monitoring racism and data comparability theoretical reflection and practical implementation...
Post on 21-Dec-2015
219 views
TRANSCRIPT
Monitoring RacismMonitoring Racismand and
Data ComparabilityData Comparability
Theoretical reflection and practical implementation
Presentation by Peter Fleissner, Head of Unit “Research and Networks”
EUMC, Vienna
Rotterdam, 29 November 2001
2
Overview of the presentationOverview of the presentation
i. the RAXEN approach
ii. Approaches of data comparability
iii. approaches for improving comparability
4
Approach for building up RAXENApproach for building up RAXEN
• Pragmatic approach because of unclear situation on data availability
• Learning exercise and flexible response to problems
• Spiral approach to deal with empirical and theoretical issues on the next higher level over time
• Linguistic context to be analysed
6
2000: RAXEN1 - Seven National Focal 2000: RAXEN1 - Seven National Focal Points doing the “Mapping Exercise”Points doing the “Mapping Exercise”
• Austria: Austrian Academy of Sciences• Finland: Finnish League for Human Rights• Germany: Regional Association for Questions
on Foreigners (RAA Berlin)• Greece: Information Centre for Racism,
Ecology and Non-Violence• Ireland: National Consultative Commission
on Racism and Interculturalism and Equality Authority
• Netherlands: Anne Frank House• UK: Commission for Racial Equality
Contracts already expired
7
RAXEN1: Content of the Mapping RAXEN1: Content of the Mapping ExerciseExercise
• contact data for organisations active in the field of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism, and general information on their objectives and field of activity
• what activities ("best practice") each organisation has carried out since 1995
• what data have been collected by each organisation in the course of its activities
• what publications have been produced by each organisation
Available on the Internet for seven countriessee: http://eumc.eu.int
8
2001 RAXEN2: data collection + 2001 RAXEN2: data collection + mapping exercise in missing countriesmapping exercise in missing countries
Three different categories of information in the areas of racism, xenophobia and anti-Semitism• Negative acts of violence and discrimination• “Good practices”, initiatives to prevent racism, • Background information related to minorities and migrants
In five areas for data collection (2001)• Employment Sector• Racial violence• Education• Legislation• Violence/changed attitudes towards Muslim communities (Rapid
Response Function)
9
2001: RAXEN2 - 15 Focal Points2001: RAXEN2 - 15 Focal PointsAustria: Austrian Academy of Sciences (AAS)Belgium: Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to RacismDenmark: The Danish Board for Ethnic Equality (NEL)Finland: Finnish League for Human RightsFrance: Agency for the Development of Intercultural Relations (ADRI)Germany: European Forum for Migration Studies (EFMS)Greece: Information Centre for Racism, Ecology, Peace and Non-Violence
(Infocenter)Ireland:National Consultative Commission on Racism and Interculturalism
(NCCRI) + Equality Authority (EA)Italy: Co-operation for the Development of Emerging Countries (COSPE)Luxembourg: Association for the Support of Immigrant Workers (ASTI)The Netherlands: Anne Frank HousePortugal: NUMeNA (Research center on human and social sciences)
cooperating with the High Commission for Migration and Ethnic MinoritiesSpain: Movement for Peace and Liberty (MPDL)Sweden: EXPO FoundationUnited Kingdom:Commission for Racial Equality (CRE)
10
2002:2002: RAXEN3RAXEN3data collection + analyses + updatingdata collection + analyses + updating
Meeting: Working Group on Methodology
Meeting with National Focal Points
Distribution of Results
Data collection in 4 areas and 15 countries
publicly accessible
15 national studies in
employmentracial violenceeducationlegislation
4 comparative studies on EU levelin the above 4 areas
Data collection results and in 15 countries publicly accessible
2002
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Peer review of RAXEN2
RAXEN3:
Data CollectionData Collection Update
Mapping Exercises UpdateRapid Response Function
Case Studies
Peer review of RAXEN3
15 NFPs
15 National Studies in the 4 areas of RAXEN2
Comparative studies in the four areas of RAXEN2
Time Meetings Data Collection Analyses Output/Results
11
Frameworks for MonitoringFrameworks for Monitoring
1. Natural ScienceSubject -> Filter -> Object
• Objective world assumed, object and its properties are constructed by science
• Properties maybe qualitative or quantitative, space/time related
• Distance from the Object implied:– Classical physics: no influence by observer– Quantum physics: measurement process influences
result, but in a well defined and understood way.
• Some kind of interest involved• All power on the part of the observer
12
Frameworks for MonitoringFrameworks for Monitoring2. Social Sciences
Observer -> Filter -> Society <- Reaction <-
• “Object” is of similar type as the observer • Societal construction of “object” and its
properties• Properties maybe qualitative or quantitative• Interaction/negotiation on properties
possible • Power relations important
Subjects
13
Frameworks for MonitoringFrameworks for Monitoring3. RAXEN approach: “society is looking at itself”
EUMC (NFPs) Filterlong term short term
Observer -> Filter -> Society <- Reaction <-
• Meta-approach used, similarity to scientific approach• Objects are complex systems with variable categories• Political and cultural processes matter• High sensitivity and relevance
Subjects
15
Approaches towards ComparisonApproaches towards ComparisonIntended goals
From a variety of indicators towards a harmonised approach of measurement
From formal comparability towards comparability of content
Comparabilitybetween the poles of “equality” (latin and old High German
“par” = “pair”) and “difference”, fixed at a “degree of similarity”
Various models, e.g. big differences
– Mosaic approach– Rainbow approach– Complementary approach– Cluster approach– Satellite approach– Harmonised approach small differences
16
Mosaic approachMosaic approach
• Each indicator is qualitatively different from the other (different dimension)
• There is a need to explicitly report not only the empirical findings, but also the definitions of the indicator applied
• No or only small sorting/ordering possibilities of indicators used
• Theoretical background needed to be able to assess results
17
Rainbow approachRainbow approach
• Each indicator is different from the other
• But the indicators can be sorted/ordered by some (quality) criteria
• Still there is a need to explicitly report not only the empirical findings, but also the definitions of the indicator applied
• Theoretical background/explanation needed to be able to assess results
18
Complementary approachComplementary approach
• Two or more indicators refer to the same issue
• The differ in their view on the event• Usually there are different interest groups
reporting (local police, federal police, NGOs), and they have different interpretation
• Make the various views and sources explicit
• Report data from all the sources identified
19
Cluster approachCluster approach
• There exist clusters of countries where the same definitions of indicators are applied
(e.g. indicator1 for {c1,c2,c3}; indicator2 for {c4,c5,c6,c7}; indicator3 for {c8}; indicator4 for {c9} )
• Make the definition of the various indicators and sources explicit
• Comparability is possible within the sets of countries with identical indicator
20
Satellite approachSatellite approach
• This is an approach used by EUROSTAT in economics
• In a specific area there are some core indicators, which use identical definitions (obligatory part of the reporting procedure)
• In addition to that data are collected which reflect special aspects of the country, region etc. (voluntary part of the reporting procedure)
21
Harmonised approachHarmonised approach• This is the ideal goal of data collection (Max
Weber’s “Idealtyp”)• E.g. backed up by the anti-discrimination
directives the Member States developed identical reporting frameworks on racial crimes and all their subcategories.
• There are no longer qualitative differences between the results, only quantitative ones.
• Still it might be questioned if the connotations of the categories used do not have a different location in the cultural frameworks of the various regions or Member States of the European Union
23
Aggregation schemeAggregation scheme
Preconditions• Atoms describe finest partition of
indicators in the area• Atoms do not overlap• Area is fully covered by atoms
Aggregation level used depends on the availability of data
24
AB
CJ
KI
H
G
F
E
D
ABC
A
Layer 1: Finest Topology – atomic level
DEFG IH JK
ABCDEFG IHJK
ABCDEFGIHJK
Layer 2: Finer Topology
Layer 3:
Coarser Topology
Layer 4: Full Coverage
25
Examples:Examples: Discrimination in the Labour Discrimination in the Labour MarketMarket
should include • informal
– direct (intentional)and
– structural (non-individual) formsand
• legal formsThis presentation is strongly inspired by John
Wrench’s paper “Observations from European Comparative Research on Discrimination in Employment”
26
Example 1: Discrimination in the Labour Market Example 1: Discrimination in the Labour Market Direct (intentional) formsDirect (intentional) forms
A. Racist discrimination Personal stereotypes about a social group“I won’t employ Indians because they are lazy”
B. Statistical discriminationNegative characteristics of a social group“I won’t employ Indians because they will go off and
start their own business”
C. Societal discriminationOther people have negative attitudes“I won’t employ Indians because my customers won’t
like it”
27
Example 1: Discrimination in the Labour MarketExample 1: Discrimination in the Labour Market Structural formsStructural forms
D. Indirect discrimination “Neutral” recruitment practices discriminate ethnic group
“Recruiting employees through their family connections”
E. Past-in-present discrimination“Neutral” practices have negative effect because of the past
“Recruitment of an ethnic group to inferior jobs goes on in the present”
F. Side effect discriminationDiscrimination in one sphere produce discrimination in an other
“discimination in education can produce discrimination in employment”
28
Example 1: Discrimination in the Labour MarketExample 1: Discrimination in the Labour Market Full Coverage andFull Coverage and Coarser TopologyCoarser Topology
• ABCDEF Discrimination in the Labour Market
• ABC Direct (intentional) forms of discrimination in the labour market
• DEF Structural (non-individual) forms in the labour market
29
Example 2: Organizational measures against Example 2: Organizational measures against discrimination in the Employment Sectordiscrimination in the Employment Sector
A. Training the immigrants
B. Making cultural allowances
C. Equal opportunity policies
D. Challenging racist attitudes
E. Combating discrimination
F. Diversity management
30
Example 3: Legal discrimination Example 3: Legal discrimination in the Employment Sectorin the Employment Sector
Try do give estimates on the percentages of the following categories of the working population
A. Citizens in their own country
B. Citizens of an EU country working here
C. Non-EU denizens from third country with full rights to residency and work here
D. Third country nationals with limited work permit
E. Undocumented workers
Thank you for your attentionThank you for your attention
For comments please send an e-mail [email protected]
See also my homepagehttp://www.arrakis.es/~fleissner