Uncertain segregation: the challenge of defining and measuring ethnicity in segregation studies
Uncertain segregation: the challenge of defining and measuring ethnicity in segregation studies
复制标题
不确定的隔离：隔离研究中定义和衡量种族的挑战
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Mateos
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Mateos
在过去十年中，由于公众担心多元文化主义的明显失败以及政策从庆祝多样性转向促进少数群体社区的社会融合，对居住隔离的研究在发达国家得到了极大的关注。越来越多的“同化”的公共话语需要更详细的社会空间分离的措施。虽然对衡量居住隔离所涉及的复杂问题给予了极大的关注，但工作主要集中在空间问题（如地理尺度或分析单位）和人口动态（如集中阈值或人口变化）上。然而，与衡量族裔群体有关的方面在很大程度上被忽视，往往不加批判地依赖官方的种族和族裔分类。本文主张在分析居住隔离时，对民族和种族的另一种理解和测量。它通过对伦敦的分析说明了这一需要，分析采用了一种基于人名起源的创新方法（Onomap），在这里适用于选民登记册。在这样做的时候，它展示了一些影响，人类群体的替代划定可以对隔离指数。我们希望，这里提出的结果对以前建立的关于伦敦种族隔离最严重的种族群体的证据提出一些质疑，以及在种族隔离文献中常见的相当生硬的白色/非白色二元性的有效性
The study of residential segregation has gained great attention over the last decade in the developed world amidst public worries about the apparent failure of multiculturalism and a shift in policy from the celebration of diversity towards the promotion of social integration of minority communities. An increasing ‘assimilationist’ public discourse demands more detailed measures of socio-spatial separation. Although great attention has been devoted to the complex issues involved in the measurement of residential segregation, efforts have focused primarily on spatial issues (e.g. geographic scale or units of analysis) and on population dynamics (e.g. concentration thresholds or demographic change). However, aspects related to the measurement of ethnic groups have been largely overlooked, in favour of an often uncritical reliance on official classifications of race and ethnicity. This paper argues for alternative understandings and measurements of ethnicity and race in the analysis of residential segregation. It illustrates this need through analysis of London using an innovative methodology based upon people’s names origins (Onomap), applied here to the electoral register. In doing so, it demonstrates some of the effects that alternative delineations of human groups can have on segregation indices. It is hoped that the results presented here place some doubts on previously established evidence on the most segregated ethnic groups in London, as well as the validity of the rather blunt White/Non-White duality commonly found in the segregation literature