Racism is a thorny issue that is hard to measure objectively. Stephane Wolton considers the different approaches for adequately measuring discrimination and the importance of understanding what we gain and what we lose when we use one approach over another

Wolton, Stephane

English

LSE Research Online

To	fight	discrimination,	first	you	must	understandhow	to	measure	itRacism	is	a	thorny	issue	that	is	hard	to	measure	objectively.	Stephane	Wolton	considers	the	different	approachesfor	adequately	measuring	discrimination	and	the	importance	of	understanding	what	we	gain	and	what	we	lose	whenwe	use	one	approach	over	another.	“Too	often	‘racism’	is	the	catch-all	explanation	and	can	be	simply	implicitly	accepted	rather	than	explicitly	examined.The	evidence	shows	that	geography,	family	influence,	socio-economic	background,	culture	and	religion	have	moresignificant	impact	on	life	chances	than	the	existence	of	racism.”	(Commission	on	Race	and	Ethnic	Disparities:	Thereport,	page	8).This	sentence,	along	with	the	assertion	that		there	is	no	institutional	racism	in	the	UK,	summarises	the	conclusion	ofthe	2021	Commission	on	Race	and	Ethnic	Disparities	(CRED).	The	report	drew	the	ire	of	the	press	and	media	andignited	a	political	imbroglio	that	divided	opinion	both	within	the	government	and	the	British	public.A	few,	close	to	the	government,	defended	it;	many	stressed	that	other	data	point	to	the	existence	of	widespreaddiscrimination	in	the	UK.	Black	women	in	the	UK	are	four	times	more	likely	to	die	in	pregnancy	or	childbirth	thantheir	white	counterparts.	Black	students	are	significantly	less	likely	to	make	it	into	higher	education;	even	when	A-Level	results	are	on	a	par	with	white	applicants,	they	are	up	to	14%	less	likely	to	receive	an	offer	from	Russel	Groupuniversities.Racism	is	a	thorny	issue.	It’s	an	issue	that	can	inflame	tensions,	controversy,	and	political	storm	unlike	any	other.But	things	are	not	made	any	easier	by	the	reality	that	racism	–	and	discrimination	in	general	–	is	somethinginherently	hard	to	measure	in	any	objective	sense.When	we	try	to	quantify	discrimination,	typically	we	use	one	of	two	approaches:	broad	or	narrow.	The	broadapproach,	as	the	names	suggests,	tends	to	look	at	simple	differences	in	outcomes	between	different	groups.	It	isoften	used	to	measure	several	socio-economic	outcomes,	such	as	wage	gaps,	differential	unemployment	rates,health,	school	attainments,	or	violence	suffered	from	police.The	narrow	approach,	on	the	other	hand,	makes	more	complicated	comparisons.	Rather	than	simply	looking	atdifference	in	outcomes	across	different	groups,	as	the	broad	approach	does,	the	narrow	approach	recognizes	thatgroups	differ	in	more	than	one	dimensions.	Members	of	different	groups	tend	to	live	in	different	locations,experience	different	family	experience,	are	from	different	socio-economic	background.	All	those	can	also	affect	theoutcomes	studied.	In	the	narrow	approach,	the	effect	of	race,	sexual	orientation,	or	other	markers	of	discriminationis	measured	only	after	the	potential	impact	of	other	attributes	has	been	accounted	for.In	general,	though	not	always,	the	broad	approach	yields	a	higher	measure	of	discrimination	than	the	narrowapproach.	For	example,	back	in	2018,	the	Office	of	National	Statistics	(ONS)	published	a	report	on	“ethnic	paygaps”.	Using	big	data	and	statistical	regression	techniques	to	find	broader	patterns,	the	ONS	were	able	to	sharesome	interesting	data	points.	For	instance,	when	using	the	broad	approach,	employees	from	the	Bangladeshiethnic	group,	on	average,	earned	20.2%	less	than	White	British	employees,	while	the	percentage	difference	inmedian	hourly	pay	between	people	of	a	White	ethnicity	and	all	those	who	belong	to	an	ethnic	minority	group	islargest	in	London	at	21.7%.	However,	it	was	also	found	from	the	same	report	that	“the	ethnicity	pay	gap	betweenWhite	British	employees	and	most	other	ethnic	groups	narrows	once	other	characteristics	such	as	education	andoccupation	are	taken	into	account”,	suggesting	that	the	pay	gap	tends	to	be	smaller	when	measured	with	thenarrow	approach.Returning	to	the	debate	over	the	CRED	report,	with	these	elements	in	line,	we	can	see	that	the	commission	chose	anarrow	approach,	as	illustrated	by	the	first	quote,	while	the	critiques	adopted	a	broad	approach.	As	such,	thecommissioners	and	their	opponents	have	talked	past	each	other	rather	than	debated	one	another.LSE Business Review: To fight discrimination, first you must understand how to measure it Page 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2021-07-16Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2021/07/16/to-fight-discrimination-first-you-must-understand-how-to-measure-it/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/So,	is	one	approach	better	than	the	other?	The	short	answer	is:	it	depends.	It	depends	on	what	type	ofdiscrimination	the	person	or	organisation	is	looking	to	measure.	And	it	depends	on	the	circumstances.Take	recruitment,	for	instance.	If	you	are	looking	to	spot	possible	discrimination	in	a	company’s	hiring	processes,it’s	likely	smarter	to	adopt	a	narrow	approach;	one	that	digs	into	the	specifics	around	like-for-like	candidates.	Itmakes	little	sense	to	compare	the	experience	of	very	different	applicants	who	are	unlikely	to	be	competing	for	thesame	job.	A	better	way	to	measure	discrimination	in	this	setting	is	to	check	for	differences	in	outcomes	betweenapplicants	with	similar	characteristics,	who	are	competitive	for	the	position,	and	who	might	be	treated	differentlybecause	of	their	identity.	In	other	words,	it	seems	best	to	take	a	narrow	approach.	And	research	has	yielded	somepractical	solutions	for	testing	for	discrimination	in	recruitment.Conversely,	if	you	are	looking	to	see	bigger-picture	evidence	of	discrimination	–	you’re	looking	at	the	effect	of	raceon	quality	of	life	or	on	the	kinds	of	opportunities	open	to	people	–	taking	a	narrow	approach	can	be	tricky.	You	needto	be	certain	that	other	contributing	or	historical	factors	in	people’s	lives	are	not	the	result	of	discrimination	at	someother	point	or	moment	in	time.	Let’s	put	that	another	way:	could	someone’s	living	arrangements	or	place	ofresidence	be	a	consequence	of	past	discrimination?	Or	could	the	socio-economic	status	of	their	parents	be	theresult	of	unequal	treatment	in	the	past?	If	the	answer	to	this	is	yes,	then	taking	a	narrow	approach	is	probably	notgoing	to	help	you	understand	discrimination	at	a	societal	level.	And	this	is	precisely	the	kind	of	criticism	that	waslevelled	at	the	CRED	report.It’s	tempting	to	simplify	the	way	we	think	about	measuring	racism	and	other	kinds	of	discrimination	in	our	world.When	it’s	something	particular	or	specific,	take	a	narrow	approach.	When	it’s	more	general,	be	broader.Unfortunately,	it’s	not	that	simple.	Too	narrow	and	you	fail	to	see	the	full	picture.	Too	broad	and	you	risk	diminishingthe	role	of	personal	agency	in	determining	our	outcomes	–	our	individual	choices,	failures,	triumphs,	and	successescan	just	become	a	function	of	“society”	at	large.There’s	a	role	here	for	the	CREDs	and	the	ONS,	for	commissions	and	thinktanks,	scholars	and	researchers,	andanyone	interested	in	taking	the	temperature	of	tolerance	in	our	society	–	an	imperative,	in	fact.	We	can’t	fightdiscrimination	without	the	tools	and	the	methods	for	adequately	measuring	these	things.	And	a	good	place	to	startis	by	understanding	what	we	gain	and	what	we	lose	when	we	use	one	approach	over	another.♣♣♣Notes:Stephane	Wolton	is	the	course	convenor	of	the	three-week	LSE	online	masterclass	UnderstandingDiscrimination.	If	you’re	interested,	you	can	learn	more	about	the	three-week	masterclasses	here.The	post	expresses	the	views	of	its	author(s),	and	do	not	necessarilyrepresent	those	of	LSE	Business	Review	or	the	London	School	ofEconomics.	Featured	image	by	Ehimetalor	Akhere	Unuabona	on	Unsplash		When	you	leave	a	comment,	you’re	agreeing	to	our	Comment	Policy	LSE Business Review: To fight discrimination, first you must understand how to measure it Page 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2021-07-16Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2021/07/16/to-fight-discrimination-first-you-must-understand-how-to-measure-it/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/

To fight discrimination, first you must understand how to measure it

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/111641/1/businessreview_2021_07_16_to_fight_discrimination_first_you_must.pdf

To fight discrimination, first you must understand how to measure it

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online