Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Inequality | Conclusions ‘sex*cohort*ethnic group by generation’ since our sample size is relatively small (Appendix 5.5). The differences between male and female students in the odds to continue at the tertiary vocational level versus to stop one’s educational career are diminishing, as indicated by the signifi cant interaction of ‘Male*Cohort’ (b=-0.48; p=0.00; Appendix 5.5). We do not observe signifi cant differences across ethnic groups in the effect of sex on school transition decisions (Appendix 5.5). 5.6 CONCLUSIONS In a detailed description of fi nal educational attainment levels, we showed that ethnic minorities have improved their situation at the lowest educational levels. Also, the under-representation that these groups faced within vocational tracks of secondary education has decreased over the investigated cohorts. However, inequality regarding fi nal educational attainment between the Dutch and ethnic minority groups is maintained at the tertiary level. The detailed description of patterns of association between attained educational level and ethnicity also showed that (cohort trends in) ethnic inequality takes different forms across vocational and general educational tracks of the same level. It is therefore important to take the qualitatively differentiated structure of educational systems into account when assessing (ethnic) educational differentials. Surprisingly, the distinction between less restrictive vocational tracks and more restrictive general tracks does not play a major role during explicit track choices after elementary school. For the native Dutch, the general track has gained in importance at the lower secondary level. However, this is also true for two out of four ethnic minority groups who followed their education in the Netherlands. We therefore expect that the differences between vocational and general educational tracks will be more evident in drop-out rates than in transition rates. After elementary school, inequality is maintained between lower secondary education and higher secondary education. Our analyses make clear that the selection processes for secondary education are decisive for ethnic inequality in fi nal education. It might be that migrants themselves as well as teachers underestimate migrants’ chances in the educational career. However, at the transition point after higher secondary education, we also see that inequality is maintained. Native Dutch keep continuing their school after higher secondary education more often than the ethnic minority groups. On top of this, the university track becomes more exclusively the domain of native Dutch compared to the vocational track (HBO). Both transitions therefore establish ethnic educational inequality. In this study, we made a link between the scholarships on class based educational differentials and the fi eld of ethnic educational inequality. Unfortunately, even in a country where the effects of social class and gender on educational inequality indicators have decreased, a general birth cohort trend towards ethnic educational equality could not be observed. Social origin indicators partly explained the ethnic educational differentials, as we predicted. Better measurements of social position and the inclusion of (language) ability measures may even further reduce the observed ethnic differentials, but for now, our results indicate that ethnic educational inequality is maintained even after controlling for background characteristics. At the primary 113
level, gender differentials are only present among ethnic minority groups. We could not detect a convincing emancipation process among ethnic minority groups. Generational status affects the decisions made at school transition nodes, albeit not in a consistent way for successive birth cohorts. Later birth cohorts of second generational status are sometimes even disadvantaged compared to their fi rst generation counterparts. Third generation ethnic migrants (or native Dutch with a migrant heritage) are now starting to attend school. Whether the third generation is going to perform better or worse than their second and fi rst generation counterparts remains to be seen. Unfortunately, it is not to be expected that inequality among second generation immigrants and native Dutch will disappear at the secondary and tertiary educational levels for successive birth cohorts. Clearly, we have to refute the modernization proposition; ethnic educational inequality did not decrease at all levels and all tracks. Within secondary education, inequality is maintained quantitatively as the MMI proposition predicted. Even under a condition of saturation, the trends in ethnic IEO did not diminish between higher secondary education and tertiary education. In line with the EMI proposition, inequality is established qualitatively within tertiary education. Our results should temper the optimism of those who expect ethnic differences to dissolve for later generations or in due time. 5.7 NOTES 1. In a recent review of the research in social stratifi cation, Breen and Jonssen (2005) mention that in other countries the association between social origin and educational attainment declined as well (e.g. Germany, France, Italy). 2. All (Dutch) primary respondents and other household members older than 25 were weighted to the frequency distribution of respondents of the LFS with the same birth cohort and fi nal educational level. Alters younger than 25 received the same weighting factor as the primary respondent of the household. Primary respondents of the SPVA younger than 25 were not weighted (i.e. received a weight ‘1’), since these age categories are not part of the sample population of the LFS. 3. The SPVA wave of 2002 was excluded from the analysis regarding birth cohort trends in school transition choices due to missing information on the school career. 4. The interpretation of the parameters in a loglinear model depends on the defi nition of the design matrix. The above example refers to a simple contrast defi nition. 5. That all our restricted models deviate signifi cantly from the full model is due to our large sample size. The ES association parameters are robust to model specifi cation (model 2 versus model 3 and the saturated model, Appendix 5.3). In the design matrix the vector ESC(1) has length one. In a design with 5 cohorts specifi ed this vector is (-0.63; -0.32; 0; 0.32; 0.63). The mean ethnicity-schooling association parameter for educational level ‘
Page 1 and 2:
ETHNIC HOSTILITY AMONG ETHNIC MAJOR
Page 3:
Promotores: prof. dr. N. D. de Graa
Page 6 and 7:
Science is so much more fun when yo
Page 8 and 9:
3.4.1 Opposition to ethnic intermar
Page 10:
8.3.1 Theoretical implications for
Page 14 and 15:
1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 NEW QUESTIONS 1
Page 16 and 17:
1. Introduction | New questions ski
Page 18 and 19:
1. Introduction | The setting of th
Page 20 and 21:
1. Introduction | Research question
Page 22 and 23:
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Table 1.1 Outline of empirical chap
Page 28:
1. Introduction | Notes 27
Page 32 and 33:
2. SOCIAL MOBILITY AND ETHNIC HOSTI
Page 34 and 35:
2. Social Mobility and Ethnic Hosti
Page 36 and 37:
social conformity favour more toler
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
e more important than the infl uenc
Page 42 and 43:
2.4 RESULTS 2. Social Mobility and
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48:
Page 51 and 52:
1987). Assessment of the importance
Page 53 and 54:
The actual ethnic competition withi
Page 55 and 56:
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Wagner e
Page 57 and 58:
seven categories: no-religion, Roma
Page 59 and 60:
the lower the opposition to ethnic
Page 61 and 62:
Table 3.1 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 63 and 64: Table 3.2 Hierarchical linear inter
Page 65 and 66: In model 8 we focus on the characte
Page 67 and 68: Table 3.3 Comparison of explanatory
Page 69 and 70: 3.5 CONCLUSIONS We observed a weak
Page 71 and 72: 9. The models presented in this cha
Page 74 and 75: 4. THE LOCAL LIVING ENVIRONMENT AND
Page 76 and 77: unit such as states or countries, w
Page 78 and 79: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 84 and 85: 4.4 RESULTS 4. The Local Living Env
Page 86 and 87: Table 4.2 continued Household compo
Page 92: 4. The Local Living Environment and
Page 96 and 97: 5. TRENDS IN ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INE
Page 98 and 99: 5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 102 and 103: the worsening economic conditions o
Page 110 and 111: Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113: Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 118 and 119: 6. EXPLANATIONS FOR ETHNIC EDUCATIO
Page 120 and 121: To answer our research questions, w
Page 122 and 123: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
Page 126 and 127: Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 130 and 131: Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 138 and 139: Model 4 includes both the ability m
Page 144 and 145: 7. EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT AND ETHNI
Page 146 and 147: among four ethnic minority groups i
Page 148 and 149: 7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 152 and 153: Table 7.1 Summary of hypotheses Cor
Page 156 and 157: Table 7.2 continued Control variabl
Page 160 and 161: Table 7.3 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 164 and 165:
Table 7.4 continued 2nd gen. Turks
Page 166 and 167:
7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 168:
7. Educational Attainment and Ethni
Page 172 and 173:
8. CONCLUSION 8.1 INTRODUCTION 8. C
Page 174 and 175:
8.2 QUESTIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSI
Page 176 and 177:
8. Conclusion | Questions, results
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
local living environments (on ethni
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
8. Conclusion | Theoretical implica
Page 192 and 193:
ethnic hosting threat contact / res
Page 194 and 195:
8. Conclusion | Retrospect and pros
Page 196 and 197:
8. Conclusion | Notes 195
Page 198 and 199:
APPENDIX Appendix 197
Page 200 and 201:
APPENDIX 2.2 DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Page 202 and 203:
Appendix 2.3 continued Mobility typ
Page 204 and 205:
APPENDIX 2.4 TUTORIAL DIAGONAL MOBI
Page 206 and 207:
*********MEANS and OLS***********.
Page 208 and 209:
impact on depY. *The relative impac
Page 210 and 211:
Appendix *The impact of the destina
Page 212 and 213:
vector d = d1 to d6. vector p = p1
Page 214 and 215:
*and with constraints our model wou
Page 216 and 217:
Appendix 215
Page 218 and 219:
Appendix 3.1 continued father’s s
Page 220 and 221:
APPENDIX 3.3 OPPOSITION TO ETHNIC I
Page 222 and 223:
Appendix Appendix 4.1 continued Eco
Page 224 and 225:
Appendix APPENDIX 4.3 VARIANCE COMP
Page 226 and 227:
Appendix 5.1 continued Ethnicity N
Page 228 and 229:
APPENDIX 5.3 ROBUSTNESS OF ES ASSOC
Page 230 and 231:
Appendix APPENDIX 5.5 MULTI-NOMINAL
Page 232 and 233:
Appendix 7.1 continued 2nd gen. 2nd
Page 234 and 235:
Appendix 233
Page 236 and 237:
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bibliography Abu-Rayya
Page 238 and 239:
Bibliography Buijs, F. J., Demant,
Page 240 and 241:
Bibliography (pp. 345-383). Oxford:
Page 242 and 243:
Bibliography euthanasia, homosexual
Page 244 and 245:
Bibliography Onderzoek (ISEO). Mart
Page 246 and 247:
Bibliography Politics, 58(1), 41-72
Page 248 and 249:
Bibliography Worchel (Eds.), The so
Page 250 and 251:
Bibliography 249
Page 252 and 253:
Summary in Dutch / Nederlandstalige
Page 254 and 255:
Page 256 and 257:
Page 258 and 259:
Page 260 and 261:
Page 262 and 263:
Page 264 and 265:
CURRICULUM VITAE Curriculum Vitae J
Page 266 and 267:
ICS DISSERTATION SERIES ICS dissert
Page 268 and 269:
ICS dissertation series 37) Andreas
Page 270 and 271:
ICS dissertation series 76) Inge Si
Page 272 and 273:
ICS dissertation series 115) Martin
Page 274:
Why do some individuals express mor
show all

Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?