The positive discourseRe-invention of alternative methodological solutions might

open new paths –

no panacea but better than the dead-end street

The negative discourse

- Inherent controversy between quali and quanti – No compromise possible (any combination provides the

mix of the downside of both methods)

The three evaluation criteria: reliability, validity and generalisability

Reliability: the consistency of the measuring instruments and/or anytime repeated – same result

Validity: consistency between the data and ”reality” , between the measuring instrument and the conclusion

and the minimum of unobserved factors

Generalisability: the extent to which research findings can be applied to settings other than that in

which they were originally tested

If all three perfect - predictibility is at the max - the dream of social sciences

but it is impossible

The inherent difference between quali and quanti

Validity

Reliability Generalisability

The optimum

Validity

Reliability Generalisability

The qualitative bias

The quantitative bias

Validity

Reliability Generalisability

The idealtypes of measurement techniques

Official statistics

Survey Standard methods

- many publications,

- often financed,

-- standard classes

Qualitative

Experiment

- laboratory

Experiment

- natural

Non standard

Experiment

- controlled

Non-participant observation

The illustration: the prevalence of discrimination to predict discriminative

behavior• Not the attitudes towards discrimination

(attitude survey)• Not the consequences of discrimination

(wage data)• Not the media representation of discrimination

(content analysis)• Not the unintended-unconscious

(Implicit Association Test)

But the behavior of average actors (employer, fellow employee,

customer, landlord, teacher, policeman, clerk, salesman, etc.)in everyday circumstaces

Official statistics I (juridicial, police data) - (V -, R +, G -) due to latency – the iceberg effect

Official statistics II (Census) – (V -, R +, G ?) but G is - time series racial categorisation))

1790 Free Whites, Other Free Persons, and Slaves

1900 White, Black, Chinese, Japanese, and Indian

2000 White; Black, African American, or Negro; American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian Indian; Chinese; Filipino; Other Asian;

Japanese; Korean; Vietnamese; Hawaiian; Guamanian or Chamorro; Samoan; Other Pacific Islander; Some other race (individuals who

consider themselves multiracial can choose two or more races)

1960 White, Negro, American Indian, Japanese, Chinese, Filipino, Hawaiian, Part Hawaiian, Aleut, Eskimo

Surveys

In general: V -, R +, G ?

Perception --- V - - -, R +, G ?

Experience --- V -, R +, G ?

Victimisation --- V -, R +, G -

Situation test --- V ?, R +, G ?

Perception (Eurobarometer 2008) (V - - -, R +, G ?)

Experience (Eurobarometer 2008) (V -, R +, G ?)

Victim Survey (V -, R +, G -)

EU-MIDIS

- selected immigrants, ethnic minorities and national minorities, - mostly in urban areas,

- - or in areas with high concentrations of minority populations

Selection criteria:… chosen to reflect the the degree to which certain groups are considered

to be vulnerable to victimisation and discrimination.

Sampling criteria:- 16 years and older

- Self-identify themselves as belonging to one of the immigrant, ethnic minority or national minority groups,

- Are resident and have been resident for at least one year,-Have sufficient command of the national language

- Random route, focused enumeration or snowball sampling

Situation test – ethnicity based selection for secreterial job – (V ?, R +, G ?)

4

2

6

13

5

Qualitative methods (V +, R -, G -)

• Anthropology, sociography, investigative journalism, in-depth interview, focus groups,

deliberative poll

Günter Wallraff 1960ies and 2000ies„

Laboratory and quasi-laboratory experiments

(V +, R +, G -)

A special case:

Discrimination testing for juridical purposes

The methodology to be used in situation testing should be rigorously specified in order to neutralise variables that could falsify the analysis or discredit the

operation (Rorive 2009).

A general case:Ethnic discrimination in Israel

Playing „trust”, „dictator”, and „ultimatum” games (Fershtman & Gneezy, 2001)

Natural experiment (V +, R -, G -)

Orchestrating Impartiality (Goldin-Rouse,2000)

Ethnicity and gender in the „Weakest Link” TV Show (Levitt, 2004)

Ethnicity on the New York Stock Exchange during WW I (Moser, 2008)

Controlled (or field) experiment Discrimination testing (V ?, R ?, G ?)

testers are assigned to treatment and controls

- and are randomly assigned to pairs (e.g. one of each race)

- and matched on equivalent characteristics (e.g. socioeconomic status

selected situations in natural settings

Controlled for certain elements of the process and contextual factors

Non-participant observation (V +, R +, G?)

Observe and recorde data concerning the police stops: Two observers focused on benchmarking, one determined the ethnicity, the other one the gender and age of exiting passengers. A third observer recorded data for individuals being stopped by the police.

Ethnic discrimination in the Moscow metro (Ethnic… 2006)Ethnic discrimination in the Moscow metro (Ethnic… 2006)

Reliable data selectionReliable data selection: exits of 15 Moscow Metro stations with the highest : exits of 15 Moscow Metro stations with the highest ridership and stable police presenceridership and stable police presence

Training of the observersTraining of the observers: individuals classified into three ethnic categories: : individuals classified into three ethnic categories: „Slavs”, „Minorities” (from the Caucasus and Central Asia), „Other” „Slavs”, „Minorities” (from the Caucasus and Central Asia), „Other” (African, East European, etc.)(African, East European, etc.)

Benchmarking the „general population”Benchmarking the „general population”: ethnic composition of the : ethnic composition of the population at these locations ( min. 1000 observations)population at these locations ( min. 1000 observations)

Tentative overview by the three evaluation criteria of the idealtypes of measurement techniques

Validity Reliability Generalisability

Official statistics - + ?

Survey - + ?

Qualitative + - -

Experiment

- laboratory

+ + -

Experiment

- natural

+ - -

Experiment

- controlled

? ? ?

Non-participant observation

+ + ?

To sum up

We know everything about

nothing

(R- and G-)

qualitative methods,

laboratory and quasi laboratory

experiment,

natural experiment

We know nothing about

everything (V-)

discrimination statistics,

survey

We might know something about

something (no -)

discrimination testing,

non-participant

observation

Controlled experiment and non-participant observation as best options

Validity

Reliability Generalisability

Controlled experiment and non-participant observation

Validity

Reliability Generalisability

The qualitative bias

The quantitative bias

Validity

Reliability Generalisability

After major efforts and still not as panacea

(most processes and stiuations

are unobservable and uncontrollable