Ethnic Hostility among Ethnic Majority and Minority Groups

More documents

Recommendations

Info

local living environments (on ethnic hostility) based on estimated variance components in multilevel models for two reasons. First, the relevant local context is not only theoretically hard to identify but also methodologically diffi cult to operationalise, and second, the reliability of the measured contextual characteristics is very likely to be lower than that of individual-level characteristics. Although my results indicate that the native Dutch are more hostile towards specifi c ethnic minority groups (cf. Hagendoorn, 1995; Hagendoorn & Pepels, 2003), I did not fi nd any discrepancy in the proposed explanatory models for hostility among native Dutch directed at different ethnic groups. The application of the multi-ethnic group perspective also revealed that ethnic hostility and other indicators of social cohesion are differently distributed across ethnic groups. But once again I could not explain why this was the case. The multi-ethnic group perspective did not offer more answers but did raise more questions, and as such was also valuable in terms of increasing our (future) understanding of ethnic hostility. The theoretical implications of the fi ndings of Part 1 with respect to Ethnic Competition Theory and Contact Theory are discussed in section 8.3. 8.2 QUESTIONS, RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF PART 2 8. Conclusion | Questions, results and conclusions of Part 2 8.2.1 Trends in Ethnic Educational Inequality Research questions of Chapter 5 Educational attainment is an important determinant for economic self-suffi ciency, social class and life-long earnings. The educational integration of ethnic minority groups is therefore a good indicator of the level of structural integration of these ethnic groups. This book’s core focus lies on the explanation of ethnic hostility. Ethnic hostility among ethnic minorities, which I regarded as an important aspect of their cultural integration, was the subject of Chapter 7. But by fi rst addressing my attention to the trends in, and explanations for, the educational integration of minorities, I offered a more complete picture of the integration of ethnic minorities in the Netherlands. Moreover, the results of both Chapters 5 and 6 served as a foundation for the argumentation laid out in Chapter 7. Although previous research on ethnic stratifi cation patterns in the Dutch educational system reveals that the educational distribution of minority groups do not resemble that of the native Dutch, up to now the precise extent of ethnic inequality in educational opportunities and how these have changed over successive birth cohorts had remained unclear. The question I set out to answer in Chapter 5 was: What are the birth cohort trends across ethnic groups in fi nal educational attainment and school transition decisions, and to what extent does social background explain these differences? According to the modernisation proposition, in modern societies the economies and concomitant occupational structures dictate selection processes based on achieved characteristics of individuals (Blau & Duncan, 1967). In Western modern societies, selection criteria not based on achieved 181
characteristics are morally sanctioned; ascribed characteristics not only cannot, but also should not play an important role in selection processes (Parsons, 1951). As the Netherlands is becoming an ever-more meritocratic society with regard to the ascribed characteristics of social origin and gender, I also expected the ethnic inequality of educational opportunities to have decreased at all levels and for all tracks. On the other hand, comparative empirical research on educational inequality among social strata has shown that with respect to educational opportunities, meritocratisation is not a universal process among modernised countries (Breen & Jonsson, 2005). As argued by Raftery and Hout, and summarised in their Maximally Maintained Inequality (MMI) proposition, at times of educational expansion educational inequality will only decrease at educational levels where enrolment of the elite stratum has been saturated (1993). Based on the MMI proposition I expected inequality to be maintained between ethnic groups within secondary education, yet a reduction in ethnic inequality in the odds of enrolling in tertiary education between students of different ethnic origins who successfully completed higher general secondary education in the Netherlands. Once saturation has been reached at a given educational level, inequalities of attaining that level may be replaced by inequalities in enrolment in the more selective track, according to Lucas (2001). The more selective tracks in the Netherlands are the general tracks (as opposed to vocational tracks). This would imply that at the tertiary educational level, ethnic inequality will have decreased for the less selective vocational track and increased for the more selective general track. Results of Chapter 5 Ethnic educational inequality did not decrease at all levels and all tracks. Ethnic differences in fi nal educational attainment are maintained; the underrepresentation of ethnic minority members with a degree in tertiary education remained more or less stable. Within secondary education, inequality is maintained quantitatively as well. Moreover, pupils of Dutch descent opt more often than immigrants to continue their educational career after higher general secondary education, and even under a condition approaching saturation pupils of ethnic minority groups do not seem able to close the gap in enrolment rates. Based on my results, it seems that inequality is also established qualitatively within tertiary education: in recent years the choice for university gained in importance, apparently more so for native Dutch than for ethnic minority groups. However, due to a lack of statistical power I have to make the last conclusion with some caution. I urge others (and myself) to replicate this fi nding when suitable data becomes available. The unfavourable social background of many students with an ethnic minority heritage partly explained the ethnic educational differentials, as predicted, but an ethnic penalty still remained after controlling for social position. Moreover, the social background composition of ethnic minority groups was not the reason for an absence of a general trend towards ethnic educational equality. Conclusion of Chapter 5 Ethnicity is an ascriptive trait that still shapes schooling outcomes decisively. Even in a country 182
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 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
4.4 RESULTS 4. The Local Living Env
Page 86 and 87:
Table 4.2 continued Household compo
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92:
Page 96 and 97:
5. TRENDS IN ETHNIC EDUCATIONAL INE
Page 98 and 99:
5. Trends in Ethnic Educational Ine
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
the worsening economic conditions o
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Table 5.3 continued Male (Female=re
Page 112 and 113:
Table 5.4 continued Male (Female= r
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
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 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Table 6.1 continued Pre-university
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Table 6.2 continued Lower general t
Page 132 and 133: 6. Explanations for Ethnic Educatio
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 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 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?