Examining bonding and bridging activities in the context of a common spaces approach to integration.
Enns, Richard ; Kirova, Anna ; Connolly, David 等
Abstract
This paper utilized the analytical file of the Ethnic Diversity
Survey (EDS 2002) to examine the relationship between bridging and
bonding activities for identified immigrant and non-immigrant groups and
variables selected to measure integration through the creation of common
spaces. Based on Ager and Strang's (2004; 2008) model, we
hypothesized that both bonding and bridging activities increased the
likelihood of outcomes that reflect and create the common spaces
increasingly associated with integration. Bridging activities were
associated with the creation of common spaces, used here as a marker of
integration, in almost every instance, while bonding activities were
associated with integration in some but not all instances. Our analysis
supports a conceptual model of integration that highlights the
development of common spaces radiating outward from self-identified
ethnic groups as both a means and a marker for integration.
Resume
Cet article porte sur les relations dans les activites qui
favorisent I'affectif et le relationnel pour les groupes
d'immigres et de non-immigres identifies par le dossier analytique
de I'Enquete sur la diversite ethnique (EDE 2002) sur lequel il
s'appuie, et sur les variables selectionnees pour mesurer leur
integration par la creation d'espaces communs. A partir du modele
d'Ager et Strang (2004, 2008), nous avons pose l'hypothese que
ces deux activites suscitent et refletent bien davantage de tels espaces
toujours plus lies a l'integration en question. Dans presque tous
les cas, celles a caractere relationnel ont ete associees a
l'etablissement de terrains communs qui servent de marqueurs
d'insertion, tandis que celles a caractere affectif n'ont eu
qu'un effet d'inclusion dans certaines circonstances, mais pas
dans toutes. Notre analyse soutient un modele conceptuel
d'integration qui met en lumiere le deveroppement d'espaces
communs en expansion a partir de groupes se definissant comine
ethniques, a la fois comme facteur et comme marqueur inclusifs.
INTRODUCTION
Since 2001, Canada's population has grown faster than all
other G8 countries when growth is measured as a percentage of the
national population (Statistics Canada 2010a). This growth has been
sustained by net international migration, which accounted for two-thirds
of the population increase (Statistics Canada 2010b). It is estimated
that one in six people living in Canada now was born outside the country
(Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) 2009), and the federal
government recently announced its intention to maintain immigration
levels at or slightly above one-quarter of a million people for 2012 and
beyond (CIC 2011, 11). While immigration levels have remained consistent
in recent years, immigration patterns have changed significantly since
the 1967 introduction of the points system to determine eligibility, and
Canada's current multiculturalism policies are considered to be
essential for maintaining social cohesion as significant numbers of
newcomers enter Canada on an annual basis (CIC 2011, 29). Although
"Canada has long been a world leader in welcoming and accepting
immigrants, and immigration has contributed to Canada's growth and
prosperity, as well as helping shape our current society" (Biles et
al. 2008, 269), recent changes in immigration patterns and the entry of
immigrants and refugees who are frequently identified as members of
visible and religious minorities have sparked often contentious
discussions about integration.
The purpose of this study is to explore the multi-dimensional
concept of social integration based on the model developed by Ager and
Strang (2004; 2008) as an example of a "common space" or
"transnational social spaces" approach (e.g., Dib et al. 2008;
Faist 2000; Frideres 2008). In these approaches, cultural diversity is
regarded as a positive force in inter-group relationships, resulting in
a "shared identity" and contributing to national unity.
Canadian Multiculturalism and Integration Discourses
In 1971, the Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau introduced the
country's first multiculturalism policy, which recognized the
growing diversity of the Canadian population. In introducing the policy,
Trudeau stated "national unity, if it is to mean anything in the
deeply personal sense, must be founded on the confidence in one's
own individual identity; out of this can grow respect for that of others
and a willingness to share ideas, attitudes and assumptions" (in
Reitz 2009, 19). The Canadian Multiculturalism Act was proclaimed in
1988 and federal immigration policy continues to emphasize
multiculturalism and "intercultural understanding" (CIC 2011,
29).
Since its adoption, multiculturalism policy has evolved from
"celebrating differences" in the 1970s to "managing
diversity" in the 1980s, to "constructive engagement" in
the 1990s, largely in response to specific pressures and issues of the
day (Kunz and Sykes 2007, 6). Dwindling support for multiculturalism in
the 1990s rebounded following the 1995 Quebec referendum, when only a
slim majority voted against separation, and as the goals of
multicultural policy increasingly shifted to fostering a sense of shared
citizenship through "constructive engagement" and the removal
of barriers to full economic and civic participation (Kunz and Sykes
2007). While these goals aligned with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
and other federal legislation, it was hoped that federal commitments to
full participation would foster notions of shared citizenship and,
particularly in Quebec, provide a basis for identification with the
Canadian state that transcended identities crafted primarily around
either of Canada's official languages. A focus on "inclusive
citizenship" characterized multiculturalism policy in the first
decade of the 21st century, due in part to the attacks on the World
Trade Centre in New York on September 1 I, 2001, and advances in global
and instantaneous communications, and concerns about the possibility of
divisive effects of multiculturalism amidst increasing global tensions
(Kunz and Sykes 2007).
Recent debates over the success of Canadian multiculturalism have
largely centered on discussions about the ability of the Canadian system
to successfully integrate newcomers. While assimilation, integration and
acculturation are used as practical synonyms in immigration literature
in the United States (e.g., Alba and Nee 1997; Portes and Rumbaut 1997,
2001; Rumbaut 1997), the term integration has been adopted in
Canada's immigration discourse. Currently, CIC differentiates
between settlement and integration with the former referring to the
"short-term transitional issues faced by newcomers" and the
latter involving the "ongoing process of mutual accommodation
between an individual and society" (CIC 2011, 24).
Although the integration of newcomers is highlighted by CIC, and
has been identified as one of its strategic outcomes
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/paa/2011/strategic-3.asp), what
is meant by the term is not always clearly or consistently articulated.
Federal government references to integration as an "ongoing process
of mutual accommodation" (CIC 2011, 26) and "operationalizing
the 'two way street approach'" exist alongside
descriptions of decidedly more singular approaches designed to assist
immigrants to become "active, connected and productive
citizens" through programs that, among other things, seek to
minimize income disparities and eliminate labour market barriers
(http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/ department/paa/2011/activity-31.asp).
Thus, we concur with Li (2003) who argued that, although policymakers,
immigration critics and academics all refer to integration, the term is
used without a vigorous theoretical explanation. Li noted the discourse
of integration in Canada "clearly upholds the normative expectation
of conformity as the desirable outcome of immigrant integration"
and judging the success of integration is "often based on a narrow
understanding and a rigid expectation that treats integration solely in
terms of the degree to which immigrants converge to the average
performance of native-born Canadians and their normative and behavioural
standard" (316). Li concluded
if integration is meant to be a two-way street as officially
endorsed, the integration discourse has succeeded only in insisting
on a report card to show immigrants have or have not been changing
in Canada. It has not demanded a similar report card to indicate
the degree of institutional openness with which Canadian society
accepts newcomers as equal partners in shaping the future of the
nation (328).
More recently, the realization that integration, operationalized
through the "two-way street" model, has often required
newcomers to do most of the work, has led to the concept of "common
spaces" (Dib et al. 2008). The authors argue that the two-way
street "analogy works to a certain extent but there is no
consideration of where people actually live together, where they meet,
and where the two-way street would end up" (163). They suggest that
changes in different communities across Canada have occurred as a result
of the influence of new immigrants and cultures and therefore a new
concept is required, one where "we move beyond the simple
contractual framework of the two-way street" (164). According to
the authors, the "common spaces" approach "evokes a
different image [of integration]--that of a town square where people mix
in space and time and together produce a new, shared identity for
themselves as a community" (164, brackets added). Similarly
Frideres (2008), based on Faist's (2000) conceptualization of
transnational social spaces, suggests that social integration should be
conceptualized as a "circulation" process--a "network of
ties and the unfolding of strong and dense circular flows of persons,
goods, ideas, and symbols within a system" (78-79). The basic forms
of such transnational social spaces are transnational kinship groups,
transnational circuits, and transnational communities.
Ager and Strang's Conceptual Model of Integration
The complexity of the concept of integration has been acknowledged
worldwide. For example, in England, Ager and Strang (2008) describe
integration as a key policy objective for the settlement of refugees
despite "significant public discussion" (167) about the
concept and various and frequently divergent understandings; and they
describe their efforts to develop an operational definition of
integration incorporating discussions in the literature and qualitative
research conducted with key stakeholders. The authors identify 10 core
domains arranged across four levels and pictured as an inverted
triangle, beginning with citizenship and rights as a foundational domain
located in the tip or apex. Notions of citizenship and rights will vary
across states and time, and may support "assimilationist" or
"multi-cultural" approaches; and prevailing understandings
about the rights and obligations of citizenship will inform political
and policy responses to the arrival of immigrants and refugees. The
domains of employment, housing, education and health are situated across
the top of the inverted triangle. Ager and Strang noted that
achievements in these areas are often identified as outcomes or markers
of successful integration, depending upon how immigrants fare in these
domains, when compared to non-immigrants. However, they can also be
considered as a means of integration since achievements in these areas
can exert a recursive influence whereby achievements in any one of these
domains can lead to further accomplishments within the domain or across
all four domains (see figure 1).
The remaining five domains identified by Ager and Strang are
situated on two levels between the foundational domain and the markers
and means described above. Language and cultural knowledge along with
safety and stability are situated immediately above the citizenship and
rights domain and are classified as facilitators. The former domain is
associated with the broad cultural knowledge and competence considered
to be necessary for successful integration while the latter domain
encompasses actual or documented threats to safety, along with
perceptions about increased safety that may be promoted by efforts to
remain in place and establish relationships with neighbours and across
the community. Both domains are supported by state policies that reflect
notions of citizenship and rights and that lend support to particular
outcomes. For example, language-learning services may be considered
essential for civic participation and integration while extensive
translation and interpretation services may be seen as a hindrance or,
at least, as tools that preserve immigrant cultures and hinder
integration; and settlement policies that optimize placement and
residential stability may improve safety and stability. Various outcomes
may be selected and promoted, depending upon prevailing views about
citizenship and rights.
The final cluster of domains identified by Ager and Strang (2008)
includes social bonds, social bridges, and social links, and are
collectively described as social connections. Not unlike Putnam (1993),
the authors define bonding behaviours as directed towards members of
one's own ethnic group; they are associated with positive social,
psychological, and health outcomes and, notably, according to Ager and
Strang, can also play a positive role in wider social connections.
Bridging behaviours involve lateral relationships outside of one's
cultural or ethnic group and foster increasingly diverse relationships
with host communities. Efforts to extend relationships beyond one's
group can have positive effects on expressed feelings of safety, and
provide social and economic benefits if successful, but may undermine
subsequent efforts at integration if rebuffed. Linking behaviours most
frequently involve relationships outside of one's own group to
civic or state structures, including government services. They may also
be conceptualized through other measures of participation such as voting
in municipal, provincial or federal elections.
In the visual representation of the model, the cluster of bonding,
bridging and linking behaviours is situated immediately above the
facilitator domains and is also described as the "connective
tissue" between the "foundational principles of citizenship
and rights on the one hand, and public outcomes in sectors such as
employment, housing, education, and health" (177) on the other.
Notably, these connections are valuable not only because they may
facilitate material outcomes, or reduce conflict through the creation of
common spaces, but because they contribute to less objective but equally
important notions of social connection and trust in the integration
process. The incorporation of less objective measures of integration in
Ager and Strang's model is consistent with Banting et al. (2007)
who link successful integration in Canada to "the need to build a
sense of belonging and attachment to a country that incorporates
distinct identities" (652). The emphasis on bonding, bridging and
linking behaviours by Ager and Strang aligns with notions of social
capital as described by Putnam (1993) and Woolcock (1998) and, although
it is a contested concept (e.g., Bourdieu 1999; Portes and Landolt 1996;
Woolcock and Narayan 2000), social capital theory offers explanatory
value as we consider the relationship between social connection and
integration.
Although Ager and Strang (2008) organize the 10 domains in an
inverted triangle and indicate that the hierarchy offers some heuristic
advantages--for example, it is helpful to consider how rights and
notions of citizenship may provide access to language services and
cultural knowledge, and create conditions of safety, that promote the
development of social capital which may promote favourable housing and
education outcomes--no domain is more influential than any other. Just
as benefits might flow up from the base, favourable housing and
education or employment outcomes, as an example, may also strengthen
citizenship and rights commitments at the national level; or, adjacent
domains may intersect in a horizontal fashion.
Our interest is in the social bonding, social bridging, and social
linking domains described as social connections by Ager and Strang. In
keeping with the notion that the various domains intersect in multiple
and reciprocal ways, we propose a model of concentric oblongs to
highlight the spatial characteristics of the social connections that
radiate horizontally from the ethnic centre, as described by Ager and
Strang, while depicting the considerable overlap or dense circular flows
that are common (Frideres 2008) as newcomers create common spaces
through bonding, bridging, and linking behaviours (see figure 2);
thereby increasing their social capital and the likelihood that they
will achieve the favourable outcomes often viewed as discrete markers of
integration.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
This visual representation more clearly depicts the hypothesized
horizontal and reciprocal nature of bonding, bridging, and linking
behaviours, and the porosity of the social networks described by Ager
and Strang. More specifically, using the spatial model presented in
figure 2, we hypothesized that bonding and bridging behaviours,
designated as independent variables, increased the likelihood of
outcomes that both reflect and create the common or transnational spaces
associated with integration. Consistent with the works of Delhey and
Newton (2003), Hardin (2002), Li et al. (2005), Uslaner (2002), and
Uslaner and Conley (2003), we viewed social trust as an important
element in the development of meaningful and long-lasting relationships
both within and beyond self-identified ethnic groups, and a key
indicator of community attachment. These outcomes were identified as
dependent variables and included sense of trust in co-workers or
classmates, sense of trust in people in the neighbourhood, sense of
generalized trust, and Canadian identity.
Data from the Ethnic Diversity Survey were used to answer the
following research questions:
1. Does the level of involvement in bonding and bridging activities
vary between EDS-identified immigrant and non-immigrant groups?
2. Are respondents involved in either bonding or bridging
activities more or less likely to report levels of trust and a strong
sense of Canadian identity when compared to respondents who are not
involved in bonding or bridging activities?
3. Do the effects of bonding and bridging activities on levels of
trust and sense of Canadian identity vary by selected immigrant and
non-immigrant groups?
METHOD
Sample
This paper utilized the analytical file of the EDS to examine the
relationship between bridging and bonding activities, identified as
independent variables, and selected measures of integration, including
levels of trust and sense of Canadian identity, identified as dependent
variables, for selected groups identified in the survey. As a post-2001
Census, the EDS was conducted by Canadian Heritage and Statistics Canada
in 2002. The targeted population was persons age 15 or older, living in
private dwellings in 10 provinces, excluding respondents of Aboriginal
origin, with positive employment income. A probability sampling plan was
used. Altogether, 57,242 individuals were sampled and 42,476 responded
to the survey, a response rate of 75.6%. The sample of 42,476 unweighted
cases represents 23,092,642 weighted persons.
The conceptual model was tested on the immigrant and non-immigrant
groups, as identified and named in the EDS. Immigrants groups examined
consisted of all immigrant respondents combined, Black immigrants, South
Asian immigrants, Chinese immigrants, all other visible immigrants, and
all non-visible immigrants. Non-immigrant groups examined consisted of
all non-immigrant respondents combined, Black non-immigrants, South
Asian non-immigrants, Chinese non-immigrants, all other visible
non-immigrants, and all non-visible non-immigrants.
Ethics approval was obtained through institutional review boards at
the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary and the data was
accessed at the Research Data Centre located at the University of
Alberta. Permission for disclosure was obtained through the Research
Data Centre following protocols established by Statistics Canada.
Independent Variables
Bridging and bonding group participation measures, identified as
independent variables, were constructed from the respondents'
self-reported ethnic ancestry and four different possible response
variables. The variables that were used to create the bridging and
bonding participation measures were:
* the first ethnic ancestry reported by the respondent (MAINETH1),
* the second ethnic ancestry reported by the respondent (MAINETH2),
* the number of participants of the first reported group or
organization who shared the same first ethnic ancestry with the
respondent (PCQ050A1),
* the number of participants of the first reported group or
organization who shared the same second ethnic ancestry with the
respondent (PCQ050A2),
* the number of participants of the first reported group or
organization who shared the same first ethnic ancestry with the
respondent (PCQ050B1), and
* the number of participants of the first reported group or
organization who shared the same second ethnic ancestry with the
respondent (PCQ050B2).
Instead of simply categorizing groups based on their type (e.g., a
sports team), these measures categorized groups based on their
members' shared first or second ethnic ancestry. Categorizing group
participation based on members' ethnic ancestry enabled
differentiation between bridging and bonding group participation. For
example, participation in a group, such as a sport team, in which
members were from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, was categorized as a
bridging activity. Alternatively, participation in a sport team
comprised of members with a common background was categorized as a
bonding activity.
The variable created from combining these variables had four
possible values:
* the respondent did not participate in any type of group activity,
* the respondent participated in a bonding group activity only,
* the respondent participated in a bridging group activity only,
and
* the respondent participated in both bonding and bridging
activities.
In the models, bridging and bonding were entered as separated
binary variables with a flag for individuals reporting both bridging and
bonding.
Dependent Variables
Three of the selected dependent variables (trust in co-workers or
classmates, trust in people in the neighbourhood, and generalized trust)
were taken directly from the survey. The fourth variable, sense of
Canadian identity, was derived from multiple survey variables.
Trust in co-workers and classmates was seen as a measure of
integration at a micro, interpersonal level and was measured with the
survey question that asked: Using a scale of 1 to 5 where 1 means cannot
be trusted at all and 5 means can be trusted a lot, how much do you
trust each of the following groups of people: People that you work with
or go to school with? Trust in people in the neighbourhood was measured
based on the response to the question: Using a scale of 1 to 5 where I
means cannot be trusted at all and 5 means can be trusted a lot, how
much do you trust each of the following groups of people: People in your
neighborhood? Generalized trust was measured with the question:
Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or
that you cannot be too careful in dealing with people? This question has
two valid answers: People can be trusted and You cannot be too careful
when dealing with people. The ordinal scale or dichotomous responses to
the variables listed above were coded into binary variables for
analysis.
In addition to the dependent variables listed above, the effect of
bonding and bridging activities on sense of belonging to self-identified
ethnic group was also examined. Belonging to ethnic group was measured
using the survey questions that asked: Some people have a stronger sense
of belonging to some things than others. Using a scale of 1 to 5, where
I is not strong at all and 5 is very strong, how strong is your sense of
belonging to your ethnic or cultural group(s)? This variable was chosen
to examine the hypothesis that participation outside of one's own
ethnic group through bridging activities could lead to a weakened sense
of belonging to that ethnic group.
The remaining dependent variable, Canadian identity, was derived
from multiple survey response variables. Canadian identity is intended
to measure whether or not the respondent has a strong tie to Canada. The
measure of Canadian identity in the EDS is not exclusive, with the
survey allowing for a possible six ethnic identities to be reported
(eid_1 - eid_6). Those reporting "Canadian,"
"French-Canadian," "Newfoundlander,"
"Acadian," "Aboriginal," "North-American
Indian" and "Other regional or provincial group" were all
included as Canadian identities. A measure of the strength of the
participant's sense of Canadian identity (IDQ1301--IDQ1306) was
derived from two sets of variables--one set comprised of the ethnic
identities reported and the other of the corresponding strength of those
ethnic identities measured by a 5-point Likert-type scale. The variable
was converted to a binary variable, which was coded true if the strength
of the reported Canadian identity was either four or five on the 5-point
Likert-type scale. This resulted in the final variable being coded as:
(1) strong Canadian ethnic identity for respondents who had a response
of four or five on the strength of ethnic identity measure, or (2) not a
strong Canadian ethnic identity for respondents who had a response of
one through three on the strength of ethnic identity measure, as well as
respondents who did not report a Canadian ethnic identity at all as one
of their possible ethnic identities.
Controls
The model controls for age in years, location, income, education,
marital status, reported discrimination, and time spent in Canada.
Location was entered by province and whether or not the respondent lived
in a rural or urban area. Income was controlled using household income
relative to that of the median CA/CMA of the respondent's
household. Education was controlled using the categorical variable of
the highest level of education summary variable (HLOS). Marital status
of the respondent was entered as a binary variable that was true if the
respondent reported being married or in a common-law relationship, and
false otherwise. Time spent in Canada for immigrants was accounted for
by a binary variable separating those immigrants who arrived before 1991
and those who arrived after 1991. Discrimination was entered as a binary
variable with those reporting being a victim of discrimination within
the past five years as being true, and false otherwise.
Data Analysis
To examine the relationships between bridging and bonding group
activities and integration as manifested by the creation of common
spaces, logistic regression and ordered logistic regression models were
used. The relationships between the bridging and bonding participation
measures and the dependent variables of strong Canadian identity and
levels of generalized trust were estimated with a binary logistic
regression model using maximum likelihood estimation methods with a
fisher-scoring algorithm. The relationship between bridging and bonding
activities and the ordinal dependent variables of trust in people in the
neighborhood, trust in coworkers or schoolmates, and belonging to ethnic
group were estimated using an ordinal logistic regression, again using
maximum likelihood estimation methods. Odds ratios were calculated from
the logistic regressions for the output and are presented in tables 1
through 5, along with 95% confidence intervals.
RESULTS
In every instance, bonding activities had a positive effect on
sense of belonging to one's ethnic group (see table 1). Across all
immigrant groups, participants who were involved in at least one bonding
activity were 2.51 times more likely to report a sense of belonging to
their ethnic group. The effect appeared strongest for non-visible
minority immigrants who were 3.18 times more likely to report a strong
sense of belonging to their ethnic group when involved in at least one
bonding activity. Black immigrants were 3.1 times more likely and South
Asian immigrants were 2.9 times more likely to report strong sense of
belonging to the ethnic group when involved in at least one bonding
activity. The smallest, but still notable, effect was reported for
Chinese immigrants who were 1.7 times more likely to identify with their
ethnic group if involved in bonding activities. Similarly strong
findings were reported for non-immigrant groups. Across all
non-immigrant groups, participants involved in at least one bonding
activity were 2.74 times more likely to report a strong sense of
belonging to their ethnic group. Among visible minority and selected
non-immigrant groups, the increased likelihood of reporting a strong
sense of belonging to one's ethnic group ranged from 2.6 times for
non-immigrant Black respondents to 3.3 times for South Asian
participants. Amongst non-immigrant, non-visible minority respondents,
those involved in at least one bonding activity were 2.74 times more
likely to report a strong sense of belonging to their ethnic group than
those who reported no bonding activities.
Bridging activities had an opposite effect on self-reported sense
of belonging to one's ethnic group than bonding activities and, in
almost every instance, participants who reported that they were involved
in bridging activities were less likely to report a strong sense of
belonging than participants who were not (see table 1). Across all
immigrant groups, participants who reported one or more bridging
activities were 17% less likely to report a sense of belonging to their
ethnic group than those who reported no bridging activities. Across
selected immigrant groups, immigrant Chinese respondents were least
likely to report a sense of belonging to their ethnic group if involved
in bridging activities (odds ratio = .56, .38 to .83) while South Asian
and Black immigrants were 20% and 5% less likely to report a strong
sense of belonging to their ethnic group if involved in bridging
activities. Similar patterns were evident for selected non-immigrant
groups. While all non-immigrants together were slightly more likely to
report a sense of belonging to their ethnic group if involved in
bridging activities (odds ratio = 1.02, .95 to 1.08) participants in
selected non-immigrant groups were noticeably less likely to report a
strong sense of belonging to their ethnic group if involved in one or
more bridging activities. Non-immigrant Black respondents were 33% less
likely to report a sense of belonging to their ethnic group if involved
in bridging activities while the odds ratios for other visible minority
nonimmigrant groups ranged from .70 (.49 to 1.02) to .84 (.57 to 1.2)
for non-immigrant Chinese and other non-immigrant, visible minority
groups respectively.
Bonding and bridging activities exhibited primarily positive
effects on the likelihood that participants expressed trust in people at
work or school (see table 2). Across all immigrant groups, respondents
who reported at least one bonding activity were 30% more likely to
report trust than respondents who reported no bonding activities. All
immigrant groups examined were also more likely to express trust in
people at work or school if they reported at least one bonding activity.
Increased likelihoods ranged from 6% for immigrant South Asian to 40%
for immigrant Black respondents. Similarly, but with the exception of
non-immigrant Black respondents, bonding activities increased the
likelihood of expressed trust in people at work or school. While
non-immigrant Blacks were 2% less likely to report trust if involved in
one or more bonding activity, non-immigrant South Asian and
non-immigrant Chinese were respectively 42% and 53% more likely to
report trust it involved in at least one bonding activity. Most
significantly, all other non-immigrant, visible minorities engaged in
bonding activities were 2.57 times more likely to report a sense of
trust in people at work or school.
Across all immigrant groups, those involved in at least one
bridging activity were 18% more likely to report trust in people at work
or school (see table 2). Across specific groups, immigrant Chinese were
15% less likely to report trust if involved in bridging activities, but
all other groups examined were more likely to express trust in people at
work or school. Black immigrant respondents engaged in at least one
bridging activity were 76% more likely to express trust than those not
similarly engaged, while immigrant South Asian and all other visible
minority immigrant respondents were respectively 24% and 28% more likely
to express trust if involved in at least one bridging activity. Across
all non-immigrant groups, respondents involved in at least one bridging
activity were 23% more likely to report trust in people at work or
school than respondents not similarly involved. While non-immigrant
South Asian respondents involved in bridging were 10% less likely to
report trust than those not similarly involved, Chinese and Black
non-immigrant respondents were 20% and 32% respectively more likely to
express trust if involved in at least one bridging activity; and all
other non-immigrant, visible minority respondents were 57% more likely
to report trust in people at work or school if involved in at least one
bridging activity. All other non-immigrant, non-visible minority
respondents were 23% more likely to report trust if involved in bridging
activities.
Participants' level of trust in people in their neighbourhoods
was more likely for participants who were involved in at least one
bonding activity (see table 3). Across all immigrant groups,
participants were 34% more likely to report trust in their neighbours
than immigrants who reported no bonding activities. South Asian
immigrants involved in bonding activities were 89% more likely to report
trust in their neighbours while immigrant Black and immigrant Chinese
respondents were respectively 14% and 19% more likely to report trust in
their neighbours if involved in at least one bonding activity. More
notable and consistent effects were noted for selected non-immigrant
groups. While all nonqmmigrant respondents involved in at least one
bonding activity were 31% more likely to report trust in people in their
neighbourhoods, South Asian non-immigrants involved in bonding
activities were 71% more likely to report trust in their neighbours;
non-immigrant Black respondents and non-immigrants Chinese respondents
similarly involved were 71% and 80% respectively more likely to report
trust in their neighbours. Other non-immigrant, visible minority
respondents were twice as likely to report trust in their neighbours if
involved in bonding activities, while non-immigrant, non-visible
minority respondents were only 29% more likely to report trust in their
neighbours if involved in bonding activities.
Bridging activities had a similarly positive effect on
participants' levels of trust in people in their neighbourhoods,
although the effects were not as strong as those seen for bonding
activities (see table 3). Across all immigrant groups, participants
engaged in at least one bridging activity were 18% more likely to report
trust in their neighbours than immigrant respondents who were not
involved in bridging activities. The strongest effect was noted for
South Asian immigrants who were 81% more likely to report trust it
involved in bridging activities while the effects across other selected
immigrant groups were more moderate, ranging from a 15% increased
likelihood for visible minority immigrants other than Black, South Asian
and Chinese immigrant respondents, and a 5% increased likelihood for
Black immigrant respondents involved in at least one bridging activity.
Immigrant Chinese respondents involved in bridging activities were 14%
less likely to report trust in their neighbours if involved in one or
more bridging activities. Non-immigrant respondents across all groups
were 20% more likely to report a sense of trust in their neighbours, if
involved in at least one bridging activity. Bridging activities had no
noticeable effect for non-immigrant Black respondents, while
non-immigrant Chinese and nonimmigrant visible minority respondents,
other than South Asian, Black and Chinese respondents, were 51% more
likely to report trust in people in the neighbourhoods if involved in at
least one bridging activity.
Trust in people beyond the immediate neighbourhood, or in people
generally, was more likely for most immigrant groups involved in at
least one bonding activity (see table 4). Across all immigrant groups,
those who reported at least one bonding activity were 50% more likely to
report trust in people generally, than those who were not involved in
bonding activities. Chinese and South Asian immigrants involved in at
least one bonding activity were 27% and 81% respectively more likely to
report trust in people generally than those who were not involved in
bonding activities. Black immigrants involved in bonding activities were
14% less likely to report generalized trust than their counterparts who
reported no bonding activities, while visible and non-visible immigrants
were, respectively, 41% and 63% more likely to report generalized trust
if involved in bonding activities. Across all non-immigrant groups,
respondents involved in at least one bonding activity were 35% more
likely to report trust in people generally, and all non-immigrant groups
examined were more likely to report trust in people if involved in
bonding activities. Increased likelihoods arising from involvement in
one bonding activity ranged from 23% for non-immigrant, non-visible
minority groups with the exception of non-immigrant Blacks who were 7%
less likely to report generalized trust if involved in bonding
activities, to 56% for South Asian, non-immigrant respondents.
Bridging participation increased the likelihood of trust in people
generally for all immigrant and non-immigrant groups examined (see table
4). Across all immigrant groups, participation in one or more bridging
activity increased the likelihood of trust in people by 57%. Visible
minority immigrants other than Chinese, South Asian and Black immigrants
were 2.34 times more likely to report trust in people generally while
South Asian, Chinese, and Black immigrants were approximately 8% to 51%
more likely to report trust in people (8%, 26% and 51% respectively).
Non-visible, minority immigrants were 45% more likely to report trust in
people if involved in at least one bridging activity. Across all
non-immigrant groups, respondents involved in bridging activities were
49% more likely to report trust in people generally. The greatest effect
was noted for non-immigrant Blacks involved in bridging activities who
were 74% more likely to express trust in people generally. The effect
for all other non-immigrant groups varied between 20% for non-immigrant,
non-visible minority groups other than Chinese, South Asian and Black
respondents, and 47% for non-immigrant Chinese respondents.
Across all immigrant groups, immigrants who reported that they were
involved in at least one bonding activity were 13% less likely to report
a strong Canadian identity than immigrants who reported no involvement
in bonding activities (see table 5). However, considerable variation was
noted across immigrant groups identified in the EDS, and bonding
activities increased the likelihood of reporting a strong Canadian
identity in a number of instances. Black and Chinese immigrants involved
in at least one bonding activity were 74% and 42% more likely,
respectively, to report a strong Canadian identity than Black or Chinese
immigrants who reported no bonding activities. All other visible
minority immigrants who reported one or more bonding activities, other
than Black, Chinese and South Asian immigrants, were 59% less likely to
report a strong Canadian identity when compared to immigrants in this
category who reported no bonding activity. Bonding activities had a
slightly positive effect on Canadian identity for all non-immigrants
taken together, raising the likelihood by 6% for those who reported
bonding activities compared to those who did not. Variations were
evident across selected non-immigrant groups and, in each case, the
likelihood of reporting a strong Canadian identity increased with
bonding activities. The smallest effects of bonding on identity were
noted for non-immigrant South Asians and for non-visible minority
nonimmigrants at 5%. The largest effects were reported for visible
minority non-immigrants, excluding non-immigrants who self-identified as
Black, South Asian or Chinese, at 44%.
Bridging activities increased the likelihood of participants
reporting a strong Canadian identity in every instance for the groups
selected (see table 5). Across all immigrant groups, immigrants who
reported at least one bridging activity were 32% more likely to report a
strong Canadian identity than immigrants who reported no bridging
activities. The greatest effect was noted for Black immigrants who were
94% more likely to report a strong Canadian identity if involved in at
least one bridging activity. Chinese, South Asian and other visible
minorities were approximately 50% more likely to report a strong
Canadian identity when involved in at least one bridging activity (odds
ratios = 44%, 43% and 52% respectively). Bridging activities among
non-visible minority immigrants showed the smallest effect at 20%.
Bridging activities had the most notable effect for non-immigrant
Chinese who were 2.3 times more likely to report a strong Canadian
identity if involved in one or more bridging activities. The effect for
other selected groups and for visible and non-visible non-immigrants was
much more muted, ranging from 4% to 23%.
DISCUSSION
Across all immigrant and non-immigrant groups, respondents involved
in one or more bonding activities were more likely to report a sense of
belonging to one's ethnic group, when compared to respondents who
reported no bonding activities, while respondents involved in one or
more bridging activities were less likely to report a sense of ethnic
group belonging, when compared to respondents that reported no bridging
activities, in most instances. While the former result is consistent
with Putnam's (1993, 2000) conceptualization of bonding social
capital as activities associated with efforts to establish or maintain
exclusive social ties with one's ethnic community, the effects of
bridging activities require further examination. Although some
researchers express a concern that if minority ethnic groups bond too
much within their communities, they are less likely to integrate into
wider society (e.g., Goodhart 2004; Uslaner and Conley 2003), our
conceptuallzation of integration based on Ager and Strang's (2004)
model does not see bonding and bridging activities as having necessarily
contradictory effects on ethnic sense of belonging. However, the results
indicate that efforts to establish inter-ethnic relationships may arise
from, or result in, an attenuated sense of ethnic belonging, possibly
due to the time required to initiate and maintain inter-ethnic
relationships (Cheong et al. 2007), or possibly due to a natural
inclination to incorporate diverse ethnic or cultural elements, and less
ethnically-specific elements, within an evolving sense of self.
Additionally, while the effect of bridging activities on ethnic group
belonging was evident across all immigrant groups, and for the specific
immigrant groups examined, the effect was also evident for specific
visible non-immigrant groups, and all other visible non-immigrant
groups, but not for non-visible non-immigrants. In this case it appears
that visible minority status may be a factor and that non-visible,
non-immigrant respondents in particular may experience less conflict
from or less incongruence between their own sense of ethnic belonging
and their experience in the wider social realm. These results speak to
the complexities of the integration process related to the context of
immigrants' reception experiences. As Cheong et al. (2007) point
out, "[T]he politics and practices of racism and discrimination are
of less underplayed in initiatives promoting bonding and bridging social
capital" (33).
The effect of ethnic distinctiveness on integration has been
debated and Reitz et al. (2009) have noted that the sense of belonging
to Canada is "actually stronger for those who attach greater
importance to their ancestry and to the culture and customs of their
minority community" (158). An alternative perspective suggests that
persistent ties to ancestry and culture weaken attachments to host
countries and perpetuate enclaves that are "impediments to social
advancements" (Francis 2002, 102). In this analysis, integration
has been measured through respondents' expressed levels of trust in
people at work or school, and in the neighbourhood, and generalized
trust, as well the respondents' sense of Canadian identity. The
effects of bonding and bridging activities on each of these four
variables are examined separately below. Overall, it appears that both
bonding and bridging activities are associated with integration, as
measured in this study, although there are variations noted, as Reitz
and colleagues also suggest.
Immigrant respondents were more likely to report trust in people at
work or school if involved in at least one bonding activity, compared to
respondents who were not involved in bonding activities. Contrary to
Uslaner and Conley's (2003) findings suggesting that people who
lose ties with their ethnic community are more likely to take an active
role in joining organizations and groups in the wider society, our
results indicated that immigrant respondents involved in bonding
activities were also more likely to report trust in neighbours and
beyond. However, generalized trust was more likely for some immigrant
groups than for others. For example, while Chinese and South Asian
immigrants involved in bonding activities were more likely to report
trust in people generally, along with other visible and non-visible
immigrants, Black immigrants involved in bonding activities were 14%
less likely to report a sense of generalized trust. Thus the
study's results are consistent with Cheong's et al. (2007)
analysis of studies in Europe, the United States and Canada that
"[C]ommunicative exchanges, norms and trust (all framed as
components of social capital building) are facilitated or constrained by
the context of the host country" (36). Although it is not possible,
based on this study's results, to conclude that ethnic affiliation
is a factor in determining levels of expressed trust or sense of
Canadian identity in this context, it is worth considering whether the
wider social acceptance offered to some ethnic groups but not to others
affected the relationship between bonding activities and levels of
generalized trust, such that bonding activities in some cases may
reflect decisions taken in response to failed efforts to engage in the
wider community and perhaps a return to the relative security or, at
least, the familiarity of the ethnic group, or whether a priori feelings
of distrust for people in the wider community reinforce predominantly
bonding activities for some ethnic group respondents and preclude wider
social connections.
Based on EDS data, Reitz and colleagues (2009) indicated that sense
of belonging to Canada is generally stronger for those who attach
importance to their culture and ancestry but that it is necessary to
investigate why this might not always be the case. Our analysis shows
that bonding activities frequently support integration when integration
is measured using notions such as general levels of trust and sense of
Canadian identity but that differences do exist and these differences
may be associated, at least in part, to ethnic group membership. It
appears that comfort in relationships and sense of Canadian identity may
be a function of the distance of these relationships from the ethnic
centre so that bonding activities are more likely to correlate with
measures of integration for many groups in more immediate relationships,
such as those at work or in the immediate neighbourhood, but that
bonding activities will correlate with trust, as a measure of
integration, for fewer groups in more socially distant relationships. In
these cases, there may be fewer opportunities to build relationships
through direct and sustained experience and to overcome
misunderstandings and inter-personal difficulties that may arise in the
process.
Bridging activities represent an attempt to create common spaces
outside of self-identified ethnic groups, and the levels of trust
expressed in people that occupy the concentric spaces that radiate
horizontally from the ethnic centre provide a measure of perceived
success or comfort in navigating relationships outside of the
respondent's ethnic group, and in creating increasingly complex
common spaces. It appears, in some cases at least, that the level of
comfort expressed by respondents engaged in bridging activities designed
to create common spaces is a function of the physical and perhaps
cultural distance from the ethnic centre, particularly when respondents
were likely to consider particular individuals or interactions when
responding to survey questions. For example, invitations to consider
interactions or relationships with people at work or at school, or in
the neighbourhood, may be more likely to evoke recollections of specific
encounters with others outside the ethnic group, than invitations to
consider levels of trust with people generally or sense of identity with
Canada. This appears to be the case when we examine the effects of
bridging activities where bridging had a mixed effect for immigrant
respondents evaluating immediate relationships in common spaces closer
to the ethnic circle, and generally positive effects when notions of
trust or identity were evoked in non-specific or expanded contexts.
Bridging activities had a mixed effect on the likelihood that
immigrants would report trust in people at work or school. Notable
positive effects were reported for Black immigrants, while more moderate
positive effects and negative effects were reported for South Asian and
Chinese respondents respectively. Similarly, Chinese respondents
involved in bridging activities were less likely to report trust in
other people in their neighbourhoods while all other immigrants, and
other immigrants by selected groups, were more likely to express trust
at this level. The most significant effects were noted for South Asian
immigrants, with minor positive effects reported for other specified
groups excluding immigrant Chinese. As noted above, immigrant
respondents engaged in bridging activities were more likely to report
trust in people generally and a strong Canadian identity than immigrants
who were not involved in at least one bridging activity. This finding
held for all immigrant respondents considered together and for selected
immigrant groups.
Similarly textured but generally positive effects were noted for
bridging activities for non-immigrant respondents. For example, all
non-immigrant respondents together, and all specified groups, were more
likely to report trust in people at work or at school if involved in at
least one bridging activity, with the exception of South Asian
respondents. Bridging activities had a positive effect on levels of
trust in people in the neighbourhood for all non-immigrant respondents
together and for all non-immigrant groups examined, with the exception
of non-immigrant Blacks where virtually no effect was reported. Bridging
activities had a consistently positive and occasionally striking effect
on levels of trust reported for people outside of the neighborhood and
for the expression of Canadian identity. For example, nonimmigrant
Chinese engaged in bridging activities were 1.5 times more likely to
report trust in people beyond the neighbourhood and 2.3 times more
likely to report a strong Canadian identity than non-immigrant Chinese
who were not involved in at least one bridging activity.
LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE RESEARCH
Although the EDS is a very rich data source, the survey was
conducted in 2002 and the data will not reflect issues that have emerged
in the public and political discourse surrounding immigration in the
decade since. This may be especially significant given the external
military interventions that have occurred in some immigration source
countries, and ongoing political and civil unrest in others. In many
cases these discussions have drawn attention to the presence of specific
or identified immigrant and refugee groups within Canada. It is
imperative, therefore, that another comprehensive survey be conducted in
order to examine how these events have shaped the creation of social
networks and common spaces.
In addition, given the limitations of any quantitative data source,
there is a need for qualitative research in different immigrant
communities, similar to approaches already employed by Ager and Strang
(2004, 2008), to gain an in-depth understanding of some of the trends
identified in this analysis of the EDS. These trends include the strong
sense of belonging to Canada that is frequently expressed despite
experiences of discrimination and exclusion based on religion, or the
differential effect, by group, of bonding activities on expressed levels
of trust and sense of Canadian identity. This issue, in particular,
seems germane to the development of social policy and programs.
Consideration of such trends will assist in developing and refining the
conceptual model of integration presented here. In addition, although
correlations between bonding and bridging behaviours and outcomes such
as levels of trust and sense of Canadian identity have been established,
it is not possible to think about the relationships in causal terms, and
it is possible that the integration variables that have been identified
influence bridging and bonding behaviours. Longitudinal research is
needed to understand the direction and effect of the relationships that
have been identified. In addition, the model did not explore possible
negative effects of social capital on new immigrants, if social capital
is considered to exert a primarily assimilationist effect as some have
contended (Cheong et al. 2007), and if these effects have a differential
impact on immigrants based on sex or age or other factors. Thus, further
research is needed in the area of possible negative outcomes generated
by social capital.
WORKS CITED
Ager, Alastair, and Alison Strang. 2004. The Experience of
Integration: A Qualitative Study of Refugee Integration in the Local
Communities of Pollokshaws and Islington. Online report, Home Office.
http://library.npia.police.uk/docs/hordsolr/rdsolr5504.pdf.
Ager, Alastair, and Alison Strang. 2008. Understanding Integration:
A Conceptual Framework. Journal of Refugee Studies 21.2: 166-191. doi:
10.1093/jrs/fen016.
Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee. 1997. Rethinking Assimilation Theory
for a New Era of Immigration. International Migration Review 31.4:
826-874.
Banting, Keith, Thomas Courchene, and Lesley Seidle. 2007.
Diversity, Belonging and Shared Citizenship. In Belonging, Diversity,
Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada, eds. K. Banting, T. J.
Courchene and E L. Seidle, 647-682. Montreal: IRPE
Biles, John, M. Burstein, and James Frideres. 2008. Conclusion:
Canadian Society: Building Inclusive Communities. In Immigration and
Integration in Canada in the Twenty-First Century, eds. J. Biles, M.
Burstein and J. Frideres, 269-278. Montreal: McGill-Queen's
University Press.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1999. The Weight of the World. Cambridge: Polity.
Cheong, Pauline Hope, Rosalind Edwards, Harry Goulbourne and John
Solomos. 2007. Immigration, Social Capital, and Social Cohesion: A
Critical Review. Critical Social Policy 27.1: 24-49.
Citizenship and Immigration Canada. 2009. Facts and Figures
2009--Immigration Overview: Permanent and Temporary Residents. Ottawa:
Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2009/index.asp.
--.2011. Annual Report to Parliament on Immigration, 2011. Ottawa:
Citizenship and Immigration Canada.
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/pdf/publannual-report-2011.pdf.
Delhey, Jan, and Kenneth Newton. 2003. Who Trusts: The Origins of
Social Trust in Seven Societies. European Societies 5.2: 93-137.
Dib, Kamal, Ian Donaldson and Brittany Turcotte. 2008. Integration
and Identity in Canada: The Importance of Multicultural Common Spaces.
Canadian Ethnic Studies 40.1: 161-189.
Ethnic Diversity Survey Public Use Metafile. 2002 [computer file].
Data Liberation Initiative [distributor], 2005. Catalogue no.
89M0019GPE. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.
Faist, T. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration
and Transnational Social Spaces. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
Francis, Diane. 2002. Immigration: The Economic Case. Toronto: Key
Porter Books.
Frideres, James. 2008. Creating an Inclusive Society: Promoting
Social Integration in Canada. In Immigration and Integration in Canada
in the Twenty-First Century, eds. J. Biles, M. Burstein and J. Frideres,
77-102. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.
Goodhart, D. 2004. Too Diverse? Prospect 95.
http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/media/goodhart.pdf.
Hardin, Russell. 2002. Trust and Trustworthiness. New York: Russell
Sage Foundation.
Hyman, Ilene, Agnes Meinhard, and John Shields. 2011. The Role of
Multiculturalism Policy in Addressing Social Inclusion Processes in
Canada. Prepared for the Canadian Multicultural Education Foundation.
http://www.cmef.ca/Portals/7/The-Role-of-Multiculturalism-Policy-in-Addressing-Social-Inclusion.Processes-in- Canada.pdf.
Kunz, Jean, L., and Stuart Sykes. 2007. From Mosaic to Harmony:
Multicultural Canada in the 21st Century. Ottawa: Policy Research
Institute. http://www.horizons.gc.ca/doclib/SP_div_Mosaic_%20e.pdf.
Li, Peter. 2003. Deconstructing Canada's Discourse of
Immigrant Integration. Journal of International Migration and
Integration 4.3:315-355.
Li, Yaojun, Andrew Pickles, and Mike Savage. 2005. Social Capital
and Social Trust in Britain. European Sociological Review 21.2: 109-123.
Portes, Alejandro, and Patricia Landolt. 1996. The Downside of
Social Capital. The American Prospect 26: 34-47.
Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. 1997. Immigrant America: A
Portrait. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
--.2001. Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Putnam, Robert, D. 1993. The Prosperous Community. The American
Prospect 4.13. http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/DETOC/assoc/13putn.html.
--. 2000. Social Capital: Measurement and Consequences.
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2516/1825848.pdf.
Reitz, Jeffrey. 2009. Assessing Multiculturalism as a Behavioural
Theory. In Multiculturalism and Social Cohesion: Potentials and
Challenges of Diversity, eds. J. Reitz, R. Breton, K. K. Dion, and K. L.
Dion, 1-48. Breinigsville, PA: Springer.
Rumbaut, Ruben, G. 1997. Assimilation and its Discontents: Between
Rhetoric and Reality. International Migration Review 31.4: 923-960.
Statistics Canada. 2010a. The Canadian Population in 2011:
Population Counts and Growth. Catalogue number 98-310-X2011001. Ottawa:
Statistics Canada.
--. 2010b. Population Projections for Canada, Provinces and
Territories, 2009 to 2036. Catalogue number 91-520-X. Ottawa: Statistics
Canada.
Uslaner, Eric. 2002. The Moral Foundation of Trust. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Uslaner, Eric M., and Richard S. Conley. 2003. Civic Engagement and
Particularized Trust: The Ties that Bind People to their Ethnic
Community. American Politics Research 31.4:331-360.
http://apr.sagepub.com/content/31/4/331.short.
Woolcock, Michael. 1998. Social Capital and Economic Development:
Towards a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework. Theory and Society
27.2: 151-208. http://www.springerlink.com/content/rj58534767m2j644/.
Woolcock, Michael, and Deepa Narrayan. 2000. Social Capital:
Implications for Development Theory, Research and Policy. World Bank
Research Observer 15.2: 225-249.
http://wbro.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/2/225.abstract.
RICHARD ENNS is Associate Dean of the Central and Northern Alberta
Region in the Faculty of Social Work, University of Calgary. His
research interests include the housing circumstances of refugees in
Edmonton and across western Canada. He is also currently involved in
research examining refugee housing and homelessness globally and a
comparative analysis of international compliance with obligations
undertaken to support refugees and refugee resettlement.
ANNA KIROVA is Professor of Early Childhood Education, Faculty of
Education, University of Alberta. Her research focuses mostly on the
need for understanding the culturally and linguistically diverse
children's experiences of loneliness and isolation at school, and
the possibility such an understanding offers for culturally responsive
pedagogy. She developed and implemented innovative collaborative
research approaches that engage children, communities and not-for-profit
organizations as co-researchers. Her wide-ranging repertoire of research
methods includes hermeneutic phenomenology, arts-based methodologies,
and community-based participatory action research aimed at gaining
insights into human phenomena by including vulnerable populations such
as visible and religious minority immigrants and refugees in research
that is both meaningful and empowering.
DAVID CONNOLLY is a Master's student in Economics at the
University of Alberta. He has worked as a research assistant examining
immigrant integration in Canada using Statistics Canada's Ethnic
Diversity Survey (2002).
TABLE 1. Odds Ratios for Bonding and Bridging Activities and
Sense of Belonging to Ethnic Group by EDS-specified Group
Bonding Activities Bridging Activities
EDS-specified Odds Lower Odds Lower
Groups ratio CL Upper CL ratio CL Upper CL
Immigrant
All 2.51 2.19 2.87 .83 .74 0.93
Chinese 1.67 1.14 2.45 .56 .38 0.83
South Asian 2.91 1.90 4.48 .80 .51 1.24
Black 3.10 1.34 7.17 .95 .54 1.69
Other visible 2.02 1.41 2.89 .75 .54 1.05
Non-visible 3.18 2.63 3.84 .91 .79 1.06
Non-immigrant
All 2.74 2.44 3.07 1.02 .95 1.08
Chinese 2.72 1.56 4.72 .70 .49 1.02
South Asian 3.30 1.86 5.85 .73 .44 1.22
Black 2.59 1.13 5.98 .67 .37 1.22
Other visible 3.05 1.83 5.10 .84 .57 1.24
Non-visible 2.74 2.43 3.09 1.02 .96 1.09
TABLE 2. Odds Ratios for Bonding and Bridging Activities and
Sense of Trust in Co-workers or Classmates by EDS-specified Group
Bonding Activities Bridging Activities
EDS-specified Odds Lower Odds Lower
Groups ratio CL CL Upper ratio CL Upper CL
Immigrant
All 1.30 1.13 1.50 1.18 1.04 1.34
Chinese 1.36 .85 2.19 .85 .53 1.37
South Asian 1.06 .68 1.65 1.24 .71 2.16
Black 1.40 .72 2.72 1.76 .97 3.18
Other visible 1.28 .82 2.00 1.28 .92 1.77
Non-visible 1.27 1.01 1.59 1.09 .92 1.30
Non-immigrant
All 1.34 1.17 1.53 1.23 1.14 1.33
Chinese 1.53 .79 2.98 1.20 .83 1.74
South Asian 1.42 .86 2.35 .90 .57 1.43
Black 0.98 .49 1.96 1.32 .77 2.25
Other visible 2.57 1.57 4.20 1.57 1.09 2.27
Non-visible 1.32 1.15 1.52 1.23 1.14 1.33
TABLE 3. Odds Ratios for Bonding and Bridging Activities
and Sense of Trust in People in Neighbourhood by EDS-specified Group
Bonding Activities Bridging Activities
EDS-specified Odds Lower Odds Lower
Groups ratio CL Upper CL ratio CL Upper CL
Immigrant
All 1.34 1.17 1.53 1.18 1.05 1.32
Chinese 1.19 .82 1.73 .86 .53 1.40
South Asian 1.89 1.21 2.94 1.81 1.09 3.02
Black 1.14 .59 2.23 1.05 .62 1.77
Other visible 1.19 .84 1.68 1.15 .85 1.55
Non-visible 1.29 1.07 1.56 1.12 .97 1.30
Non-immigrant
All 1.31 1.15 1.48 1.20 1.12 1.29
Chinese 1.80 1.04 3.09 1.51 1.02 2.24
South Asian 1.71 .93 3.13 1.24 .76 2.03
Black 1.71 .84 3.51 0.99 .57 1.73
Other visible 2.00 1.16 3.45 1.51 1.09 2.10
Non-visible 1.29 1.13 1.48 1.20 1.11 1.29
TABLE 4. Odds Ratios for Bonding and Bridging Activities
and Sense of Generalized Trust by EDS-specified Group
Bonding Activities Bridging Activities
EDS-specified Odds Lower Odds Lower
Groups ratio CL Upper CL ratio CL Upper CL
Immigrant
All 1.50 1.27 1.76 1.57 1.38 1.78
Chinese 1.27 .77 2.11 1.26 .78 2.05
South Asian 1.81 1.12 2.92 1.08 .65 1.80
Black .86 .35 2.08 1.51 .79 2.87
Other visible 1.41 .90 2.20 2.34 1.61 3.42
Non-visible 1.63 1.29 2.07 1.45 1.23 1.70
Non-immigrant
All 1.35 1.16 1.58 1.49 1.37 1.62
Chinese 1.28 .71 2.30 1.47 .96 2.26
South Asian 1.56 .80 3.03 1.39 .85 2.27
Black .93 .40 2.15 1.74 .95 3.17
Other visible 1.36 1.16 1.60 1.49 1.36 1.62
Non-visible 1.23 .73 2.07 1.20 .81 1.77
TABLE 5. Odds Ratios for Bonding and Bridging Activities
and Strong Canadian Identity by EDS-specified Group
Bonding Activities Bridging Activities
EDS-specified Odds Lower Odds Lower
Groups ratio CL Upper CL ratio CL Upper CL
Immigrant
All .87 .74 1.03 1.32 1.16 1.51
Chinese 1.42 .88 2.29 1.44 .89 2.34
South Asian 1.00 .60 1.65 1.43 .79 2.57
Black 1.74 .67 4.57 1.94 .80 4.66
Other visible .41 .22 .76 1.52 1.00 2.30
Non-visible .79 .64 .98 1.20 1.03 1.41
Non-immigrant
All 1.06 .92 1.22 1.17 1.08 1.28
Chinese 1.18 .65 2.15 2.30 1.45 3.64
South Asian 1.05 .50 2.18 1.09 .63 1.87
Black 1.22 .59 2.52 1.23 .71 2.14
Other visible 1.44 .80 2.59 1.04 .70 1.53
Non-visible 1.05 .91 1.22 1.17 1.08 1.27
Fig. 1. Indicators of Integration Framework
Adapted from Ager and Strang 2008.
Means and
markers Employment Housing Education Health
Social Social brides Social bonds Social links
connections
Facilitators Language and Safety and
cultural knowledge stability
Foundation Rights and citizenship
