Two points.. Firstly I think we need to recognize how the reaction to the report has been framed very much in terms of a binary "culture wars" polarisation. I think we do need to call out the government who have aclear ideological agenda, which does involve a traditonal, white English nationalism, pitching for votes to the majority electorate, especially those who live in the "left behind" red wall constituencies. And they have read the polling and focus groups report and are pretty ruthless in their spin and scapegoating various categoires of "other". On the more progressive side I think we are struggling to articulate more inclusive values and to turn them into a credible "broad church" political programme when there are so many idenity politics groupings that are fundamentalist about their own sectional interest. In the Runymede response I did hear them trying to articulate a desire to pull together a platform around a share dinterst of justice for the white working class and "BAME" groups working together.
Secondly I am (and have been for years) wondering how best to carry out research in a context of ethno-religious superdiversity. The government (and as I read it you) seem to be demanding objective statistics as has been the traditon in social policy. But that is never really possible, because the categories used in surveys and monitoring reports a constructed by some social scientist, or civil servants or group process among them that are filtered through particular world views. Even if the data collection is robust and everyone gives honest answers there are still assuptions and biases. Also categories put people into social groups which may not be real groups, with a self conscious identity, interewoven social networks or common interests. And then with superdiversity and intersectionality and working with minorities, the actual numbers of sub groups can become so tiny that they are useless statistically. We data crunchers often run multivariate regression analysis to sort out which variables make the most difference.. but it is never as "scientific" as policy makers and media interpreters assume and rarerly proves much, even more rarely does it prove causation. So we do need to supplement this with localised studies shaping localised policies, as well as to listen to stories and interpretations about peoples's experience of racism and their stategies to overcome it.
Thanks John for this review.. it's very helpful to examine both the reaction to it and the complexities of the situation which does seem to be recognized in the Sewell report analysis of data. BTW did you listen to Joel and David Muir discussing this here ? https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Weekday/Faith-Hope-and-Love-with-Chick-Yuill/Interviews/How-can-a-child-of-God-overcome-go-against-the-odds-of-a-racist-society
Two points.. Firstly I think we need to recognize how the reaction to the report has been framed very much in terms of a binary "culture wars" polarisation. I think we do need to call out the government who have aclear ideological agenda, which does involve a traditonal, white English nationalism, pitching for votes to the majority electorate, especially those who live in the "left behind" red wall constituencies. And they have read the polling and focus groups report and are pretty ruthless in their spin and scapegoating various categoires of "other". On the more progressive side I think we are struggling to articulate more inclusive values and to turn them into a credible "broad church" political programme when there are so many idenity politics groupings that are fundamentalist about their own sectional interest. In the Runymede response I did hear them trying to articulate a desire to pull together a platform around a share dinterst of justice for the white working class and "BAME" groups working together.
Secondly I am (and have been for years) wondering how best to carry out research in a context of ethno-religious superdiversity. The government (and as I read it you) seem to be demanding objective statistics as has been the traditon in social policy. But that is never really possible, because the categories used in surveys and monitoring reports a constructed by some social scientist, or civil servants or group process among them that are filtered through particular world views. Even if the data collection is robust and everyone gives honest answers there are still assuptions and biases. Also categories put people into social groups which may not be real groups, with a self conscious identity, interewoven social networks or common interests. And then with superdiversity and intersectionality and working with minorities, the actual numbers of sub groups can become so tiny that they are useless statistically. We data crunchers often run multivariate regression analysis to sort out which variables make the most difference.. but it is never as "scientific" as policy makers and media interpreters assume and rarerly proves much, even more rarely does it prove causation. So we do need to supplement this with localised studies shaping localised policies, as well as to listen to stories and interpretations about peoples's experience of racism and their stategies to overcome it.