Research in Ethnic Segregation II: Measurements, Categories and Meanings

Abstract

The issue of spatial segregation, especially inasmuch as it involves ethnic and racial groups, has generated a tremendous amount of controversy. It has also spurred numerous studies across many social science disciplines. Geographers have long been involved in both measuring and explaining segregation. This makes sense considering that segregation is a primarily spatial phenomenon that often examines how specifically defined groups come to occupy distinct places. Non-geographers have also examined segregation, with many of them asking essentially geographic questions. For these reasons, we feel that it is appropriate to survey the status of current research in the field of segregation. This progress report is the second of three dealing with segregation research in geography and related disciplines. We separate our overview into three broad sectors: (1) the factors that produce segregation, discussed in Kaplan and Woodhouse (2004); (2) the measurement, categorization, and meanings of segregation, outlined in this current progress report; (3) and the consequences of segregation, which will be discussed in the third and last report next year. While these themes can and do overlap, we feel this is the best way to organize the current literature. What emerges most out of the current set of readings is the extent to which segregation is a contingent phenomenon. The meaning of segregation is dictated by the types of individuals, the political and social milieu, and the history of the region. Each country carries its own freight in regard to race, ethnicity, nationalism, and social status. All of these define how segregation is categorized, measured, and evaluated. We attempt to accomplish a few things in structuring this progress report. Our first goal is to observe how segregation is measured. Many years ago, Duncan and Duncan (1955) derived an index of dissimilarity as a way to empirically measure segregation, rather than relying on naive conceptions. Since then, the tools of measurement have become more sophisticated and many segregation studies now report on a variety of measures. Geographic Information Systems have furthered our ability to understand segregation patterns and render possible analyses that would have been extraordinarily labor intensive just a few years ago. Our second goal is to examine how segregation can be categorized, according to the groups involved as well as the patterns and processes of