Bynner, C. (2019) Intergroup relations in a super-diverse neighbourhood: the dynamics of population composition, context and community. Urban Studies, 56(2), pp. 335-351. (doi:10.1177/0042098017740287) This is the author’s final accepted version. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/149435/ Deposited on: 31 October 2017 Enlighten – Research publications by members of the University of Glasgow http://eprints.gla.ac.uk Page 1 of 38 Urban Studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Intergroup relations in a super-diverse neighbourhood: the dynamics of population 10 11 composition, context and community 12 13 14 Abstract 15 16 17 There is now an extensive literature demonstrating that experiences of migration and diversity 18 19 differ significantly between and across local geographies. Three broad explanations for 20 21 differences in local outcomes have been put forward (Robinson, 2010): first, population 22 23 composition – the characteristics of individuals living in the neighbourhood; second, context – 24 25 the social and physical environment; and third, community – socio-cultural histories and 26 27 collective identities. Few studies examine the linkages between all three explanations and their 28 29 30 relative importance. This article applies all three explanations to intergroup relations in a 31 32 super-diverse context. It draws on data from a mixed methods case study of a neighbourhood 33 34 in Glasgow, Scotland where long-term white and ethnic minority communities reside alongside 35 36 Central and Eastern European migrants, refugees, and other recent arrivals. The evidence 37 38 comprises local statistics and documentary evidence, participant observation, qualitative and 39 40 walk-along interviews with residents and local organisations. The findings highlight the 41 42 43 different ways in which people respond to super-diversity; and the importance of the 44 45 neighbourhood context and material conditions for inter-group relations. The paper thus 46 47 demonstrates the ambiguities that arise from applying the dynamics of population 48 49 composition, context and community to neighbourhood analysis, with implications for the 50 51 study of neighbourhoods more widely. 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Urban Studies Page 2 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Keywords: Neighbourhood, Migration, Housing, super-diversity, intergroup contact 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 3 of 38 Urban Studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Introduction 10 11 12 This paper contributes to knowledge (Vertovec 2007; Phillips and Robinson 2015; Wessendorf 13 14 2014a) on the causes of outcomes for intergroup relations between migrants and settled 15 16 communities living in super-diversei areas. It highlights the role of housing conditions and 17 18 19 examines how the experience of worsening material conditions influences the nature of public 20 21 discourse on issues of neighbourhood identity, diversity and community. In doing so, it moves 22 23 the analysis towards a deeper understanding of complex processes of neighbourhood change 24 25 and the influences of these processes on the ability for individuals to negotiate differences and 26 27 overcome divisions within and between social groups. This study makes three key 28 29 contributions to the literature. First, it provides support for the argument that increasing 30 31 32 ethnic and migrant diversity effects different social groups in different ways, but is not in itself 33 34 a sufficient explanation for reduced intergroup contact and trust. Second, this study explores 35 36 the dynamics linking population composition, socio -economic context and place-based 37 38 identities to outcomes for intergroup relations. Third, it applies the concept of social milieus 39 40 (Vester 2005; Bourdieu 1984; Durkheim 2014a; 2014b) as a method of identifying and 41 42 categorising migrant and settled populations in a super-diverse context. The evidence 43 44 45 presented is relevant to international studies of intergroup relations, social capital, diversity 46 47 and neighbourhoods. 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Urban Studies Page 4 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The concept of ‘intergroup contact’ originated in the field of social psychology with the work 10 11 of Allport (1979) on prejudice. There is now a wide-ranging literature that examines intergroup 12 13 contact and the conditions by which individual experiences of contact with diverse others 14 15 become generalised (Hodson & Hewstone 2013; Vezzali & Stathi 2016). The notion of 16 17 intergroup contact is closely aligned to intergroup trust (or trust in members of out-groupsii), 18 19 which, like contact, is highly contested. This article focusses mainly on intergroup contact, 20 21 described here as face- to-face interaction between members of defined groups (Pettigrew & 22 23 24 Tropp 2006). In the study of super-diversity, the term ‘intergroup’ is useful because it opens 25 26 the analysis to a wider range of social differences besides ethnicity. The term ‘groups’ is used 27 28 in this study to refer to social formations that are reified within a super-diverse context. It is 29 30 not intended that these are understood as real groups or to ignore the existence of in-group 31 32 differences. 33 34 35 36 37 38 There is now an extensive literature demonstrating that experiences of migration, diversity 39 40 and outcomes for intergroup relations vary significantly across local geographies. Yet 41 42 43 according to Robinson (2010) surprisingly few studies have attempted to explain these 44 45 geographical variations. Drawing on the literature from public health (Cummins et al. 2007; 46 47 Macintyre, Ellaway, and Cummins 2002), Robinson (2010) developed a framework to 48 49 conceptualise place-effects on experiences of migration highlighting three broad themes from 50 51 extant literature. First, population composition – the characteristics of individuals living in the 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Page 5 of 38 Urban Studies 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 neighbourhood (who lives there?); second, context – opportunity structures in the local social 10 11 and physical environment (what resources are there?); and third, community – socio-cultural 12 13 histories, collective identities and cultures (who belongs?). These three themes, described here 14 15 as ‘Robinson’s Framework’, provide an approach to organising and explaining why intergroup 16 17 relations vary at a local level. They are conceptualised here not as ‘mutually exclusive or 18 19 competing explanations’ but as ‘overlapping aspects of local context’ (Platts-Fowler and 20 21 Robinson 2015, p.477). Previous studies have not fully examined the linkages and 22 23 24 interrelations between these themes and their relative importance remains unclear. This 25 26 paper seeks to examine these meta-explanations in relation to a single in depth case study in 27 28 order to uncover the dynamics between them. 29 30 31 32 33 34 The findings from this study show that declining housing and environmental conditions and 35 36 processes of neighbourhood change can counter an otherwise positive narrative of 37 38 neighbourhood diversity as commonplace (Wessendorf 2014a). Poor material conditions 39 40 weaken intergroup relations, leading to restrictive claims to membership of ‘the community’ 41 42 43 and struggles to dominate and control representations of the neighbourhood. The driver of 44 45 this change is not migration as is commonly assumed, but the outmigration of owner-occupiers 46 47 from the neighbourhood followed by the back filling of vacant properties with poor quality 48 49 private lets. Worsening housing conditions drive wider neighbourhood and environmental 50 51 decline and serve to undermine social relations across all resident groups. The focus of this 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 Urban Studies Page 6 of 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 article is on the mechanisms that link changing population composition, socio-economic and 10 11 housing conditions, and the functioning of ‘community’. It highlights the importance of the 12 13 contextual features of place, in particular material conditions for positive intergroup relations. 14 15 The paper begins by reviewing the evidence on local outcomes for inter-group relations 16 17 applying Robinson’s Framework (2010). This is followed by a description of case site selection, 18 19 the methods used in this study and case study findings. The ensuing discussion considers the 20 21 dynamics of neighbourhood effects and multi-level explanations for intergroup relations in 22 23 24 super-diverse neighbourhoods. 25 26 27 28 29 30 Intergroup relations in super-diverse neighbourhoods 31 32 33 In contrast to the discrete and more or less homogenous and distinct cultural groups of the 34 35 post-world war two era; super-diverse contexts are characterised by a proliferation of much 36 37 smaller, more fragmented migrant groups (Vertovec 2007; Phillimore 2011). Within the city, 38 39 40 they perform a function as a site of arrival and temporary settlement indicated by the range of 41 42 terms used to describe them. They have been defined as ‘contact zones’ (Robinson, Reeve, 43 44 and Casey 2007); ‘gateway neighbourhoods’ (Slater 2004); ‘global neighbourhoods’(Logan and 45 46 Zhang 2010); ‘escalator areas’ (Travers et al. 2007); and ‘high migration clusters’ (Poppleton et 47 48 al. 2013). Pemberton & Phillimore (2016) note that there is no clear dividing line between a 49 50 ‘multicultural’ area and one that is ‘super-diverse’.