Does Group Cohesion Inhibit Social Integration?

Nisha Kapoor 1st Year PhD student, CCSR, University of Manchester

Abstract This paper sets out the research design for my PhD thesis and discusses the relationship between group cohesion and social integration adapting Putnams concepts of bonding and bridging social capital. Literature is reviewed from the US and UK to debate the relationship between group cohesion and social integration, and other factors such as labour market and residential segregation are considered. Following this, the proposal sets out a mixed methods approach focusing on Muslims in the UK for the quantitative analysis and Muslims in South Manchester for the qualitative part. Secondary data analysis of the Citizenship Survey through multilevel modelling will be followed by a qualitative survey and interviews.

The strength of ties amongst ethnic minority groups, displayed through high spatial concentration, cultural institutions and shops, and co-ethnic social networks, have been suggested a barrier to integration (Phillips, 2005) and a problematic hindrance to community cohesion. Although the positives of this group cohesion have been shown (Peach, 1996c, Peach, 1996b, Waldinger, 1996, Simpson, 2004, Phillips et al., 2007), other political and academic discourses have argued that ethnic clustering, and ethnic minority retention of cultural values, norms and networks prevent immigrants and future generations from integrating fully, causing tensions between the majority and minority (Community-Cohesion-Review-Team, 2001, Goodhart, 2004, Fukuyama, 2006). Social integration, demonstrated through interaction between different ethnic groups, is seen as increasingly important for social cohesion (Runnymede-Trust, 2000, Phillips, 2005) and a key measure of the integration of ethnic minority groups. However, the relationship between social interaction of ethnically diverse individuals and the strength of co-ethnic ties has been left undetermined. While Putnam (2000) has evidenced the positive relationship between bonding and bridging capital in reference to ethnic-solidarity he suggests the relationship is unclear and requires further investigation.

i) Conceptualising Social Integration and Group Cohesion

The difficulty of conceptualising social integration has been demonstrated through the number of different ways it has been operationalised. Wuthnow and Hackett (2003) use the term to include socio-economic status, political knowledge, generalized trust, neighbourhood contacts and inter-religious ties. Other studies have placed its emphasis on social interaction as well as feelings of neighbourhood belonging (Amin, 2002, Hudson et al., 2006). Further social interaction has been measured through intermarriage, friendship (Peach, 1975, Peach, 1996c, Kitchen et al., 2006) and colleagues/ acquaintances from the workplace or leisure activities (Putnam, 2000). The concept of social integration relates to Putnams definition of bridging social capital, defined as networks [that] are outward looking and encompass people across diverse social cleavages (p.22). Bridging social networks are seen as important for integration because they promote opportunity for the information and knowledge transfer of cultural differences, and in doing so may reduce tensions and hostility between groups. Social mixing between individuals of different ethnic backgrounds becomes more evident as ethnic minority groups disperse into areas of lower co-ethnic concentration and as they integrate into the labour market. However, it does also occur in the diverse neighbourhoods that are home to many concentrations of ethnic minorities in Britain. Social integration is associated with other forms of integration, but while there is an extensive literature on integration and participation in the labour market and civic and political life, studies focusing on social interaction between individuals are more limited. There is also little empirical research that has focused on neighbourhood belonging and ethnic minority narratives of their sense of identity and place. It is therefore these aspects of social integration- social interaction and neighbourhood belonging- that this study focuses on.

Similarly, the term group cohesion is problematic. The term infers a presumption that all those that identify themselves as belonging to the same ethnic or religious group, identify and bond with each other. The well documented difficulties of ethnic group classification (Aspinall, 2000, Aspinall, 2002, Simpson and Akinwale, 2006) support that this is not the case, and that while such classifications can be useful in order to identify trends and potential inequalities between groups, their use for other 2

purposes, such as to assume feelings and attachments to each other, must be done with caution. As with other communities, the lack of homogeneity among the Muslim community has been shown (Peach, 2006) and while there maybe a common identification to a faith, heterogeneity is shown through residential separation, attendance at different mosques and the creation and use of different social and cultural institutions (Lewis, 1994). Similarly, within the same ethno-religious category differences between gender, generation and class need to be considered. Nevertheless, the cultural ties, values and beliefs that do link sub-sections of ethnic and religious groups together can be considered a form of identity and belonging for such individuals, an imagined community (Hudson et. al, 2006). This concept has also been referred to as bonding social capital (Putnam), and ethnic solidarity (Sanders and Nee, 1987) and has been measured through residential concentration (Massey and Denton, 1993, Peach, 1996b, Johnston et al., 2005), social networks (Simmel, 1955, Boissevain, 1974, Wuthnow and Hackett, 2003, Kitchen et al., 2006) and attitudinal questions relating to cultural values and ties (Uslaner and Conley, 2003). I use this term to encompass networks, values and ties to allow for the fact that some dimensions may exist without others. Group cohesion extends from Putnams (2000) concept of bonding social capital which he describes as good for undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity (p.22). While this concept recognises the economic, social and psychological support that cultural ties provide, other aspects of the bonding capital concept are less helpful in this context. The suggestion that bonding social capital by creating strong in-group loyalty, may also create strong out-group antagonismand for that reason we might expect negative external effects to be more common with this form of social capital (p.23) may be the case for some forms of bonding social capital, for example, that based on membership of the British National Party or Ku Klux Klan, but cultural ties, values, norms and social networks for ethnic groups act to preserve an identity not necessarily based on a loyalty that favours co-ethnics over other individuals. These identities and affiliations can be more or less salient in different situations.

ii) Explaining Social Integration

Greater social mixing is positively correlated with occupational and residential mobility (Alba and Nee, 1997). The literature points to various phenomena that 3

promote or inhibit social interaction but research comparing these differing explanations is sparse. Economic integration and residential integration are related to social integration but whether it is cultural barriers or other more structural factors, choice, constraint, or a combination of both, that inhibit social integration remains undetermined.

Although the causes and consequences of social capital are complex, many social capitalists agree that social interaction that bridges individuals of different backgrounds is a positive public good (Putnam, 1996, , 2000, Helliwell, 2003, Briggs, 2004). Evidence from studies relating to bonding and bridging social capital show they are positively correlated (Putnam, 2000), but associated with the dark side of social capital are the exclusive bonding fraternal associations, that may contribute to hostility and tensions between groups. Discussions of the negativities of bonding social capital have resulted in a common association between exclusive fraternal organisations and the cultural values, ties and networks of ethnic minority groups. This relates to the suggestion that cultural barriers and multiculturalism are main reasons for the lack of social integration of ethnic minorities (Phillips, 2005, Goodhart, 2004). It is suggested that retaining cultural values that maybe in opposition to western liberal values and identifying with other nation states inhibits immigrants from fully integrating and is a concern for future political stability (Fukuyama, 2006) . This is in opposition to research that has shown more intergroup mixing and the desire of ethnic minority groups to live in more culturally diverse areas (Kitchen et al., 2006, Phillips, 2006). Others have used group cohesion to suggest it is a problematic deterrent of other forms of integration such as civic participation and economic integration (Uslaner and Conley, 2003, Sanders and Nee, 1987, Nee and Sanders, 2001, Clark and Drinkwater, 2007). Reliance on cultural ties is suggested in this literature as the reason for inequality of outcomes. Some comments on these findings are discussed below.

Clark and Drinkwater (2007) examine the UK to investigate the relationship between ethnic segregation and economic outcomes and suggest that holding the actual level of ethnic segregation constant, preferences for residential segregation have a statistically significant negative effect on employment for minority individuals. Using data from the Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities which includes a question 4

on whether individuals would prefer to live in a neighbourhood where fewer than half, half, or more than half of the people are of the same ethnic group, they find that economically and statistically significant reductions in access to jobs are predicted for those who prefer to live in close proximity to co-ethnics (p.282). However, the analysis includes only regression models of cross-sectional data. Inverting the model so that residential preferences was the dependant variable, it could be suggested that those not employed prefer to live with co-ethnics, easily explained though the support networks that this would provide.

Uslaner and Conley (2003) have studied the relationship between the strength of ties to ones ethnic community and civic engagement. They compare different groups of the Chinese community living in Southern California to suggest that those with stronger ties to their co-ethnics are less likely to participate in mainstream society. They define two groups- particularized trusters and generalized trusters, the former being those with strong ties to their ethnic communities, who are likely to only trust people of the same group and have little in common with others, and the latter being those with weaker ties, believing that most people share common values and are more assimilated into American society. Their position is problematic in a number of ways. Firstly, they assume that those with strong ties to their community are trusting of only that community. As discussed above, ethnic identity is not fixed or concrete but can evolve and a firm identification with an ethnic group does not necessarily equate to failure to identify with the larger society as Phillips et. als (2007) work has shown. Secondly, the way the two groups are operationalised is unconvincing. Generalised trusters feel the Chinese need to do more to be integrated into American culture, may have converted to Christianity, say Chinatown is not important to them, are unsatisfied with the Chinese government, are satisfied with life in the U.S., go back infrequently to China and have a diverse friendship group. The opposite is true for particularised trusters. However, their analysis shows that 28% of the sample participates in both American politics and Chinese cultural organisations (compared to 13.9% who participate only in American politics and 20% who are only involved in Chinese organisations), and for this group the importance of Chinatown matters a lot. While they suggest the motivations for those that participate in both types of organisations are different to those who are only involved in co-ethnic ones, they also show the same factors explain all types of participation 5

to different extents. The existence of the group that participate in both types of organisations show it is possible to have co-ethnic ties, be a generalised truster and participate in both cultural organisations and the larger society. This is supported in other research focusing on ethnicity and political participation which shows that while acculturation may increase participation, attachment to homeland culture does not necessarily discourage participation, and that the role of group consciousness is complex (Lien, 1994).

Putnam (2000) has noted that workplace integration has been by far the greatest success for producing bonds of connection along racial lines (p.362) due to workplace diversity. While these connections may not be considered friends, U.S. studies have shown interactions between work colleagues are viewed as positive by most (Putnam, 2000, p.87) and are the type of interaction sufficient to describe bridging social capital. Further, occupational mobility has been shown to result in more social assimilation (Alba and Nee, 1997). However, studies focusing on the relationship between labour market activity and ethnicity in the UK have shown considerable differences in trajectories between groups, highlighting significant ethnic penalties for particular groups (Simpson et al., 2006, Modood et al., 1997). Simpson et. als (2006) study of ethnic minority populations and the labour market showed that ethnic penalties increased for second generation men of Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian and Caribbean origin. While non-UK born men also suffered an ethnic penalty, the odds of being unemployed were less for this group than for UK born Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi men after factors such as human capital, age, health and marital status had been considered. Further, holding these factors constant together with region, ethnicity and country of birth, they found Muslim men and women were more than twice as likely to be unemployed relative to their Christian counterparts. This religion effect was net of any ethnic penalty.

Occupational segregation that occurs by ethnic group, as a result of both choice and constraint, may also act to limit potential social interaction in the workplace. Some suggest that it is the choice of minority groups to retain strong ties with their coethnics that limits labour market success and that changes in social-structural relations (e.g. a decline in occupational discrimination) that open new avenues of 6

immigrant-adaptation stem from intergroup mixing and the sharing of experiences (Sanders and Nee, 1987, p.745). However, qualitative research conducted in two areas of Manchester and London in the UK showed that despite high levels of social interaction between White British individuals and Black Caribbeans, supporting other evidence of reduced residential segregation and rising inter-marriage rates between these groups (Peach, 2006, Modood et al., 1997), Black Caribbean respondents still reported continuing racial harassment and disadvantage. The study showed racial difference has continuing significance in terms of differential life chances (Hudson et.al, 2006, p.24). The extent to which inequalities in the labour market are choice or constraint is debated and unclear, although the generational shift and suggested increased social interaction between younger age groups (Hudson et. al, 2006) suggest it is not strong cultural and ethnic ties that could explain rises in the odds of unemployment.

An association has also been shown between spatial integration, that is residential movement into areas of lower co-ethnic concentration, and social integration (Peach, 1975, Peach, 1996a). Residential mobility is associated with greater occupational mobility (Alba and Nee, 1997), with those moving into areas of low ethnic minority concentration often having the financial means to do so. Simpson (2007 ) has developed a migration dispersal index to demonstrate that both whites and nonwhites are dispersing from areas of high non-white concentration, often associated with urban deprivation, to areas of high white concentration, with movement into the latter areas being largest amongst non-whites. Therefore if movement is considered, and residential integration seen as a process rather than a static phenomenon, residential areas in the UK are becoming more diverse and more integrated. Furthermore, areas of high ethnic minority concentration in the UK are mostly diverse areas. Such a phenomena therefore makes it feasible for strong cultural ties to remain and for social interaction to occur between groups as well. Evidence from the 2005 Citizenship Survey Community Cohesion Report showed that
people who lived in areas with higher minority ethnic populations were more likely to have friends from different ethnic groups to themselves. Eighty-three per cent of people who lived in the ten per cent highest minority ethnic density areas had friends from different ethnic groups to

themselves compared to 31 per cent from the ten per cent lowest density areas (Kitchen et al., 2006, p.20)

Peach (1996c, , 1996b) distinguishes between good segregation and bad segregation. The former refers to the cultural norms, values and networks that can only remain through concentration and is seen as positive, while the latter is enforced and attempts to keep underprivileged ethnic populations out of the residential areas of the dominant group. Residential segregation can therefore partly be explained by the desire of co-ethnics to remain in close proximity to each other, and relates to group cohesion, but may also be attributable to direct or indirect discriminatory housing policy and/ or fear of hostility. Qualitative research on South Asian mobility in Leeds and Bradford showed the desire of ethnic minority groups to live in mixed areas so able to maintain cultural values as well as mix with people from other backgrounds (Phillips et al., 2007). For some younger and UK born Asians, while they wished to loosen their day to day involvement with these closeknit networks, retaining community ties was also important, and fear of hostility and harassment prevented many from moving to particular areas of all whites. Rather than cultural obligations, loyalties or ties, the research suggested their movement was constrained through financial restrictions, fear of harassment and unequal opportunities in the housing market. Other evidence has shown that diverse neighbourhoods are not necessarily indicative of a more socially integrated community (Amin, 2002, Hudson et al., 2006, Appold and Hong, 2006).

Recent work examining everyday interactions in diverse communities in two areas of the UK, North Tottenham in London and Moss Side in Manchester, showed it was social processes that occurred over time which made interactions between groups more likely, but also identified obstacles to inter-group mixing (Hudson et. al, 2006). Generally younger people (those aged 34 and under) had more diverse friendship groups and there was a generational shift in interaction between groups and attitudes to diversity. Further, immigrants that had arrived more recently to the area had social networks that centred on their home or local co-ethnic community. This was the case for the Somali community in Manchester who were the newest community in the study and more visible because of their high concentration in a particular area. However, second generation Somalian respondents had more 8

diverse friendship groups, following the trends of other groups. While ethnic diversity was generally viewed very positively and many felt that different groups did get on, differences in material opportunities, for example unstable employment, fear of crime, language barriers, racial stereotyping and harassment and cultural traditions associated with different ethnic backgrounds were all sited as inhibiting everyday interactions. While the latter is a factor associated with group cohesion and the strength of ethno/cultural/religious ties, the others highlight structural barriers to social interaction as well as hostility, questioning the extent to which group cohesion is responsible for inhibiting mixing between groups.

Social and economic pressures mean cultural norms, networks and ties are likely to reduce over time, but cultural identities remain important, and evidence has pointed to younger groups and second generations expressing the need for both cultural ties and networks as well as to live in ethnically diverse areas, and mix with others. Further UK research has also shown the strong neighbourhood attachment and feelings of belonging expressed by such groups (Alam, 2006, Kundnani, 2001, Kalra, 2002). The literature has shown a number of associations between group cohesion and civic, political and economic integration, between economic integration and social integration and between residential integration and social integration. However, there is little evidence of the relationship between cultural ties and social integration after considering other factors. The suggestions that multiculturalism is a main barrier to integration is further weight to the need for this relationship to be established.

The relationship between all forms of integration is complex and inter-related, but integration is a process and cross-sectional associations provide limited evidence. There is no sufficient longitudinal survey data available in the UK which would allow for analysis of these processes, but nor has much longitudinal qualitative research been conducted, giving scope for such methods to be used in the future.

iii) Research Questions

What factors are most influential in explaining social interaction between different ethnic groups?

Why do some individuals socially integrate more than others? How do an individuals life circumstances, and changes in them, impact on levels of social integration and group cohesion?

How do experiences of racial harassment/ fear/ anxiety impact on social interaction?

iv) The Muslim Community in South Manchester The 2001 riots in the northern towns of Bradford, Burnley and Oldham and the subsequent government reports and press attention placed these towns in a negative light (Community-Cohesion-Review-Team, 2001, Oliver, 2001, Ford, 2005). Publicly they were perceived as home to dysfunctional communities and consequent community cohesion initiatives and research has often channelled its focus here. The suggested segregation in such areas has been compared with the diverse mixing in London which Phillips (2005) has inferred is unique. The negative press these northern towns have received warranted a re-evaluation of the processes of integration taking place in them, as well as the barriers to inter-mixing. While there has been much work addressing just this (Kundnani, 2001, Simpson, 2004, Phillips, 2006), lower profile neighbouring areas have received less attention. The total Muslim population in Greater Manchester was recorded as 125,219 in 2001 Census (which equals 5% of the total population the region) with 29% living in the City of Manchester. Although it has not been home to high profile riots, there are other indicators of possible rising hostilities such as the significant increase in BNP candidates standing in the 2007 local elections in the neighbouring borough of Stockport making community cohesion an important issue.

While the South Asian community has received negative press in general, the Muslim community have been particularly vilified, compounded by the international terror attacks since 9/11. Debates regarding obstacles to Muslim integration have

10

been ongoing and various traditions associated with the Muslim faith have been scrutinised and suggested the real barriers to their integration. The proposal that cultural barriers and group cohesion are the main obstacles to integration therefore becomes an even more appropriate issue to address in relation to Muslim communities in Britain. Furthermore they are the largest South Asian community in South Manchester.

v) Data and Methods

Secondary Data Analysis using the Citizenship Survey While there a number of UK based surveys that collect some information on different aspects of social capital (ONS, 2002) data collection focusing specifically on social interaction between people of different ethnic/ religious groups is limited. In fact, restricted data on the nature and extent of social interactions between individuals is reflective of the difficulty of measuring ones social networks through a survey. Further, there are few surveys that collect sufficient sample sizes of ethnic minorities to allow for a suitable comparison of groups, and others such as the European Social Survey, which offers the potential for a cross-country comparison, fails to collect any information on ethnicity. The Citizenship Survey which collects some information on the strength of ones ties to family and religious community, asks a question about friendships between different ethnic groups, and has an ethnic minority booster sample is therefore the most appropriate UK based survey. The Citizenship Survey (HOCS) 1 is a biennial survey that began in 2001 and has subsequently been revised and readministered in 2003 and 2005 with the data for 2007 expected in early 2008. The survey includes modules on attitudes to the neighbourhood, socialisation and trust between neighbours, family networks, perceived levels of racial and religious discrimination, civic renewal and civic participation, and formal and informal volunteering. It also collects demographic information such as age, gender, ethnicity, education background, occupational status, income, religion and religiosity. While the core topics have remained the
1

Formerly known as the Home Office Citizenship Survey, the Department for Communities and Local Government has now taken ownership of the survey and renamed it The Citizenship Survey but accepts HOCS as an abbreviation, which is how I will refer to it.

11

same throughout the surveys, there have been a number of changes in the way some questions have been asked as well as the addition and discontinuation of other questions 2 . For the purposes of this study there are a number of questions of interest. The concept of group cohesion is an attempt to operationalise the strength of ties within ethnic/ cultural/ religious communities. The HOCS collects data on giving and receiving help to family members not living with you, on religion and religiosity and on participation in a religious organisation. Access to sampling points or specified indicators of lower geography would also allow for the diversity and level of ethnic group concentration of neighbourhoods to be determined 3 . While these indicators provide some evidence of group cohesion, there are limitations. There is no specific question asking individuals on the importance of their cultural background to them, nor on their participation in organisations that are specifically for people of the same ethno-religious background. Further, there are no questions asking how affiliations to their ethno-religious group may have changed.

Measurement of social interaction is even more limited. The survey does ask a question on the ethnic diversity of the respondents friendship group, but does not specifically ask the ethnicity of the respondents friends. Further, no question asks about social interaction in other contexts such as the workplace or leisure activities where respondents may mix with others of different ethnic backgrounds as acquaintances but not as friends. Just as there is no evidence of participation in cultural organisations, the survey does not measure the ethnic diversity of other organisations that respondents may participate in and socially interact with others. Social interaction measured through friendships alone is limited. The study by Hudson et. al. (2006) suggested that friendship between individuals of different ethnic groups was not always reflective of social harmony between groups and personalised relationships were not necessarily generalised. Further, having access

The friendship question changed between 2003 and 2005. In 2003 it was asked as two separate questions whereas in 2005 it was one scale question. In 2003 first respondents were asked if all their friends were of the same ethnic group as them or not, which had a binary yes/ no response. Only if they answered no were they asked what proportion of their friends this was. In 2005 they were asked what proportion of their friends were of the same ethnic group as them as one question which had an ordinal response of four possibilities. As a result the proportion of people saying all their friends were of the same ethnic group is higher in 2003 but the proportion of people saying more than half are of the same ethnic group is higher in 2005. 3 Census look-up tables measuring ethnicity and religion at ward level and religion at output area level have been requested from NatCen.

12

to people of different ethnic backgrounds will be largely reflective of where a respondent lives and the diversity of the neighbourhood. While the concentration of co-ethnics maybe an indicator of group cohesion, it is also a contextual indicator of the area.

Other data available that the literature evidenced as impacting on levels of social integration includes employment status and occupation type, fear of crime and racial harassment. The survey also records country of birth in 2003 and 2005, year of arrival to the UK (2005) and whether an interpreter was needed for the interview (2003), which could be used as an indicator of language barriers. Although the survey provides limited data, it will give some indication of the relative strength of association between indicators of group cohesion, structural integration and mixed friendship ties. In order to better explore ethno-religious identity and structural barriers to integration, qualitative research using questionnaires and depth interviews would be more suitable methods, discussed below.

Survey and Sample Design in the 2003 and 2005 Citizenship Survey Although the HOCS began in 2001, no question related to the ethnic diversity of friendships or other type of social interaction between different ethnic groups was asked till 2003. Therefore it is only the 2003 and 2005 surveys that are discussed here as potential data sources. Although ethnic minority boost samples have been used in each year of the survey, comparison of sub-populations such as between Pakistani Muslims, Indian Muslims, and Black Muslims would still be restricted by small sample sizes. Merging the 2003 and 2005 datasets, if compatible, could solve this. The surveys in each year were carried out by different organisations and therefore have quite different sampling strategies. While both surveys achieved similar sample sizes 4 the ways in which the booster samples were achieved are quite different. Full details of the sampling strategy are discussed in Appendix 1. In 2003 the ethnic minority boost sample involved the use of stratification to specify a high Bangladeshi stratum and a low Bangladeshi stratum to ensure higher representation of the Bangladeshi population. Although weights are provided to adjust for this oversampling, preliminary data checks comparing results from the
4

In 2003, the achieved core sample was 9,600 and the achieved booster sample was 4,600. In 2005, the achieved core sample was 9,691 and the achieved booster sample was 4,390.

13

2001 HOCS, the 2003 HOCS and the 2005 HOCS show the 2003 data to be questionable for the Bangladeshi population. Figure 1 shows such a comparison for levels of employment for men aged 30-64 in England and Wales.

Given the Bangladeshi population is of significant importance to this study, any data analysis using both the 2003 and 2005 HOCS will be compared with the 2005 data only to check for skewed results.

Figure 1- Comparison of working among 40-64 year old men

80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 White British Pakistani Bangladeshi HOCS 2001 HOCS 2003 HOCS 2005

Estimates are based on weighted data

Taken from Lucinda Platts presentation at the ESDS Families, Youth, Community and Justice Event 8th May 2007

The residential concentration of ethnic groups can partly be explained by group cohesion but is also existential and a result of chain migration. The ethnic diversity of the area will impact on the probability of interaction between groups and therefore need to be considered distinctly in two models; one that includes it as a factor of group cohesion and another that controls for the impact it will have. Since both individual and area level factors need to be considered, multilevel modelling techniques will be employed to model the data. This will consider both within and between group variation and permit the use of contextual variables such as the deprivation score of an area.

14

The cross sectional survey data will serve to shed light on the first research question and provide evidence of associations between group cohesion, occupational integration, area diversity and ethnically diverse friendships. However, it is limited to associations and cannot address the process of integration, nor cause and effect. Only through measuring change over time can processes of social integration be explained. The survey data is also limited because of its fixed measurement of group cohesion and social integration. Qualitative research would allow greater exploration of the meaning of group identity, ties and social networks, and better investigate social integration, as well as the relationship between the two.

Qualitative Survey, Interviews and Re-Interviews Techniques used to model secondary data from the HOCS will provide evidence of the most salient variables that explain mixed friendships and measure the extent to which diverse friendships are associated with different forms of integration. However, cross-sectional quantitative analysis will fail to answer why these associations are the case, and is also limited in explaining the complexities of social integration and group cohesion. Better understanding of the context, process and detail of social integration can be achieved through qualitative research methods. Furthermore, other studies have shown there is a lack of well-grounded research into British Asian perceptions of barriers to integration offering a response to the discourse which accuses them of self-segregating (Phillips, 2007).

There are benefits to be obtained from both cross-sectional and longitudinal qualitative research in this context. Through the use of focus groups and interviews Hudson et. al (2006) were able to gain much more knowledge and understanding of interactions in diverse communities as well as of the complexities of relationships, shown through evidence of mixed friendships and tensions talked of between members of the same groups. Likewise Phillips (2007) gained knowledge of the diversity of view points and obstacles to residential mixing through depth interviews and repeat interviews, which followed a larger scale qualitative survey to gather participants. Such a three-tiered method will be used for this study, with every stage of its own use but also acting as a sampling frame for the next. Sample access will

15

be gained through two community organisations in the South Manchester area 5 . These will act as sampling points for the survey. The first is a local primary school with a population majority of Muslim students in a low income area and the second is a large mosque that attracts a more ethnically diverse population of Muslim affiliates situated in a more affluent area. The mosque attracts people from a much wider geography of South Manchester than the school. The survey will collect data on social networks, social mixing, reason for occupation/ unemployment, length of residence in an area and feelings/ attitudes towards this, and fear and experience of racial harassment. It will serve to gather information on attitudes towards the importance of group ties and social integration as well as barriers to these. This survey will aim to achieve a sample of 200 respondents and the data collected will be used to screen for potential participants in depth-interviews.

Qualitative work by Phillips (2006, 2007), Alam (2006), Kundnani (2001), and Basit (1997) has evidenced the beneficial aspects of depth-interviewing to provide detailed narratives of reasons behind behaviour and attitudes. Demographic and behavioural data collected through the survey will be used to select a diverse range of participants for interviews. The profiles of respondents will be used to identify types and selection will aim to ensure diversity in terms of age, generation, size and diversity of social network and socio-economic status. Twenty respondents will be selected from the achieved survey sample for interviewing, where the extent of and motivations for group cohesion and social integration will be explored further.

Limitations of cross-sectional analysis in measuring change were referred to earlier. Although qualitative interviewing will produce a narrative of British Muslim perceptions of group cohesion and social integration, the first interviews role in documenting and explaining any change in circumstances will be limited to the collection of retrospective data. Molloy et. al (2002) have suggested this method is not strictly longitudinal as it does not involve repeat interviewing over time and also highlight its limitations in terms of the ability of respondents to accurately recall events. Users of other longitudinal qualitative methods have documented the benefits of these approach for addressing change and exploring how and why

Both organisations have given consent and commitment to being involved in the study.

16

questions (Molloy et al., 2002, Neale and Fowerdew, 2003, Thomson and Holland, 2003). Given the time limitations of a PhD any longitudinal analysis will be restricted to the course of a year. To increase the chances of documenting changes in circumstances of respondents all will be contacted up to two occasions after the first interview and asked brief questions to illicit any change in circumstances. If there have been, respondents will be asked for re-interview and the questions posed in the original interview readdressed.

17

References ALAM, M. Y. (2006) Made in Bradford, Pontefract, Route. ALBA, R. & NEE, V. (1997) Rethinking Assimilation Theory for a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review, 31, 826-874. AMIN, A. (2002) Ethnicity and the Multicultural City: Living with Diversity. Environment and Planning A, 34, 959-980. APPOLD, S. J. & HONG, V. C. K. (2006) Residential Integration but Social Segregation: Coomunity Boundaries in a Multi-Cultural City. Preliminary Draft. University of North Carolina. ASPINALL, P. (2000) The Challenges of Measuring the Ethno-Cultural Diversity of Britain in the New Millenium. Policy and Politics, 1, 109-118. ASPINALL, P. (2002) Collective Terminology to Describe the Minority Ethnic Population: The Persistence of Confusion and Ambiguity in Usage. Sociology, 36, 803-816. BASIT, T. M. (1997) Eastern Values:; Western Milieu. Identities and Aspirations of Adolescent British Muslim Girls, Aldershot, Ashgate BOISSEVAIN, J. (1974) Friends of Friends: Networks, Manipulators and Coalitions, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing. BRIGGS, X. D. S. (2004) Social Capital: Easy Beauty or Meaningful Resource. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 151-158. CLARK, K. & DRINKWATER, S. (2007) Segregation Preferences and Labour Market. Economic Letters, 94, 278-283. COMMUNITY-COHESION-REVIEW-TEAM (2001) Community Cohesion: A Report of the Independent Review Team. London, Home Office. FORD, R. (2005) Two communities that hardly ever mix. The Times. FUKUYAMA, F. (2006) Identity, Immigration and Liberal Democracy. Journal of Democracy, 17, 5-20. GOODHART, D. (2004) Discomfort of Strangers. The Guardian. London. HELLIWELL, J. F. (2003) Immigration and Social Capital. 2003 International Conference on the Opportunity and Challenge of Diversity: A Role for Social Capital. Montreal, Canada. HUDSON, M., PHILLIPS, J., RAY, K. & BARNES, H. (2006) Understanding Social Cohesion: Everyday Interactions in Diverse Communities. Policy Studies Institute. JOHNSTON, R., POULSEN, M. F. & FORREST, J. (2005) On the Measurement and Meaning of Segregation: A Response to Simpson. Urban Studies, 42, 12211227. KALRA, V. S. (2002) Extended View: Riots, Race and Reports: Denham, Cantle, Oldham and Burnley Inquiries. Race Relations Abstracts, 27, 20-30. KITCHEN, S., MICHAELSON, J. & WOOD, N. (2006) 2005 Citizenship Survey: Community Cohesion Topic Report. Department for Communities and Local Government. KUNDNANI, A. (2001) From Oldham to Bradford: the Violence of the Violated. Race and Class, 43, 105-110. LEWIS, P. (1994) Islamic Britain. Religion, Politics and Identity Among British Muslims, London, I. B. Tauris. LIEN, P.-T. (1994) Ethnicity and Political Participation. Political Behavior, 16, 237264. MASSEY, D. & DENTON, N. A. (1993) American Apartheid, Cambridge MA, Harvard University Press. 18

MODOOD, T., BERTHOUD, R., NAZROO, J. & LAKEY, J. (1997) Ethnic Minorities in Britain: Diversity and Disadvantage. The Fourth National Survey of Ethnic Minorities, London, Policy Studies Institute. MOLLOY, D., WOODFIELD, C. & BACON, J. (2002) Longitudinal Qualitative Research Approaches in Evaluation Studies. London, Department for Work and Pensions. NEALE, B. & FOWERDEW, J. (2003) Time, Texture and Childhood: The Contours of Longitudinal Qualitative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 189-199. NEE, V. & SANDERS, J. (2001) Trust in Ethnic Ties- Social Capital and Immigrants. IN COOK, K. (Ed.) Trust in Society. New York, Russell Sage Foundation. OLIVER, J. (2001) Cash for Asians is 'Cause of Race Riots'. Daily Mail. ONS (2002) Social Capital Question Bank. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about_ns/social_capital/default.asp. PEACH, C. (Ed.) (1975) Urban Social Segregation, London, Longman. PEACH, C. (1996a) Does Britain Have Ghettos? Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 21, 216-235. PEACH, C. (1996b) Good Segregation, Bad Segregation. Planning Perspectives, 11, 379-398. PEACH, C. (1996c) The Meaning of Segregation. Planning Practice and Research, 11, 137-150. PEACH, C. (2006) Islam, ethnicity and South Asian religions in the London 2001 Census. Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, 31, 353-370. PHILLIPS, D. (2006) Parallel Lives? Challenging Discourses of British Muslim SelfSegregation. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 24, 25-40. PHILLIPS, D., DAVIS, C. & RATCLIFFE, P. (2007) British Asian Narratives of Urban Space. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32, 217-234. PHILLIPS, T. (2005) After 7/7: Sleepwalking to Segregation. Commission for Racial Equality. PUTNAM, R. (1996) Who Killed Civic America? Prospect Magazine, 66-72. PUTNAM, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone. The Collapse and Revival of American Community, London, Simon and Schuster. RUNNYMEDE-TRUST (2000) The Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain: Report of the Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain. London, Runnymede Trust. SANDERS, J. & NEE, V. (1987) Limits of Ethnic Solidarity. American Sociological Review, 52, 745-773. SIMMEL, G. (1955) Conflict/ The Web of Group Affiliations, London, CollierMacmillan. SIMPSON, L. (2004) Statistics of Racial Segregation: Measures, Evidence and Policy. Urban Studies, 41, 661-681. SIMPSON, L. (2007 ) Ghettos of the mind: the empirical behaviour of indices of segregation and diversity. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A Statistics in Society, 170, 405-424. SIMPSON, L. & AKINWALE, B. (2006) Quantifying Stability and Change in Ethnic Group. CCSR Working Paper 2006-05. http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/publications/working/. SIMPSON, L., PURDAM, K., TAJAR, A., FIELDHOUSE, E., GAVALAS, V., TRANMER, M., PRITCHARD, J. & DORLING, D. (2006) Ethnic Minority Populations and the Labour Market: An Analysis of the 1991 and 2001 Census. London, Department for Work and Pensions.

19

THOMSON, R. & HOLLAND, J. (2003) Hindsight, Foresight and Insight: The Challenges of Longitudinal Qualitative Research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6, 233-244. USLANER, E. M. & CONLEY, R. S. (2003) Civic Engagement and Particularized Trust: The Ties that Bind People to their Ethnic Communities. American Politics Research, 31, 331-360. WALDINGER, R. (1996) Still the Promised City?, Cambridge Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. WUTHNOW, R. & HACKETT, C. (2003) The Social Integration of Practitioners of Non-Western Religions in the United States. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 651-667.

20

Appendix 1- Sampling Strategy of the 2003 and 2005 HOCS

In 2003, the sampling procedure for the core sample involved a stratified sample of the small user postcode address file where the strata were divided into two groupsstratum A which included areas where fewer than 10% of households were headed by someone from minority ethnic groups and Stratum B where 10% or more households were headed by people from minority ethnic groups. In stratum A, sectors were selected with probability proportional to the number of delivery points in the sector and in each selected sector 30 addresses were randomly selected. In stratum B, sectors were selected with probability proportional to a size measure based on the minority ethnic density of the sector. Here a variable number of addresses were selected such that the combined sector and address sampling probabilities resulted in each address having the same chance of selection. The sample for the ethnic minority booster was achieved through focused enumeration, which involved screening two addresses to the left and right of each core sample address for the presence of ethnic minority adults, and a further high concentration boost. This involved an additional sample of addresses drawn from postcode sectors in which 18% or more households were headed by someone from a minority ethnic group. This sample was further divided into two major strata- a high Bangladeshi stratum, to include sectors where 10% or more people were of Bangladeshi origin and a low Bangladeshi stratum which included sectors where fewer than 10% of people were of Bangladeshi origin. In the High Bangladeshi stratum all 16 sectors were selected and in the low stratum a sample of sectors were selected with probability proportional to a size measure based on the estimated number of households headed by a minority ethnic adult.

In 2005, the sampling strategy was quite different. Addresses were again selected from the postcode address file but in this case the two stage sampling procedure involved at the first stage a random sample of Census Area Statistics (CAS) wards and then a sampling of delivery points within selected wards. However, the random sample of CAS wards also involved stratification prior to selection. The CAS wards were sorted into three groups defined by the proportion of the population of the ward in an ethnic minority group: less than 1%, 1-18%, and more than 18%. Within the ethnic group strata the wards were sorted by Government Office Region (GOR), and 21

within GOR, by three groups based on the percentage of the head of households in a non-manual occupation. Finally, the wards were sorted by the proportion of males in the ward that were unemployed. A list of 663 wards were selected at random from the stratified list with probability proportional to the number of addresses in the wards. The selected wards formed the primary sampling units for the core sample.

In order to achieve a booster sample of ethnic minority groups, additional addresses were selected from within the core sample PSUs as well as from an extra 150 wards randomly selected from those wards with more than 18% of the population from an ethnic minority group that were not already selected for the core sample. Of the 663 wards selected for the core sample, 93 were defined as high density wards (over 18%) and 456 were defined as medium density (1% to 18%). For the medium density sample focused enumeration techniques were used for the two addresses either side of the addresses selected for the core sample. In the high density areas an additional 110 addresses from the PAF were selected at which screening for respondents from ethnic minority backgrounds was carried out. For the additional 150 wards selected from high density areas the same stratification procedure was useed as for the core sample. Within each ward selected in this boost sample, a further 110 addresses were selected from the PAF, producing a further 16,500 addresses for direct screening.

22

23