Suchergebnisse

Social scientists tend to accept lower standards of rigor in cross-national surveys than in national surveys, leading to heroic conclusions about differences between nations on the basis of obviously faulty data. Arising perhaps from a commendable wish to respect different cultural norms, even some of the most conscientious cross-national studies make the mistake of permitting considerable variations by country in the type and quality of the methods they deploy. Meanwhile, analysts of cross-national data frequently abandon offering explanations and interpretations in favor of league tables of distributions showing merely "gee whiz" national differences. This article acknowledges the formidable obstacles in the way of achieving rigor in large-scale comparative studies and offers 10 possible rules to mitigate the difficulties. It suggests that bigger is usually worse and recommends routine cross-national collaboration in analysis and interpretation—not just in design, development, and execution—among scholars in each of the nations under the microscope.

An introduction by Simon Abbott is followed by a Discrimination Study carried out in Britain in 1969 by the Instit of Race Relations in cooperation with UN Instit for Training & res. The aims, methods, & results of the study are outlined. The degree of job discrimination in white-collar employment was tested in 4 areas of high immigrant concentration: Nottingham/Derby/ Leicester; Reading/Windsor/Slough; Birmingham/Wolverhampton; & Greater London. The study took the form of matched written applications in reply to advertised job vacancies. Findings were then compared with those of earlier studies. 5 profile variables were neutralized between matched applicants: age, marital status, present & previous employer, salary, & date of sending applications. 6 other variables were included as test variables: country of Sch'ing, level of qualification & experience, country of origin, job type, & letter of application. A variance analysis was carried out on the scores so that mean/average diff's between each of the 5 test variables could be identified & their signif determined. Only `country of origin' emerged as signif out of the 5. The diff between British-born & West Indian or Cypriot success rates was not signif; however, the diff between British-born & Asian success rates was signif at the 1% level. Samples of replies to British, Indian, & West Indian applicants are given. Australians suffered no discrimination in relation to their British counterparts. Findings differ from previous ones in that Asians rather than West Indians appear to be the main target for discrimination in applications for white-collar employment. Asian immigrants will have to face the fact that their country of origin is frequently the only signif qualification taken into account. 3 Tables; Appendix: Standard Letters of Application, & 1 Table. M. Maxfield.

Winner of the 2006 The Descartes Prize for excellence in collaborative scientific research . Written by members of the design and implementation team for the groundbreaking European Social Survey (ESS), reviews current best practice in the conduct of cross-national, cross-cultural quantitative research