Social Networks and Multiple Ethnic Identifications

1. Social Networks and Multiple Ethnic Identifications 5. Ego network ethnic diversity and the use of multiple ethnic identifications A diversity index (IQV) was computed using the categories of the variable “Alter Country of Birth” (k). Egonet was used to calculate the proportion of alters who belonged to each of six ethnic/nationality categories (p). Rosalyn Negrón, Ph.D. UMASS Boston Anthropology • Personal networks and ethnic identification: • Focus on the relationship between personal network ethniccomposition and the use of multiple ethnic identifications. • Explores the notion that multiple ethnic identifications arise from participation in multiple spheres of social interaction, as reflected in a person’s social network. • 3. Study: • Location: New York, NY • 101 respondents from Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, • Colombia, and Mexico. • Data collection: • Personal network survey using • Egonet (McCarty 2003) - 45 alters, data • on network composition and structure. • Factorial survey (Rossi & Noch 1982) to assess • ethnic identification switching. • Ethnic identification survey to elicit list of all • the ethnic categories resps identified with. • Network visualization interviews Index of Qualitative Variation (IQV) / Diversity Index (Agresti and Agresti 1977) IQV = 1 – Σ p2 / (1 – 1/k) Where k = number of categories of the variable and p = percentage of individuals in a given category • 2. Network ethnic homogeneity vs. heterogeneity: • Hypothesis: people with ethnically heterogeneous personal networks (see Figure 1) are more likely to have multiple ethnic IDs than people with ethnically homogeneous networks (see Figure 2). Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 101 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 4. Dominant ethnicity in ego network and use of multiple ethnic identifications Spearman Correlation Coefficients, N = 101 Prob > |r| under H0: Rho=0 Table 2. Correlations between network ethnic diversity and respondents’ use of multiple ethnic identifications Ethnic Identifications: Latina, Dominicana, Hispana, Cibaeña, Capitaleña, Caribeña, Morenita, Dominicana- Americana, Española, Americana 6. Some Conclusions Figure 1. Ethnically heterogeneous network of a Dominican woman in this study. Alters from the US, the Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico and others. • Hypothesis confirmed– the number of • ethnic IDs used was positively correlated with • network ethnic diversity (.0058). • People having networks where Dominicans • are the majority are less likely to switch • between ethnic IDs (.0043). • People having networks where “Other” ethnicities • predominate are more likely to switch between • multiple ethnic IDs (.0008). • People having networks where Americans pre- • dominate use a greater variety of ethnic IDs (.0170). Table 1. Correlations between dominant ethnicity in respondent’s networks and their use of multiple ethnic identifications References Agresti, A. and B. F. Agresti (1977) “Statistical analysis of qualitative variation.” Pgs 204-237 in K. F. Schuessler (ed.) Sociological Methodology 1978. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass. McCarty, C. (2003) “Egonet: Software for the Collection of Egocentric Network Data.” MDLogix. Rossi, P.H. and S.L. Noch (1982) “Measuring Social Judgments: The Factorial Survey Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Acknowledgements This project was funded by a NSF Dissertation Improvement grant and by the National Science Foundation Award No. BCS-0417429 to Chris McCarty and Jose Luis Molina. Ethnic Identifications: Mexicana, Latina, Tlapanecos, Hispana Figure 2. Ethnically homogeneous network of a Mexican woman in this study. Most alters in her network are Mexican.