1 / 25

Experiences of Discrimination: The Impact of Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Location

Experiences of Discrimination: The Impact of Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Location. Brian Ray, University of Ottawa Valerie Preston, York University. Geographical Understanding of Discrimination and Discomfort. Experiences of discomfort & discrimination Being ‘in and out of place’

gary-dean
Download Presentation

Experiences of Discrimination: The Impact of Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Location

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Experiences of Discrimination: The Impact of Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Location Brian Ray, University of Ottawa Valerie Preston, York University

  2. Geographical Understanding of Discrimination and Discomfort • Experiences of discomfort & discrimination • Being ‘in and out of place’ • How racialization operates within place(s) • How racialization is placed • Feminist geography • Whiteness literature • Experiential constructions of whiteness • ‘White’ landscapes

  3. Understanding Experiences of Discomfort/Discrimination • Psychological and sociological studies • Discomfort can arise when people made aware of being different • Discrimination experienced by group more than discrimination reported by individual • Multiple causes of discomfort and discrimination

  4. Understanding Discomfort/Discrimination • Relatively little research about the spatial variation of discomfort/discrimination generally, and racist attitudes in particular • Although do know much more about spatial variation in family status, community relations (e.g., social life in cities vs. rural areas)

  5. Does Geography Matter? • Are experiences of discrimination and discomfort the same in Canada’s three gateway cities, other metropolitan areas, and non-metropolitan areas?

  6. Presentation Outline • Ethnic Diversity Survey • Canada’s uneven geography • Description of discrimination and discomfort • Explanations of discrimination and discomfort • Implications

  7. Ethnic Diversity Survey • Post-census survey • A general population survey • Approximately 42,000 individuals • Population 15 years of age & over • Identity, social behaviours, experiences of discrimination and feelings of discomfort

  8. Methodological Dilemmas • Age • Eliminated individuals under 18 and over 70 • Aboriginal status • Small number of respondents removed • Ethno-racial Background • Visible minority • European Non-Charter • European Charter

  9. Uneven Geography: Visible Minorities • 71.8 percent in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver • 4.8 percent in small towns and rural areas • Highly correlated with distribution of immigrants

  10. Uneven Geography: Generations

  11. Economic Families Below LICO by Ethno-racial Group

  12. Visible minority group everywhere: • ethnic ancestry important • ethnic group belonging strong • co-ethnics in networks – over 50% • belonging to city/town strong • European Charter: • Ethnic ancestry most impt. in M,T,V • Co-ethnics in networks: highest proportion • in biggest & smallest places • Sense of belonging to place strongest in • small places • Overall level of trust strongest in smallest • places • European non-charter: • Ethnic ancestry most impt. in M,T,V • Sense of belonging strongest in largest • places • Overall level of trust higher • in all places relative to other groups • Visible minority group: • Networks: co-ethnics decrease as • size of place decreases • Overall sense of trust increases as • size of place decreases • Trust neighbours increases as • size of place decreases

  13. Discomfort in Past 5 Years

  14. Discrimination in Past 5 Years

  15. Type of Discrimination

  16. Visible Minority Experiences of Discrimination

  17. Explaining Variations in Discrimination and Discomfort • Sex • Marital Status • Children under 18 • Social class (Low-income status, • household income, education) • Visible Minority Status • Birthplace • Generation Status • Religion Social Characteristics Behaviour ResidentialCharacteristics • Language, at home and with friends • Involvement in ethnic clubs • Co-ethnics in social network • Sense of belonging to: • Ethnic group • City • Level of trust • Trust in neighbours • Tenure • Dwelling type • Where live – size of • place

  18. Increase probability of • Reporting Discomfort: • Visible minority • Foreign born • Higher education • Belonging to ethnic group • Involvement in ethnic clubs • More co-ethnics in network • Living in larger cities, especially • Montréal, Toronto & Vancouver • Increase probability of • reporting discrimination: • Visible minority • Non-charter (minor) • Higher education • Belonging to ethnic group • Involvement in ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics in network • Living in Montréal, Toronto, • Vancouver • Decrease probability of • Reporting discomfort: • European non-charter • Modest or strong sense • belong to city/town • Trust neighbours a lot • Decrease probability of • reporting discrimination: • Female • Married/common law couple • Homeownership • modest or strong sense belong city/town • strong overall trust • stronger levels of trust in • neighbours

  19. Increase Probability of • Reporting Ethnic • Discrimination: • Ethno-cultural/racial • background • Foreign born • Language at home • Higher education • Ethnic ancestry impt. • Strong belonging to • ethnic group • Involvement in ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics in network • Live in Montréal, Toronto, • Vancouver • Increase Probability of • Reporting Ethnic • Discomfort: • Visible minority • Foreign born • Higher education • Ethnic ancestry impt. • Strong belonging to • ethnic group • Co-ethnics in network • Living in Montréal, • Toronto, Vancouver • Decrease probability of • Reporting Ethnic • Discomfort: • Language w. friends • Female • Married/common law • Attachment to city/town • Overall trust • Degree trust neighbours • Decrease Probability of • Reporting of Ethnic • Discrimination: • Language w. friends • Female • Married/common law • Attachment to city/town • Overall trust • Degree trust neighbours

  20. Increase probability • of reporting Racial • Discomfort: • Higher education • Involvement in • ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics • in network • Living in larger cities, • especially Montréal, • Toronto, Vancouver • Increase probability • of reporting Racial • Discrimination: • Visible minority • Children < 18 • Higher education • Involvement in • ethnic clubs • Some co-ethnics • in network • Decrease probability • of reporting Racial • Discomfort: • Ethno-cultural/ racial • background • Foreign born • Language at home • Age (slight) • Ethnic ancestry (minor) • Sense belong to city/town • Overall trust levels • Trusting neighbours • a lot • Decrease probability • of reporting Racial • Discrimination: • Language at home • Foreign born • Female • Marital status • Overall trust • Degree • trust neighbours

  21. How Does Geography Matter? • Complicated geographies of discomfort & discrimination • Geographical variation in who reports discomfort & discrimination • Size and type of place seem to play a role • But in small cities, towns, rural areas must also consider size of visible minority population & generation status • Possible to avoid ethnocultural/racial difference versus a welcoming community

  22. How Does Geography Matter? • Visible minority status influences experiences of discrimination and feelings of discomfort, particularly those related to race • Strongly tied to places where visible minority populations are large • Immigrant status influences experiences of discrimination and discomfort • Increases odds for ethnic discomfort/ discrimination • Reduces odds for racial discomfort/ discrimination

  23. Implications

  24. IMPLICATIONS • Processes of racialization are geographically variable but reporting discrimination largely due to visible minority status (racialized difference) • Impact of co-ethnic ties & involvement in ethnic institutions may pose significant challenges for effective public policy formation & delivery

More Related