Inter-Minority Racism: A new frontier in multicultural research & policy

A University of Melbourne Research Proposal (ARC) Assignment

Under the Sophomore Social Science subject "Critical Analytical Skills",

an introduction to qualitative research methods

Passed with High Distinction (H1)

Assignment mark: Distinction (H2A)

============ ============ ============

By Benjamin L.C.Y., written during Semester 1, 2012

Tutor's Comments - R. Linden:

Ben, ambitious, well structured, great research, but written like an essay rather than a research proposal - although this does improve as you progress towards the discussion of methods. Nevertheless, it is an insightful and interesting paper.

Introduction

            How is inter-minority prejudice formed in Australia and how can we conceptualise it? Australian Multiculturalism celebrates and affirms the right of all Australians to practice and share their cultural heritage (National Multicultural Advisory Council, 1999). One core principle of Multiculturalism is cultural respect: the right to express one’s culture and beliefs within legal boundaries while respecting others’ right to do likewise (ibid.). It is an invitation to understand another’s way of life (Abbott, 2006).

            Previous research on ethnicity and Multiculturalism has largely focused on relations between majority and minority groups at the expense of inter-minority issues (Barlow, Louis & Terry, 2010). However, we cannot assume that behaviours and conceptions of racism between a culturally dominant majority and marginalised minority will automatically map onto racism between two marginalised minorities (Weitzer, 1997). Emerging evidence from Australia and the USA suggests that inter-minority prejudice is a potentially concerning phenomenon (Perlmutter, 2002; Barlow et al., 2010) with implications for Australian Multiculturalism. Using focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews and social network analyses, this study tests a theoretical framework for conceptualising inter-minority prejudice in Australia. This framework could, potentially, be used to study inter-group relations in multi-ethnic cities in Australia and elsewhere, shedding light on the comparatively neglected field of inter-minority prejudice in academia and public policy.

Existing Literature

            The existing literature provides a few fundamental concepts that we can use in our study. ‘Racism’ only exists when people hold and act upon ideologies of race differentiation (Luke & Carrington 2000). This begins with identification, where individuals and groups are distinguished from other individuals and groups (Jenkins, 2004). One form of identification is the ethnic group: populations whom outsiders perceive as culturally and historically distinct (Smith, 1991). Racialisation is the process that identifies these groups based on their phenotypic appearance (‘race’), cultural practices, or other overt signs of otherness that become associated with stereotypes (Dunn, Klocker, & Salabay, 2007). In practice, racialisations are ‘grounded’ in concrete social acts that translate disapproving attitudes into ‘racist’ behaviours (Dun et al., 2007).

     We will explore inter-minority racism based on the concept of ‘New Racism’ (Dunn et al., 2007) as summarised in figure 1 below.

Figure 1 – A diagrammatic overview of New Racism and Grounded Racialisations

            In figure 1, New Racism rests on narrow constructions of ‘self’ and the ethnic ‘other’. It constrains the ethnic others’ rights because their culture is deemed morally objectionable or incompatible with society as defined by a protagonist, who reinforces his/her cultural primacy by justifying grounded racialisations in three ways:

a)     Hierarchies – Structures of inferiority and superiority

b)    Differentiations – Forms of social exclusion

c)     Inherentisms – The assumption that racialised groups have an inherent, stable and homogenous cultural core. Inherentisms develop into stereotypes that can be identified and criticised.

            In practice, these forms of identification are usually packaged into broad ethnic labels like ‘Asian’, ‘Muslim’, or ‘Aboriginal’ (sic, Dunn et al, 2004) that transcend distinct national or ancestral/racial roots. While these labels overestimate the homogeneity of ethnic groups (Dunn et al., 2007), their prevalence in academic and public discourse suggests that they have some real-world ecological validity as social facts. For example, Barlow et al. (2010) recruited participants based on their self-identification as Asian Australians and found that most participants came from East Asian backgrounds (e.g. Chinese, Japanese, Taiwanese, Korean) rather than other geographic Asian backgrounds (e.g. India, Pakistan). Politcians have also used ethnic labels like “Asianisation” (Gibson, 2008; p. 8) and “Muslim community”[1] (O’Malley & Stanley, 2006; p. 1) to mark ‘problem’ ethnic groups.

            Our study explores if self-identified Asian Australians bear any racist attitudes towards Muslims. Some Asian Australians already bear racist attitudes towards Aboriginal minorities (Barlow et al., 2010) while Muslims are widely reported as the least favoured ethnic minority in Australia (Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2010; Dunn et al., 2004). To our knowledge, Asian-Muslim relations have not been studied. Investigating this could inform Multicultural policy in an era with widespread anti-Islamic sentiment[2] (Dunn et al., 2007). We ask if Asian Australians bear any racism towards Muslims and, if so, whether it can be conceptualised based on the New Racism paradigm discussed above.

Methods

            This study uses qualitative methods in two phases. Qualitative methods reveal individuals’ personal belief systems, categorisations and associations (Coenen, Stamm, Stucki, & Cieza, 2012) rather than a researcher’s potentially misinformed preconceptions. Phase 1 uses focus groups to acquire a broad overview of the issue. This is necessary because there is a lack of existing research that can orientate in-depth inquiry. Phase 2 uses interviews and social network analyses to explore our earlier findings in greater depth. Our methods only take an hour or two per group/interview, making them less invasive and more appealing to participants compared to other primary research methods like ethnography, which involves ‘tailing’ individuals through their daily lives.

Participants

            Participants will be recruited through various Asian Australian organisations with branches in Victoria (e.g. Australian-Asian Association of Victoria) and student emails from our institute, the University of Melbourne. Our study will be advertised as an investigation into Asian Australian attitudes towards Multiculturalism and recruit self-identified Asian Australians. Participants will be financially reimbursed for their time.

Phase 1 – Focus Group Discussions

            Focus groups (FGs) are group discussions led by a trained moderator and focus on a specific issue (Hennik, Hutter, & Bailey, 2011). It uses group dynamics to gather more data in one session compared to isolated interviews with the same number of individuals (ibid.). Group dynamics enhance data collection by allowing participants to probe each other on areas that they believe is important (de Oliveira, 2011) and reveals insights that outsiders might not have considered.

            Our FG asks how participants define Multiculturalism, how the self/other is constructed within the context of Multicultural Australia, and whether racist attitudes can be classified as Hierarchies, Differentiations, and Inherentisms. FGs will be held in a nondescript room in the university with 6-8 participants along with a moderator and note-taker, who should also be Asian Australian. Smaller group sizes gives each participant more time to present their views (Hopkins, 2007) while having something in common – in this case, their self-identified Asian Australian identities – creates a more comfortable atmosphere for discussing potentially sensitive topics like ours (de Oliveira, 2011; Weitzer 1997). FGs will be held with different participants until saturation point, where no new significant findings are obtained (Hennik et al., 2010).

            In each session, everyone will be seated in a circle to encourage multilateral interaction. The session will be taped while the note-taker takes note of non-verbal cues, like gaze aversion or body language, to inform subsequent data analysis. The moderator then asks everyone to introduce himself/herself, including the moderator and note-taker. The note-taker will introduce him/herself as an understudy, lest participants hide their body language. The moderator then begins by stating that he/she is not an expert and there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers – we are only interested in participants’ opinions (Hennik et al., 2010). After the session, the participants will be thanked and debriefed on the note-taker’s role.

            FGs will not be used to investigate grounded racialisations because these are actual, concrete acts that may appear personally incriminating and we cannot guarantee the confidentiality of such acts in a group. Instead, grounded racialisations will be explored using other, more confidential methods.

Phase 2 – Semi-Structured Interviews

            Phase 2 involves semi-structured interviews that build on our earlier findings. These interviews solicit individual opinions with open-ended questions and probes answers for greater detail and clarification (Harris & Brown, 2012). Interviews have certain characteristics that compensate for the methodological flaws of FG discussions and enhance the overall validity of our data.

            Firstly, interviews provide more time to unravel the intricacies of our interviewee’s thoughts and actions. The social setting in a FG necessitates taking turns to speak. This takes time and could shift the focus of the conversation between interrelated issues rather than exploring either in greater depth. Secondly, interviews only involve two people and confidentiality is assured. This permits ethical enquiry regarding grounded racialisations that may involve the participant’s personal actions and helps us relate New Racism, as a theoretical construct, to actual, grounded social practices in everyday life. Finally, group dynamics could create methodological artefacts in FGs (Hennik et al., 2011). Comparing the results of our FGs and interviews allows us to check if this occurred and decide which aspects are corroborated.

            Interviews will be taped and conducted in participants’ homes or a quiet room in the university for their comfort. For reasons stated above, the interviewer will also be Asian Australian and, preferably, familiar with their culture in case cultural references are made (Weitzer, 1997). Interview questions will be crafted based on, but not restricted to, the themes of our earlier FG results. Before and after the session, the participant will be thanked for participating and assured that their identity remains confidential.

Phase 2 – Social Network Analysis

            Social network analysis is based upon the idea that interpersonal relations influence one’s beliefs and behaviour (Knoke & Yang, 2008). Previous research found that people with ethnically motivated discrimination desired maximum social distance and minimal contact (Weitzer, 1997). Conversely, individuals who display multicultural tolerance tend to have ethnically diverse friendship and acquaintance networks (Harell, 2010). We will use network analysis to map the nature and frequency of social contact that our interview participants have with people they identify as Muslim, as compared to people of other ethnicities. Describing social contact in a textual narrative is cumbersome and network analysis provides a more digestible visual representation that promotes understanding (see figure 2 below).

Figure 2 - An example of a visually represented ego-centric social network (adapted from Marsden, 2002)

            Figure 2 details a person’s (‘ego’) direct personal relations (‘ties’) with others (‘alters’) and the nature of those ties (Wejnert, 2010). We expect individuals with attitudes that can be classed as New Racisms – particularly Differentiations or forms of social exclusion – to have minimal and undesired ties with Muslim individuals. Also, based on Harell (2010), we expect those with low levels of New Racism and high support for Multiculturalism to have close and desired ties with people of various ethnicities.

            The questions used to investigate ego-centric social networks will be incorporated into our semi-structured interviews. Presenting these questions on their own may compel some participants to falsely describe their social network to match their prior interview responses and thus invalidate our data. Concealing our questions for network analysis within the framework of an interview prevents this. It is an ethical approach that merely creates a visual diagram out of selected verbal responses. Network analysis is interested in patterns of relations (Knoke & Yang 2008) and our final network diagram will only use generic terms like “ego” to describe patterns across participants while keeping names confidential. In this way, we can ethically obtain valid data that help us answer the question: How is inter-minority prejudice formed in Australia and how can we conceptualise it?

Academic & Policy Applications

            The existing literature suggests that ethnicity is a construct used in everyday life (Weitzer, 1997; Dandy & Pe-Pua, 2010; Dunn et al., 2004/2007; Barlow et al., 2010) and our study builds on this by exploring how racist attitudes are constructed in an inter-minority context, specifically between Asian Australians and Muslims. Previous research has largely focused on majority-minority relations at the expense of inter-minority relations. The lack of information on the latter could make us ignorant of real and pressing issues that may jeopardise the mutual cultural respect that is necessary for the everyday practice of Australian Multiculturalism.

            Our study explores what such inter-minority racism may consist of, how well New Racism can help us conceptualise it, and how it is related to a person’s social network. Given the constructed nature of ethnic groups (Luke & Carrington, 2000), we do not presume to claim that any sample size can be definitively called ‘representative’. Instead we aim for a sample that, at saturation point, is suggestive of the status quo (Harrell, 2010) and contributes to the fledgling body of research on inter-minority racism. Our study would advance our understanding of the everyday practice of multiculturalism in Australia and its variants in other ethnically diverse cosmopolitan nations.

Conclusion

            In conclusion, our study asks how inter-minority prejudice is formed in Australia and we can conceptualise it. We evaluate the usefulness of New Racism in conceptualising inter-minority racism, using the case Asian-Muslim relations. Focus group discussions are used to gain a broad overview of the topic’s key themes, which will then be pursued in greater depth through semi-structured interviews. Data for social network analysis is surreptitiously acquired during the interview process and used to create a visual map of participants’ social networks to see if their attitudes correspond with their social interaction patterns.

            This study should receive a grant because offers a comprehensive theoretical and practical understanding of inter-minority racism. We use focus groups to unearth the beliefs behind racist attitudes, extend these findings and relate them to actual acts of grounded racialisation during interviews, and examine if they are related to patterns of social interaction between Asian Australians and those whom participants identify as Muslim. Our study thus relates beliefs to actual social practice and interaction in a way that can inform both policy decisions and academic research. We believe that inter-minority relations is a genuine frontier in our understanding of inter-ethnic interaction and the everyday practice of Australian Multiculturalism.

References

Abbott, T. (2006) 'A conservative case for multiculturalism', Quadrant, Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 40-43.

           

Barlow, F.K., Louis, W.R., & Terry, D.J. (2010) 'Minority report: Social identity, cognitions of rejection, and intergroup anxiety predicting prejudice form one racially marginalized group towards another', European Journal of Social Pscychology, Vol. 40, pp. 805-818.

           

Coenen, M., Stamm, T.A., Stucki, G., & Cieza, A. (2012) 'Individual interviews and focus groups in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a comparison of two qualitative methods', Quality of Life Research, Vol. 21, pp. 359-370

           

Dandy, J. & Pe-Pua, R. (2010) 'Attitudes to multiculturalism, immigration, and cultural diversity: comparison of dominant and non-dominant groups in three AUstralian states', International Journal of Intercultural Relations, Vol. 34, pp. 34-46.

           

Dunn, K.M., Forrest, J., Burnley, I., & McDonald, A. (2004) 'Constructing racism in Australia', Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 39, No.4, pp. 409-430.

           

Dunn, K.M., Klocker, N., & Salabay, T. (2007) 'Contemporary racism and Islamaphobia in Australia: Racializing religion', Ethnicities, Vol. 7, pp. 564-589

           

Gibson, J. (2008) ‘Candidates play White Australia card’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 3 September, pp. 8.

Harell, A. (2010) 'Political tolerance, racist speech, and the influence of social networks', Social Science Quaterly, Vol. 9, No.3, pp. 724-740.

           

Harris, L.R. & Brown, G.T.L. (2010) 'Mixing interview and questionnaire methods: Practical problems in aligning data', Practical Assessment, Researchn & Evaluation, Vol. 15, No.1, pp. 1-19.

Hennik, M. Hutter, I., & Bailey, A. (2011) Qualitaive Research Methods, Sage, Los Angeles.

                       

Hopkins, P.E. (2007) 'Thinking critically and creatively about focus groups', Area, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 528-535.

Jenkins, R. (1952) Social Identity, Routledge, New york.

Knoke, D. & Yang, S. (2008) Social Network Analysis, Sage, Thousand Oaks.

           

Luke, C. and Carrington, V., (2000) 'Race matters', Journal of Intercultural Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 213-232.

Marsden, P.V. (2002) 'Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality', Social Networks, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 407-422.

           

National Multicultural Advisory Council (1999) Australian Multiculturalism for a New Century: Towards Inclusiveness, Commowealth of Australia, Canberra.

           

de Oliveira, D.L. (2011). 'The use of focus groups to investigate sensitive topics: An example taken from research on adolescent girls' perceptions about sexual risks', Ciencic & Saude Coletiva, Vol. 16, No.7, pp. 3093-3102.

           

O.Malley, S. & Stanley, W. (2006). ‘Muslim leaders disturbed by PM’s comments’, AAP Australian National News Wire, 20 February.

Perlmutter, P. (2002) ' Minority group prejudice', Society, Vol. 39, No. 3, pp. 59-65.

Smith, A. D., (1991) National Identity, Penguin, London.

                       

Weitzer, R. (1997) 'Racial prejudice among Korean merchants in African American neighborhoods', The Sociological Quaterly, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 587-606.

           

Wejnert, C. (2010) 'Social network analysis with respondent-driver sampling date: A study of racial integration on campus, Social Networks, Vol. 32, pp. 112-124.

 For a post-ethnic world

Where colour-coding is merely skin deep

---

[1] In this instance, the ‘Muslim’ label was used by former PM John Howard.

[2] We intentionally avoid the term ‘Islamaphobia’, the community fear of Islam (Dunn et al., 2007). It can sound alarmist and imply the presence of a moral panic.