Themed section introduction: Emerging research on racial/ethnic inequality in Canada

IF 1.1 3区 社会学 Q3 SOCIOLOGY
Kate H. Choi, Patrick Denice
{"title":"Themed section introduction: Emerging research on racial/ethnic inequality in Canada","authors":"Kate H. Choi,&nbsp;Patrick Denice","doi":"10.1111/cars.12420","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and spread across Canada in early 2020, there was an urgent need to determine whether and how its health, social, and economic consequences were distributed across population groups in Canada, particularly by race/ethnicity. This proved to be challenging. Although data on COVID-19 infections and deaths were available for Canada and its provinces, high-quality, individual-level data about the race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other characteristics of those infected with COVID-19 was limited (Choi et al., <span>2021</span>). This data vacuum made it extremely difficult to assess whether there were racial/ethnic disparities in the vulnerability to the pandemic, especially early on.</p><p>Even before the pandemic, researchers have pointed out that data on race/ethnicity has been largely unavailable and inaccessible in Canada, which makes it difficult to meaningfully investigate issues of equity, opportunity, and (dis)advantage among racialized groups in Canada (e.g., Robson, <span>2021</span>). Canada's data landscape stands in stark contrast to the United States and the United Kingdom. For instance, unlike the U.S. census, the Canadian census does not explicitly ask respondents to report their race. Rather, respondents are asked to select their identity from a list of categories that conflate race, ethnicity, and national origin. This means that Canadian research on race/ethnicity is often hamstrung by missing demographic data and by an overreliance on the White v. “visible minority” binary—a broad, rather unhelpful catch-all category that eschews variation in the experiences of different racialized groups.</p><p>The lack of race-based information in Canadian data reflects a long history of resistance to or ambivalence about race. Policymakers and researchers have displayed a reluctance to highlight differences among Canadians or to point out the ways in which we fall short of Canada's policy and national identity of multiculturalism. However, refusing to acknowledge the existence of racial inequalities, discrimination, and racism generally has the effect of exacerbating disparities and hindering our ability to address them head on (Thompson, <span>2008</span>). By not collecting detailed race-based data, we weaken our ability to document the ways in which social, political, and economic institutions in Canada are racialized and the unequal outcomes experienced by racial minorities in the labour market, education, the criminal justice and immigration systems, and elsewhere (Reitz &amp; Banerjee, <span>2007</span>).</p><p>To this end, one of our goals for this themed section of Canadian sociology's flagship journal was to highlight the exciting work being done on the topic—and particularly the innovative ways researchers are marshalling data to tell important stories about racial/ethnic inequality in Canada. The authors in this section responded resoundingly to the call for more, and more granular, research on racial/ethnic inequality in Canada.</p><p>This themed section begins with a macro-level perspective on the experiences of discrimination. Vaswani, Sutter, Lapshina, and Esses make several useful contributions. First, they compare the prevalence of racial/ethnic discrimination among immigrants, Indigenous peoples, and racialized individuals across a variety of social contexts (e.g., at work or school, in the housing market, and when accessing public amenities like transit). Second, the authors home in on these groups’ experiences in smaller and mid-sized communities. Much of the research on immigration, assimilation, and discrimination focuses on Canada's larger cities on grounds that most immigrants to Canada settle in large urban areas. The experiences of immigrants in smaller and mid-sized communities have been largely understudied despite the geographic dispersal of the immigrant population more recently. The need to study the experiences of racialized immigrants outside of traditional immigrant gateways is made ever more important given Vaswani et al.’s findings suggesting that racial/ethnic discrimination may be especially high in smaller and mid-sized communities. Residents in these communities are less exposed to diverse populations, may feel less comfortable with individuals from ethnic and cultural backgrounds unlike their own, and may feel threatened by the demographic changes occurring around them. The authors also uncover a large degree of variation across the communities in their study. Future research should pick up where this study leaves off and investigate potential mechanisms explaining this cross-community variation. Why, for instance, would two-thirds of visible minority immigrants report discrimination in communities such as Guelph, St. Thomas-Elgin, Wellington, or Huron-Perth, whereas a much smaller share (about one-third) experience discrimination in London-Middlesex?</p><p>Next up, Malette and Robson focus on persistent race-based inequalities within a particular institution—education. Despite the substantial expansion of postsecondary enrollment over the past few decades in Canada and elsewhere, sizable gaps in access, enrollment, and attainment remain between White and racialized students. The authors set out to disentangle the impact of race and immigrant status on students’ receipt and acceptance of a university admissions offer on the other. A major strength of this study is its use of administrative data. By using census data from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), they draw on a rare data source with more granular information about individuals’ race/ethnicity than typically exists in large, nationally representative data. These data include students’ self-identified race, thereby allowing the authors to avoid falling back on the usual White/visible minority binary. A particularly noteworthy finding is the considerable heterogeneity <i>within</i> the overly broad category of “visible minority.” Educational disadvantage is not uniformly distributed among non-White students. For instance, Black students are 34% less likely than White students to be admitted to a university, while East Asian students are over three times more likely compared to White students. Foreign-born East and Southeast Asian students are especially disadvantaged and are less likely than their Canadian-born counterparts to confirm a spot at university. As the authors note, future research should explore <i>why</i> some racial/ethnic groups remain disadvantaged in postsecondary education even as the sector has expanded and opened up. The findings here suggest an urgent role for more and better micro-level longitudinal data that can track individuals as they grow up and progress through various institutions over the life course in order to identify where and when they encounter barriers on the path to university participation.</p><p>Finally, Cai and Qian take us into more intimate terrain by focusing on the “digital enclaves” that are created when online daters from immigrant backgrounds act on their preferences for romantic partners and for the platforms they perceive will facilitate matching with those traits. Drawing on in-depth interviews with Chinese immigrants who use online dating platforms in Vancouver, the authors examine what immigrants value in their potential partners and why they might value certain traits. Respondents evince a strong preference for dating partners of the same ethnicity (i.e., Chinese), highlighting race/ethnicity as a key organizing framework for social relations—even in a diverse metropolis (like Vancouver) and in a context (online dating) in which partner selection is theoretically unbound by physical constraints. At the same time, many respondents also required that their potential partners be Canadian permanent residents, suggesting the importance of security and assimilation. In line with U.S. studies, Asian men are among the least desirable partners, and they encounter sexual racism both on- and offline. In an attempt to optimize the probability of fulfilling these preferences, the authors argue that users’ inclination to use Chinese-oriented dating platforms create “digital enclaves,” which resemble ethnic enclaves in physical spaces. These digital enclaves also fill a more general void: respondents reported difficulty making friends in daily life in Vancouver, let alone finding a partner who met their criteria. In these ways, the proliferation of technology-assisted dating in cyberspace is not likely to disrupt patterns of partner selection, preferences for racial/ethnic homophily, or intergroup social distance. Rather, online dating may leave racial/ethnic boundaries largely intact.</p><p>Taken together, these three studies provide more nuance and specificity to the study of racial/ethnic relations and inequality than is often found in Canadian social science. The authors leverage primary and secondary data to move beyond the White/visible minority binary, to explore the intersections between race/ethnicity and immigration in patterning inequality and social relations, and to draw our attention to new and understudied contexts in which inequality is generated and social relations are enacted (i.e., smaller communities as opposed to large metropolitan areas, and dating in cyberspace). At the same time, these studies highlight the relative nascency of actionable research on racial/ethnic inequality in Canada, at least compared to the more robust research and data available in the United States and the United Kingdom. Together, these studies underscore the need to document the persistence and emergence of race/ethnicity-based disparities and to clarify where, when, and why such inequalities persist between racial/ethnic groups in Canada. They also encourage research that moves beyond the White/visible minority dichotomy, and that collects and creatively uses high-quality survey, administrative, and qualitative data that includes race.</p>","PeriodicalId":51649,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Review of Sociology-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/cars.12420","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Review of Sociology-Revue Canadienne De Sociologie","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cars.12420","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and spread across Canada in early 2020, there was an urgent need to determine whether and how its health, social, and economic consequences were distributed across population groups in Canada, particularly by race/ethnicity. This proved to be challenging. Although data on COVID-19 infections and deaths were available for Canada and its provinces, high-quality, individual-level data about the race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and other characteristics of those infected with COVID-19 was limited (Choi et al., 2021). This data vacuum made it extremely difficult to assess whether there were racial/ethnic disparities in the vulnerability to the pandemic, especially early on.

Even before the pandemic, researchers have pointed out that data on race/ethnicity has been largely unavailable and inaccessible in Canada, which makes it difficult to meaningfully investigate issues of equity, opportunity, and (dis)advantage among racialized groups in Canada (e.g., Robson, 2021). Canada's data landscape stands in stark contrast to the United States and the United Kingdom. For instance, unlike the U.S. census, the Canadian census does not explicitly ask respondents to report their race. Rather, respondents are asked to select their identity from a list of categories that conflate race, ethnicity, and national origin. This means that Canadian research on race/ethnicity is often hamstrung by missing demographic data and by an overreliance on the White v. “visible minority” binary—a broad, rather unhelpful catch-all category that eschews variation in the experiences of different racialized groups.

The lack of race-based information in Canadian data reflects a long history of resistance to or ambivalence about race. Policymakers and researchers have displayed a reluctance to highlight differences among Canadians or to point out the ways in which we fall short of Canada's policy and national identity of multiculturalism. However, refusing to acknowledge the existence of racial inequalities, discrimination, and racism generally has the effect of exacerbating disparities and hindering our ability to address them head on (Thompson, 2008). By not collecting detailed race-based data, we weaken our ability to document the ways in which social, political, and economic institutions in Canada are racialized and the unequal outcomes experienced by racial minorities in the labour market, education, the criminal justice and immigration systems, and elsewhere (Reitz & Banerjee, 2007).

To this end, one of our goals for this themed section of Canadian sociology's flagship journal was to highlight the exciting work being done on the topic—and particularly the innovative ways researchers are marshalling data to tell important stories about racial/ethnic inequality in Canada. The authors in this section responded resoundingly to the call for more, and more granular, research on racial/ethnic inequality in Canada.

This themed section begins with a macro-level perspective on the experiences of discrimination. Vaswani, Sutter, Lapshina, and Esses make several useful contributions. First, they compare the prevalence of racial/ethnic discrimination among immigrants, Indigenous peoples, and racialized individuals across a variety of social contexts (e.g., at work or school, in the housing market, and when accessing public amenities like transit). Second, the authors home in on these groups’ experiences in smaller and mid-sized communities. Much of the research on immigration, assimilation, and discrimination focuses on Canada's larger cities on grounds that most immigrants to Canada settle in large urban areas. The experiences of immigrants in smaller and mid-sized communities have been largely understudied despite the geographic dispersal of the immigrant population more recently. The need to study the experiences of racialized immigrants outside of traditional immigrant gateways is made ever more important given Vaswani et al.’s findings suggesting that racial/ethnic discrimination may be especially high in smaller and mid-sized communities. Residents in these communities are less exposed to diverse populations, may feel less comfortable with individuals from ethnic and cultural backgrounds unlike their own, and may feel threatened by the demographic changes occurring around them. The authors also uncover a large degree of variation across the communities in their study. Future research should pick up where this study leaves off and investigate potential mechanisms explaining this cross-community variation. Why, for instance, would two-thirds of visible minority immigrants report discrimination in communities such as Guelph, St. Thomas-Elgin, Wellington, or Huron-Perth, whereas a much smaller share (about one-third) experience discrimination in London-Middlesex?

Next up, Malette and Robson focus on persistent race-based inequalities within a particular institution—education. Despite the substantial expansion of postsecondary enrollment over the past few decades in Canada and elsewhere, sizable gaps in access, enrollment, and attainment remain between White and racialized students. The authors set out to disentangle the impact of race and immigrant status on students’ receipt and acceptance of a university admissions offer on the other. A major strength of this study is its use of administrative data. By using census data from the Toronto District School Board (TDSB), they draw on a rare data source with more granular information about individuals’ race/ethnicity than typically exists in large, nationally representative data. These data include students’ self-identified race, thereby allowing the authors to avoid falling back on the usual White/visible minority binary. A particularly noteworthy finding is the considerable heterogeneity within the overly broad category of “visible minority.” Educational disadvantage is not uniformly distributed among non-White students. For instance, Black students are 34% less likely than White students to be admitted to a university, while East Asian students are over three times more likely compared to White students. Foreign-born East and Southeast Asian students are especially disadvantaged and are less likely than their Canadian-born counterparts to confirm a spot at university. As the authors note, future research should explore why some racial/ethnic groups remain disadvantaged in postsecondary education even as the sector has expanded and opened up. The findings here suggest an urgent role for more and better micro-level longitudinal data that can track individuals as they grow up and progress through various institutions over the life course in order to identify where and when they encounter barriers on the path to university participation.

Finally, Cai and Qian take us into more intimate terrain by focusing on the “digital enclaves” that are created when online daters from immigrant backgrounds act on their preferences for romantic partners and for the platforms they perceive will facilitate matching with those traits. Drawing on in-depth interviews with Chinese immigrants who use online dating platforms in Vancouver, the authors examine what immigrants value in their potential partners and why they might value certain traits. Respondents evince a strong preference for dating partners of the same ethnicity (i.e., Chinese), highlighting race/ethnicity as a key organizing framework for social relations—even in a diverse metropolis (like Vancouver) and in a context (online dating) in which partner selection is theoretically unbound by physical constraints. At the same time, many respondents also required that their potential partners be Canadian permanent residents, suggesting the importance of security and assimilation. In line with U.S. studies, Asian men are among the least desirable partners, and they encounter sexual racism both on- and offline. In an attempt to optimize the probability of fulfilling these preferences, the authors argue that users’ inclination to use Chinese-oriented dating platforms create “digital enclaves,” which resemble ethnic enclaves in physical spaces. These digital enclaves also fill a more general void: respondents reported difficulty making friends in daily life in Vancouver, let alone finding a partner who met their criteria. In these ways, the proliferation of technology-assisted dating in cyberspace is not likely to disrupt patterns of partner selection, preferences for racial/ethnic homophily, or intergroup social distance. Rather, online dating may leave racial/ethnic boundaries largely intact.

Taken together, these three studies provide more nuance and specificity to the study of racial/ethnic relations and inequality than is often found in Canadian social science. The authors leverage primary and secondary data to move beyond the White/visible minority binary, to explore the intersections between race/ethnicity and immigration in patterning inequality and social relations, and to draw our attention to new and understudied contexts in which inequality is generated and social relations are enacted (i.e., smaller communities as opposed to large metropolitan areas, and dating in cyberspace). At the same time, these studies highlight the relative nascency of actionable research on racial/ethnic inequality in Canada, at least compared to the more robust research and data available in the United States and the United Kingdom. Together, these studies underscore the need to document the persistence and emergence of race/ethnicity-based disparities and to clarify where, when, and why such inequalities persist between racial/ethnic groups in Canada. They also encourage research that moves beyond the White/visible minority dichotomy, and that collects and creatively uses high-quality survey, administrative, and qualitative data that includes race.

主题部分介绍:加拿大种族/民族不平等的新兴研究
随着2019冠状病毒病大流行于2020年初在加拿大出现并蔓延,迫切需要确定其健康、社会和经济后果是否以及如何在加拿大各人口群体中分布,特别是按种族/族裔分布。这被证明是具有挑战性的。虽然加拿大及其各省有COVID-19感染和死亡数据,但关于COVID-19感染者的种族/民族、社会经济地位和其他特征的高质量个人数据有限(Choi等人,2021年)。这一数据真空使得评估在对这一流行病的脆弱性方面是否存在种族/族裔差异变得极其困难,尤其是在早期。甚至在大流行之前,研究人员就指出,在加拿大,关于种族/族裔的数据在很大程度上是不可获得和无法获得的,这使得很难有意义地调查加拿大种族化群体之间的公平、机会和(不利)优势问题(例如,Robson, 2021年)。加拿大的数据格局与美国和英国形成鲜明对比。例如,与美国人口普查不同,加拿大人口普查没有明确要求受访者报告他们的种族。相反,受访者被要求从一系列类别中选择自己的身份,这些类别包括种族、民族和国籍。这意味着加拿大对种族/民族的研究经常因为缺少人口统计数据和过度依赖白人与“可见少数民族”的二元分类而受阻——这是一种宽泛的、毫无帮助的笼统分类,回避了不同种族化群体经历的差异。加拿大数据中缺乏基于种族的信息反映了对种族的长期抵制或矛盾心理。政策制定者和研究人员不愿强调加拿大人之间的差异,也不愿指出我们在哪些方面与加拿大的政策和多元文化主义的国家认同存在差距。然而,拒绝承认种族不平等、歧视和种族主义的存在,通常会加剧差异,阻碍我们解决这些问题的能力(汤普森,2008)。由于没有收集详细的基于种族的数据,我们削弱了记录加拿大社会、政治和经济机构种族化的方式,以及少数族裔在劳动力市场、教育、刑事司法和移民系统等方面所经历的不平等结果的能力(Reitz &巴纳吉,2007)。为此,我们在加拿大社会学旗舰杂志的这个主题部分的目标之一是突出在这个主题上正在进行的令人兴奋的工作,特别是研究人员整理数据的创新方式,以讲述加拿大种族/民族不平等的重要故事。本节的作者对加拿大种族/民族不平等问题进行更多、更细致的研究的呼吁做出了有力的回应。本主题部分首先从宏观层面的角度来看待歧视的经历。Vaswani, Sutter, Lapshina和ess做出了一些有用的贡献。首先,他们比较了移民、土著人民和种族化个人在各种社会背景下(例如,在工作或学校,在住房市场,以及在使用公共设施(如交通)时)种族/民族歧视的普遍程度。其次,作者关注这些群体在中小型社区的经历。大多数关于移民、同化和歧视的研究都集中在加拿大的大城市,因为大多数移民在大城市定居。尽管移民人口最近在地理上分散,但中小社区移民的经历在很大程度上尚未得到充分研究。考虑到Vaswani等人的研究结果表明,种族/民族歧视在中小型社区可能特别严重,研究传统移民门户之外的种族化移民经历的必要性变得越来越重要。这些社区的居民较少接触到不同的人口,可能会对来自不同种族和文化背景的人感到不舒服,并且可能会对周围发生的人口变化感到威胁。在他们的研究中,作者还发现了社区之间很大程度的差异。未来的研究应该继续这项研究的内容,并调查解释这种跨社区差异的潜在机制。例如,为什么在圭尔夫、圣托马斯-埃尔金、惠灵顿或休伦-珀斯等社区,三分之二的可见少数族裔移民报告受到歧视,而在伦敦-米德尔塞克斯,遭受歧视的比例要小得多(约三分之一)?接下来,Malette和Robson关注的是在一个特定的机构——教育中持续存在的基于种族的不平等。 尽管在过去的几十年里,加拿大和其他地方的高等教育招生人数大幅增加,但白人和种族化的学生在入学、注册和成绩方面仍然存在相当大的差距。另一方面,作者着手理清种族和移民身份对学生收到和接受大学录取通知书的影响。这项研究的一个主要优势是它使用了行政数据。通过使用多伦多学区教育局(TDSB)的人口普查数据,他们利用了一个罕见的数据源,与通常存在的大型全国代表性数据相比,该数据源具有更详细的个人种族/民族信息。这些数据包括学生自我认定的种族,从而使作者避免回到通常的白人/可见少数民族二元对立。一个特别值得注意的发现是,在过于宽泛的“可见少数族裔”类别中,存在相当大的异质性。教育劣势在非白人学生中并不均匀分布。例如,黑人学生被大学录取的可能性比白人学生低34%,而东亚学生被大学录取的可能性是白人学生的三倍多。在外国出生的东亚和东南亚学生尤其处于不利地位,与加拿大出生的学生相比,他们被大学录取的可能性更小。正如作者所指出的,未来的研究应该探索为什么一些种族/民族群体在高等教育中仍然处于劣势,即使该部门已经扩大和开放。这里的研究结果表明,迫切需要更多更好的微观层面的纵向数据,这些数据可以跟踪个人的成长过程,并在不同的机构中度过一生,以便确定他们在通往大学的道路上何时何地遇到障碍。最后,蔡和钱通过关注“数字飞地”,将我们带入了更亲密的领域。“数字飞地”是由移民背景的在线约会者根据他们对浪漫伴侣的偏好以及他们认为有助于与这些特征匹配的平台所产生的。通过对在温哥华使用在线约会平台的中国移民的深入采访,作者研究了移民看重潜在伴侣的哪些特质,以及他们看重某些特质的原因。受访者表现出对同种族(即中国人)约会对象的强烈偏好,强调种族/民族是社会关系的关键组织框架——即使在多元化的大都市(如温哥华)和在伴侣选择理论上不受物理限制的环境(在线约会)中也是如此。与此同时,许多受访者还要求他们的潜在伴侣是加拿大永久居民,这表明安全和同化的重要性。与美国的研究一致,亚洲男性是最不受欢迎的伴侣之一,他们在网上和线下都会遇到性歧视。为了优化满足这些偏好的可能性,作者认为,用户倾向于使用面向中国的约会平台创造了“数字飞地”,类似于物理空间中的种族飞地。这些数字飞地也填补了一个更普遍的空白:受访者表示,在温哥华的日常生活中很难交到朋友,更不用说找到符合他们标准的伴侣了。在这些方面,网络空间中技术辅助约会的激增不太可能破坏伴侣选择的模式,对种族/民族同一性的偏好,或群体间的社会距离。相反,在线约会可能会使种族/民族界限在很大程度上保持不变。总的来说,这三项研究为种族/民族关系和不平等的研究提供了比加拿大社会科学中更多的细微差别和特殊性。作者利用主要和次要数据,超越白人/可见少数民族二元对立,探索种族/民族和移民之间在模式不平等和社会关系中的交叉点,并将我们的注意力吸引到新的和未被充分研究的背景中,在这些背景中,不平等产生和社会关系制定(即,相对于大城市地区的较小社区,以及网络空间中的约会)。与此同时,这些研究强调了加拿大关于种族/民族不平等的可操作研究的相对起步,至少与美国和英国更有力的研究和现有数据相比是这样。总之,这些研究强调有必要记录基于种族/族裔的差异的持续和出现,并澄清加拿大种族/族裔群体之间存在这种不平等的地点、时间和原因。他们还鼓励超越白人/少数族裔二分法的研究,并创造性地收集和使用包括种族在内的高质量调查、行政和定性数据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Canadian Review of Sociology/ Revue canadienne de sociologie is the journal of the Canadian Sociological Association/La Société canadienne de sociologie. The CRS/RCS is committed to the dissemination of innovative ideas and research findings that are at the core of the discipline. The CRS/RCS publishes both theoretical and empirical work that reflects a wide range of methodological approaches. It is essential reading for those interested in sociological research in Canada and abroad.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信