Bohman, Andrea. ‘Who’s Welcome and Who’s Not? Opposition towards Immigration in the Nordic Countries, 2002–2014’. (2018)

Bohman, Andrea. ‘Who’s Welcome and Who’s Not? Opposition towards Immigration in the Nordic Countries, 2002–2014’. Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 41, no. 3, Sept. 2018, pp. 283–306.

This article demonstrates the analytical advantages of studying not only the degree to which people oppose immigration in a country, but also the character of their opposition. Using Latent Class Analysis and data from the European Social Survey, Nordic patterns and trends are examined with the aim of identifying different kinds of immigration attitudes and how they develop in different national contexts. The Nordic countries are interesting to compare as, while they are similar in many respects, they also diverge significantly from each other in areas theoretically considered important to the formation of attitudes towards immigration. Studying the character of immigration opposition reveals five different types of immigration attitudes. These are differently distributed between the Nordic countries as well as over time, and include nativist opposition (opposition only towards immigrants of ethnic/racial groups other than that of the majority population) and economic opposition (opposition that entails a separation between immigrants considered to be an economic resource and an economic burden). By demonstrating how immigration opposition in the Nordic countries varies not only in degree but also in character, the article contributes to a deeper understanding of the nature of immigration opposition as well as of how different attitudinal profiles evolve under different contextual circumstances.

doi:10.1111/1467-9477.12120.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/1467-9477.12120

Andersen, Simon Calmar, and Thorbjørn Sejr Guul. ‘Reducing Minority Discrimination at the Front Line—Combined Survey and Field Experimental Evidence’. (2019) [PDF]

Andersen, Simon Calmar, and Thorbjørn Sejr Guul. ‘Reducing Minority Discrimination at the Front Line—Combined Survey and Field Experimental Evidence’. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2019.

Despite laws of universalistic treatment, bureaucrats have been shown to discriminate against minorities. A crucial question for public administration is how bureaucracies can be organized in ways that minimize illegitimate discrimination. Especially, since theories suggest that prejudices happen unintentionally and particularly under high workload, bureaucrats’ working conditions may be important. Four randomized experiments support the notion that bureaucrats discriminate as a way of coping with high workload. Most notably, a field experiment randomly assigned teachers to reduced workloads by giving them resources to have more time with the same group of students. In a subsequent survey experiment—using a fictitious future scenario unrelated to the resources provided in the field experiment—discrimination was minimized in the field treatment group, but persisted in the control group.The results thereby support the notion that even though discrimination among bureaucrats does not (only) occur in a reflective manner it can be reduced by altering the way bureaucrats’ work is organized.

doi:10.1093/jopart/muy083.

PDF: https://childresearch.au.dk/fileadmin/childresearch/dokumenter/Publikationer/Reducing_Minority_Discrimination_on_the_Front_Line_-_Combined_Survey_and_Field_Experimental_Evidence.pdf.

Albrekt Larsen, Christian. ‘Fordomme over for etniske minoriteter i Danmark, Sverige, Storbritannien og USA’. (2012) [PDF]

Albrekt Larsen, Christian. ‘Fordomme over for etniske minoriteter i Danmark, Sverige, Storbritannien og USA’. Politica, vol. 44, no. 4, Jan. 2012, pp. 488–504.

Artiklen sammenligninger, hvorledes majoritetsbefolkningen i Danmark, Sverige, Storbritannien og USA opfatter etniske minoriteter. I USA har en lang forsk- ningstradition afdækket, hvorledes hvide amerikanere har fordomme over for afroamerikanere. Artiklen beskriver, hvorvidt danskerne, svenskerne og briterne har udviklet de samme slags fordomme om ikke-vestlige indvandrere. Det gøres ved hjælp af et unikt datamateriale, hvor amerikanske spørgsmål fra General Social Survey er blevet repliceret i de tre lande. Sammenligningen viser, at danskernes, svenskernes og briternes opfattelse af ikke-vestlige indvandrere ikke er mere positiv end amerikanernes opfattelse af afroamerikanerne. Det leder til en konklusion om, at hverken politiske forsøg på at afpolitisere det etniske spørgsmål eller tilstedeværelsen af samhørighedsskabende universelle velfærdsstater har formået at afværge en negativ opfattelse af socialt udsatte etniske minoriteter.

PDF: https://tidsskrift.dk/politica/article/view/69959

doi:10.7146/politica.v44i4.69959.

Aalberg, Toril, and Zan Strabac. ‘Media Use and Misperceptions: Does TV Viewing Improve Our Knowledge about Immigration?’ (2010) [PDF]

Aalberg, Toril, and Zan Strabac. ‘Media Use and Misperceptions: Does TV Viewing Improve Our Knowledge about Immigration?’ NORDICOM Review, vol. 31, no. 1, June 2010, pp. 35–52.

There is considerable evidence that many people generally misperceive the size of the immigrant population in their country, and that this may have essential political implications. In studies of political knowledge, the news media are typically said to be one important source of information that can help make people more knowledgeable. In the present article, we investigate whether there is a relationship between TV viewing, media system variations and knowledge about immigration. We base our analysis on highly comparable data from the 2002-2003 wave of the European Social Survey (ESS) and an American replication of the ESS. The results indicate that TV viewing in general is associated with lower levels of knowledge, while there is a positive but non-significant relationship between watching TV news and knowledge about immigration. Differences in the levels of knowledge between the countries are fairly large, with residents of Nordic countries being most knowledgeable and residents of the UK, US and France tending to be least knowledgeable. Aggregate explanations for variations in media influence (share of public service TV and ‘media systems’) do not prove to be of much value in explaining differences in knowledge about the sizes of immigrant populations.

PDF: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313260785_Media_Use_and_Misperceptions

https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/nor/31/1/article-p35.xml?language=en