1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Is labour market discrimination against ethnic minorities better explained by taste or statistics? A systematic review of the empirical evidence

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references101

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

          The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.

              The present article presents a meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. With 713 independent samples from 515 studies, the meta-analysis finds that intergroup contact typically reduces intergroup prejudice. Multiple tests indicate that this finding appears not to result from either participant selection or publication biases, and the more rigorous studies yield larger mean effects. These contact effects typically generalize to the entire outgroup, and they emerge across a broad range of outgroup targets and contact settings. Similar patterns also emerge for samples with racial or ethnic targets and samples with other targets. This result suggests that contact theory, devised originally for racial and ethnic encounters, can be extended to other groups. A global indicator of Allport's optimal contact conditions demonstrates that contact under these conditions typically leads to even greater reduction in prejudice. Closer examination demonstrates that these conditions are best conceptualized as an interrelated bundle rather than as independent factors. Further, the meta-analytic findings indicate that these conditions are not essential for prejudice reduction. Hence, future work should focus on negative factors that prevent intergroup contact from diminishing prejudice as well as the development of a more comprehensive theory of intergroup contact. Copyright 2006 APA.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                (View ORCID Profile)
                Journal
                Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
                Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies
                Informa UK Limited
                1369-183X
                1469-9451
                December 12 2022
                April 11 2022
                December 12 2022
                : 48
                : 17
                : 4243-4276
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Economics, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium
                [2 ]Department of Sociology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussel, Belgium
                [3 ]Department of Sociology, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium
                [4 ]Institute of Economic and Social Research (IRES), Université catholique de Louvain, Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium
                Article
                10.1080/1369183X.2022.2050191
                5cf2a373-3d46-4c1a-89f3-6eada900404f
                © 2022

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article