LABOUR MARKET PERCEPTIONS 1 Ethnic and Gender Differences in the Labour Market Perceptions of Post-Higher Education JobSeekers : „ Double Jeopardy ‟ or „ Ethnic Prominence ‟ ?

Ethnic and gender differences in perceptions of graduate job acquisition difficulty among UK post-higher education job-seekers were investigated. Two main hypotheses were compared: the double jeopardy hypothesis (DJH), suggesting an additive or interactive increase in perceived difficulty associated with membership of different disadvantaged demographic categories; and the ethnic prominence hypothesis, arguing for the salience of ethnicity over gender in perceptions. Graduates and final year students (N = 800) from Black, Indian, Pakistani / Bangladeshi and White ethnic backgrounds rated the level of difficulty that a suitably qualified man and woman from their own ethnic background would encounter in attaining ten graduate jobs. Interactions between participant ethnic background and gender of job-seeker rated were examined in the context of the competing hypotheses. The perceptions of men, and Indian and Pakistani / Bangladeshi women, were consistent with the additive DJH, whereas Black women‟s perceptions were not. It is concluded that: (1) the perceptions of the latter group may reflect knowledge of Black male disadvantage, or negative stereotyping with respect to employment in the UK graduate labour market; and (2) perceptions of double jeopardy by some female graduates may have negative effects on their job-seeking endeavours. LABOUR MARKET PERCEPTIONS 4 Ethnic and Gender Differences in the Labour Market Perceptions of Post-Higher Education Job-Seekers: „Double Jeopardy‟ or „Ethnic Prominence‟? Recent studies in several countries suggest that ethnic background and gender are related to graduate labour market outcomes (Brekke, 2007; Lewis & Oh, 2009). In the UK, Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) statistics have illustrated that, collectively, graduates from UK Black and minority ethnic groups are less successful in job acquisition six months after graduation compared to White graduates (HESA, 2004). However, such homogeneous figures do not illustrate differences between minority groups; some groups are considerably more disadvantaged than others, both with respect to unemployment and positions occupied within the workforce. With regard to gender, UK working women have continued to fall behind men in terms of both pay and opportunity (Women and Work Commission, 2006). Furthermore, 2001 2002 UK Labour Force survey figures showed that, in terms of salary and job status, recent graduate women earned 15% less than their male counterparts (Equal Opportunities Commission [EOC], 2005). The present research considers how membership of different social groups affects perceptions of job acquisition difficulty as a contribution towards the debate as to how these demographic differences might arise. In combination with indirect discrimination and other forms of situational disadvantage, socialization processes may lead different demographic groups to have differing perceptions of the appropriateness of certain jobs. Consequently, occupational segregation observed in the UK labour market (see, e.g., Blackburn & Jarman, 2006) may be partially explained by members of some groups avoiding occupations they perceive as inappropriate or less accessible. For example, individuals of certain social groups may perceive certain occupations to be the domain of other (possibly more advantaged) groups, either because they feel unable to be successful at such occupations or because they anticipate LABOUR MARKET PERCEPTIONS 5 lack of success due to employer allocation of positions on demographic grounds. This would be consistent with the “looking-glass self” hypothesis (Mead, 1934) which contends that stigmatization leads to low self-esteem because other people‟s negative reactions become part of a person‟s self-perceptions. Such lower self-esteem could result in members of disadvantaged groups avoiding certain graduate-level jobs. The above suggests that both ethnic background and gender will affect perceptions of job acquisition difficulty. The aim of the present study was to investigate such demographic differences in the level of job acquisition difficulty perceived by people leaving higher education. In addition, the joint effects of gender and ethnic background were investigated within the framework of two competing hypotheses; the double jeopardy and ethnic prominence hypotheses. Both hypotheses relate to the fact that many individuals are members of more than one disadvantaged social group, but differ with respect to the impact of such multi-category membership. The double jeopardy hypothesis The social sciences have utilised the term „double jeopardy‟ (or „multiple jeopardy‟) to describe how risks inherent in membership of more vulnerable social groups combine or interact to intensify disadvantage if an individual has membership of more than one such group simultaneously. For example, a woman from a less advantaged minority ethnic background seeking work might be doubly disadvantaged in terms of her gender and her ethnic background, one strand of social disadvantage augmenting (or intensifying) the other. In this connection, Beale (1970) used imagery of a totem pole to illustrate the social and economic situation of African American women, who, she stated, occupied the lowest totem pole rank, with their gender, ethnic background and socio-economic situation incurring multiple disadvantage. In the same vein, Greene (1994) and Bowleg, Huang, Brooks, Black LABOUR MARKET PERCEPTIONS 6 and Burkholder (2003), who highlight sexuality, suggest that some people are in a situation of triple jeopardy. The double jeopardy hypothesis consists of two variants. The first, termed „additive‟, (see Figure 1) implies that the total disadvantage perceived is the aggregate of individual demographic components. Therefore, disadvantage / discrimination perceived because one is female would be experienced in addition to that perceived because one has a minority ethnic background. The second variant is termed „interactive‟ or „multiplicative‟, and describes as interacting synergistically. According to this variant then, having membership of a disadvantaged ethnic group and gender would incur greater penalties than those of ethnic and gender membership added together (Rothman, 1999; Sidanius & Veniegas, 2000; Vieregge, 2003). With respect to both variants, it has been argued that women from some ethnic minority backgrounds are doubly disadvantaged by employer assumptions about their family plans, and by attitudes towards their dress (EOC, 2005). Furthermore, some Muslim women report perceptions of such a double disadvantage (Tyrer & Ahmad, 2006). Studies of the circumstances under which either additivity or interactivity applies in the economic arena are rare, but work on labour market equality that does exist tends to focus upon wage gaps. Browne and Misra (2003) reviewed this literature and concluded that although the mechanisms by which additivity applies in some circumstances but interactivity applies in others are not well understood, US research suggests that one major reason for interactive disadvantages experienced by ethnic minority females may be stereotyping of them as only being suited to menial / servile tasks (Browne & Misra, 2003). The ethnic prominence hypothesis LABOUR MARKET PERCEPTIONS 7 An alternative to the double jeopardy hypothesis suggests that ethnic minority individuals belonging to more than one disadvantaged demographic group should perceive their ethnicity as making them particularly vulnerable to disadvantage. Researching perceptions of discrimination among African American, Hispanic and White men and women, Levin, Sinclair, Veniegas and Taylor (2002) termed this the „ethnic prominence hypothesis‟. The first strand of supporting evidence was drawn from social cognition – specifically from McGuire and McGuire‟s (1988) contention that the smaller the numerical size of a social group, the greater the likelihood that membership of the group will be a salient aspect of its members‟ self-perceptions. This perspective is closely aligned to the distinctiveness hypothesis, which utilizes ideas on salience from object perception (Oakes, 1987). Levin et al. proposed that, when gender and ethnic background are considered together with regard to level of discrimination expected, women from an ethnic minority background would consider their ethnicity as salient, as numerically this social category is smaller and therefore more distinctive. As a second strand of evidence offered in support of their hypothesis Levin et al. (2002) presented evidence from Jackman (1994), who described and compared differing long-term „relations of inequality‟ in the US based on race, gender and social class. Presupposing that human behaviour is governed by self-interest, Jackman suggests that maximization of one‟s share of finite resources involves a relationship whereby a dominant group expropriates resources from a subordinate group. She argued that varying forms of ideological persuasion based on paternalism, created and subsequently used by dominant groups seeking to maintain control of resources, sustain these relations of inequality. Jackman (1994) proposed that paternalism works less well for some social groups. Whilst gender relationship dynamics are more facilitating, ethnic spatial segregation is a barrier to the interactions which enable paternalism to be successful in relations of inequality. LABOUR MARKET PERCEPTIONS 8 She sees this as an important factor in the emergence of intergroup conflict. Levin et al. (2002) argue that for women from minority ethnic backgrounds, the greater level of conflict inherent in ethnic discrimination causes it to have greater salience than gender discrimination in their perceptions. The Levin et al. study found that, whilst White women were sensitive to general gender discrimination, the perceptions of both Latina and African American ethnic minority women were aligned to those of their male counterparts