R EJECTED C ULTURAL B IASES S HAPE O UR P OLITICAL V IEWS :
A Migrant Household Study and Two Large-Scale Surveys
Eero Olli
Dissertation for the degree of philosophiae doctor (PhD) at the University of Bergen, Norway
2012
ISBN 978-82-308-2103-9 University of Bergen, Norway Printed by AIT AS
R EJECTED C ULTURAL B IASES S HAPE O UR P OLITICAL V IEWS :
A Migrant Household Study and Two Large-Scale Surveys
Dissertation for the degree of philosophiae doctor (PhD) at the Department of Comparative Politics
Faculty of Social Sciences University of Bergen, Norway
2012
Rejected Cultural Biases Shape Our Political Views: A Migrant Household Study and Two Large-Scale Surveys
Text and Figures by Eero Olli
Author’s address: http://www.eero.no
This document can be downloaded from https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/6103 Finalized on March 29, 2012
ISBN 978-82-308-2103-9
University of Bergen, Norway 2012 Copyright reserved
v
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION... 1
PA R T I : A QU A L I T A T I V E ST U D Y O F MI G R A N T HO U S E H O L D S3 1 MAKING SENSE OF MIGRANTS... 33
OPERATIONALIZING CULTURAL THEORY... 61
DOING RESEARCH ON MIGRANT HOUSEHOLDS... 107
EIGHT HOUSEHOLDS... 145
FINDINGS FROM THE HOUSEHOLD STUDY... 255
PA R T I I : OP E R A T I O N A L I Z I N G CU L T U R A L BI A S I N TH E SU R V E Y S. . . 2 7 7 CULTURAL THEORY AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS AT THE MICRO-LEVEL... 279
MEASURING CULTURAL BIAS IN THE NORDIC CULTURES SURVEY... 305
MEASURING CULTURAL BIAS IN THE NORWEGIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SURVEY... 343
COMBINATIONS OF CULTURAL BIASES IN PEOPLE... 359
PARTY PREFERENCE AND CULTURAL BIAS COMBINATIONS... 391
P A R T I I I : DI S C U S S I O N S. . . 4 2 5 FALSE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SURVEY RESEARCH... 427
WHAT IS REJECTION OF ACULTURAL BIAS?... 473
FINAL REMARKS... 497
AP P E N D I X E S . . . 5 0 9 APPENDIX I- THE HOUSEHOLD STUDY... 511
APPENDIX II- THE SURVEYS... 523
APPENDIX III- THE DISCUSSIONS... 553
REFERENCES... 569
vii
Detailed Table of Contents
Table of Contents... v
Detailed Table of Contents ...vii
List of Figures...xiii
List of Tables ... xvi
Abstract... xxi
Acknowledgments ...xxiii
Preface ... xxv
INTRODUCTION... 1
The Research Problem ... 1
Introduction to Cultural Theory ... 7
Four Ways to Organize a Household... 7
Social Relations, Cultural Biases, and Behavioral Patterns... 11
Four Ways of Organizing—Ideal Types of Social Organization... 12
Keeping track of Different Dimensions ... 18
So What? ... 20
The Content of the Thesis ... 25
PA R T I : A QU A L I T A T I V E ST U D Y O F MI G R A N T HO U S E H O L D S3 1 MAKING SENSE OF MIGRANTS... 33
The Need to Understand ... 33
Conceptualizing Migrants... 36
Thoughts about Labeling Immigrants ... 40
Social Stereotyping is Necessary ... 45
Being an Immigrant in the Eyes of the Majority ... 47
Images in the Media... 51
“Immigrant Household” in Everyday Language ... 53
Essentialism in Nationality and Ethnicity ... 54
What Should We Demand of a Better Classification?... 58
Low Politics ... 59
Writing about Real People ... 60
OPERATIONALIZING CULTURAL THEORY... 61
Four Ways to Organize a Household ... 61
The Hierarchical Household... 62
The Egalitarian Household ... 65
The Individualistic Household ... 67
The Fatalistic Household ... 69
Four Kinds of Helping Relations—the Four Solidarities... 74
Predicting Views about Society and Politics ... 78
Human Nature, Role of Institutions, Sovereignty and Trust ... 79
The Scope and Nature of the Democratic Game, and the Private-Public Boundary... 83
Ideas of Justice and Fairness... 87
Distribution of Resources, Social Support and Blame ...88
Using Cultural Theory ...91
Using Cultural Theory to Describe Systems Rather Than Labeling Boxes ...92
High Complexity Defies Explanation of States...94
What Is It About—Organizations or Ways of Organizing? ...95
Relating to Other Theories about Culture ...96
What about Culture? ...96
Cultures in Change...99
Majority vs. Minority Culture ...100
How Does Cultural Theory Match the Five Criteria for Better Classification? ...103
DOING RESEARCH ON MIGRANT HOUSEHOLDS...107
Summary of Research Design and Methodology ...107
Presentation of the Development of a Research Problem ...108
Choice of Methodology ...109
Reasons to Study Households...111
Sampling Households ...116
The Sampling Criterion ...116
Foreign Citizens Are Less Willing to Participate in Research ...119
Gaining Access to Households...120
Selection Bias and Representativeness...123
Making Interviews ...124
The Interview Situation and Style...124
Questions Covering Three Domains ...126
Do We Really Understand Each Other? ...127
Preparing for the Analysis...128
Anonymization of the Households ...128
The Transcription of the Interviews ...130
Reflections on the Analysis...132
Analytical Steps during the Reading of the Transcripts ...132
Otherness...134
Narratives and Judgment ...135
Being a Participant ...136
Selection of Cases and Stories for Analysis and Presentation ...137
Evaluating Research—Validity and Reliability ...139
A Question of Validity ...139
A Question of Reliability ...141
EIGHT HOUSEHOLDS...145
Similarity and Difference ...145
The Nguyens: Loyalty and Stability...147
Quick Summary ...147
The Household’s Internal Life...147
Life in Society ...150
Politics and the Welfare State ...154
Summary of the Household’s Way of Organizing and the Predictions ...158
The Natans: the Community Helpers ...160
The Household’s Internal Life...161
Social Relations in the Society ...163
Politics and the Welfare State ...169
A Summary Compared with the Predictions ... 176
The Garcias: Equality as a Solution... 178
Household’s Internal Life ... 178
Social Relations in the Society ... 181
Politics and the Welfare State ... 184
Summary of the Household’s Way of Organizing and the Predictions ... 189
The Herreras: Entrepreneurship for the Whole Family... 190
Social Relations ... 190
Behavior... 192
Cultural Bias ... 199
An Egalitarian Household ... 200
Welfare State and Politics... 201
Summary of the Household’s Way of Organizing and the Predictions ... 204
The Ngas: Entrepreneurs See Opportunities ... 206
The Organization of the Household ... 206
Their External Social Relations ... 209
Politics and the Welfare State ... 211
Summary of the Household’s Way of Organizing and the Predictions ... 215
The Lorcas: With the Right to Make it ... 218
Household’s Internal Life ... 218
Social Relations ... 221
Politics and the Welfare State ... 222
A Change of Lifestyle Requires a Change of Views ... 229
Summary of the Household’s Way of Organizing and the Predictions ... 230
The Maheswarans: a Career Builder and a Homemaker... 231
The Internal Life of the Household ... 231
The Household and their Friends ... 235
Politics and the Welfare State ... 238
Summary of the Household’s Way of Organizing and the Predictions ... 241
The Truongs: What Happens, Happens ... 243
The Household ... 243
Isolate Social Relations... 245
Politics and the Welfare State ... 249
Summary of the Household’s Way of Organizing and the Predictions ... 252
FINDINGS FROM THE HOUSEHOLD STUDY... 255
Describing Households ... 255
Predicting Households’ Views of Society and Politics... 259
Looking at the Number of Indicators—a Variable Oriented Approach ... 260
A Case-Oriented Approach ... 264
Looking at Combinations of Ways of Organizing ... 266
People Have Coherent Opinions... 268
Where Do Opinions and Values Come From? ... 269
Simplify Dealing with Migrants ... 272
Use Ways of Organizing as Stereotypes... 272
Conclusion ... 274
PA R T I I : OP E R A T I O N A L I Z I N G CU L T U R A L BI A S I N TH E
SU R V E Y S. . . 2 7 7
CULTURAL THEORY AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS AT THE MICRO-LEVEL...279
Surveys and Cultural Theory ...280
Problem 1: Lack of Good Measurement of Concepts Central to Cultural Theory ...283
Problem 2: Cultural Bias is measured without a Model of the Individual-Culture Relationship ...294
Problem 3: Jumping between Levels ...300
Problem 4: Ignoring the Meaning Cultural Biases Carry...302
Moving Forward ...303
MEASURING CULTURAL BIAS IN THE NORDIC CULTURES SURVEY...305
The 1999 Nordic Cultures Survey ...306
The Items Used to Measure Cultural Bias ...307
Constructing Scales...310
Reliability of the Cultural Bias Items...319
Construct Validity ...322
Acquiescence and Cultural Bias...326
Acquiescence in the Literature ...327
Acquiescence Connected to Particular Items ...329
Acquiescence among some Respondents ...332
Acquiescence among all Respondents ...336
Summary of Measuring Cultural Bias in NOS99...338
Suggestions for Improvement ...339
MEASURING CULTURAL BIAS IN THE NORWEGIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION SURVEY...343
The Cultural Bias Items in NEPS95...344
Reliability and Content of the Revised Cultural Bias Scales ...345
Construct Validity of the Revised Cultural Bias Scales...349
Distribution of the Revised Cultural Biases Scales ...352
Different Scales by Age and Education ...355
Deciding on which Scale to Use ...355
COMBINATIONS OF CULTURAL BIASES IN PEOPLE...359
Principles for Labeling Cultural Bias Combinations ...360
Cultural Bias Combinations as Variables ...364
The Dependent Variable: Variations in Party Preference ...366
Empirical Exploration in Search of Cut-off Points ...367
Dividing Respondents and Cultural Bias Scales into Two ...368
Dividing Respondents and Cultural Bias Scales into Three...372
Creating Comparability...375
How Much Can Cultural Biases Explain?...379
Is Support Sufficient or does Rejection Matter? ...384
Does Indifference Make Any Difference? ...386
How Many Cultural Biases are Needed? ...388
Summary ...389
PARTY PREFERENCE AND CULTURAL BIAS COMBINATIONS... 391
Cultural Biases Shape Political Views... 391
Cultural Space... 394
Party Preferences in Cultural Space... 396
Party Preference and the Two Top-Ranked Cultural Biases... 408
Do Biases Make Sense of Party Preference? ... 422
P A R T I I I : DI S C U S S I O N S. . . 4 2 5 FALSE ASSUMPTIONS FOR SURVEY RESEARCH... 427
Implications from the Fallacies... 428
The Dominant Bias Fallacy ... 432
The Single Effect Hypothesis... 434
The Weak Second-Ranked Bias Hypothesis ... 436
Dominant Bias Assumption and Mixed-Level Data ... 437
The Additivity Fallacy ... 441
The Additivity Hypothesis at the Individual Level... 444
The Independence of Effects Fallacy... 449
The Order of Biases in a Combination Does Matter... 450
The Second-Ranked Bias has a Larger Effect when the First-Ranked Bias is a Rejection ... 454
New Possibilities for Aggregating to the Level of Cultural Biases ... 462
Summary... 469
WHAT IS REJECTION OF ACULTURAL BIAS?... 473
Rejection is Different than Support ... 473
Rejection of Cultural Bias in the Households Interviews ... 476
Rejection of Cultural Bias in the Surveys ... 479
Measurement of Rejection in Surveys ... 480
Rejection of One or Two Cultural Biases is Common... 484
Can We Find all Combinations of Support and Rejection? ... 486
The Effects of Rejection on Party Preferences in Surveys ... 489
Rejection as a Carrier of Meaning... 491
Rejection is Still Less Important than Support... 493
FINAL REMARKS... 497
Household research and Cultural Theory... 497
Survey Research and Cultural Theory ... 499
Discussing the Individual-Culture Relation ... 500
The Migration Research... 502
Directions for Future Research ... 503
Suggestions for Better Ways of Measuring Cultural Biases ... 505
The Relationship Between Individuals and Institutions ... 506
AP P E N D I X E S . . . 5 0 9 APPENDIX I- THE HOUSEHOLD STUDY... 511
Interview Guides and Schema ... 511
One Example of the Many Tailored Versions of My Letter of Introduction:... 511
Interview Guide for the First Interview...513
Schemas for Life-, Work- and Housing-History ...515
Interview Guide for the Second Interview ...517
Social Relations Schema (Size A3) ...519
Equipment Used in Transcription ...519
Equipment Used in Transcription ...520
Scores for Each Household ...521
Correlation Matrix—Household vs. Society by Bias ...522
APPENDIX II- THE SURVEYS...523
Statistical Software Used ...523
The Sampling procedures used for NOS99...523
Questions used in the 1999 Survey ...525
Cultural Bias Questions used in Norway ...530
Dataset: Environment, 2000, Norwegian part of ISSP...531
Dataset: The ISSP 1993 Survey on environmentalism ...532
Party Family Preference...533
Cut-off points Used for Labeling Cultural Biases...534
Combinations of Cultural Biases ...535
Cultural Space...538
Two Top-Ranked Biases ...542
Cultural bias combinations, Age and Gender...549
The Alternative S3 Coding Scheme ...551
APPENDIX III- THE DISCUSSIONS...553
Multiple tests of hypothesis on the same data...553
False Assumptions ...555
Dominant Bias Assumption ...555
Independency of Effects Assumption ...565
What is Rejection of a Cultural Bias? ...567
REFERENCES...569
xiii
List of Figures
Figure 1: Overview of the Research Design 3
Figure 2: Three Connected Aspects of Social Organization 12
Figure 3: Two Dimensions and Four Social Structures 13
Figure 4: Types of Behavioral Patterns 15
Figure 5: Four Cultural Biases—A Typology 17
Figure 6: Four Ways of Organizing 19
Figure 7: Overview of the Households’ Position 146
Figure 8: Eight Households’ Internal Organization and Social Relations
(Count of indicators) 257
Figure 9: Eight Households’ Way of Organizing and their Views of
Society and Politics (Count of Indicators) 261
Figure 10: The Social Relations Model of Cultural Theory 285
Figure 11: The Preference Model of Cultural Theory 286
Figure 12: Grid-Group and Four Cultures 289
Figure 13: The Knowledge Model of Cultural Theory 299
Figure 14: Cultural Bias by Country (Deviation from the Nordic average).
NOS99. 315
Figure 15: Distribution of Respondent’s Scores on the Hierarchical, Egalitarian, Individualistic, and Fatalistic Bias Scales
(Countrywise standardization) with a Normal Curve. NOS99. 316 Figure 16: Mean Acquiescence Balance by Age and Education. NOS99 332
Figure 17: Mean Cultural Bias by Age Groups. NOS99 333
Figure 18: Hierarchical CB 5-item and 2-item by Sample. NEPS95.
Histogram. 352
Figure 19: Egalitarian CB 11-item, 7-item, and 3-item by Sample.
NEPS95. Histogram. 353
Figure 20: Individualistic CB 8-item and 2-item scales by Sample.
NEPS95. Histogram. 354
Figure 21: Fatalistic CB 4-item and 2-item scales by Sample. NEPS95.
Histogram. 354
Figure 22: Cultural Bias Scales by Age and Education. General Sample in
NEPS95. 356
Figure 23: Principles for Labeling Cultural Bias Combinations 361 Figure 24: One Cut-off Point Divides Respondents into Two 368 Figure 25: The Explanatory Power of a Single CB by Cut-off Point.
NOS99. (U) 370
Figure 26: The Explanatory Power of Cultural Bias Combinations, by one Cut-off Point and Ordering Principle. NOS99. (Maximum and
Mean U) 371
Figure 27: Two Cut-off Points Divide Respondents into Three 372 Figure 28: The Explanatory Power of Cultural Bias Combinations, by
Two Cut-off Points and Ordering Principle. NOS99.
(Maximum and Mean U) 373
Figure 29: The Explanatory power of Cultural Bias Combinations, by Two Cut-off points, Number of Biases, and Ordering. NOS99.
(U) 374
Figure 30: The Curvilinear Relationship between U and Number of
Categories. NOS99. 376
Figure 31: The Explanatory Power of Cultural Bias Combinations controlled for by Levels, Ordering Principle, and Number of
Biases used. NOS99 limited. 384
Figure 32: Confidence Intervals for Explanatory Power by Support and Absolute Values and Dependent Variable. NOS99 limited.
(Mean U). 386
Figure 33: Confidence Intervals for Explanatory Power by Levels and
Party Preference. NOS99 limited. (Mean U) 387
Figure 34: Cultural Space. NOS99. (Count of Valid Respondents) 395 Figure 35: Socialist Left Party Family Support in Cultural Space. NOS99.
(Percent) 397
Figure 36: Green Party Family Support in Cultural Space. NOS99.
(Percent) 398
Figure 37: Social Democratic Party Family Support in Cultural Space.
NOS99. (Percent) 400
Figure 38: Agrarian Party Family Support in Cultural Space. NOS99.
(Percent) 401
Figure 39: Liberal Party Family Support in Cultural Space. NOS99.
(Percent) 402
Figure 40: Christian Party Family Support in Cultural Space. NOS99
(Percent) 403
Figure 41: Probability of Christian Party Preference in Norway in 1993
by Church Attendance and Hierarchy and Fatalism 404 Figure 42: Conservative Party Family Support in Cultural Space. NOS99.
(Percent) 406
Figure 43: Progress Party Family Support in Cultural Space. NOS99
(Percent) 407
Figure 44: Proportion of Respondents by Count of Rejected Cultural
Biases. NOS99 and NEPS95. 485
Figure 45: Average Age and Gender by Cultural Bias Combination
(Fixed Abs Tri 3) NOS99. 550
Figure 46: Average Age and Gender by Cultural Bias Combination (Two
Top-ranked Abs) NOS99. 550
xvi
List of Tables
Table 1: Majority Population’s Sources of Information Concerning
Immigrants 49
Table 2: Identifying Immigrants 50
Table 3: Four Ways to Organize a Household 63
Table 4: Human Nature, Institutions and Trust 80
Table 5: The Scope and Nature of the Democratic Game 84
Table 6: Distribution of Resources, Social Support and Blame 88
Table 7: The Theoretical Sampling Population 116
Table 8: The Sample 122
Table 9: Representativeness in Relation to Theoretical Sample
Population 123
Table 10: Attributes Changed in Anonymization 130
Table 11: Notation Used in Transcription 131
Table 12: Ways of Organizing and Views of Politics and Society
(Correlations) 262
Table 13: Similarity between Way of Organizing and Views of Politics
and Society 265
Table 14: Eight Households’ Ways of Organizing and their Views of
Politics and Society presented as Combinations 267 Table 15: Examples of Research based on Surveys using Cultural
Theory 282
Table 16: Models of Cultural Bias at the Individual Level 297 Table 17: The Sample—Non-weighted and Weighted. NOS99. 307
Table 18: List of Cultural Bias Items in NOS99. 308
Table 19: Number of Valid Responses to the Cultural Bias Statements
(non-weighed). NOS99. 311
Table 20: Respondents Who Gave the Same Answer to 20 Cultural Bias
Items. NOS99. 312
Table 21: Reliability of Cultural Bias Scales. NOS99. (Cronbach’s
Alpha and N) 321
Table 22: Reliability of Countrywise Standardized Five-item Scales by
Country. NOS99. (Cronbach’s Alpha) 322
Table 23: Factor Analysis of Cultural Bias Items. The Structure Matrix
after Oblimin Rotation. NOS99. 324
Table 24: Factor Analysis—Component Correlation Matrix 325
Table 25: Acquiescence Balance by Cultural Bias Item and Country.
NOS99. 331
Table 26: Agreement with No Ecological Crisis according to Education and Disagreement with Cultural Bias Items. NOS99. (Count
and Column percent). 335
Table 27: Acquiescence Balance Explained controlled for by Age and
Education. Regression Analysis. NOS99. 337
Table 28: Wording of the Growth and Equality Questions in NEPS95. 345 Table 29: Items in the Hierarchical Cultural Bias Scale in General
Population NEPS95 346
Table 30: Items in the Egalitarian Cultural Bias Scale in NEPS95.
(Cronbach’s alpha) 347
Table 31: Items in the Individualistic Cultural Bias Scale in NEPS95 348 Table 32: Items in the Fatalistic Cultural Bias Scale in NEPS95 349 Table 33: Revised Cultural Bias Scales. (Correlation). 350 Table 34: Indicators for a Single Cultural Bias by Levels 363 Table 35: Variables used for Cultural Bias Combinations, arranged by
Levels, Ordering, N of Biases in the Label, and Selection
Principle 365
Table 36: List of Party Preference Variables 367
Table 37: The Number of Cultural Bias Combinations and Respondents
by Variable and Country. NOS99 Limited. 377
Table 38: Cultural Bias Combinations Predict Party Preference, by
Country. NOS99 limited. (U) 381
Table 39: Cultural Bias Combinations Predict Ideological Party
Preference. NOS99 limited. (U) 382
Table 40: Voter Preference for Party Family by Country. NOS99.
(Percent within country) 394
Table 41: Two Top-Ranked Biases by Country. NOS99 limited. (Count) 410 Table 42: Ideological Party Family Preference by Two Top-Ranked
Biases. NOS99 limited. (Row percent) 412
Table 43: Support for the Socialist Left Party Family (Adj.s.res.) 414 Table 44: Support for the Liberal Party Family (Adj.s.res.) 415 Table 45: Support for the Green Party Family (Adj.s.res.) 416 Table 46: Support for the Social Democratic Party Family (Adj.s.res.) 417 Table 47: Support for the Agrarian Party Family (Adj.s.res). 418 Table 48: Agrarian Party Family Support among Rural Population in N,
S, F and I (Adj.s.res) 419
Table 49: Support for the Christian Party Family (Adj.s.res.) 420 Table 50: Support for the Conservative Party Family (Adj.s.res.) 421
Table 51: Support for the Progress Party Family (Adj.s.res.) 422 Table 52: The Effect of First-Ranked and Second-Ranked Biases on
Party Preference by Sample. NOS99 and NEPS95. (Percent
explained variance) 435
Table 53: Confidence Intervals for the Effects of the First- and Second- Ranked Bias on Party Preference by Sample. NOS99 and
NEPS95. 437
Table 54: Correlations between Individual CB traits and Sample Effects.
NOS99 and NEPS95. 439
Table 55: The Effect of the Combination of Two First Cultural Biases on Party Preference by Sample (Percent Explained Variance) 443 Table 56: Correlations between Individual CB traits and Additive
Sample Effects. NOS99 and NEPS95. 446
Table 57: Overview of Bivariate Regressions for Individual CB traits
and Additive Sample Effects. NOS99 and NEPS95. 447 Table 58: Results of Hypothesis tests on Additivity of Biases 448 Table 59: Party Preference by CB pair (eH and He) in the NEPS95
General Sample. (Count and Directional Measures) 451 Table 60: Percent of Party Preferences Explained by Change in Order of
CB pair. NEPS95. 452
Table 61: Party Preference in Norway for Rejection of Egalitarian Bias as First-Ranked Bias controlled for by the Second-Ranked
Bias. NEPS95. (Percent) 455
Table 62: The Effect of Second-Ranked Bias on Party Preferences when controlled for by First-Ranked Bias and Country 458 Table 63: Effect of the Second-Ranked Cultural Biases when controlled
for by First-Ranked Bias and Sample. NEPS95. 459 Table 64: Comparing Confidence Intervals for the Effect of the Second
Biases when the First Bias is Support or Rejection. 461 Table 65: The Effect of the Absolute Value of the First-Ranked CB on
Party Family Preference. NOS99. (Adj.S.Res.) 463 Table 66: The Effect of Absolute Value of the Second-Ranked CB on
Party Family Preference. NOS99. (Adj.S.Res.) 463 Table 67: Correlations Between the Effect of the Support for Top Two
Biases (Aggregated) and other Characteristics when controlled for by Support for First Bias (Aggr). NOS99. 466 Table 68: Correlations Between the Effect of Absolute value of Top Two
Biases (aggregated) and other Characteristics when controlled
for by First Bias A. NOS99. 468
Table 69: Factor Analysis of CB items used in NEPS95. 483
Table 70: Count of Rejected by Count of Supported CBs. NOS99 and
NEPS95. (Count and total percent) 488
Table 71: The Two Top Biases Ranked by Support and Absolute values.
NOS99 and NEPS95. (U) 491
Table 72: Cultural Combinations by Preferred Party Family. NOS99
(CultRankTriA2) 492
Table 73: Indicators for Ways of Organizing in each Household. (Count) 521 Table 74: Internal and External CB Traits in Households. Correlation
Matrix. 522
Table 75: National Parties by Nordic Party Family 533
Table 76: Cut-off Points in Cultural Bias Scales By Country and
Percentiles. NOS99. 534
Table 77: Count of Respondents and categories by Variable. NOS99. 535 Table 78: The Ability to Predict Party Preference by Support vs.
Absolute value. NOS99 limited. (U) 536
Table 79: The Ability to predict Party preference by Trichotomous vs.
Neutral versions. NOS99 limited (U) 536
Table 80: Respondents in Cultural Space in NOS99. (Count) 536 Table 81: Explanatory power of N of Categories by type of Party
Preference. NOS99. (Cubic Regression Model Parameters) 537 Table 82: Party Preference by Cultural Space. NOS99 (Row percent) 538 Table 83: Party Preference by Cultural Space. NOS99. (Adj. s. res.). 540 Table 84: Party Family Preference by Two Top-Ranked Biases. NOS99
limited. (Adj.s. res.) 542
Table 85: Party Family Preference by Two Top-Ranked Biases. NOS99
limited (Row percent.) 543
Table 86: Party Family Preference by Two Top-Ranked Biases and
Country. NOS99 limited. (Row percent) 544
Table 87: Party Preference by Two Top-Ranked Biases and Country.
NOS99 limited. (Adj.s.res.) 547
Table 88: The Explanatory Power of Cultural Combinations by Country.
S3 NOS99 limited. (Percent explained variance). 552 Table 89: Probability of Getting at least one Significant Result 553 Table 90: Conclusions when Repeating Hypothesis Tests 554 Table 91: Party Preference by the Two Strongest CB. Env Org Sample
from NEPS95. (Row percent.) 556
Table 92: Party Preference by the Two First Ranked CB. General
Sample from NEPS95. (Row percent.) 557
Table 93: Party Prefrence by Two First Ranked Biases by Country
NOS99 (Row percent) 558
Table 94: Percent Party Preference Explained by Change of Order of CB
pair. NOS99. 565
Table 95: Count of Respondents in Cultural Space by Country. NOS99. 567 Table 96: Count of Respondents in Cultural Space by Sample. NEPS95. 568 Table 97: References by Original Year of Publication 568
xxi
Abstract
The main research problem of how we should understand the relationship between individuals, social structures in institutions, and cultural biases is approached from two different angles: from a study of migrant households as institutions and from several surveys that focus on cultural biases at the individual level. Cultural theory, building upon the work of Mary Douglas, describes four ways of organizing, also known as ways of life or cultures—namely hierarchical, egalitarian, individualistic, and fatalistic ways of organizing.
Many concepts and stereotypes emphasize the differences between the majority population and migrants. In contrast to these, the present thesis shows how migrants’ ways of organizing their households are actually familiar to us, even when these migrants come from distant countries. The author suggests that this familiarity provides a common cultural basis for communication and interaction, even between peoples who are commonly seen as being radically different.
The bulk of the argument given above is based on a qualitative study consisting of in-depth interviews of seventeen migrant households presently living in Norway.
The households originate from Vietnam, Chile, and Sri Lanka, and eight of them are presented in detail. They are first described according to their internal organization (based on their economic decisions, their justifications for the division of housework, and their behaviors during interviews) and their external social relations (how they justify giving and receiving support from others). Households’
stated preferences are compared with theoretically-based predictions of attitudes toward institutions, trust, social support, the distribution of resources, blame, the view of democracy, and political decision making. Contrary to the expectations of mainstream political science, this study finds a strong relationship between a household’s way of organizing and its views on society and politics. Rather than relying on the country of origin as a basis for categorization, migrant households’ relations with the state and the majority society can be better understood by knowing how they organize their households.
Cultural theory is primarily a theory about institutions, but sometimes it also makes claims about people. In addition to the arguments made about migrants, this thesis also argues that people are not just miniature institutions and suggests two theoretical improvements to cultural theory. First, people do not only support one cultural bias, they can also reject or support the other cultural biases. Second, at the level of the individual, the effects of cultural biases are not additive, nor are they independent of each other; biases must be studied in combinations. Biases are better understood as a package of meanings rather than existing as separate items. In short, cultural biases are patterns of meaning that are not easy to summarize and analyze numerically, and the relevant number of biases is of course an empirical question.
The argument presented here about cultural biases is based on quantitative data extracted from the 1999 Nordic Cultures Survey, which consists of representative samples from Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, and Iceland (n=4833). Data are also extracted from the 1995 Norwegian Environmental Protection Survey, which consists of representative samples from 12 environmental organizations and from the general population in Norway (n=3106).
xxiii
Acknowledgments
I want to express my gratitude to every household that unselfishly participated in this research and opened their doors to a stranger who wanted to write about them.
I also wish to thank all those people within the migrant communities, as well as those from various schools, public offices, and religious communities, who have taken the time to talk with me and help me. Many of you deserve to be mentioned here, but to preserve the anonymity of others, I will only express my collective gratitude to you all.
With respect to dissertation supervision, I am grateful to Michael Thompson for his persistent comments on my writing and ideas from the very first drafts to the final version. I also want to express my gratitude to Per Selle, who generously stepped in and supervised me during the final and critical stages of the writing process.
I am also indebted to Stein Kuhnle and Michael Alvarez, who both served as my thesis supervisors at earlier stages. In the early stages of the thesis, I also benefited from discussions with and guidance from Yngve Lithman. The late Dame Mary Douglas has been a great inspiration and a judicious discussion partner. Steve Rayner, Robert Hoppe, and Siri Gloppen have given their insightful comments on the first part of the thesis, while Marcus Buck has opened my eyes to cross-level inference. I am also grateful to Steven Ney, Trine Haaland, Gunnar Grendstad, Michael Pepperday, my fellow PhD candidates at the Department of Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen, and the entire IMER research community in Bergen for reading some of the text or providing me with a testing ground for new ideas. Richard Whitehead and Rick Danley have helped me with the English language. Jon Audun Kvalbein has transcribed most of the interviews. I would like to thank you all, and ensure that all errors are my own, while some of the credit belongs to you.
I thank the Department of Comparative Politics at the University of Bergen for having faith in this project, for providing me with the necessary infrastructure during the first years of the project, and for providing support for the biannual PhD seminars at Solstrand. I would also like to thank the second IMER program within the Research Council of Norway for funding the household study; the Centre for Combating Ethnic Discrimination, which was my previous employer, for supporting my efforts; and my present employer, the Equality and Anti- Discrimination Ombud, for allowing me to take several leaves of absence in my effort to finalize the thesis. I would also like to thank NSD, SSB, MMI, and IMDi for access to data and background materials.
Last, but not least, I would like to express my gratitude to Trine Haaland, my family, and my friends for being supportive of me and for being there for me when I needed you.
xxv
Preface
I started my research on cultural theory as a graduate student back in 1992 with the idea that, for a variety of reasons, this theory must be wrong. Over the years, I have grown into the belief that cultural theory has got something right, even if the research methods are often not quite right. Therefore, I find myself repeatedly seeking out the problematic, gray areas where the assumptions made essentially hide some underlying lack of clarity. In light of this, I do not aim to explain political views, but to make a few methodological improvements and increase our understanding of the relationship between individuals and cultures.
Part of the motivation that guides my research is based on the fact that those institutions that finance research, as well as the academic career system which is based on counting publications, require researchers to constantly generate research findings. This pushes researchers to select safe topics and safe research methods. I think there are too few publicized efforts at exploring the more problematic areas of inquiry, or areas where methodological standards do not yet exist. This kind of exploration often involves high degrees of uncertainty, as questions are raised about many of the assumptions that are commonly taken for granted. I have chosen to emphasize this type of exploration because I believe that the development of social science benefits when these kinds of explorations are made public. Displaying many of the uncertainties and choices opens up the text to a true peer review process.
Since 2003, I have been working at the Center for Ethnic Discrimination and the Equality and Anti-Discrimination Ombud, and research on cultural theory has been a something between a hobby and an obsession. Cultural theory has given me a perspective that I believe could be valuable for many people working with migrants.
This thesis is an attempt to put into place the foundations for a cultural theory that is based on research of individuals rather than just institutions. In cooperation with others, the next step will be to create real-life applications for cross-cultural communication and organization.
1 C h a p t e r 1
INTRODUCTION
The Research Problem
In previous research, I have suggested that a model which specifies the relationship between an individual on the one hand and a way of life on the other hand is necessary for a meaningful coding and analysis of survey data (For more information see Olli 1996). In addition, I have argued that the rejection of a cultural bias at the individual level is important, and suggested that cultural biases are not simply additive (Olli 1999). This thesis takes several steps further along the same path by asking the following: How should we understand the relationship between individuals, social structures in institutions, and cultural biases?
Within the politically relevant arm of cultural theory, there are two main strands of research: The first one uses organizational-level data and successfully explains institutional stability, change, and conflicts. The second one uses representative sample surveys to explain individual perceptions of risks and political choices. The institutional research is mostly case-oriented and qualitative, while the survey research is quantitative. In this thesis, I will relate to both strands of research and suggest major improvements for the ways we should understand an individual’s relationship with cultural biases.
The first part of the thesis is a qualitative study of migrant households. The study shows how the households’ political views are closely connected to the way the household is organized. This study allows me to apply the institutional strand of cultural theory to households in Norway. In addition, it demonstrates the use of a typology as an alternative to the nationality-based stereotypes of migrants.
The second part of the thesis attempts to sort out some of the problems of using cultural theory in surveys by suggesting a better way of operationalizing cultural biases. I start by presenting a theoretical critique of how cultural theory is used at the individual level. I then explore a variety of ways in which cultural biases can be operationalized at the individual level, with the goal of developing a new operationalization of cultural biases as combinations at this level. Finally, I try this new operationalization out by using it to explain party preference in the Nordic countries.
The third part of the thesis uses this new operationalization to discuss several topics. First, I demonstrate that three of the assumptions commonly used in survey research on cultural biases receive so little empirical support that they should be seen as fallacies. Then I discuss the nature of rejection, in the light of the evidence available from a household study and surveys.
In Figure 1 below, we can see an overview of the three parts of the thesis. The qualitative part uses the internal organization of households and the pattern of giving and receiving help through their social relations to explain political views, while the quantitative part uses cultural biases held by individuals to explain party preference as a proxy for political views.
There are several reasons for combining qualitative and quantitative methods to improve the operationalization of cultural theory. First, using two different methods helps me to make assumptions and choices explicit, thus making it easier to criticize and improve the operationalizations by rendering them more transparent. The more common approach, where two or more theories are compared based on their abilities to explain political views, would typically hide much of the operationalization, thus making improvements difficult.
Second, I firmly believe that operationalization should be a reflection of the theory and its intended use. The qualitative operationalization in Part I could have been much more formal, but my interest in cross-cultural communication and practical work with migrant families convinced me of the utility of having an operationalization where the researcher interacts with with the family. Why make it difficult if easy works? How simple can we make it and still use it on Vietnamese, Tamil, and Chilean households in Norway? The quantitative operationalization in Part II moves in the opposite direction, toward increasing complexity, because I believe that the operationalization of cultural bias at the individual level should reflect the way cultural biases actually work at the individual level. Because the individual-culture relationship is not well defined, I explore many different operationalizations in Part II. Since households are institutions, I can avoid many of these problems in Part I.
Third, the use of two different methods allows for a triangulation that cannot be done from only one viewpoint. My two operationalizations are not an attempt to transfer or recreate the same operationalization with a different type of methodology (maximizing similarities). I am trying to create two different operationalizations independently of one another. In this sense, I am increasing the difference between the operationalizations in an effort to create two independent viewpoints that both stand on their own. The differences and similarities in findings tell us something more about how cultural biases work in institutions and in individuals.
Figure 1: Overview of the Research Design
Before I present cultural theory in more detail, I will briefly sketch the research problems as they appear in the different parts of the thesis.
Part I: A Qualitative Study of Migrant Households in Norway
In the first part of the thesis, I will explore the importance of institutions for our political views by engaging in a qualitative study of migrant households from different ethnic backgrounds. The unit of study is the household, the most
Part I: A Qualitive Study of Migrant Households in Norway:
Internal organization of the household &
helping relations
Political views
Part II: Operationalization of Cultural bias in the Surveys:
Individual cultural bias
Party preference
Part III: Discussions
Analysis of seven samples of survey data
Theoretical discussions Findings from the household
study
common institution found in society. This allows for a contextualized operationalization of cultural theory and avoids some of the pitfalls of methodological individualism. This part helps to formulate some new hypotheses by asking how a household’s view of politics and society is related to the way the household is organized.
Cultural theory’s claim that there are only four fundamentally different, yet stable ways of organizing, the hierarchical, egalitarian, individualistic and fatalistic way of organizing, is interesting for both migration researchers and for political scientists.
First, for migration researchers the novelty lies in a new perspective that can counteract the essentialism in many of the concepts used when dealing with migrants. It is an alternative way of conceptualizing migrants and our social interactions with them.1 I present cultural theory as a theoretical alternative, or addition to, the present thinking regarding immigrants, which seems in many ways to be locked into the concepts of ethnicity and nationality (or country of origin).
The hierarchical household often uses traditional gender and role based division of labor. The egalitarian household is organized as a flat structure where all are equal, and participate in the decision-making. The individualistic household relies upon a network organization and bilateral agreements. The fatalistic household lacks a reliable support structure and copes with external events, rather than plans for future.
These four ways of organizing can provide an explanation for the common elements that people use when they create social interactions with people they do know. If the application of cultural theory is simple enough, it can have sizable and practical use value for professionals who deal with migrants without knowing them personally.
Second, the claim which points to only four ways of organizing is interesting for political scientists because it provides a partial explanation for the origin of political preferences. Part I of the thesis contributes to political science generally by proposing that household structure is an important source of people’s political views and a more important source than country of origin. To understand political culture, we must study how institutions are related to values (Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky 1992:517). This attempt is general in nature, and not limited to migrants.
The Research Council of Norway’s second research program on International Migration and Ethnic Relations (IMER) provided the financing for this household study. Therefore, I have written the first part of the thesis for a particular audience—i.e. people who study or deal with migrants in their daily lives.
Migration research is most relevant for a general study of the individual-culture relationship. Migration places individuals in a new setting where the individual- culture relationship is bound to change. In migration research, the individual-
1 A joint introduction to current thinking about the internal and societal processes concerning migration can be found in Lithman and Sicakkan (2006, 2005).
culture relationship has been studied for decades. Cultural theory’s understanding of the individual-culture relationship can be strengthened by learning form the insights from migration research.2 In addition, I believe that the different origins of the households make my conclusions more general than if I had only studied ethnically Norwegian households.
Cultural theory helps us to see the organizational commonalities among society’s most common institution, namely the household. In politics, and often in research, cultural differences between people from different countries are emphasized:
Migrants are presented as some special kind of people or framed as the other, which we then use as means for defining who we are (Gullestad 2001, 2002). Stereotypes, or overly simplified images of a person based on their cultural background, are so strong that social contact does not automatically alter them (Durrheim and Dixon 2005; Andersson 2000:294). By showing that the organizing principles in migrants’
households are familiar to us, rather than strange or different, I have chosen a research strategy that counters the tendency of stereotypes.
Cultural theory, along with my analysis, gives us some guidance for how to deal with migrant households we do not know personally. Writing this introduction a few months after the 22/7 terror attacks in Oslo makes me even more certain in my conviction that it is useful to study what is common in households from many countries rather than simply emphasizing their differences. Culture is not just about difference and conflict; competence in the different ways of life makes it possible to communicate and interact with people from different backgrounds.
By itself, the first part of the thesis is an operationalization of cultural theory that is designed to deal with households in Norway and to be useful for both practitioners and researchers in the field of migration. However, in relation to the rest of the thesis, Part I serves as a study of how the institutional version of cultural theory makes sense of the ways in which households are organized and their views on politics and institutions of the welfare state.
Part II: Operationalizing Cultural Bias at the Individual Level
The overarching goal of Part II is to find a working operationalization for cultural biases at the individual level, as measured through the use of survey techniques. Much of previous survey-based research on cultural theory has a rather unclear view of the relationship between individual and culture (Olli 1995, 1999). I believe that there are several theoretical problems that need to be solved before empirical research on the individual level will be successful.
First, I try to answer the question of what is wrong with existing survey-based research on cultural theory. Since there are several problems, we should give up many of our assumptions and try to take as little as possible for granted. Second, I try to find out
2 In some ways, migration provides us with an real-life laboratory, where we can study what happens when an individual or family is inserted into in a new society and cultural setting.
how to measure cultural biases in two different surveys: one covering all five Nordic countries and the other covering the members of environmental organizations and the general public in Norway. Third, I explore a variety of possible ways to operationalize the relationship between individuals and cultural biases, and then present an empirical method for finding out which assumptions perform better than others. Based on this analysis, I suggest that a combination of two top-ranked cultural biases is probably a useful simplification of an individual’s cultural bias.
However, before this new operationalization can be trusted enough to use in theoretical work, it must be evaluated. I do this by using it to explain preferences for Nordic party families.
If you are not interested in the measurement and operationalization of cultural biases, then you can skip Part II. In doing so, however, you will just have to trust me when I say that the combination of two top-ranked biases is probably the best way to use cultural theory at the individual level.
The main weakness of Part II is that I use only one variable, namely party preference, as the dependent variable. I have chosen this variable because it carries meaning in most countries and is not reducible to just one dimension in any of the Nordic countries. Choosing a one-dimensional variable would probably lead to a different operationalization of cultural biases. Nevertheless, I believe the multi- dimensionality is necessary when studying the possibilities that lie in the use of cultural biases as combinations.
In short, the second part is both an independent attempt to solve some methodological problems that have hampered survey research on cultural theory, and a necessary preparation for the analyses in the third part. Let us now take a look at Part III.
Part III: Discussions
The two first parts of the thesis prepare the grounds for the discussions in the third part of the thesis. The topics taken up in the discussions are closely connected to the problems presented in the beginning of part two. The household study is an institutional corrective to the tendency toward the implicit use of methodological individualism in the survey methods. I seek empirical evidence from all five samples in the 1999 Nordic Cultures Survey (NOS99) and from both samples in the 1995 Norwegian Environmental Protection Survey (NEPS95), in addition to, evidence from the household study.
By taking up two important discussions, Part III contributes to exploring the main research problem—i.e. the relationship between individuals, social structures, and cultural biases. First, I empirically test three major assumptions that underlie most survey- based research on cultural theory: the dominant bias assumption, the independence assumption, and the additivity of effects assumptions. The lack of clarity about these assumptions will lead to several methodological flaws in the data analysis.
Establishing the status of these assumptions is therefore important.
Second, I once again raise the question of what the rejection of cultural bias is all about.
This discussion has both methodological and theoretical consequences insofar as our understanding of the nature of the rejection of cultural bias is intrinsically connected to our understanding of the individual-culture relationship.
At this point, the research questions that guide the remainder of this volume have been laid out. As a recap, these questions are as follows: How should we understand the relationship between individuals, social structures, and cultural biases? Can cultural theory’s typology be an alternative way of conceptualizing migrants? How are a household’s views of politics and society related to the way the household is organized? What is wrong with existing survey-based research on cultural theory? How can cultural theory be operationalized at the level of individuals? Can we trust the three major assumptions that underlie survey-based research on cultural theory? Finally, what is the rejection of cultural bias all about? I will now move on to present cultural theory since it is the foundation this thesis rests upon.
Introduction to Cultural Theory
Cultural theory is based on the works of Mary Douglas,3 who created it as a tool for comparing religions and the societies where these religions appear (Douglas 1996a).
An abstract conceptual framework depicts structural similarities across different societies, institutions, and cultures, which also makes it suitable for describing immigrants in today’s increasingly multicultural society.
I will first draw quick images of four different types of households, and the political views that match these ways of organizing because these images can give the reader a sense for what the theory can be used for. Afterwards, I will present the theory behind the four different types of households. However, I will wait until Chapter 7 (page 278) to present the individual-level problems in the theory since these problems are not relevant for the household study in Part I.
Four Ways to Organize a Household
This thesis proposes that cultural theory can be successfully used to understand how social interaction in some migrant households is constructed. Cultural theory is
3 One should note that “cultural theory” is not a label chosen by Mary Douglas herself, but by Thompson, Ellis and Wildavsky, who in the book Cultural Theory collected and summarized the ideas and arguments of those using Mary Douglas's heuristic grid-group schema as a fairly complete but still disputable theory (1991). There is no value judgement made on my part of other cultural approaches, even if the name “cultural theory” might sound somewhat totalitarian. It reflects the lack of cultural approaches in American political science at that time.
a theory about forms of institutionalized social interaction.4 It claims that there is a connection between social relations, behavioral patterns, and cultural biases (mental constructs), and that only certain combinations of these work well together, while the rest do not. These well-working combinations, which can be used to create long-lasting institutions, are called solidarities or ways of organizing. Many institutionalists have worked with two cases (market and hierarchy), and some have added a third one (club, clan, collegium, enclave, or clique) that is based on a small group with a flat structure.
The smallest units in society that can be considered to be institutions are households.5 According to cultural theory, we make greater gains by using a typology of four different ways of organizing: hierarchical, egalitarian, individualistic, and fatalistic. I will here exemplify these by presenting four ways to organize a household and four different views of politics and society. No single household is likely to rely on just one solidarity, however, and often, one is more prevalent than the others. I will give a few examples that will hopefully help promote an understanding regarding the kind of role this theory can have in describing migrant households.
A household that organizes itself based mainly upon the hierarchical way of organizing is likely to divide the world into different spheres, with different rules:
hence, you get a division of labor based on gender, generation, and so forth. In these households the members know who does what and when it should be done.
Traditions are important and are often used to justify and define roles and rules. A good person is one who lives up to these roles and rules. In this household, one might hear the mother say to her children, “You should do it because your father says so!”
A household that organizes itself based mainly upon the egalitarian way of organizing is likely to have a division of labor that emphasizes equality: everyone is supposed to perform every task, at least sometimes. Their ideal household is a collective, with a flat structure, and a low level of role differentiation. The egali- tarian way of organizing rejects the division of the world into different spheres;
instead, it emphasizes the unity of the world. The household makes its own rules: in some sense it is sovereign; rules and roles are not just adopted from the outside, they are carefully created within the household. A good person maintains a consistent role across different contexts. Justification is often rooted in a collective decision. In these families, one might hear one of the parents inviting the children to a discussion: “Let us all talk about this…”
4 The references are omitted from the presentation of the theory for the sake of clarity. This relatively new version of cultural theory is best presented by Michael Thompson (2008, 1996;
1999). In Chapter 3 due respect is paid to the original authors (Douglas 1982b, 1986; Gross and Rayner 1985; Thompson, Ellis, and Wildavsky 1990; Thompson 1996; Dake, Thompson, and Neff 1994).
5 However, cultural theory can also be applied to individuals with small modifications. More about this can be found in Bird Spotting Individuals (on page 93) and in Chapter 7.
