We have a long history of publishing in the area of social justice and are committed to progressive social change. Since our inception 25 years ago, we have built a reputation for publishing scholarship that focuses on improving individual lives and that reaches beyond academia to government, professionals and the wider public to inform policy and practice.
Key to our publishing in this area is the Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, an internationally unique forum for leading research on the themes of poverty and social justice, the SSSP Agendas for Social Justice series, and the Key Issues in Social Justice series.
Social Justice and Human Rights
You are looking at 81 - 90 of 1,071 items
Using the Evidence for Equality National Survey (EVENS), this chapter demonstrates how ethnic minority groups in Britain are subject to material deprivation in residential experience, yet succeed in developing strong local attachment and enriching this during times of crisis. It presents evidence on ethnic inequalities in housing type, overcrowding, multigenerational living, access to greenspace and residential mobility, with attention to variation within Britain and ethnic groups that are absent from other studies (such as Roma and Gypsy Traveller). It finds, for example, that spatial pressure in households is more prevalent among all ethnic minority groups compared to White British people. This is a notable concern for three-generation households, which are particularly common in the Pakistani and Roma ethnic groups. Despite housing deprivation, analyses of local belonging point to community mechanisms and networks of solidarity being mobilised during the COVID-19 pandemic in diverse neighbourhoods.
This chapter outlines how the book provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date evidence on ethnic inequalities in Britain. Situating the book in a concern for racial justice and a framing that sees racism as a systemic driver of inequalities, the chapter reviews concepts of ethnicity, race and racism; the deficiencies of ethnicity data; and the dilemmas of ethnic categorisation before making the case for the value of the new and innovative Evidence for Equality National Survey (EVENS). It orients readers to the style and structure of the book – and the options to read cover to cover or to ‘dip in’ ‒ and to expect expert discipline-oriented empirical chapters within a framing that speaks across disciplines to vital questions of racism and ethnic inequality.
This chapter outlines how the Evidence for Equality National Survey (EVENS) was made; how the pioneering non-probability approach was implemented by the EVENS team and Ipsos. It documents the EVENS methods of making the invitation to participate open to all; questionnaire design and recruitment, including the importance of partnering with key race equality voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations; responsive adaptation to fieldwork methods (particularly procedures for data collection, data monitoring and quality assurance); and implementation of comprehensive post-fieldwork data adjustments to ensure a complete, robust dataset. Details of the EVENS sample are provided, demonstrating how data generated with the innovative EVENS methods can be used as representative of ethnic minority people in Britain. As a successful example of a non-traditional, non-probability approach to social surveys, EVENS presents a challenge to data producers and data users to better represent ethnic minority populations.
This chapter examines ethnic differences in levels of political and civic engagement, using data produced by the Evidence for National Equality Survey (EVENS). It begins with the following question: how much trust do people have in different levels of government in relation to pandemic management? In particular, it looks at interethnic differences in the levels of trust in the UK Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and local mayors. It then considers the levels of political interest across ethnic groups. Our findings suggest that people from most ethnic minority backgrounds tend to express more political trust and more political interest than people from a White British background. The chapter also compares patterns of political party preferences across ethnic groups and across England, Scotland and Wales. Finally, it gives an overview of the very strong level of support towards the Black Lives Matter movement, although the extent of this support varied across ethnic groups.
ePUB and ePDF available Open Access under CC-BY-NC-ND licence.
This book examines how ethnicity shaped experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic in Britain.
Drawing from the Evidence for Equality National Survey (EVENS), the book compares the experiences of ethnic and religious minority groups and White British people in work and finances, housing and communities, health and wellbeing, policing and politics, racism and discrimination in the UK. Using unrivalled data in terms of population and topic coverage and complete with bespoke graphics, contributors present new evidence of ethnic inequalities and racism, opening them up to debate as crucial social concerns.
Written by leading international experts in the field, this is a must-read for anyone interested in contemporary ethnic inequalities and racism, from academics and policy makers to voluntary and community sector organisations.
This chapter examines the experiences of racism and discrimination reported by different ethnic groups in the UK, using data produced by the Evidence for National Equality Survey (EVENS). Comparisons are drawn between the racism and discrimination reported as having occurred prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and those reported after the start of the pandemic. The chapter focuses on racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to property) and racial discrimination occurring in institutional and social settings, comparing the experiences of different ethnic groups, which forms of racism and discrimination are most prevalent, how experiences differ by gender and what the impact of the pandemic has been. In addition, the analysis examines the extent to which ethnic minority people are concerned about possibly experiencing racism and discrimination. Finally it examines respondents’ experiences of policing during the pandemic.
This chapter uses data produced by the Evidence for National Equality Survey (EVENS) to focus on two inter-related domains of ethnic inequalities in socioeconomic circumstances: general socioeconomic status and socioeconomic status under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic. It describes ethnic inequalities in a range of socioeconomic measures: education, occupation, tenure and financial situation before the COVID-19 outbreak. It then focuses on how people’s financial situations have changed during the course of the pandemic, whether people have been receiving income-related benefits, whether they have experienced income change and to what extent they worry about their finances. The findings demonstrate that even though many ethnic groups show an advantage in terms of educational level, they still experience much more hardship compared to the White British population. Moreover, existing financial difficulties experienced by ethnic minorities have been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic – almost all ethnic groups report more financial struggle compared to the pre-pandemic rates. Altogether, the findings point to persistent ethnic inequalities in experiencing hardship.
This chapter looks at the labour market status of all ethnic groups using data produced by the Evidence for National Equality Survey (EVENS). It also studies their labour market outcomes in the form of labour force participation, employment and unemployment during the COVID-19 pandemic, both in absolute terms and relative to the White British majority. Furthermore, it compares the precarious employment (solo self-employed, temporary employment or zero-hours contracts) situation of ethnic minority groups to that of White British people. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, workers were placed on furlough, increased their work hours, took reductions in pay and changed occupations. This chapter therefore studies the differences in probability of these events occurring between ethnic minority people and their White British counterparts. Finally, it addresses the question whether ethnic minority people experience a greater probability of worrying about job security than White British people. Importantly, the analysis treats women and men separately throughout the chapter.
The nature of political hacking represents a clear challenge to the legitimate use of political violence. It acts outside the traditional state infrastructures and mechanisms, and often against the state itself, which for many means that regardless of what good it brings it should be ethically discounted as an illegitimate actor threatening the social stability. Concerns over the ability of hackers to cause significant damage or harm to people’s lives and the critical infrastructure of the political community do have some merit. They are a highly closeted, elite and unknown quantity; their branding is menacing and for those on the outside there does not seem to be any means of controlling what they do. Indeed, the state has a long-held dominance as the only legitimate actor to use violence for good reason, including protecting people from harm, arbitrating disagreements and facilitating that the correct quantum of impact is being delivered to the correct people. However, this is becoming increasingly challenged, not least because the state and its representatives have shown themselves to be a direct threat to people’s vital interests. As such there can be an ethical space for political hacking when it acts to protect people from harm. In order to make this determination, however, there is a need for an explicit and systematic ethical framework that can recognize the ethical value of political hacking. One which helps guide the hacker community with clearer fundamental ethical principles, as well as how these principles can then be manifested in various mechanisms for guiding ethical behaviour, highlighting to the rest of the political community when to leave the hackers alone, and how this might work through real-world illustrative examples.
This chapter expands the debate from informational rights to look at non-cyber, non-information related threats, including when the state and its representatives fail to, first, provide and enact good laws equally and fairly, including the failure to apply fair processes, equal treatment, misapplying laws, and lacking the ability and political will to enforce the good laws; or second, when the state develops unjustifiably harmful laws, policies, procedures or institutional cultures. It will argue that in both instances, given the failure of the state and the subsequent threat these failures represent, hackers can use political violence to defend people from harm, though the type of response must be matched to the threat posed. This chapter will look at police brutality; the failure of due and fair process; the development of laws that seek to directly discriminate and foster hatred and violence against members of the LGBTQ+ community; and the locating and unmasking of online paedophiles.
