Written submission from Dr Asma Mustafa (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) and Professor Anthony Heath, CBE, FBA (Centre for Social Investigation, Nuffield College, Oxford) (MIE0008)
As the Enquiry notes, Muslims face some of the lowest employment rates and lowest earnings of any group in Britain and are also underrepresented in managerial and professional roles. Muslim women have particularly low rates of economic activity and there is a high incidence of household poverty, which reaches 50% for Muslim households compared with a national average of around 18% (Heath and Li 2015). Similarly ONS data highlights that only 6% (compared to a national average of 10%) of British Muslims are in occupations described as ‘higher managerial, administrative and professional occupations’ such as chief executives, doctors, barristers and architects, and only 10% of British Muslims are employed in the ‘lower managerial, administrative and professional occupations’ compared to the national average of 20% (Reynolds & Birdwell, 2015). British Muslim women are also substantially under-represented in the higher professions according to research by Demos in 2015 “There is also a notable gender gap. Out of all Muslims in top professions in England and Wales, only 40 per cent are women compared with 60 per cent who are men. This gender gap within the Muslim community is larger than for any other religious group...It should be further noted that even if Muslim women were employed in the top professions at the same rate as Muslim men, British Muslims would still be the most underrepresented religious group by a considerable margin.” (Reynolds & Birdwell, 2015: 15).
Some of these differences between Muslims and people belonging to other religions (or those with no religion) can be explained by the fact that many Muslims have arrived only recently in Britain, may have lower-level foreign qualifications (which may have lesser value in the British labour market) and may lack fluency in English. However, statistical analysis shows that there are large and significant disadvantages in the labour market experienced by Muslims in Britain, even after adjusting for such factors. For example, in the case of poverty, statistical analysis shows that the proportion of households in poverty was 16 points higher among Muslims compared with Anglicans of the same age, generational status, educational level, marital status and region of residence in Britain. It is likely that detailed analysis would show similar results in the case of economic inactivity, unemployment, earnings, and occupational progression: namely that the overall (gross) disadvantage experienced by Muslims can be partially explained by their individual characteristics (such as their educational level) but that large and statistically significant (net) gaps remain even after taking account of these differences in individual characteristics.
Social scientists often use the term ‘ethnic penalty’ to refer to these net gaps in the labour market outcomes of ethnic minorities. These ethnic penalties can be thought of as the average difference between a member of an ethnic minority and a white British person of the same age, education, gender, marital status and so on. It is now well-established that there are ethnic penalties in employment in Britain (Li, 2010; Heath and Cheung, 2006) for some of our main Muslim ethnic groups such as those of Pakistani or Bangladeshi heritage.
In a continued exploration of employment penalties, academics have recently begun comparing religious groups. The results have shown that religion is also important as a source of employment penalties for British Muslims (Lindley, 2002; Simpson et al, 2006; Berthoud and Blekesaune, 2007; Heath and Martin, 2012; Khattab and Johnston, 2013; Khattab and Modood, 2015). These religious penalties are greatest with respect to women’s economic activity, and smallest with respect to men’s unemployment, but even in the latter case the inequality is significant enough to warrant attention.
Berthoud and Blekesaune (2007) used a longitudinal survey based on the British census, to explore disadvantage among groups and found that the largest employment penalties were faced by Muslims, especially women. They concluded that for women, religion is more important in predicting employment penalties than among men, for whom ethnicity was equally relevant. They found that, when comparing employment penalties, the largest penalties are reported for mothers of young children, with or without a partner. Next come disabled people followed by Pakistani and Bangladeshi women, together with mothers of older children. The 2001 Census included a question about religion, and using the ONS categories they found that the largest religious effect is felt by Muslims:
“The most striking finding is the low employment rates among Muslims…Almost 70 per cent of Muslim women are out of employment, compared with 27 per cent among Christian women. Muslim women also experience much larger employment penalties than their male counterparts relative to other religious groups. Family characteristics can help explain a minor part of the low employment rates among Muslim women.” (Berthoud and Blekesaune, 2007: 70).
When comparing ethnic groups with religious groups, Berthoud and Blekesaune (2007) found that among women, as mentioned above, the greatest employment penalties are faced by the four Muslim groups (Pakistani, Bangladeshi, white and Indian Muslims). Clark and Drinkwater (2009) also used the 2001 census to explore employment probabilities among ethnic and religious groups. They found that Muslims had lower employment rates compared to other religious categories, and compared to those with no religion.
Angela Dale (2008) found that between 2001-2005, levels of economic activity for women aged 19-60 (excluding full-time students) were 31% for Pakistani women and 21% for Bangladeshi women, by comparison with 78% for Black Caribbean women and 77% for White women. Although levels of economic activity were low, unemployment was also high amongst those who were economically active – 15% for Pakistani and 16% for Bangladeshi women compared to 3.4% for White women.
Many of these studies underline the empirical difficulties in separating the influences of ethnicity (or ethnic culture) from that of religion (Heath and Martin, 2012; Clark and Drinkwater, 2009) because the two are so highly correlated. In standard surveys, one finds that around 95% of Pakistanis or Bangladeshis are Muslim, and thus it is difficult to disentangle the cultural ethnic effects from religious effects, although the results are still the same whichever way you describe the phenomenon – that Pakistani or Bangladeshi Muslims face an ethnic or religious penalty in the workforce.
In their study Heath and Martin (2012) used pooled data from the 2005 and 2006 Annual Population Surveys and found a strong ‘Muslim penalty’ in unemployment and economic activity rates for both Muslim men and women from different ethnic groups when compared to co-ethnics of different or no religions. For example, among Black Africans, Muslims experienced greater labour market penalties than Christians. Because these Muslim penalties are similar across ethnic groups, Heath and Martin argue that there are likely to be shared mechanisms attached to religious differences which cross cultures. They found that across all ethnic groups, Muslim women are significantly more likely to be unemployed than white British Christian women:
“What stand out here are the consistently positive, large and significant coefficients for Muslim women in all of the ethnic groups: in every case they are significantly less likely to be economically active than [their non-Muslim co-ethnics]…This suggests a consistent and shared Muslim effect independent of ethnicity.” (Heath and Martin, 2012: 15)
Most recently the thesis has been advanced that there is a double penalty of ‘race’ and ‘religion’. Khattab and Modood (2015) analysed pooled Labour Force Survey data from 2002-2013 and found that what had been considered ‘ethnic penalties’ are actually combination of ‘racial’ and ‘religious’ penalties resulting from racism. They argue that all Muslims face a penalty, but that those belonging to ‘racial’ minority groups face a double penalty “If you are a Muslim in the United Kingdom, you are likely to face a penalty regardless of your color or geography. If you are a Christian in the United Kingdom, you are not likely to face any penalties unless you are black. If you are white you will also be protected unless you are a Muslim or to a lesser extent atheist (have no religion). The penalty will peak if you are a Muslim and black.” (Khattab and Modood, 2015: 520). This means that some groups such as Muslims from Sub-Saharan Africa (for example Somalis) are particularly disadvantaged. We suggest that the situation experienced by Somalis in Britain is especially important to investigate.
A major challenge for policy and academic research is to understand the drivers that generate these religious penalties. Discrimination is not necessarily the sole explanation for the penalties that have been highlighted above - one should take care not to label this process or these results as purely discrimination against Muslims. Other explanations which include cultural and attitudinal differences may contribute to explaining these penalties, for example the Muslim tradition whereby women are not expected to work unless they wish to. The statistical analysis summarized above cannot on its own tell us what the drivers are.
Given the evidence that British Muslims are facing a religious penalty, what are the possible drivers that have been discussed in literature and are we able to test them?
Discrimination
Structural injustices are undue structural restrictions that limit the opportunities of a minority. Structural inequalities are pervasive in societies – from a job market that disadvantages young mothers with childcare costs; to housing rental markets that prefer cash up front, which the poorest cannot afford. If we are concerned with structural inequalities, we need an account of the systemic outcomes of the macro structures that constrain some, while empowering others. Structural injustices are processes in which a causal relationship is not always possible to trace (Young, 2003); people in institutions may be aware (or more likely not) that their actions contribute to the process of differentiating, excluding, or marginalizing, but they are one actor among a large group of actors that contribute to this process. This is especially the case in employment and the workforce.
There is firm evidence of the negative stereotyping of Islam and Muslims in the media, film and popular fiction (Shaheen, 2003; Richardson, 2004; Poole, 2002; Moore et al, 2008; Morey and Yaqin, 2011); public opinion surveys and policy reports underline the labelling of Muslims in a negative manner (Allen, 2010a; Allen, 2010b; Amnesty International, 2012; Pew Report, 2012). The stereotypes of Muslims as violent, intolerant and un-British may well have had a negative effect on the perceptions of British Muslims by wider society.
The media focus has recently been joined by increasingly vociferous far-right discourse on Islam and Muslims in Europe (Allen 2010; Bartlett and Littler 2011; Williams and Lowles 2012) accusing Muslims of a lack of integration/assimilation; as well as political statements surrounding the perceived failure of multiculturalism - emphasising British Muslims as the ‘other’ (Spalek and Mcdonald, 2010). This polarized political debate is indicative of an ‘othering’ of Muslims, creating a strong sense of ‘us Brits’ and ‘them Muslims’. This ‘othering’ may well be a source of prejudice, discrimination and harassment in the labour market, both by employers and perhaps by co-workers.
Some small-scale studies have suggested that wearing traditional cultural clothing, such as shalwar Kameez, and religious clothing, such as the hijab/headscarf, has a negative impact on job interview outcomes (Dale, 1998, 2002). This may be because employers hold stereotypical views of Muslim women, assuming they are likely to need maternity leave, flexible working, be uncommitted, unsocial and so on. There are small indicative cases of in-work discrimination, similar to the case reported by Tell Mama (September 22nd 2015) of a female sacked from her job:
“A six-foot male at my workplace attempted to attack me due to wearing a Hijab. He came at me in full force less than a day after declaring his dislike of me wearing the Hijab at least twice. I stated that I would not remove my Hijab and he ran towards me. Three men pulled him away from me as he shouted and screamed at me…This attack was witnessed by all my colleagues who have been supportive but the male is in a relationship with the senior manager-third in the hierarchy of the managers – so they took no action. On 18/09/15 they sacked me. It’s a huge injustice and I feel so upset I cannot explain”
The most persuasive evidence, however, would come from field experiments. In Britain the most recent was conducted by the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) for the Department of Work and Pensions testing for racial discrimination in recruitment practice. The researchers submitted matched job applications from white and ethnic minority applicants to estimate the extent of racial discrimination in different areas of the British labour market (Wood et al, 2009). The research (cited by the Prime Minister in his speech to the Conservative Party Conference in 2015) found that ethnic minority applicants had to make almost twice as many applications as a white British applicant in order to get a positive response from the employer. This study found similar rates of discrimination against applicants with Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indian or African names. A study conducted in France which submitted matching CVs in the name of a French Muslim Senegalese and a French Christian Senegalese (Laitin, et al, 2010) did find clear Muslim discrimination at point of application in France. We understand that an on-going German field experiment has found that wearing a headscarf substantially reduces the chances of a positive response from an employer.
In order to clearly recognise whether the Muslim penalties discussed above are in part due to discrimination at job application point, the replication of the racial discrimination correspondence testing, testing for religious discrimination is imperative. Conducting this research is the best way to test for direct discrimination at job application point, and although such field experiments tend to be resource intensive, it is crucial for obtaining convincing evidence on the presence of discrimination. We are currently attempting to secure backing from government departments for a set of new field experiments which would test for religious as well as other forms of discrimination (e.g. against the disabled).
Aside from direct discrimination at job application point, another possible reason for lack of labour market success by British Muslims is the ‘chill factor’. The ‘chill’ effect or factor is the fear or apprehension of working in a sector or workplace perceived to hold negative attitudes towards minorities or faith communities. This includes expectations of intimidation, fear of discrimination or even hostility of co-workers (Li and O’Leary, 2007: 557; McCrudden et al, 2004: 390) “…the ‘chill factor’ – the various social and psychological factors that may discourage individuals from an under-represented group from applying to a firm – such as historical associations with a different group, real or expected discrimination from workmates in the opposite community, or disapproval from friends and family” (McCrudden et al, 2004: 398). This would include attitudes of concern held by Muslims regarding employment sectors such as the police force, armed forces, consultancy firms and building firms, assuming that people working in these areas are likely to have contentious views of Muslims; exude negative attitudes towards a Muslim co-worker and provide an alienating work environment.
Social networks
Bridging social capital is important for knowledge about jobs, established contacts with potential employers and knowing where to look for jobs (i.e. information points). Social capital theory (Granovetter, 1973; Lin et al., 1981; Putnam, 2000) highlights that strong ties between close family and friends (bonding social capital) is of limited use in finding a job, whereas those offered by friends of friends (weak ties) may provide access to a wider range of opportunities. In particular immigrant parents may not be helpful at guiding their second generation offspring in the best methods of gaining employment, where to search and how to search for jobs. If the second generation are also in residentially segregated areas, then they may have less access to and knowledge of the mainstream social and civic organisations (Li, 2005). This is reported in several places (Bunglawala, 2008; Reynolds & Birdwell, 2015: 79, Platt and Zuccotti, in preparation):
“A senior British Muslim police officer further highlighted how this lack of professional networks can define recruiting culture: I think one problem with recruitment in policing is that it is traditionally quite familial. A police officer would act as a point of contact to help guide a nephew, cousin, cousin’s son or neighbour through the process. Because we lack officers from a Muslim background, if a young Muslim wants to join the police, who’s he going to turn to? He might not have those important informal networks.” (Reynolds & Birdwell, 2015: 79)
Traditional/cultural family values (Gendered obligations/responsibilities)
The difference between traditional cultural perspectives and religious traditions are somewhat blurred, especially given that few Muslim men and women have formal religious/theological training. Muslim individuals would wish to reconcile workplace requirements with their religious values - the primary objective being to integrate their faith identity with their workplace employment and professional careers.
Some religious values are pertinent to Muslim family life, hence providing an overlapping factor impacting on employment or business choices. Not underestimating the relevance of contemporary debates on the role of husbands and wives, among Muslims there is a conventional cultural acknowledgement (not religiously mandated) that women are homemakers and men are breadwinners. This stems from religious traditions that emphasis the role of mothers in the upbringing of children and men as the providers of households (though also underlining that a working woman’s earnings are her own to share, save or spend). Raising children, caring for their welfare and ensuring education is assumed to be the primary responsibility of the wife/mother within the family. This could restrict the business and employment choices of Muslim women. Returning to work after a substantial period of time bringing up children could be difficult.
These attitudes may be reinforced by a cultural emphasis on ‘male pride’ - The proposition that men could be househusbands while the woman works is highly contentious, as is the idea that a women could earn more than the husband. The emphasis of women as homemakers may lead women to accept flexible, part-time and temporary work, allowing them to fulfil their role as ‘homemaker’ without risking marital harmony or extended family criticism, but with a cost in terms of lower hourly pay (which is typical of part-time work).
One recent study of ethnic groups (Koopmans, 2016) concentrating mainly on ethnic minority Muslims in Europe (including but not restricted to Britain) has suggested that socio-cultural factors such as language proficiency, attitudes towards gender roles and the extent of host-country friendships can explain a great deal of the disadvantage experienced by Muslim men and women in European labour markets, at least with respect to labour force participation and unemployment. (The study did not explore occupational attainment or progression.) Traditional vender values were important for explaining Muslim women’s lack of labour force participation, while lack of bridging social capital was more important for unemployment. If this applies to Britain, as it may, then the challenge for policy-making will be to find ways of promoting liberal gender values and inter-ethnic contacts.
Preferences for caring professions
There has been some tentative suggestions that Muslim women especially are more disposed towards ‘caring’ professions, given the high standing caring holds both culturally and religiously (such as teaching, social work, childcare, community/youth work etc.), but the evidence for this is very limited in scope.
“Examples of compromising professions or ‘bad jobs’ were those that were considered ‘masculine’ such as manual work (working on a construction site, lorry driver, dustman)” (Ahmad, Modood and Lissenburgh, 2003: 22)
Religious practice as constraint
Religious values may influence the choices that Muslims make when applying for jobs, accepting a role or choosing career paths. Some values are based on clear prohibitions such as consumption or sale of alcohol; while others are not based on direct scripture (the Quran), but rather on traditions that have been developed over a historic period. These traditions vary – we find Muslims who will follow a specific mandate, while others do not.
Practicing British Muslims are unlikely to engage in employment that contravenes their values, such as selling alcohol, working in a gambling outlet or in a nightclub, though some Muslims would also extend such professional contravention to arenas such as the Armed Forces, banking or advertising.
“My dad would never allow me or be happy with me to work behind the bar because it involves working with alcohol, and, for the same reasons, I wouldn’t work there.” (Ahmad, Modood and Lissenburgh, 2003: 23)
Appropriate dress and employment is also an issue for practicing Muslims - jobs where certain uniforms may contravene Muslim norms of modesty, as for example acting, entertaining or modelling, would be employment opportunities that they would pass.
For some women who follow stricter rules relating to travelling distances without a mahram (chaperon), travelling far could be challenging in commuting jobs, or in jobs which would necessitate moving to a new location or city. This geographical limitation could be exacerbated if females (or indeed males) have immediate or extended family responsibility and connections that they must continue to attend too.
“Jobs that involved international travel and living away from home were a source of tension for some women and their families. An example was cited by a Muslim Bangladeshi respondent regarding her cousin who was a successful architect in her late twenties who designed catwalks for fashion shows around the world…her parent’s concern revolved around her single status while travelling around the world unchaperoned, which was also a source of local gossip… ‘I mean, she comes to weddings and looks fabulous and she’s got a Prada bag and she’s got really expensive shoes, but our people don’t recognise things like that; they don’t see success in a Prada bag (laughs), they think, ‘oh God, she’s travelling around the world’” (Ahmad, Modood and Lissenburgh, 2003: 23)
It is the case that the conservative view is usually followed by the older members of the first generation, who are less used to the flexibility required by employers. The younger generations are more amenable to working further away and to travelling, but must contend with not disrespecting their elders:
“Within journalism it’s very easy to get work experience, but it’s very difficult to get that first paid job. I come from a family where you don’t move out, even for university. You always stay at home. I applied for a traineeship with a television company outside of London, thinking that the chance that I’d get it was very slim, and then got a call saying I’d been successful. My first thought was ‘what the hell am I going to tell my dad?’ I went back to the company and said I’m only going to work in Bristol, so I could live with my Aunt who lives there. Only then did I tell my dad.” (Reynolds & Birdwell, 2015: 57)
Conclusions
Almost certainly there are a variety of drivers which explain the different ways in which Muslim men and women are disadvantaged in the British labour market. We would emphasize in particular the roles of discrimination and prejudice, the ‘chill factor’, traditional gender roles, lack of bridging social capital, religious prohibitions (concerning alcohol for example) and cultural sensitivities (such as the wish not to upset older members of the family or community, as exemplified by the quotation above). It is also important to recognize that the importance of these different drivers may vary for men and women, and for different aspects of the labour market. Thus traditional gender roles may be important for understanding Muslim women’s lack of labour force participation, but not their high unemployment rates. Policy responses will therefore need to employ a variety of levers, rather than assuming that a single type of intervention will be sufficient.
There is also a major evidence gap, particularly with respect to the drivers of Muslim disadvantaged. In particular we would emphasize the need for new field experiments to determine whether there is discrimination against people of Muslim faith and under what conditions any such discrimination can be ameliorated. It would be helpful to supplement field experiments with survey research among Muslims (and among employers) to discover what barriers they experience themselves. Such work among Muslims could usefully be supplemented by survey research among employers to discover what obstacles they perceive in employing Muslim workers.
February 2016
References
Ahmad, F, Modood, T and Lissenburgh, S. (2003). South Asian Women and Employment
in Britain: The Interaction of Gender and Ethnicity. London: PSI
Allen, C. (2010a) Islamophobia. Ashgate.
Allen, C. (2010b) Fear and loathing: the political discourse in relation to Muslims and Islam in the contemporary British setting. Politics and Religion, vol. 4 (2), Autumn 2010.
Amnesty International (2012) Choice and prejudice: Discrimination against Muslims in Europe. http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR01/001/2012/en/85bd6054-5273-4765-9385-59e58078678e/eur010012012en.pdf
Bartlett, J. and Littler, M. (2011) Inside the EDL: Populist politics in a digital age. Demos.
Berthoud, R. and Blekesaune, M. (2007) Persistent Employment Disadvantage, Research Report No. 416, London: Department of Work and Pensions
Bunglawala, Z. (2008) Valuing Family, Valuing Work: British Muslim Women and the Labour market. The Young Foundation.
Clark, K and Drinkwater, S. (2009) ‘Dynamics and diversity: ethnic employment differences in England and Wales, 1991 2001’, Research in Labour Economics, 29: 299-333.
Dale, A. (2008) Pakistani and Bangladeshi Women’s Labour Market Participation.
CCSR Working Paper 2008-02.
Dale, A, Shaheen, N, Kalra, V and Fieldhouse, E. (2002a). The Labour Market Prospects
for Pakistani and Bangladeshi Women. Work, Employment and Society, Vol 16(1), 5-25.
Dale, A, Shaheen, N, Kalra, V and Fieldhouse, E. (2002b). Routes into Education and
Employment for Young Pakistani and Bangladeshi Women in the UK. Ethnic and Racial
Studies. Vol 25, No 6, November 2002. pp 942-68.
Granovetter, M. (1973) The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 6: 1360-1380.
Heath, A. and Cheung, S.Y (2006) Ethnic penalties in the labour market: Employers and discrimination. Research Report No. 341, Department for Work and Pensions. http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/report_abstracts/rr_abstracts/rra_341.asp
Heath, A. and Martin, J. (2012) Can religious affiliation explain ‘ethnic’
inequalities in the labour market? Ethnic and Racial Studies 36 (6): 1005-1027
Heath, A. and Li, Y. (2015) Review of the relationship between religion and poverty - an analysis for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. CSI Working Paper: 2015-01.
http://csi.nuff.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/religion-and-poverty-working-paper.pdf
Khattab, N. and Johnston, R. (2013) Ethnic and religious penalties in a changing British labour market from 2002 to 2010: the case of unemployment. Environment and Planning A, 45: 1358-1371.
Khattab, N. and Modood, T. (2015) Both Ethnic and Religious: Explaining Employment Penalties Across 14 Ethno-Religious Groups in the United Kingdom. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 54(3):501–522.
Koopmans, R. (2016) Does assimilation work? Sociocultural determinants of labour market participation of European Muslims, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 42:2, 197-216, DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2015.1082903
Laitin, D., Adida, C. and Valfort, M-A (2010) Identifying barriers to Muslim integration in France. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 52: 22384-90.
Li, Y. (2010) The labour market situation of minority ethnic groups in Britain and the US-- an analysis of employment status and class position (1990/1 – 2000/1). Institute of Social Change, University of Manchester.
Li, Y. and Pickles, A. (2005) Social capital and social trust in Britain. European Sociological Review, 21, 2: 109-123.
Li, Y. and O’Leary, R. (2007) ‘Progress in reducing Catholic disadvantages in Northern Ireland’, in A. Heath and S. Cheung (eds), Unequal Chances: Ethnic Minorities in Western Labour Markets. Oxford: OUP for the British Academy: 549-87.
Lin, N.; Ensel, W. and Vaughn, S. (1981) Social resources and strength of ties: structural factors in occupational attainment. American Sociological Review, 46: 393-405.
Lindley, J. (2002) ‘Race or religions? The impact of religion on the employment and earnings of Britain’s ethnic communities’, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28, 3: 427-442.
McCrudden, C., Ford, R. and Heath, A. (2004) 'Legal Regulation of Affirmative Action in Northern Ireland: An Empirical Assessment', Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 3: 363-415.
Moore, K., Mason, P. and Lewis, J. (2008) Images of Islam in the UK: The Representation of British Muslims in the National Print News Media 2000-2008. Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies http://cardiff.ac.uk/jomec/resources/08channel4-dispatches.pdf
Morey, P. and Yaqin, A. (2011) Framing Muslims: Stereotyping and representation After 9/11. Harvard University Press.
Pew Report (2012) Rising Tide of Restrictions on Religion. Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life
Platt Lucinda and Carolina Zuccotti (in preparation) Does neighbourhood ethnic concentration in early life affect subsequent labour market outcomes? A study across ethnic groups in England and Wales
Poole, E. (2002) Reporting Islam: Media Representations of British Muslims. London: I.B.Tauris.
Putnam, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American Community. Simon and Schuster.
Reynolds, L. and Birdwell, J. (2015) Rising to the Top. London: Demos.
Richardson, J. (2004) (Mis) Representing Islam: The Racism and Rhetoric of British Broadsheet Newspapers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Shaheen J. (2003) Reel Bad Arabs: How Hollywood Vilifies a People. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.588: 171-193.
Simpson, L., Purdam, K., Tajar, A., Fieldhourse, E., Gavalas, V., Tranmer, M, Pritchard, J. and Dorling, D. (2006) Ethnic Minority Populations and the Labour Market: an Analysis of the 1991 and 2001 Census. Department for Work and Pension, Research Report no. 333.
Spalek, B. and McDonald, L. (2010) Terror Crime Prevention: Constructing Muslim Practices and Beliefs as ‘Anti-Social’ and ‘Extreme’ through CONTEST 2. Social Policy and Society, Vol 9, Issue 1: 123–132.
Williams, D. and Lowles, N. (2012) The ‘counter-Jihad’ movement: The global trend feeding anti-Muslim hatred, London: Hope Not Hate.
Wood, M., Hales, J., Purdon, S., Sejersen, T. and Hayllar, O. (2009) A test for racial discrimination in recruitment practice in British cities. Research report number 607, Department for Work and Pensions
Young, I. (2003) Political responsibility and structural injustice. Lindley lecture, Philosophy department, University of Kansas.
http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/sociology/pdf/PoliticalResponsibility.pdf