University of Oxford
Seminar, University of Helsinki, Finland, May 11, 2012
27/03/2012
2
Outline
Impact of diversity: Putnam’s pessimistic prognoses
Types of intergroup contact: Whether and how they
work

Direct and extended forms of contact
Impact of contact

Focus: generalized/’secondary transfer’ effects
Archival re-analysis of contact effects in extreme
conditions

Rescuers of Jews from Nazi Europe
Observational research on intergroup contact
Conclusions
2
3
Impact of diversity:
Putnam’s pessimistic prognoses
Putnam’s (2007) ‘Diversity-Distrust Hypothesis’:
Threat vs Opportunity
Percentage of
Out-groupers
+
Higher Threat/
Competition
+
Higher
Prejudice
= ‘conflict theory’ (Putnam, 2007): “diversity fosters out-group distrust
and in-group solidarity” (p. 142)
Percentage of
Out-groupers
+ Opportunity
for contact
+
Out-group
friends
-
Lower
Prejudice
“I think it is fair to say that most (though not all) empirical studies have tended
instead to support conflict theory ” (Putnam, 2007, p. 142)
4
5
“In colloquial
language, people
living in ethnically
diverse settings
appear to ‘hunker
down’ – that is, to
pull in like a turtle.”
(Putnam, 2007, p.
149)
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community
in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture.
Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.
7
What is the relationship between diversity and
trust? Mixed Findings

More Diversity  Less Trust


Putnam (2007); Lancee & Dronkers (2008); Fieldhouse & Cutts (2010)
More Diversity  More Trust

Marschall & Stolle (2004; Black sample); Fieldhouse & Cutts (2010;
ethnic minority sample in UK); Morales & Echazarra (forthcoming)

More Diversity  No effect on Trust

Marschall & Stolle (2004; White sample); Gesthuizen, van der Meer &
Scheepers (2008); Hooghe et al. (2008)
Some Critical Issues in the
Putnam Diversity Hypothesis

Role of disadvantage

Measures of Diversity

8

Index used

Level of measured diversity
Missing or inappropriate measures of intergroup contact

Putnam uses high-threshold measure of contact (friends)

Does not test whether contact mediates or moderates diversity effect
8
9
‘The Contact Hypothesis’
(Allport, 1954)
Positive contact with a member of another
group (often a negatively stereotyped group)
can improve negative attitudes:
-- not only towards the specific member,
--but also towards the group as a whole
10
Does Contact Work?
Results of a ‘Meta–Analysis’

Number of Studies: 515 studies

Dates of Studies:
1940s -- 2000

Participants:
250,089 people from 38 nations

•
Consistent, significant negative effect: more contact, less
prejudice
The more rigorous the research, the larger the effect
(Pettigrew &10Tropp, 2006, 2011)
Do We Have Enough Evidence To Challenge Putnam
and Impact Policy?
Imagine you
give evidence to
the government on
the relevance of
your work (e.g., on
improving interethnic relations),
armed with a
data base
consisting purely
of studies using
under-graduates.
You are left …
exposed!

11
12
Significant Weaknesses of Prior Research on Contact
Failure to study
contact:
 (1) over time
 (2) at the level of the
neighbourhood
 (3) taking account of
diversity as well as
deprivation
 (4) using multi-level
analysis

13
(PIs: M. Hewstone, A. Heath, C. Peach, S. Spencer;
Post docs: A. Al Ramiah, N. Demireva, S. Hussain, K. Schmid)



Test of integrated model of group threat theory and contact
theory, to examine relationship between macro-level diversity
and both individual-level and neighbourhood-level attitudinal
outcomes
Sampled respondents from neighbourhoods of varying degrees
of ethnic diversity
Control for additional key macro-level variable: neighbourhood
deprivation
14
Between-level neighbourhood measures


Percentage Non-White British (range: 1% - 84%)
Index of multiple deprivation (IMD; based on variety of
indicators, e.g. income, employment, health deprivation)
Analysis


14
Data hierarchically ordered in a two-level structure (respondents
nested within neighbourhoods)
Multilevel structural equation modeling to account for both withinlevel and between-level variance of constructs
15
Overview of research
Test of effects of diversity on:
 Outgroup trust
 Ingroup trust
 Neighbourhood trust
Focus on key role of intergroup contact
16
Putnam (2007)
DIVERSITY
+
PERCEIVED
THREAT
–
TRUST
–
Diversity is perceived as threatening and has negative
consequences for trust
17
Our Research
+
DIVERSITY
INTERGROUP
CONTACT
+
–
PERCEIVED
THREAT
–
TRUST
–
Diversity offers opportunities for positive contact
Positive contact reduces perceived threat
Prediction: Diversity will have positive indirect effects on trust
18
Results: White British respondents (N = 868)
.55**
Intergroup
Contact
Outgroup
Trust
–.34***
–.43***
Diversity
(Ethnic
fractionalization)
Perceived
Threat
–.29***
Ingroup
Trust
–.30***
–.23**
Trust in
neighbours
Diversity has positive indirect effects on Trust
Outgroup Trust (b = .31, z = 2.93, p < .01), Ingroup Trust (b = .21, z = 2.72, p < .01), Neighbourhood Trust (b = .23, z = 2.93, p < .01)
19
Results: Ethnic minority respondents (N = 797)
.30**
Intergroup
Contact
.17*
Outgroup
Trust
–.38***
–.30***
Diversity
(Herfindahl)
.16*
Perceived
Threat
–.31***
.24**
Ingroup
Trust
–.22***
.21**
Trust in
neighbours
Diversity has positive indirect effects on Trust
Outgroup Trust (b = .16, z = 2.65, p < .01), Ingroup Trust (b = .16, z = 2.60, p = .01), Neighbourhood Trust (b = .12, z = 2.42, p = .02)
20
Contextual effect of intergroup contact
Do individuals from different contexts who have the
same amount of intergroup contact differ in their
intergroup attitudes?
Does the context influence intergroup attitudes over
and above individual level variables?
If so, then context drives this difference (contextual
effect) -- can’t be explained with individual level
variables.
21
Contextual effect of intergroup contact
Intergroup attitudes
(i.e., prejudice)
Do individuals from different contexts who have the same amount of intergroup
contact differ in their intergroup attitudes? Then context drives this difference
(contextual effect) -- can’t be explained with individual level variables.
βW
Context A
βC
βB
Context B
Context C
Direct Intergroup Contact
Within Group Effect (Level 1):
Between Group Effect (Level 2):
Contextual Effect:
(Extended Contact)
e.g., βW = -.30
e.g., βB = -.50
e.g., βC = βB - βW = -.20
22
Results: Leverhulme, UK data
Intergroup
contact
βB = -2.223***
Ingroup
Bias
Context level
Individual level
Intergroup
contact
Contextual Effect:
βW = -0.346***
Ingroup Bias
βC = βB - βW = -1.877**
*controlled for age, sex, education, and IMD
23
Results: Leverhulme, UK data
0.892***
Intergroup
contact
Tolerant
norms
-1.840***
βB = -0.614
Ingroup
Bias
Context level
Individual level
Intergroup
contact
Contextual Effect:
βW = -0.346***
Ingroup Bias
βC = βB - βW = -0.270
Indirect effect on context level: -0.343***
*controlled for age, sex, education, and IMD
Results: MPI data, German longit. Data
time 1
time 2
Intergroup
contact
Intergroup
contact
24
0.130+
Tolerant
norms
Tolerant
norms
-0.318*
βB = -0.192**
Threat
Threat
Context level
Individual level
Intergroup
contact
Contextual Effect:
βW = -0.031*
Ingroup Bias
βC = βB - βW = -0.161*
Indirect effect on context level: -0.041+
*controlled for age, sex, education, and unemployment, and sse rate
25
Putnam’s impact
“Will first-hand experience weaken
stereotypes? That was the belief of the
sociologist Samuel Stouffer, who observed
during the Second World War that white
soldiers who fought alongside blacks were
less racially prejudiced than white soldiers
who had not. The political scientist
Robert Putnam has stood Stouffer, and
Aristotle, on their heads. Putnam has
found that first-hand experience of
diversity in fact leads people to
withdraw from these neighbours” (p. 5)
26
Types of intergroup contact:
whether and how they work
27
DIRECT CONTACT
 Quantity of contact – frequency of interaction with outgroup
members, e.g., ‘how often do you meet/talk to/etc. outgroup members
where you live/shop/socialize, etc?’

Quality of contact – nature of the interaction with outgroup
members, e.g., how positive/negative; friendly/unfriendly, etc, is the
contact?’

Cross-group friendship – being friends with outgroup members,
e.g., ‘How many close outgroup friends?’
EXTENDED CONTACT
 Indirect/Vicarious contact, via family or friends, e.g., ‘How many of your
family members/friends have outgroup friends?
28
Direct contact:
Longitudinal Effects
and
Evidence of Mediators
29
30
3-Wave Study of Longitudinal Contact in South African
‘Coloured’ Schools
(Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, JPSP, 2011)

Age (yrs):




Variables:




T1: Mean (SD) = 14.68 (1.06)
T2 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.31 (1.03)
T3 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.67 (1.05)
Predictors: cross-group (white) friends
Mediators: intergroup anxiety; empathy
Outcomes: positive outgroup attitudes; outgroup variability; negative action
tendencies
3-wave cross-lagged analyses


3-waves permit mediation analyses
Time 1 ‘predictor’ -> Time 2 ‘mediator’ -> Time 3 ‘Outcome’
31
Outgroup
Friendships
x1
Outgroup
Friendships
y1
x2
Intergroup
Anxiety
x3
x5
y3
Empathy
x7
x10
x8
x12
x11
y21
y9
y10
x15
y13
y8
y24
y12
y27
y16
y17
y25
y26
y28
y30
y29
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
y15
y31
Negative
Action
Tendencies
x18
y23
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
y11
y14
y22
Empathy
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
x14
x17
y5
y7
y20
Intergroup
Anxiety
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Negative
Action
Tendencies
x16
y4
y6
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
x13
y19
Empathy
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
x9
y2
Intergroup
Anxiety
x4
x6
Outgroup
Friendships
y32
y33
Negative
Action
Tendencies
y18
y34
y35
y36
32
Outgroup
Friendships
Outgroup
Friendships
-.14**
-.11**
Intergroup
Anxiety
.13**
-.14**
-.11**
Intergroup
Anxiety
Intergroup
Anxiety
-.14**
-.14**
Empathy
Outgroup
Friendships
Empathy
.23***
.13**
.23***
.23***
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
.15**
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
.23***
.15**
Negative
Action
Tendencies
Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’
-.27***
-.15**
Negative
Action
Tendencies
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
-.15**
Empathy
-.27***
Negative
Action
Tendencies
33
Making Sense of ‘Spaghetti’

Green paths are autoregressive.

Blue paths are 'forward' paths (as predicted by contact model).

Red paths are 'reverse' paths (self-selection).

Model equates paths from Wave 1-2, and 2-3

All paths indicated are significant.
34
Outgroup
Friendships
Outgroup
Friendships
-.14**
-.11**
Intergroup
Anxiety
.13**
-.14**
-.11**
Intergroup
Anxiety
Intergroup
Anxiety
-.14**
-.14**
Empathy
Outgroup
Friendships
Empathy
.23***
.13**
.23***
.23***
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
.15**
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
.23***
.15**
Negative
Action
Tendencies
Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’
-.27***
-.15**
Negative
Action
Tendencies
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
-.15**
Empathy
-.27***
Negative
Action
Tendencies
35
Outgroup
Friendships
Outgroup
Friendships
Outgroup
Friendships
-.14**
-.11**
Intergroup
Anxiety
Empathy
.13**
.23***
-.14**
Empathy
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
-.15**
Negative
Action
Tendencies
Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’
Intergroup
Anxiety
Intergroup
Anxiety
Empathy
.23***
.15**
Positive
Outgroup
Attitudes
Perceived
outgroup
Variability
-.27***
Negative
Action
Tendencies
Negative
Action
Tendencies
36
Extended Contact:
The Surprising Impact
of “weak ties”
Some of my friends have friends who are . . .
(outgroup members)


‘Extended contact’ is second-hand, rather than
involving the participants in direct intergroup
contact themselves
Just knowing other people in your group who have
out-group friends might improve attitudes to the
out-group (Wright et al., 1997)
37
38
Extended Contact in Northern Ireland
(Results for Catholics and Protestants; N = 316)
(Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci, 2004)
.52
Number of
Direct
Friends
-.18***
Prejudice
Towards
The Group
R2 = .48
.79
Intergroup
Anxiety
R2 = .21
.53***
Number of
Indirect
Friends
.17**
- .03
General
Group
Variability
R2 = .11
.89
40
Key facts about extended contact



It works by changing group norms
It is especially effective for those who have no
direct contact
It should lead people to take up more
opportunities for direct contact in the future
Impact of Indirect Contact is Moderated by Amount of Direct
(Friendship) Contact
(NI- CRU Survey, N=984; Christ, Hewstone et al., PSPB, 2010)
When does extended contact work best? When direct contact is low.
Low cross-group friendship
High cross-group friendship
In-group bias
1
0
-1
Low
High
Indirect contact
41
42
Longitudinal analysis of the effects of extended contact
at time 1 on direct contact at time 2
(Swart, Hewstone, Tausch et al., in prep.)
.15***
Extended
Contact
(Time 1)
.23***
.21***
Controlling for
direct contact
scores at Time 1
Neighbourhood
Contact Quantity
(Time 2)
Neighbourhood
Contact Quality
(Time 2)
Contact with Friends
(Time 2)
An Experimental Comparison of
Different Forms of Contact
Evidence from
Cyprus
http://www.isxys.org/isolation/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/turkishpopulation1960-present.jpg
44
Study 1


Participants: 52 female students (26 pairs) at the
University of Cyprus
Recruitment criteria:
 Greek/Cypriots
 Friends
with each other
 Good knowledge of English
Study 1: Methodology- Procedure
T1
T2
1 WEEK
Pre- test
(baseline
measures)
Intervention
&
Post- test
47
Study 1: Methodology - Contact Intervention

Type of Contact – Manipulation of Direct vs Extended
contact

Randomly allocate one of each pair of participants to each
of the two conditions:


Direct contact: a 10 minute structured face-to-face interaction of the
first member of the pair with a T/C confederate.*

Extended contact: the 2nd member of the pair observed her friend
interacting with the T/C through a one-way mirror.
* the T/C confederate was trained to give the same answers
every time.
Study 1: Results
Direct Contact
Mean (SD)
Extended contact
Mean (SD)
Attitudes tow. outgroup member
(thermometer)
8.44 (.92)
8.23 (1.31)
Typicality of out-group
member
2.28 (.89)
2.58 (1.20)
In-group (Self)
disclosure
3.40 (.76)
3.50 (.81)
Out-group disclosure
3.36 (.57)
3.38 (.75)
Group Salience
1.97 (.87)
2.26 (1)
Contact (State)
Anxiety
1.47 (.34)
1.5 (.41)
Study 1: Attitudes Results
Pre – Post Contact (improved attitudes, esp. Direct contact)
50
Impact of contact
51
Multiple Outcomes of Intergroup Contact








51
Explicit attitudes
Attitude strength
Implicit attitudes
Neural processes
Trust
Forgiveness
Behavioural intentions
Outgroup-to-outgroup generalization: the ‘secondary
transfer effect’. *
Are the effects of contact with members of one
group restricted to that outgroup, or do they have
‘knock-on’ or ‘trickle-down’ effects on attitudes
towards other groups?
Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Küpper, B., Zick, A., & Wagner, U. (2012).
Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 28–51.
53
Overview

Test of secondary transfer effects in cross-national
comparison
8
European countries: France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the
Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, UK

Moderation by Social dominance orientation (SDO)?
 Ideology

of inequality (Pratto, Sidanius et al., 1994)
Data from GFE Europe survey (30-minute crosssectional CATI survey)
Full sample analysis (N = 7042; Schmid, Hewstone et
al., 2012; controls: age, gender, education, income,
political orientation )
Low SDO: –.22***
High SDO: –.08ns
Negative
attitudes –
homosexuals
–.13***
.37***
Intergroup
Contact –
Immigrants
–.15***
Negative
Attitudes –
Immigrants
.39***
Overall mediation: b = –.06, z = –6.68***
Moderated mediation:
Low SDO: b = –.08, z = –6.65***
High SDO: b = –.02, z = –3.14***
Attitudes
Jewish
55
Longitudinal Secondary transfer effect in Northern
Ireland
(N = 181 Catholics, 223 Protestants; matched at T1-T2, 1 year; Tausch et al.,2010)
Attitude to
ethno-religious
outgroup T1
Neighbourhood
contact with
ethno-religious
outgroup T1
Controlling for:
Contact with and
attitude to racial
minorities T1
1.76*
Attitude to
ethno-religious
outgroup T2
.43***
Attitude to
racial
minorities T2
1.84*
1.07, n.s.
Ingroup
feeling
thermometer
T2
*
p < .05;
**
56
p < .01;
***
p < .001
57
Does contact impact behaviour, and when it really
matters?Archival re-analysis of contact effects in extreme
conditions:
Rescuers of Jews from Nazi Europe
Kronenberg & Hewstone (in prep.)
58
Data

Data from the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial
Behaviour Institute
(Oliner/Oliner 1988)
510 respondents from 15 European countries
 Collected in the 1980s
 Retrospective case-control sample:




Case sample of identified rescuers (N=346, recognized by
Yad Vashem, The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’
Remembrance Authority, as ‘Righteous among the Nations’)
Control sample matched on age, sex, education, region
(N=164)
Final sample 412 respondents (297 rescuers, 115 nonrescuers)
59
Main Hypothesis
(with multiple controls, e.g. for opportunities to help; pro-social orientation)

59
Pre-war friendships with Jews increase the probability of
rescuing Jews (especially Jewish friends) (direct contact via
friends)
3. Empirical Application
The Impact of Pre-war Friendships with Jews
Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):
Helping Jewish
friends
Pre-war frnds. w Jews
12.19**
Helping other
Jews
2.24**
Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. No control variables.
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
61
Odds Ratio


Odds ratio (OR) calculated shows the probability of helping (Jewish friends; other
Jews) vs not-helping
OR of 12.19 in previous table 1 means:
If you had pre-war Jewish friends, the probability of Helping Jewish Friends divided
by the probability of not-Helping was 12.19 times higher than if you did not have prewar Jewish friends.

The odds of helping other Jews vs. not helping increase (only) by a factor of 2.24 if
respondents had Jewish friends before the war.

Less technically:
Having Jewish friends before the war made potential rescuers more likely to
help, especially to help Jewish friends, but also to help other Jews.
3. Empirical Application
The Impact of Pre-war Friendships
with Jews:
Effect of adding controls
Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):
Helping Jewish
friends
Helping other
Jews
15.41**
2.89**
1.07**
1.05*
Prosocial orientation
18.43**
5.18*
Command zone
10.89**
10.36**
0.98
1.19**
Pre-war frnds. w Jews
Age
Size Jewish population
Number of rooms
15.28**
12.11**
Many neighbours
0.86
0.39*
Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. Additional control variables: gender; education
level; religiosity; religious confession; SS zone, Jewish Neighbours, partner/children in
household, financial resources.
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Observational research:
Is everything for the best in this best of all
possible worlds?
Limits to the impact of contact: Segregation, desegregation, and re-segregation
64
Cafeteria study in mixed school


64
Coded who sat where and with whom in
cafeteria of a 6th Form College (16-18 yrs) in
NW England
(40% ethnic minority, mostly Pakistani- and
Bangladeshi-heritage British Asians)
Area A1
Food service counters
Costa
Area A2
Area A3
Kitchen
Day
1
Time
1
Occupied seats
89
Mixed tables
1
Area A4
66
Coding and measures
Over a two day period, 3,037 seating positions were
coded; we analysed the data using:




the segregation index of dissimilarity (D; Clack et al., 2005)
Ethnic composition of ‘social units’
Side-by-side and face-to-face cross-race adjacencies (Campbell
et al., 1966)
Aggregation Index of ethnic clustering (I; difference between
actual vs. expected frequency with which Whites and Asians sat
opposite each other; Campbell et al., 1966)
Asian*
White*
Black
Other
Pillar (i.e., not a seat)
Empty seat
68
Coded data of 22 time intervals . . .
68
Area A1
Food service counters
Costa
Area A2
Area A3
Kitchen
Day
1
Time
1
Occupied seats
89
Mixed tables
1
Area A4
Area A1
Food service counters
Costa
Area A2
Area A3
Kitchen
Day
1
Time
2
Occupied seats
189
Mixed tables
5
Area A4
Area A1
Food service counters
Costa
Area A2
Area A3
Kitchen
Day
1
Time
6
Occupied seats
295
Mixed tables
11
Area A4
72
Ethnic composition of social units
White/
Asian
White/
Asian/
Black/
Other
White/
Black/
Other
Asian/ Black
Black/ /
Other Other
58.97% 30.91% 4.18%
0.33%
4.73%
0.55%
All
White
% of
social
units
All
Asian
0.33%
73
Mean Ethnic Aggregation Indices for
each area across both days
Day
Area
No. of Intervals
I
Upper Limit
Lower Limit
1
1
10
-1.99
-0.98
-4.36
1
2
10
-0.71
0
-2.57
1
3
10
-0.29
0
-1.48
1
4
10
-1.09
0
-3.04
2
1
12
-1.6
-0.32
-3.82
2
2
12
-0.39
0
-1.52
2
3
12
-0.44
0
-3.44
2
4
12
-1.19
0
-3.02
Note: I denotes aggregation index (negative values indicate more ethnic
clustering/less cross-ethnic mixing than expected from random
distribution). See Area 1 . . .
Area A1
Food service counters
Costa
Area A2
Area A3
Kitchen
Day
2
Time
7
Occupied seats
142
Mixed tables
4
Area A4
75
The number of Whites versus Asians
in each area for both days
Day
Area
No. of intervals
Number of Whites
Number of Asians
1
1
10
251
366
1
2
10
254
16
1
3
10
141
9
1
4
10
282
46
2
1
12
241
461
2
2
12
278
16
2
3
12
182
13
2
4
12
381
36
76
Lessons from cafeteria study
Mixed student body does not equate with
intergroup contact
 Students do, in fact, report contact, including
outgroup friends, and contact is associated with
more positive attitudes
 But why do students choose to sit apart at lunch?
Does it even matter that they do?
 Ongoing research

76
77
Conclusions
Actual contact is crucial for integration
Just ‘living together’ is not enough (re-segregation problem in
cafeteria)
Contact does mediate impact of neighbourhood diversity;
Putnam is too pessimistic
Direct and extended and forms of contact have effects
Contact has multiple outcomes; STE especially important
Effects of contact shown via multi-method approach:

Surveys (cross-sect’l. &longitud.); experiments; archival analysis
To understand diversity effects you have to study contact.
77
78
Funding
Leverhulme Trust
Community Relations Unit (N.I.)
Economic and Social Research Council
Nuffield Foundation
Russell Sage Foundation, U.S.A.
Templeton Foundation, U.S.A.
(ex) Graduate students
Maria Ioannou
Dr Ananthi al-Ramiah
Dr Hermann Swart
Dr Nicole Tausch
Dr Rhiannon Turner
Dr Christiana Vonofakou
Research collaborators
Prof. Ed Cairns (University of Ulster)
Dr Oliver Christ (University of Marburg, Germany)
Prof. Joanne Hughes (University of Ulster)
Dr Jared Kenworthy (University of Texas)
Prof. Clemens Kronenberg (University of Mannheim)
Dr Katharina Schmid (University of Oxford)
Dr Alberto Voci (University of Padua, Italy)
Undergraduate students
Eleanor Baker
Christina Floe
Caroline Povah
Elisabeth Reed
Anna Westlake
79