Ethnicity and the Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Survey Data

1. Ethnicity and the Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Survey Data Paul S. Lambert Stirling University, UK paul.lambert@stirling.ac.uk www.staff.stir.ac.uk/paul.lambert/ Paper prepared for the VIth International RC33 conference, Amsterdam, August 2004 RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

2. Ethnicity and the Comparative Analysis of Contemporary Survey Data ------------------------ This paper discusses issues that arise in the cross-nationally comparative analysis of social survey data when interest concerns ‘ethnicity’ and related concepts. A number of both practical and theoretical problems arise, and a review of data in a selection of cross-nationally harmonised surveys {ESS; ISSP; WVS; LIS} reveals that current resources are a long way from satisfying the requirements of most social science analysts. However, it is argued that such problems are not an excuse for abandoning the comparative analysis of ethnic differences, and examples of alternative analytical strategies are reviewed for their adequacy. RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

3. Ethnicity and comparative analysis ‘Referents’ Sparsity Dynamisms National traditions • 4 well-known problems:  Are there more; what are our options? A steps-in-survey-methods approach: • Data Collection • Variable Operationalisations • Data Analysis RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

4. 1) Data Collection • [ Bias / prejudice / interview context • nothing to make ethnicity a special case? ] • Survey design: pre-harmonised v’s ex-post • Population representation / sparsity: • Absolute numbers - minorities of eg < 5% • Substructures within minorities • Missing data / non-response RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

5. Sparse representation of minority gps: • Some common solutions: pool/boost data; merge / abandon categories; missing data models; .. – but national specific and/or primary adjustments RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

6. 2) Variable operationalisations2a) Competing referents • Real data: many sparse and/or uninteresting categories.. • Can achieve conceptual clarity (eg H-Z 03), but choices must balance theoretical prefs v’s practical options RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

7. 2b) Dynamism • Changing migration inflows; mixed identities; intermarriage; etc… • Outcome: categories frequently revised / expanded • Solutions: none in existing survey treatment as categorical data • V. powerful political / operational forces 2c) National Traditions RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

8. 3) Variable Analysis • Often neglected element of research • Pressure to collapse categories / reduce data Issues: • Pooled or separate cross-national analyses • Ethnic differences as focus v’s background • Often our only sphere of influence Typically: rich data collected; collapsed to minority/majority dichotomy in analysis RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

9. So: Diversity, sparsity, dynamism & national context are recognised, & celebrated in sociological theories, but problematic for X-N survey research • Retain all categorical boundaries: • Abandon (& attack) surveys for ethnicity research • Restriction to country-by-country survey comparisons • Not always viable (eg sub-projects) • Still leads to same problems eventually (eg regions) • Manipulate categorical boundaries: • Absolutist: prioritise some divisions only • Relativistic: weight / assess categorical distinctions RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

10. i) An ‘absolutist’ solution? • Traditional: immigrant v’s not-immigrant • But ignores many other differentiations • A summary ‘EC9’ measure (ESS valid %) : RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

11. ‘EC9’ properties: • Captures most but not all differentiations • Not always fully operable & no official derivations • Decent numbers in most categories • Relative attractions: • High associations with many other vars • Categorical nature - communicable RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

12. ii) A ‘relativist’ solution? • Existing problems centre on categorical boundaries and distinctions (too many..) • Can we limit role of boundaries but keep info? How? • Single source metric(s) – eg years in country; • Summary function (eg, theoretical placement; empirical derivation - ‘SORs’) Proposal : quantitative scores to indicate relative locations of ethnic categories in a low dimension space of ethnic differences RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

13. UK example : ‘SOR’ scores describe ‘persistent diversity’ (Lambert 2002)

14. Cross-national examples? • Reference to a consistent metric brings conceptual comparability? • Derivation of metrics can be national specific, using large data sources and expertise • Some examples (eg LIS SORs)  sensible metrics which explain most ethnic difference • (could further combine with specific dummies) • ESS examples – underwhelming patterns RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert

15. Conclusions • Major and obvious problems with X-national ethnicity research • But can’t ignore : comparisons will still be made Need for: • Prescriptions on data constructions and categorical formulations • Options for handling awkward categorical data – eg quantitative scores RC33 Aug 2004 - Lambert