Critical Analysis - Literature review Example

Critical analysis of research article (Institution) (Name) (Course) (Module) (Instructor) Date of submission Table of contents Introduction 3 Attitudes and Opinions 3 Assumptions 6 Assumption 1 6 Assumption 2 6 Assumption 3 7 Assumption 4 8 Evidence 8 Conclusion 10 References Introduction The article “Does racial and ethnic discrimination vary across minority groups? Evidence from a field experiment” is co authored by Alison Booth, Andrew Booth and Elena Varganova. The article was presented at 2010 IZA Discussion Papers, as number 4947 and is available at a number of university library and resource websites. The authors investigated racial and ethnic discrimination in the Australian labour market through the number of interviews and responses that members of particular minority groups identifiable through names received from prospective employers after fictitious applications for entry-level employment in various Australian organisations. Race and gender were the major variables while other issues were held constant. The results were tabulated and analysed. This paper makes a critical analysis of the research article by assessing the attitudes and opinions of the authors, the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence and assumptions made and also the credibility of the overall argument. Attitudes and Opinions The authors are well versed in this field of study hence have a professional attitude towards the research. Alison Booth is PhD holder from the London School of Economics. She is a Professor of Economics and Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences at the Australian National University (ANU). Elena Varganova is a former Research Assistant at ANU. Andrew Leigh, who since 2010 ventured in politics, is a former Professor in the Research School of Economics at ANU. With such immense knowledge in the filed of economics, research and social sciences, the authors have a valid grasp on the subject of the paper. Nonetheless, the fact that the authors have worked closely in the same department at the same institution at the time of conducting the research has its strengths and weaknesses. One of the weaknesses of working in the same institution that may affect the credibility of the results would be group think theory. This is group thinks is very given that the authors have undergone closely related professional experiences which influences opinion and biases in conducting the research. Researchers with a different background professionally and academically can utilise their different viewpoints in enriching the research study which can boost credibility of the findings. On the contrary, the shared experiences and workplace for the researchers imply better understanding of the research problem and even assumed wider consultations. The authors used the audit discrimination technique in the belief that the other techniques would give biased results. They are of the opinion that respondents are likely to give socially acceptable answers if they are aware that they are subjects of an experiment. This in their opinion would greatly affect the results of the research. Andrew Booth is a former Professor in the Research School of Economics at ANU. He has authored numerous journal papers on economic and social research. Elena Varganova is a former Research Assistant at ANU and well versed in research matters in economic and social studies. All the three authors are qualified professionals in this research subject. They qualifications add credibility to the findings of the research for academic and practical use. As credible scholars, their views and observations in the named paper have immense bearing on students and scholars in various disciplines. The authors are biased towards online advertisement of job opportunities and online application of employment. In their experiment, all employment searches and subsequent applications were made online through a job-finding website. The authors assumed that internet use and penetration in Australia was uniform across all employers and the involved cities. Some employers and especially large organisations such as the UN and its affiliated agencies and organs post their job vacancies on their websites and not necessarily job-finding websites. This implies that the sample of employers involved in this study was not balanced or fully representative of the situation on the ground. The authors are biased to addressing a non-specified audience. The authors have not used complex terms identifiable with any discipline. However it is apparent from the content of the paper that the paper is intended for study by economics and sociology and social studies scholars and students. The paper can also make an interesting read to history academicians as the paper looks at some historical issues in Australia, a country whose human rights record among them discrimination has been internationally criticised as the bill of rights is not engraved in the federal constitution. The paper is also very relevant for government policy makers on labour market issues in the country. The research article also adds to the growing popularity of qualitative research paradigm as it gives more tangible results. Assumptions The authors made explicitly stated assumptions in the research. Assumptions in any given research activity may either weaken or strengthen the credibility of the findings. The researchers in this case made four major assumptions which also serve as hypothesis for the paper. Assumption 1 The researchers assumed that job position influenced the presence or absence of discrimination. Employers are forced by consumer preferences to discriminate depending on whether the job position requires face-to-face contact or none. This assumption is not supported by any past research or any sources that the authors have listed at the end of the article. Nonetheless, the implications of this assumption are clearly evident from the results of the experiment. Waiting job applications faced relatively greater discrimination as indicated by lower callback levels. Assumption 2 The second assumption was that employers in Australia discriminate on racial grounds and in particular against minority groups. The researchers assumed that discrimination would be highest in areas that have higher ethnic diversity. This assumption implied that the researchers gave consideration to urban centres only, in fact the three largest cities in Australia, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Rural employers were not covered by the research. This assumption creates an impression that employers in rural areas which are less ethnically diversified are not prone to racial discrimination. The researchers only targeted employers in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The concentration of minority groups in certain areas might have a bearing on the acceptance of ethnic diversity and racial discrimination. This could lead to a biased sample and flawed results. Assumption 3 Employers from majority ethnic communities have a greater role in either promoting or preventing racial discrimination in the labour market as opposed to minority groups. The researchers used the zip code of the employers and matching them with the dominant ethnic group in the area. In addition to this, where the name of the respondent or the contact person was indicated, the researchers classified them into different ethnic groups using names. This assumption on the population distribution around the cities on ethnic lines does not hold much water. The researchers do not provide any requisite information that could support this ethnic group distribution on zip code areas. For instance, the researchers would have provided information from the 2006 census that shows ethnic groups distribution across several neighbourhoods in the target cities. Empirical evidence around the world indicates that urban settlements are organised according to financial and social status with the ethnic divide come in second. The researchers assumed that the address of the job applicants had no great influence on the attitude of employers towards the job seeker. The researchers assumed a standardised middle income neighbourhood with variation on the street number had could not influence discrimination from employers. The researchers used four middle income suburbs as the assumed addresses of the job applicants. The researchers did not show how geographic distance between the employer/place of work and the job applicant influenced call back decisions. Consequently, some geographic distance influenced discrimination might be wrongly attributed to ethnicity and race. Assumption 4 The researchers made a final assumption that any observed differences in callback rates reflect statistical discrimination, rather than tastes for discrimination by employers, customers or co-workers. This implies that the lower callback rates would be expected from relatively smaller minority groups. Evidence The data collection method that the researchers used suited the nature of the research. The results were tabulated analysed and tested. The data was used to answer the major question of the research as expressed in the title of the paper; Does racial and ethnic discrimination vary across minority groups? The evidence presented by the authors shows that racial and ethnic discrimination varies across minority groups. In this case, the authors used four minority ethnic groups, indigenous Australians, Italian Australians, Chinese Australians and Middle-Eastern Australians with the control group being the majority Anglo-Saxon Australians. The findings of the study show that Anglo-Saxon Australians being the majority discriminate against the minority groups on different levels. The evidence presented in the article indicates that Anglo-Saxon sounding names received a callback rate of 35%, indigenous 26%, Chinese 21%, Italian 32% and Middle Eastern 22%. These figures could have been influenced by other factors other than ethnicity and race of both employer and job seekers. For instance, national and racial prejudices in job performance influence employee selection. The Hoffstede’s cultural dimension theory has been used to show how national cultures influence various individuals and societal aspects that determine perceived suitability for certain job positions by the employers. For instance, persons from countries with high power distance index according to Hoffstede’s theory are not suited for job positions that require face-to-face interaction on the basis that they might have difficulties in communicating with some customers more so, powerful ones. This overlooked concept of the role of nationality other than race can lead to biased results. The findings regarding the callback rates for Italian Australian names from Italian employers show a major discrepancy. The basic assumption which the researchers made is that ethnic groups tend to favour their own. Their assumption is in part supported by the high call back rate for Anglo-Saxon ‘applicants’ assuming that there is a higher number of Anglo-Saxon employers given the large proportion of Anglo-Saxon in the Australian population. The researchers conclude that, a group with a relatively long history in Australia is less inclined to assist its fellow members. The researchers here make a terrible inference from this disparity in the result pattern. The indigenous Australians and Anglo-Saxons have a longer history in Australia though they seem to be favoured appropriately by fellow employers owing to the overall population composition. This particular finding refutes the assumption the researchers make about majority groups discriminating minority groups. The data from Italians indicates that minority groups also discriminate their own and other minority groups as well. Majority groups on the other hand tend to favour their own. The researchers used first and second names to identify ethnicity. While this is a very valid way of identifying different ethnic groups, one possibility was overlooked; interactions between groups which result to individuals have names from different ethnic groups. The researchers ignored the possibility of intermarriages and cultural interactions between the various ethnic groups used in the study. Such interactions can produce names that apply to two or more different ethnic groups. While this might present a clear problem in grouping employers and job ‘applicants’ under certain ethnic groups, the researchers did not acknowledge it. This means that some employers could fall between two or more ethnic groups, something that is not appreciated by the researchers who used the OnoMap software to associate different names to different ethnic groups. Conclusion The researchers in this study used a very informed and appropriate approach, audit discrimination technique. This is the strongest point in the research where research subjects are unaware that they are part of a research. This technique averts the situation where respondents give socially acceptable responses resulting in biased findings. Some of the assumptions made by the researchers strengthen the credibility of the findings while others weaken them. Nonetheless, it is apparent that some assumptions no matter their implications only made the experiment practical. Others such as assuming that names cannot be shared between ethnic groups following prolonged periods of interactions weaken the credibility of the findings. References Booth, Alison, Leigh, Andrew and Varganova, Elena. "Does Racial and Ethnic Discrimination Vary across Minority Groups? Evidence from a Field Experiment," IZA Discussion Paper No. 4947. 2010 Read More

The authors used the audit discrimination technique in the belief that the other techniques would give biased results. They are of the opinion that respondents are likely to give socially acceptable answers if they are aware that they are subjects of an experiment. This in their opinion would greatly affect the results of the research. Andrew Booth is a former Professor in the Research School of Economics at ANU. He has authored numerous journal papers on economic and social research. Elena Varganova is a former Research Assistant at ANU and well versed in research matters in economic and social studies.

All the three authors are qualified professionals in this research subject. They qualifications add credibility to the findings of the research for academic and practical use. As credible scholars, their views and observations in the named paper have immense bearing on students and scholars in various disciplines. The authors are biased towards online advertisement of job opportunities and online application of employment. In their experiment, all employment searches and subsequent applications were made online through a job-finding website.

The authors assumed that internet use and penetration in Australia was uniform across all employers and the involved cities. Some employers and especially large organisations such as the UN and its affiliated agencies and organs post their job vacancies on their websites and not necessarily job-finding websites. This implies that the sample of employers involved in this study was not balanced or fully representative of the situation on the ground. The authors are biased to addressing a non-specified audience.

The authors have not used complex terms identifiable with any discipline. However it is apparent from the content of the paper that the paper is intended for study by economics and sociology and social studies scholars and students. The paper can also make an interesting read to history academicians as the paper looks at some historical issues in Australia, a country whose human rights record among them discrimination has been internationally criticised as the bill of rights is not engraved in the federal constitution.

The paper is also very relevant for government policy makers on labour market issues in the country. The research article also adds to the growing popularity of qualitative research paradigm as it gives more tangible results. Assumptions The authors made explicitly stated assumptions in the research. Assumptions in any given research activity may either weaken or strengthen the credibility of the findings. The researchers in this case made four major assumptions which also serve as hypothesis for the paper.

Assumption 1 The researchers assumed that job position influenced the presence or absence of discrimination. Employers are forced by consumer preferences to discriminate depending on whether the job position requires face-to-face contact or none. This assumption is not supported by any past research or any sources that the authors have listed at the end of the article. Nonetheless, the implications of this assumption are clearly evident from the results of the experiment. Waiting job applications faced relatively greater discrimination as indicated by lower callback levels.

Assumption 2 The second assumption was that employers in Australia discriminate on racial grounds and in particular against minority groups. The researchers assumed that discrimination would be highest in areas that have higher ethnic diversity. This assumption implied that the researchers gave consideration to urban centres only, in fact the three largest cities in Australia, Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Rural employers were not covered by the research. This assumption creates an impression that employers in rural areas which are less ethnically diversified are not prone to racial discrimination.

The researchers only targeted employers in Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne. The concentration of minority groups in certain areas might have a bearing on the acceptance of ethnic diversity and racial discrimination.

Read More