UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The relationship between perceived discrimination, intergenerational homogeneity and ethnic identity… Rai, Rajvir K. 2009

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2009_spring_rai_rajvir.pdf [ 1.07MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0070875.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0070875-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0070875-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0070875-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0070875-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0070875-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0070875-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0070875-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0070875.ris

Full Text

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PERCEIVED DISCRIMINATION, INTERGENERATIONAL HOMOGENEITY AND ETHNIC IDENTITY AMONG CHINESE AND SOUTH ASIANS IN CANADA by RAJVIR K. RAI A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Family Studies) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Vancouver April 2009 © Rajvir K. Rai, 2009 11 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to examine which ethnic groups resist assimilation i.e. maintain their own culture and which ethnic groups do not maintain their culture in Canada. Since Canada is a multicultural country and has an official multiculturalism policy, which supports that ethnic group should maintain their culture in Canada. It was hypothesized that ethnic groups with stronger intergenerational (language, religion, ethnic ancestry) homogeneity and stronger perception of discrimination will have stronger ethnic identity. Stronger ethnic identity will represent resistance to assimilate in the host country. Data from Ethnic Diversity Survey (2005) was used to examine two major ethnic groups South Asian and Chinese in Canada. Methods used for analysis were ANOVA and regression. Results show there is a relationship between perceived discrimination and strength of ethnic identity for the whole sample. Also, between the two ethnic groups, South Asians perceived discrimination and had a stronger ethnic identity as compared to Chinese. For the overall sample, a strong linear association was also found between perceived discrimination and intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity. 111 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract.ii Table of Contents iii List of Tables iv List of Figures vi Acknowledgments vii Dedication viii Introduction 1 Literature Review 5 Intergenerational Homogeneity 7 Ethnic Identity 9 Perceived Discrimination 10 Hypothesis 12 Methods 14 Sample and Procedure 15 Measures 21 Results 23 Discussion and Conclusion 49 References 62 Appendix 1 65 iv LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent and Independent Variable 29 Table 2 Scheffe Post Hoc Test- Group Significance Difference 32 Table 3 Mean, Standard Deviation and Pearson Correlation Coefficients for the Variables 35 Table 4.1 Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 36 Table 4.2 Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian and Chinese)on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 36 Table 4.2a Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian) on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 37 Table 4.2b Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity on the Strength of Ethnic Identity 38 Table 4.3 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 42 Table 4.4 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian and Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 43 Table 4.5 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 43 Table 4.6 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity 44 Table 4.7 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity 44 Table 4.8 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian and Chinese) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity 45 VTable 4.9 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity 45 Table 4.10 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity 46 Table 4.11 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity 46 Table 4.12 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian and Chinese) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity 47 Table 4.13 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity 47 Table 4.14 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect of Perceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity 48 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Accepted Hypothesis model 55 vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my thesis supervisor, Dr. Jim White for his never-ending support and encouragement, and for his continued dedication to this project. I would also like to thank the committee members for their assistance and valuable insights while helping me complete my thesis. I appreciate the enormous amount of time you have all given in helping me complete this project. viii DEDICATION I would like to dedicate this project to my beloved husband Rajeev S Rai, whom I lost during this journey. I miss you and this achievement wouldn’t have been possible without your love, support and encouragement. Thank you for providing this great opportunity, which I will value for rest of my life. I would also like to thank my entire family especially my Dad, for his encouraging words and support. 1CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Canada is the first country in the world to adopt an official Multiculturalism policy in 1971. Multiculturalism is a policy of inclusion that aims to help people overcome barriers related to race, ethnicity, and cultural or religious backgrounds. Canada is known for its diverse culture and multiculturalism policy. According to the Multiculturalism Act 2005-2006, Canada holds multiculturalism as a fundamental Canadian value, as Canada is a nation formed by immigration and characterized by demographic diversity. Each immigrant group in Canada has gone through various phases and has achieved and contributed to the social and economic growth of the country. According to the census report in 2001, there were 2,491,900 recent immigrants (who became permanent resident after 1985) in Canada, accounting for 46% of Canada’s total immigrant population of 5,448,500 and for 8.4% of country’s population and the same year there were 5.4 million people who were born in other countries and were permanent residents in Canada. They accounted for 18% for Canada’s population of 29.6 million. Recent immigrants come from all over the world and represent a diversity of cultural and linguistic background. Asian origins are dominant among immigrants who landed after 1985, and even more so among those who landed after 1995. The largest source country with recent immigration is China with 13% and India has the second largest share with 10%. And for the present study, these two groups are used for comparison purpose. As Canada is a multicultural country, there is a possibility that certain groups will assimilate while others will resist assimilation. Many researchers argue that due to the pressures of industrialization, modernization and urbanization all societies are converging towards one family pattern and hence assimilating to a common North American family pattern. But there are some societies that show resistance to convergence and maintain their own culture. The present 2 study will explore why some ethnic groups resist assimilation. Researchers interested in investigating the change in the family pattern narrowed their focus to convergence hypothesis and have ignored any other competitive perspective. Most of researchers supported the idea that all families are moving towards a common family pattern and will be moving towards the common family pattern in order to survive from the pressures of modernization, industrialization and urbanization (Parsons, 1954; Goode, 1963; Caidwell, 1976; Freedman, 1975). As the researchers argue that the effect of industrialization, urbanization, and modernization is the same for all societies and these forces are pushing them to convergence. This implies that the trend for cohabitation is the same across developed countries like Canada. Bourdais and Lapeirre-Adamcyk (2004) compared the trends of cohabitation and marriage across different regions of Canada. Data show that the evolution of cohabitation took a different course in Quebec than the rest of the country over the past few years, which is contrary to the convergence hypothesis. In 20 years, the proportion of couples who were cohabiting increased by more than 4 in Quebec and 1.9 in British Columbia (p 931). They argue that though both provinces started at similar level but the percentage of cohabiting couples is now nearly 2.5 times higher in Quebec than in British Columbia. They concluded that cohabitation has reached different stages of development across the country and they propose divergent hypothesis to explain this trend. They argued that the different religious and cultural backgrounds of the two societies account for the differences. Quebec society being controlled by Catholic Church, responded in a totally different manner than the other societies controlled by Protestant church to the secularization known as the quiet revolution in the 1 960s. In another study on cohabitation, Heuveline and Timberlake (2004) found that the trend for cohabitation is not the same in all of the European countries. Hence, not only for Canada, even for European countries there is diversity in terms of cohabitation and the idea of convergence is over stated. Both studies revealed that there are religious factors that are affecting the rate of cohabitation. This explains the phenomenon that no matter how much pressure there is on the societies to converge, the cultural and religious factors do play an important role in response to these forces. In many ways ethnic groups may emphasize traditional family values, Massey (1981) reported that traditional family values do decline with time in the United States; immigrant families nonetheless retain many traditional components. At any point in time, immigrant families therefore tend to represent a composite of two cultural systems, with the mix depending on the length of time the group has been in the United States and on social class. Within any country, ethnic groups and minority groups may assimilate or resist assimilation based on the social factors in the receiving country. For example, Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) argued that race or minority group membership can have an independent effect on fertility, even when the effects of other socio-economic factors are controlled. The primary mechanism is discrimination and prejudice towards minority group members that leads to higher fertility and more traditional life despite the pressures from modernization, urbanization and industrialization. “Resistance to assimilation tends to enforce the persistence of traditional patterns of family life conducive to high fertility in spite of technical and economic conditions that might otherwise lead to lower fertility” (p.371). Portes and Zhou (1993) proposed the segmented-assimilation hypothesis, which explains how and why new immigrants and their children may follow rather different paths of incorporation into the American society. Segmented assimilation implies a diversity of outcomes within and between contemporary immigrant streams. One of the paths is the limited or segmented assimilation, in which immigrant parents seek to sponsor their children’s educational success but limit their children’s acculturation into American youth society by reinforcing traditional cultural values. The segmented-assimilation interpretation is supported by case studies of particular immigrant/ethnic populations that have been able to utilize community resources to pursue a strategy of encouraging their children’s socio-economic mobility, but supporting only 4 selective acculturation to American society. The Sikh immigrant children were successful precisely because they were able to accommodate to the American educational environment without losing their ethnic identity and assimilating to American society. Furthermore, according to Portes, minority members with higher socio-economic levels are exposed to greater levels of discrimination in the competitive job markets. They are expected to exhibit greater ethnic consciousness than their counterparts with lower socioeconomic status who are largely insulated from the harsh reality often encountered in the workplace. Hence, higher socioeconomic status has a negative relationship with assimilation (Hwang et al. 1997). It is evident from above, that in order to resist assimilation any ethnic group will maintain their culture through generations. Also, discrimination from the host country will lead to stronger ethnic identity and stronger maintenance of culture. The purpose of this study is to explore the relationship between perceived discrimination, intergenerational homogeneity and ethnic identity. Ethnic identity is viewed as a measure of resistance to assimilation among the South Asian and Chinese community in Canada. Moreover, it is proposed following Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) and Portes and Zhou (1993) that the relationship between intergenerational homogeneity and perceived discrimination determines the strength of ethnic identity. Using a nationally representative sample of minority groups living in Canada, I will test the hypothesis that perceived discrimination and stronger intergenerational homogeneity will lead to stronger ethnic identity. 5 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW There are many definitions of culture; it is defined as the system of defined beliefs, values, customs, behaviors and artifacts that the members of society use to cope with their world and with one another, and that are transmitted from generation to generation through learning. Culture is transmitted through language, material objects, ritual, institutions, and art from one generation to another. According to many social theories, value socialization plays an important role in social change and social stability. To maintain a stable culture, continuity of values is to be maintained and needs to be transmitted from one generation to another. The family is usually considered the most important mechanism in value socialization (Bengston, 1975). Most of the intergenerational transmission of culture takes place in the family. Religion, language and ethnic ancestry can be easily traced and measured in order to determine the intergenerational transmission of culture. As Canada is known for its multiculturalism policy, there should not be an argument why a traditional South Asian or Chinese families cannot preserve their rituals, traditions and customs here in Canada. Canada allows each minority group to preserve its culture through its multiculturalism policy. Policy aside, forces of modernization known as the convergence hypothesis is the dominant perspective in explaining the change in family pattern by various researchers and scholars. Goode (1993) and Parson (1955) argue that due to industrialization, urbanization and globalization all family systems are moving towards one family pattern. Goode (1993) argue that all family systems are converging to a single model (the conjugal family) due to various forces by the society. The present trends are towards avoiding long-term emotional and economic investments in the family. No doubt this would put pressure on traditional South Asian or Chinese family to converge into the Canadian family system. Educational researchers, sociologist and economists find the common sense assumption that families must change to fit 6 modern economic system requiring geographic mobility, educational success and occupational specialization to be intuitively appealing. Though most of the researchers currently maintain the convergence hypothesis in explaining the change in the family patterns, Tsuya and Bumpass (2004) recognized there are families that are not demonstrating the convergence. They explained that different families move at different rates but still in the same direction. They identified cultural determinants such as values responsible for the differential rates. They acknowledge that families have preexisting family values and systems and they act as a “filter” through which market economies alter family life. They admit all family systems will move toward the same direction but the rate of convergence depends on the cultural values that a group holds. Tsuya and Bumpass argue that the effects of moving to a market economy have leaded these countries families to have similar family patterns to those in the U.S. This convergence can be measured in numerous ways such as declining fertility and increasing divorce rates. However, cohabitation and non-marital fertility continue to be very low in the Asian countries raising the issue as to whether this is a delay in the timing of convergence or an example of the strength of cultural family patterns. In contrast, Therborn (2004) argues that culturally based family patterns are much more resistant to the pressures of modernization and family cultures are more resistant to the effects of industrialization and modernization. He argues that many of the family patterns are relatively persistence and indelible to change. He argues that if families are not part of economic and social system, there is no pressure for them to converge to the conjugal family pattern. Huntington (1996) believed that some groups resist the pressure to converge not because of origin but due to shared language, shared beliefs and shared ethnicity. He points out that convergence of material culture should not be confused with convergence of symbolic culture of that particular group. But, for the Sikh community not wearing a “Turban” which is a symbolic or material culture should not be confused with change in their belief system or their cultural values and norms. 7 “Turban” is considered to be a symbol of Sikhism, which was worn by almost every Sikh in the past. Besides, fundamentalists’ majority of the Sikh population can be found without a “Turban” not only in Canada but also, in India. This population still consider themselves as Sikhs and share common language, religion and beliefs. Hence, factors such as mobility and convenience made them change the symbolic culture but it should not be confused with change in their religion and cultural values. Portes and Zhou (1993) propose selective assimilation, through which a group engages in rapid economic advancement with the deliberate preservation of the immigrant’s community’s values and tight solidarity. In their study of second generation Punjabi immigrants in America, they found that as their parents felt and perceived discriminated, the second generation are more likely to preserve their cultural values and norms. Dhruvarajan (1993) reported among the first generation Hindu Asian Indians, religiosity is very important in accounting for ethnic cultural retention and transmission. As traditional South Asian families do not believe in giving an allowance to children because it does not promote the development of family solidarity and mutual interdependence. This show how strong the belief system and dependency is in South Asian families. As Canada is a multicultural country and promotes multiculturalism, these tolerances allow us to examine different rates of intergenerational homogeneity. The typical South Asian family is believed to be highly homogenous as they share common culture, religion, language and belief systems. Intergenerational Homogeneity The intergenerational homogeneity of any ethnic group can be determined by examining their resistance to assimilate with the host country. For the present study, it is assumed that ethnic groups will show resistance to assimilation by showing stronger intergenerational homogeneity, i.e. stronger language, religion and ethnic ancestry intergenerational homogeneity. 8 Religion offers one of the most significant aspects of cohesion among the immigrants. Bhat and Sahoo (2003) claimed Sikhism provides a forum for the Sikhs in particular and Punjabis in general to live together in peace and harmony regardless of race, religion, culture and nationality. The “Gurudwara” or the temple is the sacred place of their worship and is the best example of cohesiveness of the community. Wherever the Sikhs have migrated the first thing they did was to establish Gurudwaras in order to restore the community bond among the members. Today there are thousands of Gurudwaras around the world and approximately 75 in Canada, which promote both religious and cultural life of Sikhs and maintain religious networks by organizing functions and festivals (p.22).This implies that Sikhs are successful in preserving the religion in a country like Canada, where the pressure is to converge due to modernization, industrialization and urbanization. The Punjabi language is part of Sikh identity and the Sikhs take sufficient care to promote it among the younger generation. Punjabi is the second non-official language spoken at home in Canada. “Language is an important vehicle for maintaining ethnic identity. It is an ethnic symbol, like dress or physical features, which distinguishes one group from other (Singh & Barrier, 1999). It is evident that South Asians are maintaining their religion, language and ethnicity in Canada beside pressures to converge. Kwak and Berry (2001) compared Vietnamese, Korean and East Indian to examine how immigrant families construct new cultural values across generations of parents and their adolescent children by examining family relations and acculturation attitudes. Their findings revealed that even as differences develop between parents and their adolescent children through a process of negotiation within the hierarchical family structure. Asian groups in Canada continue to maintain strong family unity through a high degree of cooperation within the family. This implies Asians families are successful in resisting the assimilation pressure from the host culture. Costigan and Dokis (2006) examined the similarities and differences in acculturation 9 among mothers, fathers, and children in immigrant Chinese families in Canada. Results indicated children and mothers reported stronger feelings of belonging to the Chinese group. Ethnic identity and Asian values showed the greatest evidence for intergenerational similarity. It is assumed that the stronger couple homogeneity will represent stronger parent-child homogeneity. Some researchers have accepted intermarriage as a key indication of assimilation (Alba & Golden, 1986; Gordon, 1964; Lieberson & Waters, 1990). Hwang et al, (1997) examined the structural model and the assimilation model to study Asian American intermarriage. Out of all the Asian groups, Chinese and Asian Indian women were found to be least likely to marry inter-ethnically. Furthermore, except other Asian men, only Asian Indian men, were found to be least likely to marry inter-ethnically. This represents greater couple homogeneity among Asian Indian and Chinese, which further would contribute in stronger, intergenerational homogeneity Ethnic Identity Phinney (1990) argued that the past research’s maj or emphasis has been on the attitudes of members of the majority or dominant group toward minority group members and less emphasis has been on the psychological relationship of ethnic and racial minority group members with their own group. It is after the ethnic revitalization movements in the 1960’s that brought some awareness about “ethnic identity” (p. 499). It is this movement and the growing literature of society differences associated with ethnic group membership that brought awareness of increased ethnic consciousness and pride (Laosa, 1984). Weinreich (1983) reported that attitudes toward one’s ethnicity are central to the psychological functioning of those who live in societies where its group and its culture are poorly represented and are the recipients of discrimination. Many researchers argue that there are inconsistencies in defining the term “ethnic identity”. Some researchers defined ethnic identity as the ethnic component of social identity, self-identification and others emphasized feelings of 10 belonging and commitment, the sense of shared values and attitudes or attitudes towards one’s own group (Singh, 1977; Ting-Toomey, 1981; Tzuriel & Klein, 1997). Whereas some researcher defined ethnic identity in terms of cultural aspects like language, behaviour, values and knowledge of ethnic group history (Rogler, Cooney & Ortiz, 1980). The focus in this paper will be on the linear model of ethnic identity, in which ethnic identity is conceptualized along a continuum from strong ethnic ties on one extreme to strong mainstream ties on other (Andujo, 1998; Makabe, 1979; Simic, 1987; Ullah, 1985). The assumption underlying this model is that a strengthening of one requires a weakening of the other; that is strong ethnic identity is not possible among those who become involved in the mainstream society, and acculturation is inevitably accompanied by a weakening of ethnic identity. The intergenerational research on ethnic identity has revealed mixed responses, however, a study of third and fourth generation Japanese-American youth revealed virtually no generational differences (Wooden, Leon, & Toshima, 1988) and a study of Chinese Americans suggests a cyclical process whereby ethnic identity became more important in third and fourth generation descendents of immigrants (Ting-Toomey, 1981). Rosenthal and Feldman (1992) found that among adolescents Chinese immigrants, ethnic knowledge and behavior decreased between the first and second generations, but that there was no change in the importance or positive valuation of ethnicity. The authors suggest that although some behavioral and cognitive elements of ethnic identity decline, immigrants retain a commitment to their culture. Therefore, specific programs can foster the ethnic identity. Perceived Discrimination Whitebeck et al (2001) argued that cultural values play an important role in responses to perceived discrimination. Each minority group will respond differently to discrimination depending on their cultural values and social support system. A study on perceived 11 discrimination and substance abuse among American Indian children revealed different results than the American African due to the different cultural norms. They argued that as discrimination causes stress, stress-reducing behaviours that work for African-Americans may be unacceptable or unavailable in some American Indian cultures where direct defiance and assertion of self over others is not socialized in the traditional culture. This shows that minority groups socialize their children in a way that helps them cope with the perceived discrimination. Mossakowski (2003) found a strong relationship between ethnic/racial discrimination, ethnic identity and mental health. The strength of identification with an ethnic group was found to be directly associated with fewer depressive symptoms associated with discrimination. This suggests that ethnic identity is a coping resource for ethnic groups. Therefore, ethnic groups who perceive discrimination will have a strong ethnic identity as a coping mechanism and this in turn will result in resistance to assimilate with the host country. The ethnic groups who perceive discrimination will show greater intergenerational homogeneity as a coping mechanism. Rambaut (1995) examined ethnic identity, self-esteem and segmented assimilation among children of immigrants from Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. He found that the perceptions of discrimination affect the way children define their ethnic identities. Those who experienced being discriminated against are less likely to identify as American; those who perceive that people will discriminate against them no matter the level of education they may achieve are more likely to remain loyal to a national-origin identity. This shows a strong relationship between perception of discrimination and strength of ethnic identity. 12 Hypothesis The specific research question that was examined in this thesis was: Is stronger perceived discrimination and intergenerational homogeneity (language, religion and ethnic ancestry) having an effect on the strength of ethnic identity? The focus is on the individual level rather than group level analysis. Hl: Stronger the individual’s perception of discrimination of the ethnic group stronger the ethnic group identity. H2: Stronger the individual’s intergenerational homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. a. Stronger the individual’s intergenerational language homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. b. Stronger the individual’s intergenerational religion homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. c. Stronger the individual’s intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. Perceived Discrimination Strength of Ethnic Identity Intergenerational Homogeneity (Language, Religion & Ethnic Ancestry) 1— I-, H3: There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational homogeneity. a. There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational language homogeneity. b. There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational religion homogeneity. c. There is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity. 14 CHAPTER 3 METHODS Ethnic origin, as defined in the Census, refers to the ethnic or cultural group(s) to which the respondent’s ancestors belong. An ancestor is someone from whom a person is descended, and is usually more distant than a grandparent. Ethnic origin pertains to the ancestral “roots” or background of the population, and should not be confused with citizenship or nationality. For the present study, “Chinese” and “South Asian” ethnicity has been selected. According to Statistics Canada (2001), Chinese are the most populous visible minority in Canada about 1 Million and South Asians come at second place with 917, 000 people. Moreover, Chinese and Punjabi take the first two places for non-official language spoken at home. Both ethnic groups shared many social and cultural characteristics such as patriarchal, patrilocal and system of patrilineal descent. Both ethnic groups are known for their diverse languages and diverse religion in China and India. Both ethnic groups migrated to Canada around the same time and are well settled in the Country. The focus in this paper is to examine how much these ethnic groups can maintain to resist assimilation in Canada, beside pressures to converge due to industrialization, modernization and urbanization. South Asians first came to Canada around 1905; most of them came from the northern state of India called “Punjab”. The main purpose of migration was economic well-being; many came with the idea of earning money and returning back to their country. As majority of these immigrants were not well educated and came from agricultural background, they settled in the province of British Columbia (Basran, 1993). In 2001, the Canadian population of South Asian origin surpassed 900,000, representing 3% of the nation and 23% of Canada’s visible minority. Some of the important characteristics of traditional Indian families as described by Mindel, Habenstein, and Wright (1998) are: Asians are allocentric i.e. group oriented and the individual is expected to make sacrifices for the good of the group especially the family, males are valued 15 more than the females, they are the breadwinner and lead the household, role of the children is to bring honor to their families by exhibiting good behaviour, high achievement and contributing to the well being of the family, there is a high level of dependency in the family with females depending on the husbands for financial support and family for emotional support. The traditional Indian family is a joint family, where two or three generations live together in one household. The concept of arranged marriage is prevalent in Indian families where the parents find the best match for their children. The Sikh family is known for preserving its culture and traditions in India. They are known for their strong belief system, as they share common language, religion and ethnicity. Sample and Procedure The Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS; 2005) contains data collected jointly by Statistics Canada and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The main two objectives of the survey are, the data will help to better understand how people’s backgrounds affect their participation in Canada’s social, economic and cultural life and will help to better understand how Canadians of different ethnic origins interpret and report their ethnicity. Respondents were selected based on their responses that they had provided to certain questions in the last census. The Ethnic Diversity Survey targeted population consisted of persons aged 15 and older living in private dwelling in Canada’s ten provinces. Canadian citizens, landed immigrants and non-permanent residents (holders of student, work or ministerial permits, refugee status claimants and family members living in Canada with them) were part of the target population and persons who declared an Aboriginal ethnic origin, Indian reserve were not included in the sample. Out of 23,092,643 persons representing the Canadian Population in the Ethnic Diversity Survey, 57,242 were selected for the survey and only 42,476 respondents participated in the survey. 16 Data were collected using Blaise software and the computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) method. Other than English and French, interviews were conducted in seven non-official languages as required. A two-phase stratified sampling design was used to select the sample and to ensure the sufficient counts of the sub-populations in the sample. Furthermore, the questions on birthplace and birthplace of parents were used to establish the respondent’s generational status. Because the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS; 2005) is a complex dataset using both stratification and cluster sampling, weights are used to correct for the sampling. I followed the Statistics Canada (2003) recommendations on the User Guide. For the analysis purposes, normalized final weights are used. Because weights can change variance in the variables and the results can be inconsistent with the weighted data. In those cases, unweighted data is used as it is more correct. Measures Dependent Variables Strength ofEthnic Identity. Ethnic Identity was measured by using variable ElI 1- “Derived- Importance of ethnic identity — rating for 1st identity response asked about in IDQ 130”. This variable is derived from ID_Q100 (What is your ethnic or cultural identity?), respondents identified themselves with 27 identities and ID_Q 130 (Using a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is not important at all and 5 is very important, how important is your identity to you?). Results were significantly skewed -.47. This measure was recoded in two categories for analysis purposes. Scores 4 and 5 on the original scale were recoded as 1 “Important”, scores on 3, 2 and 1 were recoded as 0 “not important”. The categories were combined to reduce the skewed results. 17 Independent variables Perceived Discrimination: Perceived discrimination was measured by the respondent’s response to the question, “In the past five years, do you feel that you have experienced discrimination or been treated unfairly by others in Canada because of your ethnicity, culture, race, skin, colour, language, accent or religion?” Respondent’s response included either “yes” or “no” depending on their experience. In this question, the text “In the past five years” was replaced with “Since arriving in Canada” for those respondents who had immigrated to Canada fewer than five years prior to the survey. There are two values to the measure “Perceived Discrimination” (N 5555) and “Did not Perceive Discrimination” (N = 34,839). It should be pointed out that perceived discrimination is not the same as actual discrimination. However, perceived discrimination is used for this study as it is the only measure in the dataset that measures discrimination. Intergenerational Homogeneity: The intergenerational homogeneity is a constructed measure of preserving one’s own culture through generations; it is resistance to the effects of modernization, urbanization and industrialization. It is assumed that in order to resist assimilation, ethnic groups will preserve their language, religion and ethnic ancestry. This is a complex measure: if the respondent identifies ethnic ancestry as the same for both parents, it implies both stronger couple homogeneity and parent-child homogeneity. Hence, the stronger the couple homogeneity, the stronger will be the intergenerational homogeneity. This is same for both language and religion intergenerational homogeneity measures. Intergenerational Ethnic Ancestry Homogeneity: This variable compares the ethnic ancestry of the respondent to the ethnic ancestry of their mother and father. This was measured by combining “Derived - Ethnic ancestry- Respondent compared to the mother — Detailed ancestry” and “Derived - Ethnic ancestry — Respondent compared to the father — Detailed ancestry” measures. “Derived - Ethnic ancestry- Respondent compared to the mother — Detailed 18 ancestry” is derived from ID_QO 10 (What were the ethnic or cultural origins of your ancestors?), ID Q020 (In addition to “Canadian”, what were the other ethnic or cultural origins of your ancestors on first coming to North America?”) and PB Q025 (What were the ethnic or cultural origins of your mother’s ancestors?”). Interviewers were provided with the following instructions in ID_Q0l0/ID_Q020 (similar instructions were provided in PB_Q025): “Do not provide examples” and “This question refers to ethnic or cultural origins of your ancestors including ancestors from both sides of your family. An ancestor is someone from whom you descended and is usually more distant than a grandparent. Ethnic or cultural ancestry refers to your “roots” or cultural background and should not be confused with citizenships or nationality. Other than Aboriginal persons, most people can trace their origins to their ancestors on first coming to this continent”. This variable was measured as — “Ethnic ancestries or ancestries completely the same” includes respondents who reported the same ethnic ancestries for themselves and their mother: for example, the respondent’s ethnic ancestry was “English and German” and the mother’s ethnic ancestry was “English and German”, “Ethnic ancestries partly the same” includes respondents who reported partly the same ethnic ancestry or ancestries for themselves and their mother: for example, the respondents ethnic ancestry was “English and German” and the mother’s ethnic ancestry was “English” and “Ethnic ancestries different” includes respondents who reported different ethnic ancestries for themselves and their mother: for example, the respondent’s ethnic ancestry was “German” and the mother’s Ethnic ancestry was “English”. The same procedure was used for “Derived - Ethnic ancestry — Respondent compared to the father — Detailed ancestry” measure. Each variable was recoded in two categories as 0 “ethnic ancestries different” and as 1 “ethnic ancestries completely the same”. To measure the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity the two variables were combined and recoded into three categories as 1 “not same as either mother or father”, 2 “same as either mother or father” and 3 “same as both mother and father”. Respondents with a higher score represent 19 greater intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity. This variable is based on detailed ancestries on variable EAC 1 (Appendix 1). In EAC 1, hyphenated responses, other than French- Canadian, have been treated as multiple responses and split into their component parts. For example, a respondent responding “Chinese-Canadian” would have been split and assigned to both “Chinese” and “Canadian”. Hence, if the “Chinese-Canadian” was the respondent’s only response, the code for “Chinese” will be present in EAC 1. Hence a child can either be same as 1 parent, same as both parents in which case both parents will have the same ancestry or the respondent can be not the same as either parent. For example: If the respondent’s mother’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi, and the respondent is Canadian and Punjabi, this is measured as 1 “same ancestry as mother”. If the mother’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is measured as 0 “not same ancestry as mother” and if the mother’s ancestry is Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is also measured as 0 “not same ancestry as mother”. Also, for father ancestry same measure was used, if the respondent’s father’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi, and the respondent is Canadian and Punjabi, this is measured as 1 “same ancestry as father”. If the father’s ancestry is Canadian and Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is measured as 0 “not same ancestry as father” and if the father’s ancestry is Punjabi and respondent is Canadian, this is also measured as 0 “not same ancestry as father”. These two measures were combined to create the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity. If the respondent have ancestry same as mother and different as father, this is measured as 1 “same as one parent”, if he have same as father and different as mother, this is also measured as 1 “same as one parent”, if the respondent have same ancestry as mother and father, this means stronger couple homogeneity, this is measured as 2 “same as both parents”. And if the ancestries are not same as either mother or father, this is measured as 0 “not same as either parent’. It should be noted that the child can pick only one ancestry as hyphenated ancestries are not valid in the measure. This means a child cannot pick Canadian and Punjabi. 20 Intergenerational Language Homogeneity: This variable compares the first language of the respondent to the language of their mother and father. This was measured by combining “Derived - Language- Respondent compared to the mother — Detailed first language” and “Derived - Language — Respondent compared to the father — Detailed first language” measures. The same procedure was used as for measuring intergenerational ethnic ancestry homogeneity. Responds were recorded in three categories, first language completely the same, first language partly the same and first language different, separately for both mother and father. The responses for both mother and father were recoded in two categories as 0 “first language different” and as 1 “first language completely the same”. To measure the intergenerational language homogeneity the two variables were combined and recoded as 1 “not same as either mother or father”, 2 “same as either mother or father” and 3 “same as both mother and father”. Respondents with a higher score represent greater intergenerational language homogeneity. Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity: This measure compares the religion of the respondent to the religion of their mother and father. This was measured by combining “Derived - Religion- Respondent compared to the mother — Detailed religions” and “Derived — Religion — Respondent compared to the father — Detailed Religion” measures. The responses were recorded in two categories as “same religion (including no religious affiliation)” and “different religion” for both mother and father separately. The responses for both mother and father were recoded in two categories as 0 “religion different” and as 1 “religion completely the same”. To measure the intergenerational religion homogeneity the two variables were combined and recoded as 1 “not same as either mother or father”, 2 “same as either mother or father” and 3 “same as both mother and father”. Respondents with a higher score represent greater intergenerational religion homogeneity. 21 Control Variables The control variables being used are socioeconomic status (SES), ethnic identity and generational status. The socioeconomic status was measured using three variables - education of the respondent, household income, occupation of the respondent. These variables were chosen because they are the factors that may influence perceived discrimination, strength of identity and intergenerational homogeneity. Socioeconomic Status: Socioeconomic status and social mobility have been shown to have a significant influence on ethnic identification (Ethnic Diversity Survey, 2003). Research has shown education, income and occupation has an influence the assimilation process of ethnic groups. A negative relationship is found between education and assimilation (Hwang et al., 1997), and ethnic groups with higher education, occupation and income are susceptible to discrimination by the host country and this put pressure on ethnic group to preserve its culture and cultural values (Portes and Zhou, 1993). Education: This was measured using the variable “Derived — Highest level of schooling — Detailed”. This was recorded on a scale of 1 to 7. where 1 = less that a high school diploma (includes no schooling), 2 = high school diploma, 3 = some college, nursing school, trade, technical or vocational school or business college, 4 some university, 5 = diploma or certificate from college, nursing school, trade, technical or vocational school or business college, 6 = bachelor’s or undergraduate university degree and 7 = earned doctorate, master’s degree or degree in medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine or optometry. Household Income: This was measured using the variable “Derived — Income — Household income groups in ranges”. This was recorded on a scale of ito 10 where, 1 less than $10,000 (includes no income), 2 = $10,000 to less than $20,000, 3 = $20,000 to less than $30,000. 4 = $30,000 to less than $40,000, 5 = $40,000 to less than $50,000, 6 = $50, 000 to less 22 than $60,000, 7 = $60,000 to less than $80,000, 8 = $80,000 to less than $100,000 and 10 = $100,000 or more. Occupation: This was measured using variable “Derived — Occupation (summary) based on the Standard Occupation Classification (SOC) 1991”. The categories were assigned prestige scores from the “Occupational Prestige in Canada: 2005” Survey as this is the most commonly used scale in Canada. The variable was 0 = no work, 1 Occupations unique to Processing, Manufacturing and Utilities, 2 = Occupations Unique to Primary Industry, 3 = Trades, Transport and Equipment Operators and Related Occupations, 4 Sales and Service Occupations, 5 = Occupations in Art, Culture, Recreation and Sport, 6 = Occupations in Social Science, Education, Government Service and Religion, 7 = Health Occupations, 8 = Natural and Applied Sciences and Related Occupations, 9 Business, Finance and Administrative Occupations and I = Management Occupations. Generation Status. This was measured using variable “Derived — Generational status — 1st 2uid and generation or more”. This variable was recorded as 1 generation — born outside of Canada, 2 = 2id generation — Born in Canada with one or both parents born outside Canada and 3 = 3’ generation or more — Born in Canada and both parents born in Canada. Ethnic Identity. This was measure using the variable “Derived — Ethnic identity — Detailed responses — response”. Respondents were asked to respond to the question “your ethnic or cultural group or groups to which you feel you belong”. In total 27 ethnic identities were identified. This was used in order to control the effect of all other ethnic identities. This variable was recoded into a dummy variable, with ethnic identity Canadian = 1 and all other ethnic identities = 0. Li CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Sample Description The independent samples t-test of each visible minority i.e. Chinese and South-Asian on the strength of ethnic identity was conducted. There is a significant difference between the two groups on strength of ethnic identity. Chinese scored low on strength of ethnic identity as compared to the South Asians. This gives evidence to run descriptive analysis separately for each visible minority group (See Table 1). The South-Asian sample consists of 47.7% females and 52.3% males. The median age of respondents is 35-44 years with a range of 15-65 years. The South-Asian sample consisted of 59.9% married, 28.8% single- never married, 3.7% widowed, 3.4% divorced, 2.4% separated and 1.3% common-law. For number of persons in household 4.8% reported 1 person in the household, 12.8% reported 2 persons, 15.4% reported 3 persons, 27.1% reported 4 persons, 19% reported 5 persons and 20.9% reported 6 or more persons in the household. For number of children, 43.3% have no children, 24.8% have 2 children. 19.2% have 1 child, 9.8 % have 3 children and 3.0% have 4 or more children. Among South-Asian, 92.1% respondents reported their ancestry as Non-European only, 1.1% reported Non-European and European only and 2.2% reported others. When asked for detailed ancestry — first response was 11.6% Punjabi, 45.6% East Indian, 16.2% other South Asian, 2% Chinese, 10.3% Vietnamese and 4.4% Other East and South East Asian. When asked about importance of Ancestry, 52.2% reported very important and 4.5% reported not important at all. On ethnic identity 14.8% identified themselves as Canadian only, 61.5% Non- European only and 12.1% Non-European and Canadian only. When asked about detailed ethnic identity- first response, 24.1% reported Canadian Only, 27.3% East-Indian, 22.8% Other South Asian and 11.1% Other East and South East Asian. 24 Among all the South-Asian respondents, 87.5% are born outside of Canada and 12.4% are born in Canada. Generational Status — 87.5% 1st generation was born outside of Canada and 51.7% of lS generation respondents arrive before 1991 and 35.2% arrived between 1991 and 2001. Among South- Asian, two major religions were identified 22.4% Hindu and 26.2% Sikh. Also, 16.7% Muslim, 8.6% Buddhist, 9.6% Catholic were selected by respondents. 16.6% reported English only as the first language and 75.1% reported non-official language as their first language. The South-Asian sample consists of 23.5% of respondents with less than a high school diploma, 18.9% high school diploma, 10.2% trade, technical or vocational school or business college and 21.1% undergraduate university degree. The median for household income is $60,000 to less than $80,000 with a range of less than $10,000 - $100,000 or more. In comparison to South Asian, the Chinese sample consists of 51.6% females and 48.4% males. The median age of respondents is 3 5-44 years with a range of 15-65 years. The Chinese sample consisted of 56.7% married, 33.4% single- never married, 4.8% widowed, 2.5% divorced, 1.3% separated and 1.1% common-law. For number of persons in household 8.2% reported 1 person in the household, 17.2% reported 2 persons, 22.1% reported 3 persons, 27.4% reported 4 persons, 15% reported 5 persons and 10.1% reported 6 or more persons in the household. For number of children, 50.5% have no children, 20.8% have 2 children, 23.2% have 1 child, 4.5 % have 3 children and 1.1% has 4 or more children. Among Chinese, 95.3% respondents reported their ancestry as Non-European only, 1.1 % reported Non-European. When asked for detailed ancestry — first response was 9 1.6% Chinese and 4.4% Other East and Southeast Asian. When asked about importance of Ancestry, 4 1.3% reported very important and 3.3% reported not important at all. On ethnic identity 14.5% identified themselves as Canadian only, 55.6% Non- European only and 24.1% Non-European and Canadian only. When asked about detailed ethnic identity- first response, 34.6% reported Canadian Only, 56.5% Chinese27.3% and 3.5% Other East and South East Asian. 25 Among all the Chinese respondents, 85.2% were born outside of Canada and 14.8% were born in Canada. Generational Status — 85.2% l generation was born outside of Canada and 44.9% of 1St generation respondents arrived before 1991 and 39.5% arrived between 1991 and 2001. Among Chinese, 12.5% reported Buddhism, 53.4% reported no religious affiliation, 12.7% Catholic, 9.6% Protestant and 9% Christian. 6.8% reported English only as the first language and 86.8% reported non-official language as their first language. The sample consists of 20.9% of respondents with less than a high school diploma, 21.8% high school diploma, 13% trade, technical or vocational school or business college and 22% undergraduate university degree. The median for household income is $80,000 to less than $100,000 with a range of less than $10,000 - $100,000 or more. Description of Variables Dependent Variable Strength ofEthnic Identity: The dependent variable strength of ethnic identity was measured as 0=not important and 1 = important. Out of N 37111 respondent, 74.5 % (N31060) reported that ethnic identity is important to them and 14.5% reported that ethnic identity is not important to them. The mean, median and mode were .83, 1.0 and 1 respectively with a standard deviation of .36. Skewness was significant at -1.8 with a standard error of .01 (See Table 1). Independent Variables Perceived Discrimination: The respondent responded “yes” if they ever perceived discrimination and “no” if they never perceived discrimination. Out of N = 40394 respondents, 83.6% (N=34839) reported that they did not perceived discrimination and 13.3% (N=5555) reported that they perceived discrimination. The mean was .13 and standard deviation was .34. Intergenerational Language Homogeneity: This independent variable was measured as 1 = language not same as either parent, 2 = language same as either father or mother and 3 = 26 language same as both mother and father. Out of N= 39906 respondents, 7.9% (N=3277) reported language not same as mother or father, 11.0% (N=4599) reported language same as either mother or father and 76.8% (N=32030) reported language same as both mother and father. The mean was 2.7 with a standard deviation of .60. Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity. This independent variable was measured as 1 = religion not same as either parent, 2 religion same as either father or mother and 3 = religion same as both mother and father. Out of N= 38073 respondents, 17.8% (N7408) reported religion not same as mother or father, 12.2% (N=5099) reported religion same as either mother or father and 6 1.3% (N=25565) reported religion same as both mother and father. The mean was 2.4 with a standard deviation of .79. intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity: This independent variable was measured as 1 = ancestry not same as either parent, 2 ancestry same as either father or mother and 3 ancestry same as both mother and father. Out of N= 35039 respondents, 33.8% (N14074) reported ancestry not same as mother or father, 15.0% (N=6240) reported ancestry same as either mother or father and 35.3% (N=14725) reported ancestry same as both mother and father. The mean was 2.0 with a standard deviation of .90. Control Variables Household Income: The respondents were categorized into 9 categories depending on their house hold income. Out of 32,742 respondents, 2.4% (N= 1019) reported household income less than $10,000 (includes no income), 6.4% (N= 2667) reported $10,000 to less than $20,000, 8.2% (N3420) reported $20,000 to less than $30,000, 8.7% (N=3627) reported $30,000 to less than $40,000, 8.4% (N=3499) reported $ 40,000 to less than $50,000, 8.2% (N=3420) reported $50,000 to less than $60,000, 13.0% (N=5418) reported $60,000 to less than 80,000, 8.5% (N=3552) reported $80,000 to less than 100,000 and 14.7% (N=6121) reported 27 $100,000 or more. The mean, median and mode were 6.0, 6.0 and 10.0 respectively with a standard deviation of 2.6. Occupation: The respondents were categorized into 10 categories of occupation based on the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) 1991. The categories were compared against the prestige scores on “Occupational Prestige in Canada: 2005” survey. This measure was recoded to adjust the prestige scores for each category, where Occupations Unique to Processing, Manufacturing and Utilities were given the lowest prestige score whereas Management Occupations got the highest prestige score. Out of 40,175 respondents, 42.5% (N==17,721) reported they did not work, 4.2% (N=1739) reported occupations Unique to Processing, Manufacturing and Utilities, 1.9% (N78 1) reported Occupations Unique to the Primary Industry, 7.9% (N=3305) reported Trades, Transport and Equipment Operators and Related Occupations, 12.0% (N=4997) reported Sales and Service Occupations, 1.5% (N=620) reported Occupations in Arts, Culture, Recreation and Sport, 4.2% (N1735) reported Occupations in Social Sciences, Education, Government Service and Religion, 3.1% (N=1307) reported Health Occupations, 4.1% (N 1701) reported Natural and Applied Sciences and Related Occupations, 9.6% (N= 4002) reported Business, Finance and Administrative Occupations and 5.4% (N=2267) reported Management Occupations. The mean, median and mode were 3.1, 2.0 and 0 respectively with a standard deviation of 3.5. Education: The respondents were categorized into 7 categories depending on the highest level of schooling, where 1 less that a high school diploma and 7 = Earned Doctorate, Master’s degree or degree in Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine or Optometry. Out of 40,280 respondents, 26.0% (N=10,821) reported less that a high school diploma (includes no schooling), 21.4% (N= 8931) reported high school diploma, 6.4% (N= 2656) reported Some college, nursing school, trade, technical or vocational school or business college, 5.7% (N= 2390) reported some university, 18.0% (N 7485) reported Diploma or certificate from college, nursing school, trade, 28 technical or vocational school or business college, 14.5% (N= 6043) reported Bachelor’s or undergraduate university degree and 4.7% (N1955) reported Earned doctorate, Master’s degree or degree in Medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary Medicine or Optometry. The mean, median and mode were 3.3, 3 and 1 respectively with a standard deviation of 2.0. Generational Status: The respondents were asked to respond to a scale from 1 to 3, where 1 = generation — Born outside Canada, 2 2’ generation — Born in Canada with one or both parents born outside Canada and 3 = 3’ generation or more — Born in Canada and both parents born in Canada. Out of 40,713 respondents, 22.8 % (N=9521) reported 1st generation born outside Canada, 17.0% (N=7082) reported 2nd generation — Born in Canada with one or both parents born outside Canada and 57.8% (N= 24,110) reported generation or more — Born in Canada and both parents born in Canada. The mean was 2.3 with a standard deviation of .83. Ethnic Identity: The respondents were asked to identifi themselves with the ethnic identity they feel they belong to. In total 27 ethnic identities were identified. This was recoded into dummy variable to examine the effect of belonging to the ethnic identity other than Canadian. Out of N = 41,695 respondents, 20,265 respondents identified their ethnic identity as Canadian and 21,430 respondents identified their ethnic identity other than Canadian. 29 Table 1 Descriptive Statistics ofthe Dependent and Independent Variables. Variables % M SD N 1. Strength of Ethnic Identity 74.5 .36 37111 0 = not important, 1 = important 2. Perceived Discrimination 13.3 .13 40394 0 = No, 1 = Yes 3. Intergenerational Homogeneity Language 76.8 2.7 .60 39906 1 = not same, 2 same as one parent, 3 same as both parent Religion 61.3 2.4 .79 1 = not same, 2 = same as one parent, 3 same as both parent Ancestry 2.0 .90 35039 1 not same, 2 same as one parent, 3 = same as both parent 3Group Differences The Employment Equity Act defines visible minorities as “persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour”. The visible minority population includes the following groups: Chinese, South Asian, Black, Arab, West Asian, Filipino, Southeast Asian, Latin American, Japanese, Korean and other visible minority groups Pacific Islanders. For the present study out of all these visible minorities Chinese (n 1475) and South Asians (n=1472) were used for analysis (See Table 2). These two groups Chinese and South Asian show a wide range of religious, language and ethnic identity diversity. In case of religion, among South Asian there is no respondent who identifies their religion as “Buddhist” which is the common religion among most of the Chinese etimic group. Among Chinese, there is not a single respondent who identifies their religion as “Sikh”. Similar diversity can be seen in “Language” and “Ethnic Ancestry”. Out of Chinese (n1475), two groups “Chinese” (n=834) and “Canadian” (n=511) emerged based on ethnic identity identified by the respondents. For South Asians, there is unexpected heterogeneity and four groups emerged were “Canadian” (n355), “East Indian” (n4O2), “Other South Asian” (n=335) and “Other East and Southeast Asian” (n163). One way ANOVA’s were conducted on each of the six groups i.e. South Asian — Canadian, South Asian — East Indian, South Asian — Other South Asian, South Asian — Other East and Southeast Asian, Chinese-Canadian and Chinese - Chinese with dependent variables as strength of ethnic identity, intergenerational language homogeneity, intergenerational religion homogeneity, intergenerational ancestry homogeneity and perceived discrimination. On strength of ethnic identity, significant differences were found between South AsianlCanadian and Chinese/Chinese. Significant differences were also found between Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese on strength of ethnic identity. There was no significant difference found between groups on perceived discrimination. .3 On intergenerational language homogeneity, significant difference was found between South Asian/Canadian and South Asian1Other South Asian. The groups found to be significant on intergenerational religion homogeneity are South Asian/Canadian — South AsianlEast Indian, South Asian/Canadian — South Asian/Other South Asian, South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/East Indian — South Asian! Other East & SE Asian, South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/Other South Asian — South Asian/Other East &SE Asian, South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/Other East &SE Asian - Chinese/Canadian and South Asian/Other East &SE Asian - Chinese/Chinese. The groups found to be significant on intergenerational ancestry are South Asian/Canadian — South Asian/East Indian, South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Canadian, South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Chinese. South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Canadian. South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Chinese, South Asian/Other East & SE Asian — Chinese/Canadian and South Asian/Other East & SE Asian — Chinese/Chinese. 3Table 2 Scheffe Post Hoc Test — Group significance Difference Variable Difference Significance Strength of Ethnic Identity South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Chinese . 19 .00 Chinese/Canadian — Chinese/Chinese .17 .00 Perceived Discrimination No significant difference was found between groups. Intergenerational Homogeneity Language South Asian/Canadian — South Asian/Other South Asian -.21 .02 Religion South Asian/Canadian — South Asian/East Indian -.18 .04 South Asian/Canadian — South Asian/Other South Asian - .24 .00 South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Canadian .44 .00 South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Chinese .40 .00 South Asian/East Indian — South Asian/ Other East & SE Asian .28 .00 South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Canadian .63 .00 South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Chinese .58 .00 South Asian/Other South Asian — South Asian/Other East &SE Asian .34 .00 South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Canadian .69 .00 South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Chinese .64 .00 South Asian/Other East &SE Asian - Chinese/Canadian .34 .00 South Asian/Other East &SE Asian - Chinese/Chinese .29 .00 Variable Difference Significance Ancestry South AsianlCanadian — South Asian/East Indian -.25 .00 South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Canadian -.47 .00 South Asian/Canadian — Chinese/Chinese -.53 .00 South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Canadian -.21 .00 South Asian/East Indian — Chinese/Chinese -.28 .00 South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Canadian .69 .00 South Asian/Other South Asian — Chinese/Chinese .64 .00 South Asian/Other East & SE Asian — Chinese/Canadian -.28 .00 South Asian/Other East & SE Asian — Chinese/Chinese -.35 .00 Hypothesis Testing Hypotheses were tested using bivariate correlation procedures and regression analysis. Correlations were conducted significant at a p 0.05 level. Prior to hypothesis testing, a correlation matrix was run computing Pearson’s Correlation coefficients for the dependent variables, independent variables and control variables, in order to highlight the fact that there is no statistically significant correlation between the dependent variable and any of the control variables (See Table 3). Hypothesis 1 and 2 Hypothesis 1 states that stronger the individual’s perception of discrimination of the ethnic group stronger the ethnic group identity and Hypothesis 2 states that stronger the 3individual’s intergenerational (language, religion and ancestry) homogeneity stronger the ethnic group identity. For the analysis purposes weighted data are used. Because weights can change variance in the variable, the results can be inconsistent. In those cases, unweighted data will be used as it is more correct. Logistic Regression was used for the Model 1 with the independent variables perceived discrimination, intergenerational language homogeneity, intergenerational religion homogeneity, intergenerational ancestry homogeneity, dependent variable strength of ethnic identity and control variables education, occupation, income, ethnic identity and generational status. In Table 4.1, the variables were computed for the whole sample (N=2439 1). For perceived discrimination the beta is .151 and is statistically significant at p .001. The R squared is .108 and is significant at p .001 level. For intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity the beta is .113, .204 and - .015 respectively. Also, intergenerational language homogeneity and intergenerational religion homogeneity are statistically significant at p .001 level. For control variables, income, education, ethnic identity and generation status are significant at p <.001 level with beta -.02 1, .045, 1.5 and -.125 respectively. In Table 4.2, when the same variable were computed just for the Chinese and South Asian ethnic groups (N = 1531), the beta for perceived discrimination is .131 and not statistically significant. The R squared is .041 and significant at p .001 level. For intergenerational language homogeneity the beta is .106 and not significant, intergenerational religion homogeneity the beta is .325 and is significant at p .001 level, for intergenerational ancestry the beta is -.082 and is not statistically significant. Also, none of the control variables were found to be statistically significant except ethnic identity for which the beta is .794 and is statistically significant at p .001 level. .5 Table 3 Means, Sd and Pearson Correlation CoeffIcients for Variables (Whole Sample).. Mean Standard Deviation Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed) Note: Due to the Logistic Regression there is a difference between the beta and the above coefficients. Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1. Strength of Ethnic Identity I 2. Intergenerational Language Homogeneity - 3. Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity .01 .03 1 4. Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity -.04 .03 .13 1 5. Perceived Discrimination - -.06 -.04 .02 1 6. Income .01 -.03 -.03 -.06 - I 7. Education .02 -.05 -.06 -.01 .09 .30 1 8. Occupation - -.02 -.02 -.02 .04 .32 .34 9. Generation Status - .14 .01 -.31 -.14 .03 -.07 .02 10. Ethnic Identity .22 -.06 -.14 -.20 -.05 .14 .07 .06 .09 0 .,I I 1 .O_, Z.I £.u .1.5 O.U .5..) .5.1 £.i .36 .60 .79 .90 .34 2.6 2.0 3.5 .83 .49 Table 4.1 Logistic Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity on the Strength ofEthnic Identity. (N=2439]) Variables P Sig. Perceived Discrimination .151 .005 Intergenerational Homogeneity Language .113 .000 Religion .204 .000 Ancestry -.015 .494 Income -.021 .006 Education .045 .000 Occupation -.006 .258 Generation Status -.125 .000 Ethnic Identity 1.5 .000 Rsquared= .108 sig. =000 Table 4.2 Logistic Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian & Chinese) on the Strength ofEthnic Identity. (N = 1531) Variables P Sig. Perceived Discrimination .131 .348 Intergenerational Homogeneity Language .106 .192 3Variables Sig. Religion .325 .000 Ancestry -.082 .401 Income .020 .447 Education -.005 .876 Occupation -.023 .250 Ethnic Identity .794 .000 Generation Status -.345 .065 R Squared = .041 sig. = .000 Table 4.2a Logistic Regression CoeffIcients for the effect Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (South Asian) on the Strength ofEthnic Identity. (N 1232) Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination .403 .051 Intergenerational Homogeneity Language .135 .230 Religion .350 .012 Ancestry -.059 .630 Income .020 .598 Education -.048 .314 Occupation -.023 .432 Ethnic Identity .783 .006 Variables P Sig. Generation Status R Squared .038 -.122 .685 sig. = .02 Table 4.2b Logistic Regression Coefficientsfor the effect Perceived Discrimination and Intergenerational Language, Religion and Ancestry Homogeneity (Chinese) on the Strength of Ethnic Identity. (N= 10281 Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination -.144 .459 Intergenerational Homogeneity Language .086 .472 Religion .245 .016 Ancestry -.029 .877 Income .001 .989 Education .045 .349 Occupation -.0 12 .676 Ethnic Identity .809 .004 Generation Status -.447 .080 R Squared = .039 sig. = .038 39 Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 states that there is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity. Model 2 is computed with independent variable perceived discrimination and the dependent variable intergenerational language homogeneity with control variables, income, education, occupation, ethnic identity and generation status. In table 4.3, for the whole sample (N=3 1611) the beta for perceived discrimination is -.03 9, significant at p .001 level. R squared is .035 and is significant at p .001 level. For control variables, income, education, ethnic identity and generation status are significant at p .001 level with beta -.0 18, -.026, -.083 and .155 respectively. Only, occupation was found to be not significant with beta - .011. In Table 4.4, the same variables were computed for the South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups (N=2002). The beta for perceived discrimination is .012 and not significant. The R squared is .017 and is significant at p .001 level . For control variables, only generation status and ethnic identity are significant at p .001 level and beta is -.1 11 and -.036. Income, education and occupation are not significant. In Table 4.5, the same variables were computed for the South Asian ethnic group (N= 1072). The beta for perceived discrimination is .025 and is not significant. The R-Squared is .029 and is significant at p .001 level. For control variables, generation status is significant at p .001 level and the beta is -.125, ethnic identity is significant at p .001 level and the beta is - .069, education is significant at p .01, the beta is -.077. Income and occupation were found to be not significant. In Table 4.6, the same variable were computed for the Chinese ethnic group (N930). The beta for perceived discrimination is .003 and is not significant. The R squared is .020 and is significant at p .001 level. For control variables, only generation status is significant at p .01 40 level and the beta is -.107. All other control variables, income, education, ethnic identity and occupation are not significant. Model 3 is computed with independent variable perceived discrimination, dependent variable intergenerational religion homogeneity and control variables income, education, occupation, ethnic identity and generation status. In Table 4.7 for the whole sample (N= 30305), the beta for perceived discrimination is -.03 5 and is significant at p .001 level. The R squared is .028 and is significant at p .001 level. The beta for income is -.019 and is significant at p .001 level, the beta for education is -.042 and is significant at p .001 level. Occupation is the only control variable found to be not significant. The beta for generation status is .024 and is significant at p E .01 level. The beta for ethnic identity is -.152 and is significant at p .001 level. In Table 4.8, the same variables were computed for South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups (N1945). For perceived discrimination the beta is -.0 14 and is not significant. The R squared is .014 and is significant at p .001 level. The beta for income is .047 and is significant at p .01 level.The beta for education is -.055 and is significant at p .01 level, the beta for occupation is -.085 and is significant at p .01 level and the beta for generation status is -.060 and is significant at p .01 level, the beta for ethnic identity is -.079 and is significant at p .01 level. In Table 4.9, the same variable were computed for the South Asian ethnic group (N=r1057). The beta for perceived discrimination is -.038 and is not significant. The R squared is .021 and is significant at p .01 level. Out of all the control variables, only income and education were found to be not significant. Generation status is significant at p .001 level and the beta is -.078, the beta for ethnic identity is -.086 and is significant at p .001. The beta for occupation is -.099 and is significant at p .001. 41 In Table 4.10, the same variable were computed for the Chinese ethnic group (N887). The beta for perceived discrimination is .004 and is not significant. The R squared is .014 and is significant at p .01 level. Out of all the control variables, only education and ethnic identity were found to be significant at p .001 level and the beta is -.105 and -.06 1 respectively. Other control variables, income, occupation and generation were found to be not significant. Model 4 is computed with independent variable perceived discrimination, dependent variable intergenerational ancestry homogeneity and control variables income, education, occupation, ethnic identity and generation status. In table 4.11, the variables were computed for the whole sample (N=28033). For the perceived discrimination the beta is -.022 and is significant at p .001 level. The R squared is .116 and is significant at p .001 level. The beta for income and generation status is -.028 and -.272 respectively and are significant at p .001 level. Ethnic identity is significant at p .001 and the beta is -.175. The beta for education is -.011 and is not significant. The beta for occupation is .011 and is not significant. In Table 4.12, the variables were computed for South Asian and Chinese ethnic groups (N=1946). The beta for perceived discrimination is .041 and is not significant. The R squared is .032 and is significant at p .001 level. The only control variable found to be significant is generation status at p .01 level and the beta is -.080. All other control variables were found to be not significant. In Table 4.13, the same variables were computed for only South Asian ethnic group (N 1017). The beta for perceived discrimination is - .017 and is not statistically significant. The R squared is .019 and is significant at p .01 level. The beta for generation status is -.079 and is significant at p .001 level. The beta for ethnic identity is -.086 and is significant at p .01. The beta for income and occupation is .063 and -.06 1 respectively and are significant at p E .01. Education is the only control variable found to be not significant. 42 In Table 4.14, the same variables were computed for only Chinese ethnic group (N=928). The beta for perceived discrimination is .077 and significant at p E .01 level. The R squared is .066 and is significant at p .001 level. The generation Status and ethnic identity are the only control variables found to be significant at p .001 level and the beta is -.232 and .074 respectively. Other control variables, income, education and occupation were found to be not significant. Table 4.3 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N=3]61]). Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination -.039 .000 Income -.018 .000 Education -.026 .000 Occupation -.011 .069 Ethnic Identity -.083 .000 Generation Status .155 .000 R Squared = .035 sig. = .000 Table 4.4 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian & Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N 2002). Variables Perceived Discrimination p .012 Income -.030 .212 Education -.034 .153 Occupation -.002 .944 Ethnic Identity -.036 .050 Generation Status -.111 .000 R Squared = .017 sig. = .000 Table 4.5 Standardized Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N= 1072). Variables P Sig. Perceived Discrimination .025 .418 Income -.034 .289 Education -.077 .023 Occupation .013 .710 Ethnic Identity -.069 .008 Generation Status -.125 .000 R Squared = .029 sig.= .000 Sig. .589 44 Table 4.6 Standardized Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Language Homogeneity (N930). Variables P Sig. Perceived Discrimination .003 .917 Income -.022 .555 Education .019 .602 Occupation -.025 .513 Ethnic Identity .008 .806 Generation Status -.107 .002 R Squared = .020 sig. = .000 Table 4.7 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N = 30305). Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination -.03 5 .000 Income .019 .003 Education -.042 .000 Occupation -.003 .654 Ethnic Identity -. 152 .000 Generation Status .024 .000 R Squared = .028 sig. = .000 45 Table 4.8 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (Chinese & South Asian) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N = 1945). Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination -.014 .541 Income .047 .059 Education -.055 .007 Occupation -.085 .001 Ethnic Identity -.079 .001 Generation Status -.060 .001 R Squared = .014 sig = .000 Table 4.9 Standardized Regression Coefficients/or the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s ofthe Ethnic Group (‘South Asian) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N= 1057). Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination -.03 8 .214 Income .054 .100 Education .054 .155 Occupation -.099 .005 Ethnic Identity -.086 .001 Generation Status -.078 .005 R Squared = .021 sig. .001 46 Table 4.10 S’tandardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s ofthe Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity (N 887). Variables P Sig. Perceived Discrimination .004 .900 Income -.022 .563 Education -.105 .000 Occupation -.041 .289 Ethnic Identity -.06 1 .027 Generation Status .053 .129 R Squared = .014 sig. = .002 Table 4.11 Standardized Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual’s of the Ethnic Group on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N 28033). Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination -.022 .000 Income -.028 .000 Education -.011 .069 Occupation .011 .070 Ethnic Identity -.175 .000 Generation Status -.272 .000 RSquared =116 sig..000 47 Table 4.12 Standardized Regression Coefficientsfor the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s of the Ethnic Group (South Asian & Chinese) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N = 1946). Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination .041 .021 Income .007 .788 Education .006 .817 Occupation .010 .691 Ethnic Identity -.00 1 .954 Generation Status -.080 .001 R Squared = .032 sig. .000 Table 4.13 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual’s ofthe Ethnic Group (South Asian) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N = 1017). Variables IE Sig. Perceived Discrimination -.017 .596 Income .063 .021 Education -.015 .669 Occupation - .061 .038 Ethnic Identity -.086 .002 Generation Status -.079 .005 R Squared = .019 sig. = .000 48 Table 4.14 Standardized Regression Coefficients for the effect ofPerceived Discrimination by the Individual ‘s ofthe Ethnic Group (Chinese) on the Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity (N 928). Variables Sig. Perceived Discrimination .077 .017 Income .009 .811 Education .037 .284 Occupation -.015 .680 Ethnic Identity .074 .025 Generation Status -.232 .000 R Squared .066 sig. = .000 49 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION Sample and Variable Description The purpose of the present study was to examine which ethnic groups resist assimilation i.e. maintain their own culture and which ethnic groups do not maintain their culture in Canada. Since Canada is a multicultural country and have an official multicultural policy, which supports that ethnic group should maintain their culture in Canada. Many researchers support the convergence theory and argue that due to pressure of industrialization, urbanization and modernization all the families are converging to a common family pattern (Parsons, 1954; Goode, 1963; CaIdwell, 1976; Freedman, 1975). Some researchers have argued that even if there is pressure to converge some ethnic groups are able to maintain their ethnic culture. This is supported by difference in religious practices and discrimination. Portes and Zhou (1993) supported segmented assimilation, where the ethnic group assimilate with the host country for education and occupation but at the same time are successful in maintaining their own culture. Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1969) also argue that discrimination and prejudice towards minority group members leads to more traditional life despite the pressures to converge from modernization, urbanization and industrialization. It was proposed following Portes and Zhou (1993) and Goldscheider and Uhlenberg (1996) that the relationship between intergenerational homogeneity and perceived discrimination leads to strength of ethnic identity. For the present study, “Chinese” and “South Asian” ethnicity has been selected. According to Statistic Canada (2001), Chinese are the most populous visible minority in Canada about 1 million and South Asians come at second place with 917, 000 people. Moreover, Chinese and Punjabi takes the first two places for non-official language spoken at home. Both ethnic groups shared many social and cultural characteristics such as patriarchal, patrilocal and system of patrilineal descent. Both ethnic groups are known for their diverse languages and diverse 50 religion in China and India. Both ethnic groups migrated to Canada around same time and are well settled in the Country. The focus in this paper is to examine how much these ethnic groups can maintain to resist assimilation in Canada, beside pressures to converge due to industrialization, modernization and urbanization. The descriptive data of the sample shows that there are more South Asian male respondents than the females. For Chinese, there are more female respondents in the survey than males. This could be due to South Asian group is male dominant and are valued more than females. For South Asians, 20.9% respondents reported 6 or more persons in the household as compared to Chinese who reported only 10.1%. This is consistent with the South Asian family characteristic that the traditional Indian family is a joint family, where two or three generations live together in one household (Mindel, Habenstein, and Wright, 1998). Moreover, more South Asians were found to have 4 or more children as compared to the Chinese sample. As South Asians are known for their intergenerational homogeneity, South Asians decide to have more children in order to carry on the family name through generations. Also, sometimes preference for a male child leads to have more children. More South Asians reported that their ancestry is very important for them as compared to the Chinese. Also, more Chinese reported their 1st ethnic identity as Canadian as compared to the South Asian. Almost half of the Chinese sample reported no religious affiliation as compared to South Asian. This is consistent with the past research that religion is more important to the South Asian population. On the other hand, more Chinese reported using non-official language at home as compared to the South Asians. But more South Asians reported using English and non official language at home than Chinese respondents. There was not much difference in the sample in terms of personal income and education. Almost equal number of South Asian and Chinese respondents reported perceived discrimination. For South Asians strength of ethnic identity is more important as compared to 51 Chinese respondents. In terms of intergenerational language homogeneity, there was no difference found between the two ethnic groups. Intergenerational religion homogeneity is stronger among South Asian ethnic group as compared to the Chinese ethnic group. Surprisingly, intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was found to be stronger among Chinese ethnic group as compared to the South Asian ethnic group. Group differences For the present study out of all the visible minority groups, only Chinese and South Asian were used for the study. These two groups Chinese and South Asian show a wide range of religious, language and ethnic identity diversity. In case of religion, among South Asian there is no respondent who identifies their religion as “Buddhist” which is the common religion among most of the Chinese ethnic group. Among Chinese, there is not a single respondent who identifies their religion as “Sikh”. Similar diversity can be seen in “Language” and “Ethnic Ancestry”. Out of Chinese visible group, two groups “Chinese” and “Canadian” emerged based on ethnic identity identified by the respondents. For South Asians, there is unexpected heterogeneity and four groups emerged were “Canadian”, “East Indian”, “Other South Asian” and “Other East and Southeast Asian”. For South Asians/Canadian ethnic identity is more important than Chinese/Chinese. Also, for Chinese/Canadian ethnic identity is more important to them than Chinese/Chinese. There was no difference found between the two groups on perceived discrimination. As expected, South Asians/Other South Asian had greater intergenerational language homogeneity than South AsianlCanadian. For South Asian/East Indian group intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger than the South Asian/Canadian group. Similarly, for South Asian/Other South Asian group intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger than the South Asian/Canadian group. Also, intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger among South Asian/Canadian than the Chinese/Canadian. 52 For South Asian/Canadian intergenerational religion homogeneity is stronger than the Chinese/Chinese. Intergeneration religion homogeneity was also found between South Asian groups, this is due to different religions in South Asia. Intergenerational religion homogeneity was found to be stronger among South Asian/East Indian as compared to South Asian/Other East and South East Asian. Intergenerational religion homogeneity was also found stronger among South Asian/East Indian as compared to Chinese/Canadian. For South Asian/East Indian intergenerational religion homogeneity is stronger than Chinese/Chinese. Surprisingly, intergenerational religion homogeneity is also stronger for South Asian/Other South Asian than South Asian/Other East and South East Asian. South Asian/Other South Asian were also found to have stronger intergenerational religion homogeneity as compared to Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. Similarly, South Asian/Other East and South East Asian were also found to have stronger intergenerational religion homogeneity as compared to Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. On intergenerational ancestry homogeneity, group difference was found between following groups. Stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was found among South Asian/East Indian as compared to South Asian/Canadian. Chinese/Canadian was found to have stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to the South Asian/Canadian. Chinese/Chinese were found to have stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to the South Asian/Canadian. Also, South Asian/East Indian were found to have less stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to both Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. But, South Asian/ Other South Asian were found to have stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to both Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. Also, South Asian/Other East and South East Asian were found to have less stronger intergenerational ancestry homogeneity as compared to both Chinese/Canadian and Chinese/Chinese. 3Hypothesis 1 It was hypothesized that perceived discrimination by an ethnic group will lead to stronger ethnic group identity. If an ethnic group perceives discrimination, the group will resist assimilation and is going to depend on its own ethnic group for support; hence there will be a stronger sense of ethnic identity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample, including all the ethnic groups net of controls (See Table 4.1). At most, 10% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity is explained by all the variables in the equation and the hypothesis was accepted. The hypothesis was also tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was rejected. I also examined these two groups separately, and found that this hypothesis was supported by South Asian and not Chinese (See Table 4.1 .1 & Table 4.2.2). South Asians perceived discrimination and had a stronger ethnic identity. No such relationship was found among Chinese sample. Hypothesis 2a. It was hypothesized that stronger intergenerational language homogeneity will lead to stronger ethnic identity. This hypothesis was tested on the overall sample net of controls (See Table 4.1) and was supported. At most 10% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity is explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was also tested on South Asian and Chinese sample and was rejected. The individual testing of the hypothesis on the Chinese and South Asian sample did not support the hypothesis as well. Hypothesis 2b. It was hypothesized that stronger the individual’s intergenerational religion homogeneity stronger will be the strength of ethnic identity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of controls and this was accepted by the whole sample (See Table 4.1). The hypothesis was also tested on the two ethnic groups South Asian and Chinese and this is the only intergenerational homogeneity hypothesis supported by these two groups (See Table 4.2). At most 4% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity was explained by all 54 the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was tested on both these groups, South Asians and Chinese separately and was supported by the two groups. At most 3% of the variance on strength of ethnic identity was explained by all the variables in the equation. Hypothesis 2c. It was hypothesized that stronger the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity stronger will be the ethnic group identity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of controls (See Table 4.1). The hypothesis was rejected. The hypothesis was also tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was also rejected. The individual testing of the hypothesis on each ethnic group South Asian and Chinese did not support the hypothesis either. Hypothesis 3a. It was hypothesized that there is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational language homogeneity. The hypothesis was tested on the whole sample including all the ethnic groups, South Asian and Chinese sample together and individually on South Asian and Chinese sample net of controls (See Tables 4.3 - 4.6). The hypothesis was found to be significant but was rejected due to the different direction than hypothesized. This concludes that stronger intergenerational language homogeneity leads to less perceived discrimination by the ethnic group. At most 3% of the variance on the intergenerational language homogeneity is explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was rejected by the South Asian and Chinese sample and I % variance on the intergenerational language homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was also rejected by the both South Asian and Chinese 55 sample individually and for both groups, at most 2% of the variance on the intergenerational language homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. Hypothesis 3b It was hypothesized that there is a strong linear association between perceived discrimination by the individuals of the ethnic group and intergenerational religion homogeneity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of all controls (See Table 4.7). The hypothesis was found to be significant but was rejected due the different direction than hypothesized. At most 2% of the variance on intergenerational religion homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was also tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was rejected. At most 1% of the variance on the intergenerational religion homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The individual testing of the hypothesis on each group South Asian and Chinese was also rejected. Almost 2% and 1% of the variance on the intergenerational homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation for South Asian and Chinese respectively. Hypothesis 3c. It was hypothesized that there is a strong linear association between the perceived discrimination by the individuals of an ethnic group and intergenerational ancestry homogeneity. The hypothesis was tested on the overall sample including all the ethnic groups net of all controls (See Table 4.11). The hypothesis was found to be significant and was rejected due to the different direction than hypothesized. This implies that strong intergenerational ancestry homogeneity by an ethnic group leads to less perceive discrimination. At most 11% of the variance on intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was tested on the South Asian and Chinese sample and was accepted. This implies that stronger the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity stronger is the perception of discrimination. At most 3% of the variance on intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was 56 explained by all the variables in the equation. The hypothesis was rejected by the South Asian sample (See Table 4.13) and was accepted the Chinese sample (See Table 4.14). Almost 6% of the variance on the intergenerational ancestry homogeneity was explained by all the variables in the equation. Hypothesis Hl Perceived Discrimination Strength of Ethnic Identity + Whole Sample + South Asian Hypothesis H2 Intergenerational Language Strength of Ethnic Identity Homogeneity + Whole Sample Intergenerational Religion Strength of Ethnic Identity Homogeneity + Whole Sample + South Asian & Chinese + South Asian + Chinese Hypothesis H3 Perceived Discrimination Intergenerational Language Homogeneity - Whole Sample Perceived Discrimination Intergenerational Religion Homogeneity - Whole Sample Perceived Discrimination Intergenerational Ancestry Homogeneity - Whole Sample + South Asian and Chinese + Chinese Figure 1. Accepted Hypothesis Models. 57 Conclusion The overall finding of the study is that the perceived discrimination by any ethnic group leads to stronger ethnic identity. Out of the two ethnic groups South Asians perceive discrimination, and have stronger ethnic identity. This is consistent with the past research, the ethnic groups who perceive discrimination have a stronger ethnic identity as a coping mechanism and this in turn results in resistant to assimilate with the host country (Mossakowski, 2003). A strong relationship was found between intergenerational language homogeneity and strength of ethnic identity. Also a strong relationship was found between intergenerational religion homogeneity and strength of ethnic identity. Surprisingly, no relationship was found between intergenerational ancestry homogeneity and strength of ethnic identity. Hence, the present study concludes that perceived discrimination by any ethnic group and stronger intergenerational language and religion homogeneity by the ethnic group is associated with stronger ethnic identity. A strong negative relationship was found between perceived discrimination and intergenerational language, religion and ancestry homogeneity. This is contrary to the assumption that ethnic groups who perceive discrimination will have stronger intergenerational homogeneity i.e. the ethnic group will try to preserve its culture due to discrimination. This is also contrary to Portes and Zhou (1993) segmented assimilation theory which is focused on American sample. As Canada has its multicultural policy, which allows helping people, overcome the barriers related to race, ethnicity and cultural or religious backgrounds. Minority groups are given opportunity to develop their own cultures in Canada. The American society is considered as a melting pot where all the cultures melt together to one common American culture, whereas Canadian society is best described as a tossed salad where one can see people from diverse backgrounds together. Hence, there is a possibility that due to discrimination by the 58 maintain stream in America leads to stronger intergenerational homogeneity. In comparison, the opportunity to preserve its own culture is promoted through the multicultural policy in Canada. Both South Asians and Chinese were found to have strong intergenerational religious homogeneity associated with strong ethnic identity. It is possible that the South Asians perceive discrimination due to their religion as they have stronger intergenerational religious homogeneity. The Sikh religion has a physical aspect to it, for example wearing a turban. Also, a typical Sikh is expected to follow the Five K’s (Kanga - Comb, Kirpan - Ceremonial Sword, Kara - Steel bracelet, Kacha — Drawers and Kesh - Long unshorn hair). The “Gurudwara” or the temple is the sacred place of their worship. In Canada, there are approximately 75 Gurudwaras, which promote both religious and cultural life of Sikhs and maintain religious networks by organizing functions and festivals.This makes them not only a visible minority group but also specific minority group. It might be that the perceive discrimination is related to enclave status but this study does not examine the effects of enclave status. On the other hand, though Chinese have stronger intergenerational religious homogeneity but they do not perceive discrimination. This could be due to the non-physical aspect to the Buddhist religion. Chinese with strong intergenerational ancestry homogeneity perceive discrimination. This suggests that those who see themselves as Chinese also perceive discrimination; this might be due to their enclave status. This could be the reason, why Chinese identity themselves as Canadian. This is contrary to the past research that claims perceived discrimination by an ethnic group is associated with stronger ethnic identity, which is not true for the Chinese community. The convergence hypothesis states that, all families are moving towards a common family pattern and will be moving towards a common family pattern in order to survive the pressures of modernization, industrialization and urbanization. Hence, ethnic groups will have to assimilate with the host country in order to survive these pressures. The overall sample does not 59 support the convergence hypothesis; the resistance to assimilate is shown by stronger ethnic identity and stronger intergenerational homogeneity. Majority of the South Asians identified themselves as South Asian as compared to Canadian and have strong intergenerational homogeneity. Therefore, South Asians in Canada are able to maintain their own culture in Canada despite the pressure to converge. This could be due to the multicultural policy in Canada that allows them to promote their own culture. On the other hand, majority of the Chinese identify themselves as Canadian as compared to Chinese. Also, majority of the Chinese identify themselves with no religious affiliation. Hence, not due to the convergence hypothesis that this group is assimilating with the host country. It was assumed that Chinese are less religious group as compared to the South Asians that leads to assimilation of Chinese into the host country. Limitations The present study is a cross sectional study, variables such as perceived discrimination and prejudice are dynamic in nature. These dynamic variables can change over a period of time. The present study measures this over a slice of time. Also, perceived discrimination in not actual discrimination, but this is the only variable in the data set that measures perceive discrimination. All the variables are one item variables; the reliability of the variables cannot be measured. Because the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS, 2005) is a complex dataset using both stratification and cluster sampling, weights were used to correct the sampling. For the analysis purposes normalized final weights were used. But unweighted data was used where inconsistent results were found between weighted and unweighted data to adjust the variance. The intergenerational homogeneity measure is a complex measure, for the present study importance of ancestry was not considered. For example, if the mom is Punjabi and father is Canadian and the child is Canadian. The child gets a score of 1 even though he identifies himself as Canadian. As I am interested in intergenerational homogeneity and not the importance of ancestry or what ancestry 60 child identifi himself with. The dependent variable, strength of ethnic identity was measured as important and not important. It does not differentiate between two ethnic groups. For example, a Chinese respondent who feel strongly Canadian gets the same score as a Chinese who feels strongly Chinese. For the present study, this was not considered because selecting only one ethnic group resulted in lost of cases. Implications for the Future Research This study identifies that South Asians in Canada perceive discrimination. As past research suggests discrimination by ethnic group leads to enclave status. Further research can focus at this particular group in Canada and can examine effect of actual discrimination instead of perceived discrimination. Also, further research can examine effects of physical or symbolic religion and perceived discrimination. A comparison of Buddhist and Sikh religion on discrimination can be examined. South Asian is one of the largest visible minority groups in Canada. According to Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, Canadian society should be free from any discrimination. The present study shows South Asians perceive discrimination, hence it provides an opportunity to examine what can be done to understand this group and keep Canadian society free of discrimination. The results also show that there are other ethnic groups in Canada that perceive discrimination and are not included in the study. This provides an opportunity to examine other ethnic groups that perceive discrimination in Canada. The dependent variable strength of ethnic identity was measured using the linear model of ethnic identity, in which the ethnic identity is conceptualized along a continuum from strong ethnic ties on one extreme to strong mainstream ties on other (Andujo, 1998; Makabe, 1979; Simic, 1987; Ullah, 1985). The assumption underlying this model is that a strengthening of one requires a weakening of the other. Future research can use the other model such as the two dimensional model, which emphasizes that minority group members can have either strong or 61 weak identifications with both their own and the mainstream cultures, and a strong ethnic identity does not necessarily imply a weak relationship or low involvement with the dominant culture (Phinney, 1990). 62 References Alba, R. D., and Golden, R. M. (1996). Patterns of ethnic marriage in the United States. Social Forces, 65, 202-223. Andujo, E. (1998). Ethnic identity of transethnically adopted Hispanic adolescents. Social Work, 33, 53 1-535. Basran, G.S. (1993). Indo-Canadian families historical constraints and contemporary contradictions. Journal ofComparative Family Studies, 24(3), 339-352. Bourdais, C. L. and Lapierre-Adamcyk, E. (2004). Changes in Conjugal Life in Canada: Is Cohabitation Progressively Replacing Marriage? Journal ofMarriage and Family, 66, 929-942. Bengston, V. L. (1975). Generation and family effects in value socialization. American Sociological Review, 40; 358-371. Caidwell, J. (1976). Toward a restatement of Demographic Transition Theory. Population and Development Review 2, 32 1-366. Druvaranjan, V. (1993). Ethnic cultural retention and transmission among first generation Hindu Asian Indians in a Canadian prairie city. Journal ofComparative Family Studies, 63(17), 1-13. Freedman, R. (1975). The sociology ofhuman fertility: An annotated bibliography. New York: Irvington. Goldscheider, C and Uhlenberg, P.R. (1969). Minority group status and Fertility. The American Journal ofSociology, 74(4) 361-372. Goode, W. (1993). World Divorce Patterns. New Have: Yale University Press. Goode, W. (1963). World Revolution andfamily Patterns. New York: Free Press. Gordon, M. M. (1964). Assimilation in American L/e. New York: Oxford University Press. 03 Huntington, S.P. (1996). The Clash ofCivilization and the Remaking of World Order. New York. Hwang, S., Saenz, R., & Aguirre, B. E. (1997). Structural and assimilationist explanations of Asian American intermarriage. Journal ofMarriage and the Family, 59; 75 8-772. Laosa, L.(1984). Social policies toward children of diverse ethnic, racial and language groups in the Unites States. In H. Stevenson & A. Siegel (Eds.), Child Development research and Social policy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Makabe, T. (1979). Ethnic identity scale and social mobility: The case of Nisei in Toronto. The Canadian Review ofSociology and Anthropology, 16, 136-145. Massey, D.S. (1981). Dimensions of the new immigration to the United States and the prospects for assimilation. Annual Review ofSociology, 7, 57-85. Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). Coping with perceived discrimination: Does ethnic identity protect mental health? Journal ofHealth and Social Behaviour, 44(3,), 318-331. Parsons. T. & Bales, R. (1955). Family, Socialization and interaction process. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Phinney, J.S. (1996). Understanding ethnic diversity. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(2), 143-152. Portes, A & Zhou, M. (1993). The new second generation: Segmented assimilation and its variants. Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 350, 74-96. Rogler, L., Cooney, R., & Ortiz, V. (1980). Intergenerational change in ethnic identity in the Puerto Rican family. International Migration Reviews, 14, 193-2 14. Simic, A. (1987). Ethnicity as a career for the elderly: The Serbian-American case. Journal of Applied Gerontology,6, 113-126. Singh, V. (1977). Some theoretical and methodological problems in the study of ethnic identity: A cross-cultural perspective. New York Academy ofSciences: Annals, 285, 32-42. 64 Singh, P. and Barrier, G. (1999). Sikh identity: continuity and change. New Delhi: Monohar Publisher. Statistic Canada (2005). Ethnic Diversity Survey. Ottawa, ON: Statistic Canada. Ting-Toomey, 5. (1981). Ethnic Identity and close friendship in Chinese-American college students. International Journal ofIntercultural Relations, 5, 383-406. Therborn, G. (2004). Between sex andpower: Family in the world 1900-2000. London: Routledge. Tsuya, N. 0. and Bumpass, L. L (2004). Marriage, work, andfamily life in comparative perspective. Honolulu, HW: University of Hawaii Press. Tzuriel, D., and Klein, M. M. (1977). Ego identity: Effects of ethnocentrism, etimic identification,and cognitive complexity in Israeli, Oriental, and Western ethnic groups. Psychological Reports, 40, 1099-1110. Ullah, P. (1985). Second generation Irish youth: Identity and ethnicity. New Community, 12, _, I C — .,1u-j Wooden, W., Leon, J., & Toshima, M. (1988). Ethnic identity among Sansei and Yonsei church affiliated youth in Los-Angeles and Honolulu. Psychological Reports, 62, 268-270. Whitebeck, L.B., Hoyt, D. R., Chen, X., & Stubben, J. D. (2001). Perceived discrimination and early substance use among American Indian Children. Journal ofHealth and Social behavior, 42(4,), 405-424. Weinreich, P. (1983). Emerging from threatened identities. In G. Breakwell (Ed.), Threatened Identities. New York: Wiley. 65 APPENDIX 1 Descriptive Statistics for South Asian and Chinese Sample. South Asian Chinese Variables (%) (%) Sex Male 52.3 48.4 Female 47.7 51.6 Age 15-17 5.5 5.6 (inyears) 18-24 14.3 13.9 25-29 11.1 7.2 30- 34 12.6 9.6 35-44 23.6 20.7 45-54 15.2 19.7 55 — 64 8.8 9.8 65+ 8.9 13.5 Married 59.9 56.7 Marital Status Common-Law 1.3 1.1 Widowed 3.7 4.8 Separated 2.4 1.3 Divorced 3.4 2.5 Single, never-married 28.9 33.4 Number of persons in the 1 4.8 8.2 household 2 12.8 17.2 3 15.4 22.1 4 27.1 27.4 5 19 15.1 6or more 20.9 10.1 0 Children 43.3 50.5 Number of Respondent’s Children 1 Child 19.2 23.2 2 Children 24.8 20.8 3 children 9.8 4.5 4 or more children 3.0 1.1 Ancestry Non-European only 92.1 95.3 Non-European and European Only 1 .8 Other 2.2 .1 Don’t Know 2.1 1.5 Canadian .1 .3 Derived-Ancestry Punjabi 11.6 .0 East Indian 45.6 .0 Other South Asian 16.2 .0 Chinese 2 91.6 Vietnamese 10.3 .5 Other East and Southeast Asian 4.4 4.4 Unknown 9.8 3.2 Importance 1St ancestry 1-not important 4.5 3.3 response 2 3.5 3.4 3 15.1 23.0 A ‘+ 1O.3 66 67 5-very important 52.2 41.3 Identity Canadian Only 14.8 14.5 Non European only 61.5 55.6 Non European and Canadian Only 12.1 24.1 Other 11.6 5.8 Identity 1st Detailed Canadian 24.1 34.6 responses East Indian 27.3 .0 Other South Asian 22.8 .0 Chinese 1 56.5 Other East and Southeast Asian 1 1.1 3.5 Other 13.7 5.4 Place of Birth — Inside or Born in Canada 12.4 14.8 Outside of Canada Born outside Canada 87.5 85.2 Generational Status 1st generation — Born outside Canada 87.5 85.2 Outside Canada 12.1 13.6 Inside Canada .2 1.2 Year of arrival for first Before 1991 51.7 44.9 generation 1991to2001 35.2 39.5 No religious affiliation 7.1 53.4 Religion — Broad Categories Catholic 9.6 12.7 Protestant 3.1 9.6 Christian 2.7 9.0 Muslim 16.7 .1 Buddhist 8.6 12.5 68 Hindu 22.4 .0 Sikh 26.2 .0 First language official/non English only 16.6 6.8 official French only .6 .2 Non-official language 75.1 86.8 English and Non-official 3.6 1.9 language_(s) Language used most often at English only 22.4 14.2 home Non-official language 27.8 40.9 English and non-official 43.7 38.5 language_(s) Highest level of schooling Dentistry, Veterinary, Medicine or 9.6 6.9 Optometry Bachelor’s or undergraduate 21.4 22.5 university degree Trade, technical or vocational school or 10.2 13.0 business_college High school diploma 18.9 21.8 Less than a high school diploma 23.5 20.9 (includes no schooling) Other 16.4 14.9 Noincomeorloss 15.1 22.2 Personal Income Less than $20,000 26.6 20.7 $20,000 to less than $40,000 22.0 17.9 $40,000 to less than $60,000 11.5 9.0 $60,000 to less than $80,000 5.2 5.6 $80,000 ormore 3.9 3.4 Yes 31.7 32 Perceived Discrimination No 64 64.1 69 Importance of Ethnic 3.4 3.0 Identity Not important 10.4 14.3 Important Very important 71.3 58.3 Intergenerational Language 20.0 16.6 Homogeneity Not same as either parent Same as one parent 6.9 9.3 Same as both parents 70.5 70.0 Not same as either parent 9.8 27.5 Intergenerational Same as one parent 3.4 13.4 Religion Homogeneity Same as both parents 81.4 48.9 Intergenerational Not same as either parent 1 8.1 4.6 Ancestry Homogeneity Same as one parent 9.4 3.3 Same as both parents 63.8 87.6

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.24.1-0070875/manifest

Comment

Related Items