the numbers are negatively correlated; meaning that not only did the individual tolerance predictors fail to achieve statistical significance, in 80% of our cases they were inversely associated with economic growt''." (s. 19);<br/> og:
:"''The creative class failed consistently across multiple statistical tests to explain any urban income or job growth''" (s. 22);<br/>
Linje 77:
Et studie af 5 europæiske byer (Basel, Berlin, Galway, Skopje og Strassbourg) med udgangspunkt i et "kreativitetsindeks" og forholdet til talent, tolerance, teknologi, musikliv, gadekultur og aktivitet viste nærmest fuldstændig mangel på samvariation mellem de forskellige indikatorer og endda omvendt (negativ) sammenhæng mellem kreativitet og økonomisk vækst.<ref>Troels Jeppesen: "The Creative Class Struggles" (''Kontur'' nr. 10, 2004)</ref>
I et studie af nederlandske byer konstaterer Gerard Marlet og Clemens van Woerkens, at "it is not tolerance or openness to cultural or ethnical diversity that makes cities attractive to the creative class, but - beside job opportunities - aesthetic features like nature and historic buildings, and traditional amenities like culture and cafés. Or in a word: quality-of-place." Tværtimod viser deres studier, at tolerance ingen rolle spiller, eller i hvert fald at de anvendte metoder ikke kan påvise nogen sammenhæng.<ref>Marlet og Woerkens, s. 33f</ref>
=== Metodisk fejl ===
|