Statistics, Development and Human Rights
Session I-Pa 5a
Defining and Observing Minorities: An
Objective Assessment
Gustave GOLDMANN
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
Defining and Observing Minorities: An Objective Assessment
Gustave GOLDMANN
Census and Demographic Statistics, Statistics Canada
Main Building, Room 1710
Ottawa, K1A 0T6, Canada
T. + 1 613 951 14 72 F. + 1 613 951 29 52
Gustave.Goldmann@statcan.ca
ABSTRACT
Defining and Observing Minorities: An Objective Assessment
The term “minorities” carries with it a myriad of complex dimensions, each of which
addresses a particular aspect of the majority-minority dichotomy and each of which is very
dependent on the context in which the observations are made. This paper enumerates some of the
key factors that have a direct bearing on the definition of minorities; provides some indication of
the difficulties this presents when attempting to “measure minorities” in official statistics; and
suggests some approaches to address the difficulties outlined in the previous point. Recent
experiences in collecting data on visible minorities in Canada are used to illustrate some of the
points raised in the paper. The discussion concludes with the following recommendations for
agencies and researches concerned with observing and measuring minorities: (1) be sensitive to the
tension that may exist between the collective definition of the minority under observation and the
perception of the individuals belonging to this minority with respect to their classification; (2)
restrict the definitions of minorities to features that are observable, hence measurable; (3) be
conscious of the dynamic nature of the definitions and of the individuals’ perception of the
relevance of these definitions to their particular situation or context; (4) ensure that the
respondents (subjects under observation) are informed of the need for the data and the benefits that
they may accrue by providing this information; and (5) both the direct and indirect approaches to
defining minorities in data collection vehicles should be considered.
RESUME
Définition et observation des minorités : Une évaluation objective
Le terme “minorités” est porteur d’une infinité de dimensions complexes, dont chacune
aborde un aspect particulier de la dichotomie majorité-minorité et est très tributaire du contexte
dans lequel sont menées les observations. Cet exposé énumère certains des facteurs clefs ayant un
rapport direct avec la définition des minorités, fournit certaines informations sur les difficultés
rencontrées lorsque l’on essaye de “mesurer les minorités” dans la statistique officielle, et suggère
certaines approches permettant d’appréhender les difficultés soulignées dans le point précédent.
Des expériences récentes de collecte de données sur des minorités visibles du Canada sont utilisées
pour illustrer certains des points relevés dans l’exposé. La discussion conclue par les
recommandations suivantes, destinées aux agences et recherches concernées par l’observation et la
mesure des minorités: (1) être sensible à la tension qui peut exister entre la définition collective de
la minorité selon l’observation et la perception des individus appartenant à cette minorité dans le
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
2
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
respect de leur classification; (2) restreindre les définitions des minorités à des caractéristiques
observables, donc mesurables; (3) être conscient de la nature dynamique de ces définitions et de la
perception des individus de la pertinence de ces définitions par rapport à leur situation ou contexte
particulier; (4) assurer que les sondés (sujets placés sous observation) soient bien informés du
besoin de ces données et des bénéfices qu’ils pourront en tirer en fournissant cette information, et
(5) considérer aussi bien l’approche directe qu’indirecte visant à définir les minorités dans les
outils de collecte des données.
1. Introduction
The theme of the session in which this paper is presented focuses on “minorities” as the
subjects of analysis. The term “minorities” carries with it a myriad of complex dimensions, each of
which addresses a particular aspect of the majority-minority dichotomy and each of which is very
dependent on the context in which the observations are made. What constitutes a minority? Is it a
group of people who are numerically inferior to another in a given society? Is it a group of people
who do not share equally in the political, economic or social structures within a given society? Is it
a group of people who are visibly different from the other members of the society in which they
coexist? In some measure it is all of the above, rendering the term and its associated analytical
concepts difficult to define and the subjects difficult to observe.
The objectives of this paper are: (1) to enumerate some of the key factors that have a direct
bearing on the definition of minorities; (2) to provide some indication of the difficulties this
presents when attempting to “measure minorities” in official statistics, using the Canadian context
as an example; and (3) to suggest some approaches to address the difficulties outlined in the
previous point. The paper begins with a brief overview of the theoretical and conceptual
foundations that underlie the key dimensions of the term “minority”. It is clear from the title of this
session and of this paper that this is an applied as opposed to abstract discussion. Therefore, the
next section of the paper addresses the socio-cultural and economic needs that drive the collection
of these data. This is followed by a brief description of the methods that are currently employed by
a sample of national statistical agencies, highlighting some of the difficulties in each. The paper
concludes with a summary of suggestions for approaches that may be suitable in future efforts.
2. Defining minorities
Various theoretical models have been developed in the past to explain the social, economic
and political interaction of minorities within a given society. They generally start with the premise
that a stratification and hierarchy of groups exist within a given society. The strata may be defined
on the basis of numeric representation, through power relations or by some combination of the two.
In his work on comparative ethnic relations, Schermerhorn (1970: 13) describes a power paradigm
that uses relative size and direct access to power to determine whether groups in a society are
dominant or subordinate. According to Schermerhorn’s characterisation, if a group has both size
and power it is the “majority”. If it has size but does not have power he classifies it as the “mass
subjects”. If it has power but does not have size Schermerhorn assigns the label “elite”. The group
that has neither size nor power is classified as a “minority” (Schermerhorn, 1970:13). The fact that
minorities may be defined on the basis of factors other than relative numeric presence in a society is
an important element of Schermerhorn’s paradigm and it adds an interesting dimension to the
discussion on the measurement of minorities. It also opens the door to discussions on the
acquisition of power and power relations – both of which are beyond the scope of this paper.
Partitions and strata exist in any society, regardless of the political system under which it functions.
Resources are not necessarily shared equally among all groups. There is evidence that in some
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
3
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
societies access to economic, social and political resources may be affected by majority/minority
distinctions based on ethno-cultural characteristics or, as Juteau (1997) and Richmond (1994) define
them, subordinate and dominant group distinctions.
Before proceeding with the discussion it is important to note that minorities in a given society
may be defined on the basis of a variety of factors such as ethno-cultural characteristics (e.g. ethnic
minorities), demographic characteristics (e.g. the elderly), socio-economic status (e.g. the working
poor) and relationship to the political structures, to name a few. Although the discussion in this
paper will focus primarily on minorities defined on the basis of ethno-cultural characteristics, it is
certain some elements of the other factors will be included. The broad classification “ethnocultural” includes characteristics such as ethnic origin, ethnic identity, religion, language (mother
tongue and/or language spoken in the home), racei and place of birth or origin. This list includes
elements, such as ethnic identity, that may be considered subjective and others, such as place of
birth, that are definitely objective in nature. This duality lies at the root of the conceptual
difficulties that social scientists must confront when the subjects of analysis are “minorities”
defined on the basis of ethno-cultural characteristics.
Many of the features and characteristics described above are component parts of the definition
of the boundaries that describe ethnic groups and ethnic minorities. For instance, ethnic groups
may be identified by the language spoken by the members of the group (Brass, 1991; Fishman,
1980; Nash, 1989; Schermerhorn, 1970), by kinship and ancestry (Grosby, 1994; Herberg, 1989;
Reitz and Breton, 1994; Schermerhorn, 1970), by place of birth of the individuals who form the
group or of the ancestors of the individuals who form the group (Goldscheider, 1995), by religious
affiliation (Goldscheider, 1995; Kalbach and Richard, 1990) and by other appropriate ethno-cultural
characteristics that may be unique to the context in which the ethnic group exists (e.g. citizenship,
place of residence, etc.). The characteristics that define ethnic minorities may vary from one group
to the next and from one context to the next. For example, South Asians are considered an ethnic
minority in Canada yet, upon closer examination, one sees that the group is really an aggregate
consisting of people of Indian, Pakistani, Banglaheshi and Sri Lankan origins. The classification
“South Asian” would certainly not be appropriate in India or in Pakistan.
The definition and measurement of minorities on the basis of ethno-cultural characteristics
presents a number of conceptual challenges. For instance, what does it mean when someone
declares a particular ethnic origin? It may be a statement of identity. It may be a declaration of a
particular ancestry. It may be an expression of affiliation with a particular group within a society.
Each of these possibilities is supported by a rich and varied theoretical legacy (see Banks, 1996;
Boyd et al, 2000; Breton et al, 1990; Reitz and Breton, 1994; Goldmann, 1998; Goldscheider, 1995;
Guimond et al, forthcoming; Herberg, 1989; Statistics Canada, 1993). Other issues that need to be
addressed by researchers include:
 The distinction between group-level attributes and individual-level impact;
 The dichotomy between objective and subjective characteristics;
 The impact of defining minorities on the basis of visible features;
 The perceptions of the individuals who are the subjects of observation and of the
societies who are conducting the observations; and
 The changes in classifications over time.
Each of these issues is dealt with in the remainder of this section of the paper.
The concept of minority when defined on the basis of ethno-cultural characteristics has grouplevel and individual-level implications. Ethno-cultural groups are generally defined on the basis of
group-level attributes such as language, declared ethnicity, declared religious affiliation, dress, skin
colour, etc. Although the definition is collective in nature, the impact of belonging to such a group,
whether by choice or by attribution, is felt at the individual-level. This point is important to note in
the subsequent discussion on the instruments/methods that are used to measure minorities in most
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
4
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
societies. The collective definitions that are used may not necessarily coincide with the individual’s
perception or his or her willingness to be classified in that manner.
The range of ethno-cultural characteristics that may serve as criteria for defining minorities
includes both subjective and objective components. It is important to understand the distinction
between these two dimensions since the impact on how minorities are defined and how they are
perceived will vary depending on whether objective or subjective criteria are used. Joshua Fishman
offers a first step in the process of clarifying the distinction by redefining the dimensions of the
definition of ethnic group as being, doing and knowing. In the first, being, Fishman includes the
unconscious acts and behaviour that are part of the particular ethnic identity. These may include
kinship ties and the use of language and speech. Doing is usually in the form of overt behaviours
and actions such as dress, cultural activities, religious activities, dietary patterns, etc. Knowing is
the dimension that preserves the ties with the past—the shared history and culture that Weber
(1978: 389-395) referred to. Fishman argues that language plays a central role in this process, as it
does in the doing phase (Fishman, 1980: 84-97). The first two dimensions of Fishman’s theoretical
construct deal with actions and characteristics that are observable and measurable. Hence,
minorities that are defined on the basis of these characteristics should be, in theory, observable and
measurable. The third dimension does not necessarily translate into a visible characteristic,
although it certainly is measurable.
The fact that a characteristic is measurable and observable does not necessarily imply that it is
also objective. Therefore, the distinction between the objective and subjective dimensions of ethnic
groups is not entirely clear in Fishman’s definition. It is possible to resolve the confusion by
reclassifying the component parts described by Fishman into objective attributes, subjective feelings
and behaviours. Objective attributes include measurable and observable features such as language,
territory, religion, diet and dress (Nash, 1989: 5-12). Hence minorities defined by these features are
observable.
The subjective dimension of this definition is more difficult to describe since it may vary over
time and under different circumstances. In effect, we may consider ethnic identity to be a
subjective feature since it varies over time and it is affected by contextual factors such as the social,
economic and political climate in the host society (Petersen, 1987; Isajiw, 1997: 90). Therefore,
minorities defined on the basis of ethnic identity may be observed only to the extent that the
individuals who are deemed to belong to this group declare their identity to be that of the group.
The behaviours (the doing component of Fishman’s model) include those that are internal to the
group, i.e. the behaviours that members of the group adopt or follow within their own context, as
well as those they exhibit when interacting with other groups. The behaviours may manifest
themselves in social interaction, in the division of labour within the group or within the family
units, in the predilection of individuals belonging to the group towards certain occupations or labour
market activities and in other attitudinal characteristics (Brass, 1991: 18-20). It is not entirely clear
that minorities may be defined on the basis of the collective behaviours of the individuals belonging
to a group. However, to the extent that behavioural characteristics are used to define ethnic
minorities, these definitions must surely be considered subjective in nature.
By their nature, the socio-cultural boundaries that define ethnic groups must be based on
features that are visible, tangible in some sense, that can be understood and that are reacted to in
social situations. Yinger proposes that the following three conditions must be present for an ethnic
group to exist. First, a group must be perceived by others to be a distinct segment of a larger
society. The differences may manifest themselves in characteristics such as “…. language, religion,
race and ancestral homeland with its related culture”. Second, the perception of difference must be
evident to the members of the group, not just to the members of the larger society. Finally, the
members of the group must “ …. participate in shared activities built around their (real or mythical)
common origin and culture” (Yinger, 1986:22). Yinger’s perception highlights the importance of
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
5
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
the visibility of the conditions that give rise to the existence of ethnic groups. If we carry this
reasoning to the next logical step we must conclude that the conditions give rise to the existence of
boundaries that may be defined as “… any sociocultural, political, economic or sociological feature
that is observedly distinctive for constituent groups in a plural society” (Cohen and Middleton,
1970: 9). The features referred to in this definition must be visible from within the group and from
an external perspective (Nash, 1989: 10-15). This explains in part the qualifier “visible” in the term
“visible minority” referred to in the Canadian employment equity legislation described later in this
paper. Also, by their nature these features tend to promote difference.
Perceptions are central in the discussion of socio-cultural boundaries—this includes the
perceptions of the individuals belonging to or associated with the minority group as well as the
perceptions of the others in the society in which the group resides. What someone is and what they
are perceived to be are not always coincidental. This is an important distinction since it touches on
both the comportment of the individual, as he or she wishes to act, and on the comportment as he or
she is allowed to act by the society in which he or she is living (Fishman, 1980: 84-97; Juteau,
1997: 199). Certainly, the economic and social barriers faced by some immigrants during the early
stages of settlement fall into this category of action.
It was noted earlier that many of the subjective characteristics are susceptible to change over
time and in different contexts. For instance, it has been suggested that the association with a
particular ethnic identity may be considered a matter of choice on the part of the individual (Banton,
1977; Hechter, 1996). The factors that influence the choice can (are likely to) change over time.
They may be due to political pressures (e.g. a change in the political boundaries describing a given
geographic space), demographic events (e.g. exogamous unions), social (e.g. a response to prejudice
and discrimination) or economic (e.g. individuals seeking upward economic mobility). Regardless
of the underlying reasons, the result is a shift in declared ethnic identities that has been labelled by
social demographers as “ethnic mobility” (see Goldmann, 1998; Guimond et al, forthcoming;
Robitaille et Guimond, 1995). This shift will undoubtedly result in a change in the composition
and/or definition of minority groups described on the basis of ethno-cultural characteristics. This
argues strongly for approaches to observation and measurement of minorities that are adaptable to
changing conditions.
Clearly, the definition of minorities on the basis of ethno-cultural characteristics is complex
and it presents some interesting challenges for national statistical agencies. The approaches that
may be used are not necessarily inert. The perceptions of the respondents and of the society in
general with respect to the approach and the particular minority concept that is being measured will
have an impact on the data collected as well as on other statistical and analytical activities
undertaken by these agencies. Therefore, the need for this information must be clearly enunciated
and it must be agreed to by the subjects of observation. This topic is dealt with in the next section
of the paper.
3. Information needs – the Canadian context
Canadian society may be characterised as a cultural or ethnic mosaic (Pryor, 1995: 202-204).
The top 25 ethnic origins reported in the 1996 Census are shown in Table 1. This distribution
highlights a number of features of the Canadian mosaic. First, a substantial proportion of the
Canadian population declare European origins. This is evidence of the past immigration patterns to
Canada. Second, Canada’s population includes an important indigenous component. People
declaring Aboriginal origins represent almost 4% of the Canadian population. Third, there is
evidence of the effect of the shift in immigration patterns from the traditional European sources to
the non-traditional Asian, African and Latin American sources (Neuwirth, 1999). The distribution
shows that 3,2% of the population declared Chinese origins, 2,5% declared South Asian origins and
almost 1% declared Filipino origins. Finally, the complexity of this mosaic is due not only to the
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
6
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
number of different origins reported, but also to the relatively high proportion of respondents who
declared multiple origins (36%).
Two additional points must be noted concerning the ethnic composition of Canadian society.
First, the term “ethnic mosaic” connotes a static situation. However, given that demographic flows
such as immigration and ethnic mobility are present in Canada (and in most modern societies), it is
more appropriate to refer to a multicultural ethnic kaleidoscope. The socio-cultural boundaries
describing ethnic groups change over time largely as a result of immigration, the dynamic relations
between groups in society and ethnic mobility (Boyd and Norris, 1998; Goldmann, 1994;
Goldmann, 1998; Goldscheider, 1995; Kobrin and Goldscheider, 1978: 2-5; Robitaille et Guimond,
1995). Second, over 11% of the people living in Canada (3 197 480) were classified as visible
minorities in 1996. Given current and projected immigration patterns, this proportion is likely to
increase in the foreseeable future. Although this trend is not likely to alter the minority
classification of a number of these groups at the national level, some may become the majority at
the local level (e.g. the Chinese in the Vancouver metropolitan area).
Table 1 : Top 25 ethnic origins in Canada, 1996 Census, single and multiple responses
Ethnic Origin
Total responses
Single responses
%
%
Multiple responses
28 528 125
8 806 275
100,0
count
18 303 625
100,0
count
10 224 500
30,9
5 326 995
29,1
3 479 285
34,0
English
6 832 095
23,9
2 048 275
11,2
4 783 820
46,8
French
5 597 845
19,6
2 665 250
14,6
2 932 595
28,7
Scottish
4 260 840
14,9
642 970
3,5
3 617 870
35,4
Irish
3 767 610
13,2
504 030
2,8
3 263 580
31,9
German
2 757 140
9,7
726 145
4,0
2 030 990
19,9
Italian
1 207 475
4,2
729 455
4,0
478 025
4,7
Aboriginal origins
1 101 955
3,9
477 630
2,6
624 330
6,1
Ukrainian
1 026 475
3,6
331 680
1,8
694 790
6,8
Chinese
921 585
3,2
800 470
4,4
121 115
1,2
Dutch (Netherlands)
916 215
3,2
313 880
1,7
602 335
5,9
Polish
786 735
2,8
265 930
1,5
520 805
5,1
South Asian origins
723 345
2,5
590 145
3,2
133 200
1,3
Jewish
351 705
1,2
195 810
1,1
155 900
1,5
Norwegian
346 310
1,2
47 805
0,3
298 500
2,9
Welsh
338 905
1,2
27 915
0,2
310 990
3,0
Portuguese
335 110
1,2
252 640
1,4
82 470
0,8
Swedish
278 975
1,0
31 200
0,2
247 775
2,4
Russian
272 335
1,0
46 885
0,3
225 450
2,2
Hungarian (Magyar)
250 525
0,9
94 185
0,5
156 340
1,5
Filipino
242 880
0,9
198 420
1,1
44 460
0,4
American
211 790
0,7
22 085
0,1
189 705
1,9
Spanish
204 360
0,7
72 470
0,4
131 895
1,3
Greek
203 345
0,7
144 940
0,8
58 405
0,6
Jamaican
188 770
0,7
128 570
0,7
60 200
0,6
Total population
Canadian
count
%
100,0
Clearly, immigration is the major contributing factor to the growth of Canadian society and to
the increase in its ethno-cultural diversity (Beaujot, 1999). As indicated earlier in this section, the
arrival of immigrants affects the socio-cultural composition of the receiving society thereby causing
a shift in the majority/minority balance (when measured strictly on the basis of numeric
proportions) in the host society. This shift will have an impact on existing community and public
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
7
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
institutions as well as on residential patterns (Balakrishnan and Hou, 1999; Olson and Kobayashi,
1993: 138-149). History has shown that the introduction of new immigrants occasionally results in
conflict and tension. In some instances the characteristics of the immigrants are used by the
dominant group “… to justify processes of monopolistic closure that foster economic, political and
cultural subordination” (Juteau, 1997: 199). Actions such as this are usually directed at groups that
are considered to be the minorities and they generally lead to conflict and tension between the
subordinate and dominant groups.
In multi-ethnic states and societies, such as Canada, the United States, Israel, England,
Australia, to name a few, the socio-cultural boundaries describing minority groups are very real and
germane in analysing sociological, anthropological, demographic, socio-psychological, political and
economic phenomena. Issues such as ethnic retention, ethnic mobility, discrimination on the basis
of ethnicity, economic mobility, social mobility, intergroup relations, migration patterns and
political actions have an impact on minority groups and they are affected by the existence of sociocultural boundaries and by how these boundaries are perceived by the subjects. It is as a result of
these issues that societies observe minorities and that they enact legislation and programs to
preserve the rights of minorities. In Canada, as in most multicultural societies, efforts are made to
ensure harmonious relationships between the various ethnic groups and to ensure that everyone
shares equally in the economic, social and political opportunities that exist. This goal is addressed
either directly or indirectly through legislation and policies at various levels of government as well
as in the practices of non-governmental organisations that deal with minorities in Canada. It is also
addressed through research activities such as the Metropolis Project.
Beginning with the legal framework at the federal level, there are provisions that deal with
equality of access and treatment in the Constitution Act (1982) and the associated Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. In addition, the Multiculturalism Act (1988) has as one of the stated goals to
“ … promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of
all origins in the continuing evolution and shaping of all aspects of Canadian society
and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to that participation;” (Canadian
Multiculturalism Act, 1988).
The purpose of the Employment Equity Act (1995) is to “… achieve equality in the workplace and
to correct conditions of disadvantage experienced by certain groups.”ii It applies to employment in
the public service and to all federally regulated employers who employ more than 100 persons.
This act designates four target groups; women, people with disabilities, Aboriginal people and
visible minorities. The Act defines “visible minorities” as “… persons, other than aboriginal
peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour” (Employment Equity Act, 1995).
Information provided according to this definition provides an insight into the possibility of
discrimination on the basis of cultural characteristics. These two Acts form part of the legislative
framework that either directly or indirectly defines the needs for information on minorities in
Canada. It is important to note that with exception of women, all the groups designated under both
Acts may be considered minorities.
Equivalent legislation and provisions exist in most provincial jurisdictions in Canada. All
Provinces have some form of human rights legislation that guarantees freedom from discrimination
on the basis of minority status. This issue is also a concern in the educational sector—this is a
provincial responsibility in Canada. Many Provinces include provisions that deal with human rights
and equity in their respective legislation that governs the access to education and the materials and
curricula that are used for instruction. Social planning organisations were established in a number
of provinces to examine social conditions and to promote social change in the communities they
represent. For example, the Social Planning Network of Ontario (SPNO) was established in 1992
with a recognition of the diversity of the population and a commitment to equity and social justice
as two of its core values (SPNO, 2000).
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
8
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
It is clear from this brief overview that inequities exist in Canadian society and that
organisations and institutions in the public and para-public sectors are attempting to address these
issues. Although the context for this description is Canada, it is reasonable to conclude that similar
conditions exist in other industrialised nations and that many of the observations made in this
section apply equally to other societies. The exact approach in dealing with these issues may differ.
However, the need for accurate and meaningful information on minorities remains constant.
4. Current methods
The previous section offers an abridged enumeration of the information needs that exist in
Canadian society with respect to minorities and their relationship to the larger society. That
discussion raises one important question. How does one determine that inequities exist for a given
group, irrespective of whether or not they are a minority? The answer consists of three parts: (1)
Society must be able to define the group in question; (2) it must be possible to physically locate the
group; and (3) the members of the group must be willing to be identified (or to self-identify). Each
of these dimensions of the problem will be addressed in the following discussion of the three
principal sources of data from which information on minorities may be derived.
4.1 Censuses of population
No attempt is made in this paper to describe census concepts and methods since they are well
documented elsewhere (for Canada see White et al, 1993). However, it is worth noting that most
censuses conducted by industrialised states are collected using some form of self-enumeration. This
is certainly true in Canada, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, France, to
name a few. Therefore, the data that are obtained are usually the respondent’s perception or
declaration of a given characteristic. Furthermore, by definition, a census covers the entire
population being observed. Therefore, locating minorities within the population is not necessarily
an issue, assuming that they can be defined.
The previous points notwithstanding, the definition of minority status can be difficult to
address in omnibus collection vehicles such as a census. Essentially, two approaches may be
considered—an indirect approach through questions dealing with the characteristics that serve to
define the minority being observed and a direct question asking respondents to self-identify as a
member of the pertinent minority. The first approach affords greater flexibility since it allows the
users of the data to extract the information they require according to definitions that are derived
from characteristics that describe the individuals who are the subject of observation. For example,
up to 1991 in order to satisfy the information needs of the Employment Equity Act (see previous
description) the census counts of the visible minorityiii population were derived primarily from the
responses to the question on ethnic origin with additional reference to the questions on religion,
mother tongue and place of birth in selected cases (for a description of the process see Kelly, 1995).
Hypothetically, if an analytical application required the inclusion of Aboriginal people in the
category referred to as “visible minority”, this need could be satisfied using the existing data
sources by simply including all Aboriginal origins in the derivation of the indicator. Therefore, it
would be possible to obtain data for both minority groups from the same census data base using the
indirect approach.
Although, as indicated above, the indirect approach affords greater flexibility, it also has three
important drawbacks. First, it is more difficult to communicate to the respondent why the
information is being collected and why it is important for them to provide accurate information.
One may argue that it is possible to inform respondents by indicating to them that data on visible
minority status will be derived from their responses to selected questions on the census. However,
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
9
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
this becomes very difficult to accomplish without referring to the methodology and opening debate
on the appropriateness of the methods that are employed. Second, the consistency of the data over
time is dependent on retaining the same set of questions, regardless of their relevance to the overall
objectives of the census. Third, it does not allow the respondent the option of identifying or not
identifying with the minority in question.
The second approach requires that a definition of the target group be incorporated into a
question so that a direct inquiry may be made concerning the respondent’s status with respect to
“membership” in the minority being observed. Continuing with the example introduced in the
previous paragraphs, a question asking respondents to identify themselves as members of a visible
minority was introduced in the 1996 Census. An explanation of the purpose for the data was
included in the census questionnaire. The question listed the categories of responses included in the
definition of visible minority in the Employment Equity Act (1995). It also included an additional
space to allow the respondent to write-in his or her category if he or she felt that it was not included
in the “pre-coded” list.
Clearly, the two approaches do not necessarily yield the same results nor are they necessarily
appropriate (or applicable) in all contexts and for all definitions of minorities. Focussing on the
indirect approach, we may consider the following advantages:
 the data are, to some extent, independent of the definition of the minority group being observed;
 it is possible to describe multiple minority groups from the same data (the hypothetical example
described above);
 the agency may avoid collecting data on sensitive issuesiv, thereby increasing the likelihood that
respondents will provide the information necessary to be properly classified (This may not be an
issue for some minority definitions but it has proven to be a concern when the group under
observation is defined on the basis of ethno-cultural characteristics, such as visible minorities);
and
 the uses of the data on minorities are not necessarily limited to conceptions that exist at the time
the census is conducted.
There are two basic disadvantages to the indirect approach. The first is that an implicit
assumption is made that the respondent identifies with, or considers himself or herself to be part of
the minority under observation. For instance, by deriving visible minority status from the question
on ethnic origin it is assumed that the motivation that prompted the respondent to declare a
particular ancestry applies equally to his or her desire to identify himself or herself as a member of a
visible minorityv. The respondent’s motivation may be a function of the context and the perceived
benefits he or she derives from the information. The second disadvantage is that some
compromises on the exact definition may be necessary on the part of the users of the data—
specifically, the definition of the minority to be observed is constrained by the availability of data to
describe them.
The direct approach using a question asking respondents to self-identify as a member of the
target minority group addresses both of the disadvantages noted in the preceding paragraph. For
example, the data on visible minority status in the 1996 Census was obtained directly from a
question that conformed closely to the operational definition in the Employment Equity Act (1995).
The question asked respondents to indicate whether or not they belonged to one or more of the
following categories: White, Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab or West Asian, Filipino, South
East Asian, Latin American, Japanese, Korean or some other minority group. As noted earlier, the
question also included an explanation of the utility for this information and of the benefits that the
respondent may derive. This type of formulation removes some of the ambiguity that is inherent in
the indirect approach. It also allows the respondent to choose whether or not he or she wishes to
identify as a member of a particular minorityvi. However, it introduces the issue of including a
question on a sensitive topic—one that may raise objections on the part of the respondent and may
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
10
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
jeopardise to entire undertaking. The respondents must be convinced that it is to their collective
benefit to respond to the question. Using the example of visible minorities and employment equity,
if the members of the group perceive that their labour market opportunities are constrained as a
result of their ethno-cultural characteristics, and they see a value in providing empirical evidence to
support their claim, they are likely to respond to such a question. However, experience has shown
that respondents react very quickly when the converse is true. They not only refuse to respond to
the specific question—they may refuse to respond to the census.
4.2 Surveys
Sample surveys present some interesting challenges with respect to observing minorities
within a given society. In Canada, most minority groups who are defined on the basis of ethnocultural characteristics are located in the major urban centres. (See Balakrishnan and Hou, 1999,
for a discussion on the ethnic concentrations in the metropolitan areas in Canada.) Therefore, the
likelihood of obtaining results that are statistically significant increases when using data from
surveys that target the major metropolitan areas. In fact, this is the case for most major social
surveys administered by Statistics Canada. The statistical reliability of the results decreases
substantially if the target population is relatively dispersed, or if it is located in sparsely populated
areas. This problem may be addressed by over-sampling in areas in which it is known that the
minority in question resides. However, this solution substantially increases the costs of conducting
the survey.
The nature of the issues related to the questions that are used to define the minority under
observation are similar to those described for the census, with one notable caveat. The survey
methodology may provide for additional questions and instructions to respondents or interviewers,
thereby allowing a more refined and precise classification of the minority under observation.
Prompts may be included in interviewer administered surveys to ensure that the respondents are
accurately classified.
The aforementioned points notwithstanding, the issues described in the preceding section
concerning the respondent’s willingness to provide the information remain the same. Respondents
must be convinced that they derive some direct benefit from the information that they provide.
4.3 Administrative data
As societies become more complex, the need for information increases. National statistical
agencies and other government departments are turning increasing to administrative data as sources
of information on the population. This move is driven, in part, by concerns over increasing
respondent burden. This is certainly true in Canada at the federal, provincial and territorial levels of
government.
The sources of administrative data may be divided into two broad categories—those that are
transaction driven and those that serve in the administration of universal programs. Examples of
transaction driven sources include records of interactions with the public health care systems or
social assistance data. In both cases no information exists until the “client” interacts with the
service providers. Population registers and social insurance records are examples of universal
administrative files. In theory, all members of the population in question should be included in
these files.
Assuming that it is possible to identify the minority group under observation, the coverage of
that population in administrative records is a function of the nature of the data. For transaction
driven sources, the coverage depends on the degree to which the members of the group under
observation interact with the respective services. In the case of universal files, it is assumed that
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
11
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
coverage will be equivalent to that of a census. Verification of coverage requires access to a
reliable independent source such as a census.
Identifying members of minorities in administrative records is problematic, regardless of the
category. By definition, the data are conceived for administrative purposes. Consequently, the
content of the files includes only the information that is pertinent to the administration of a
particular program. Virtually none of the programs for which administrative records exist in
Canada target specific minority groups such as visible minorities or other ethno-cultural groups.
Therefore, in most instances the records do not contain the information required to determine
whether or not the client is a member of the minority group defined on the basis of ethno-cultural
characteristics.
5. A vision of the future
The socio-cultural diversity of societies in industrialised nations is becoming more complex
as a result of changing immigration patterns and of an increased awareness of, and sensitivity to, the
issues related to ethnicity. Public and private-sector non-governmental organisations will be faced
with an increasing need to observe minorities and to analyse their integration and position in
society. Concerns dealing with employment equity, the acculturation of immigrants, access to
services, inter-group relations and other socio-economic issues will form an important research
agenda for these organisations.
There is no question that data on minorities are required currently and will continue to be
required in the immediate (and probably the long term) future. To summarise the points raised
earlier in this paper, a number of factors need to be taken into account in the development of
collection instruments and analytical models. First, the agencies concerned must be sensitive to the
tension that may exist between the collective definition of the minority under observation and the
perception of the individuals belonging to this minority with respect to their classification. Second,
the definitions of the minorities must be restricted to features that are measurable (observable).
These are the objective socio-cultural characteristics that describe the minority under study. Third,
collection agencies and researchers must be conscious of the dynamic nature of the definitions and
of the individuals’ perception of the relevance of these definitions to their particular situation or
context. Fourth, the respondents (subjects under observation) must be informed of the need for the
data and the benefits that they may accrue by providing this information. Finally, both the direct
and indirect approaches to defining minorities in data collection vehicles are appropriate and both
should be considered in the future.
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
12
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
REFERENCES
Balakrishnan, T.R., and Feng Hou. (1999). Residential Patterns in Cities. In Immigrant Canada:
Demographic, Economic, and Social Challenges (eds Shiva S. Halli and Leo Driedger), 116-147.
University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
Banks, Marcus. (1996). Ethnicity: Anthropological Constructions. Routledge. London.
Banton, Michael. (1977). Rational Choice: A Theory of Racial and Ethnic Relations, (Working
Paper on Ethnic Relations No. 8). S.S.R.C. Research Unit on Ethnic Relations. Bristol.
Beaujot, Roderic P. (1999). Immigration and Demographic Structures. In Immigrant Canada:
Demographic, Economic, and Social Challenges (eds Shiva S. Halli and Leo Driedger), 93-115.
University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
Boyd, Monica, Gustave Goldmann and Pamela White. (2000). Race in the Canadian Census. In
Race and Racism: Canada’s Challenge (eds Leo Driedger and Shiva S. Halli), 20-32. McGillQueen’s University Press. Montreal.
Boyd, Monica and Doug Norris. (1998). Becoming Canadian: Temporal Shifts in Ethnic Origins,
Unpublished paper. Florida State University. Tallahassee.
Brass, Paul R. (1991). Ethnicity and Nationalism. Sage Publications. London.
Breton, Raymond, W.W. Isajiw, W.E. Kalbach and J.G. Reitz. (1990). Ethnic Identity and Equality:
varieties of Experience in a Canadian City. University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
Cohen, Ronald and John Middleton. (1970). Introduction. In From Tribe to Nation in Africa:
studies in Incorporation Processes (eds Ronald Cohen and John Middleton). Chandler Publishing
Company. Pennsylvania.
Fishman, Joshua. (1980). Social theory and ethnography. In Ethnic Diversity and Conflict in
Eastern Europe (ed Peter Sugar), 84-97. ABC-Clio. Santa Barbara.
Goldmann, Gustave. (1994). The Shifting of Ethnic Boundaries: Causes, factors and effects, MA
Thesis. Carleton University. Ottawa.
Goldmann, Gustave J. (1998). Shifts in Ethnic Origins Among the Offspring of Immigrants: Is
Ethnic Mobility a Measurable Phenomenon?. In Canadian Ethnic Studies, XXX, No. 3, 121-148
Goldscheider, Calvin. (1993) What Does Ethnic/Racial Differentiation Mean? Implications for
Measurement and Analyses. In The Measurement of Ethnicity: Science, politics and reality (eds
Gustave J. Goldmann and Nampeo McKenney), 391-406. Statistics Canada and U.S. Bureau of the
Census. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington.
Goldscheider, Calvin. (1995). Population, Ethnicity, and Nation Building: Themes, Issues, and
Guidelines. In Population, Ethnicity, and Nation Building (ed Calvin Goldscheider), 1-18.
Westview Press Inc. Boulder.
Grosby, Steven. (1994). The verdict of history: the inexpungeable tie of primordiality—a response
to Eller and Coughlan. In Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 17, number 2, 164-171.
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
13
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
Guimond, Eric, Norbert Robitaille, Andrew Siggner and Gustave Goldmann. forthcoming.
Aboriginal Peoples of Canada: A Demographic Perspective. Statistics Canada. Ottawa.
Hechter, Michael. (1996). Ethnic and Rational Choice Theory. In Ethnicity (eds John Hutchinson
and Anthony D. Smith). Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Herberg, Edward N. (1989).
Canada. Scarborough.
Ethnic Groups in Canada: Adaptations and Transitions. Nelson
Isajiw, Wsevolod W. (1997). Introduction: Ethnic Heterogeneity, Conflict and the Dilemma of
Social Incorporation at the Year 2000. In Multiculturalism in North America and Europe (ed
Wsevold Isajiw), 1-14. Canadian Scholars Press. Toronto.
Juteau, Danielle. (1997). Ethnic Communalizations in the World System: Theorizing from the
Margins. In Multiculturalism in North America and Europe (ed Wsevolod Isajiw), 187-210.
Canadian Scholars Press. Toronto.
Kalbach, Warren E. and Madeline A. Richard. (1990). Ethno-Religious Identity and Acculturation.
In Ethnic Demography: Canadian Immigrant, Racial and Cultural Variations (eds Shiva S. Halli,
Frank Trovato and Leo Driedger), 179-198. Carleton University Press. Ottawa.
Kelly, Karen. (1995). Collecting Census Data on Canada’s Visible Minority Population: A
Historically Perspective. Statistics Canada. Ottawa.
Kobrin, Frances E. and Calvin Goldscheider. (1978). The Ethnic Factor in Family Structure and
Mobility. Ballinger Publishing Company. Cambridge.
Nash, Manning. (1989). The Cauldron of Ethnicity in the Modern World. University of Chicago
Press. Chicago.
Neuwirth, Gertrud. (1999). Toward a Theory of Immigrant Integration. In Immigrant Canada:
Demographic, Economic, and Social Challenges (eds Shiva S. Halli and Leo Driedger), 51-69.
University of Toronto Press. Toronto.
Olson, S. H. and A. L. Kobayashi. (1993). The Emerging Ethnocultural Mosaic. In The Changing
Social Geography of Canadian Cities (eds Larry S. Bourne and David F. Ley), 138-152. McGillQueen’s University Press. Montreal.
Pryor, Edward T. (1995). The Cultural Partitioning of Canada: Demographic Roots of
Multinationalism. In Population, Ethnicity, and Nation-building (ed Calvin Goldscheider), 201222. Westview Press. Boulder.
Reitz, Jeffrey G., and Raymond Breton. (1994). The Illusion of Difference: Realities of Ethnicity in
Canada and the United States. C.D. Howe Institute. Toronto.
Richmond, Anthony H. (1994). Global Apartheid: Refugees, Racism, and the New World Order.
Oxford University Press. Toronto.
Robitaille, Norbert et Eric Guimond. (1995). Transition démographique st mobilitié chez ethnique
chez les Inuit du Canada. In Towards the XXIst Century: Emerging Socio-Demographic Trends and
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
14
Statistics, Development and Human Rights
Policy Issues in Canada (ed A. Romaniuc), 289-294. Federation of Canadian Demographers.
Ottawa
Schermerhorn, Richard A. (1970). Comparative Ethnic Relations: A Framework for Theory and
Research. Random House. New York.
Weber, Max. (1978). Ethnic Groups. In Economy and Society, Vol 1 (eds G. Roth and C. Wittich),
389-395. University of California Press. Berkley.
White, Pamela M., Jane Badets, Viviane Renaud. (1993). Measuring Ethnicity in Canadian
Censuses. In The Measurement of Ethnicity: Science, politics and reality (eds Gustave J. Goldmann
and Nampeo McKenney), 223-269. Statistics Canada and U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S.
Government Printing Office. Washington.
Yinger, Milton J. (1986). Intersecting strands in the theorisation of race and ethnic relations. In
Theories of Race and Ethnic Relations (eds John Rex and David Mason), 20-41. Cambridge
University Press. New York.
ENDNOTES
The term “race” is used in this paper because it appears in the literature and discourse on ethnicity. However, it is
acknowledged by the author that “race” is a social construction that is fraught with sensitive issues that are very
subjective in nature. Therefore, it is not considered to be a valid analytical variable.
i
ii
When examining inequity of opportunity in the labour market one must consider not only access to employment but
also retention of employment, adequate recognition of educational qualifications and appropriate returns to education
and experience in salaries and income. Social inequities occur in access to housing, access to social services and other
difficulties that may be encountered by individuals when they interact with the institutions in society. Political
inequities are not an issue in Canadian society. Therefore, they will not be included in the discussion.
iii
Deriving counts of visible minorities based on an indirect approach is acknowledged to be an imperfect solution.
iv
It is becoming more difficult to avoid sensitive issues in collecting census data. Societies are becoming more
protective of their information and they are beginning to question some of the data that are collected in a census. The
ongoing debates over the questions on ethnic origin, same sex unions and the distinction between paid and unpaid work
are examples of the extent to which the public is sensitive about these issues in Canada.
In effect, the employment equity program is founded on the principle of “self-identification” on the part of the
respondent. Therefore, the indirect approach does not correspond well with the principles of this program.
v
vi
This point is particularly germane in democratic states such as Canada since it reinforces the rights of the individual to
determine how he or she is classified within the society.
Montreux, 4. – 8. 9. 2000
15