Date post: | 14-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | mckenzie-everley |
View: | 224 times |
Download: | 4 times |
27/03/2012
University of Oxford
Impact of Diversity on Intergroup Relations: The Missing Dimension of Intergroup Contact
Miles Hewstone
Seminar, University of Helsinki, Finland, May 11, 2012
2
Outline
2
Impact of diversity: Putnam’s pessimistic prognosesTypes of intergroup contact: Whether and how they work Direct and extended forms of contact
Impact of contact Focus: generalized/’secondary transfer’ effects
Archival re-analysis of contact effects in extreme conditions Rescuers of Jews from Nazi Europe
Observational research on intergroup contactConclusions
Impact of diversity: Putnam’s pessimistic prognoses
3
LowerPrejudice
Opportunityfor contact
+ Out-group friends
-Percentage of Out-groupers
+
Percentage of Out-groupers
+ Higher Threat/Competition
HigherPrejudice
+
Putnam’s (2007) ‘Diversity-Distrust Hypothesis’: Threat vs Opportunity
4
Threat Theory
Contact Hypothesis
= ‘conflict theory’ (Putnam, 2007): “diversity fosters out-group distrust and in-group solidarity” (p. 142)
“I think it is fair to say that most (though not all) empirical studies have tended instead to support conflict theory ” (Putnam, 2007, p. 142)
5
5
“In colloquial language, people living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ – that is, to pull in like a turtle.” (Putnam, 2007, p. 149)
Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 137-174.
What is the relationship between diversity and trust? Mixed Findings
More Diversity Less Trust Putnam (2007); Lancee & Dronkers (2008); Fieldhouse &
Cutts (2010)
More Diversity More Trust Marschall & Stolle (2004; Black sample); Fieldhouse &
Cutts (2010; ethnic minority sample in UK); Morales &
Echazarra (forthcoming)
More Diversity No effect on Trust Marschall & Stolle (2004; White sample); Gesthuizen, van
der Meer & Scheepers (2008); Hooghe et al. (2008)
7
8
Some Critical Issues in the Putnam Diversity Hypothesis
8
Role of disadvantage
Measures of Diversity
Index used
Level of measured diversity
Missing or inappropriate measures of
intergroup contact
Putnam uses high-threshold measure of contact (friends)
Does not test whether contact mediates or moderates
diversity effect
9
‘The Contact Hypothesis’ (Allport, 1954)
Positive contact with a member of another group (often a negatively stereotyped group) can improve negative attitudes:
-- not only towards the specific member, --but also towards the group as a whole
9
10
Does Contact Work?Results of a ‘Meta–Analysis’
Number of Studies: 515 studies
Dates of Studies: 1940s -- 2000
Participants: 250,089 people from 38 nations
Consistent, significant negative effect: more contact, less prejudice
• The more rigorous the research, the larger the effect
(Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006, 2011)
10
11Do We Have Enough Evidence To Challenge Putnamand Impact Policy?
Imagine you give evidence to the government on the relevance of your work (e.g., on improving inter-ethnic relations), armed with a data base consisting purely of studies using under-graduates. You are left … exposed!
11
12Significant Weaknesses of Prior Research on Contact
Failure to study contact: (1) over time (2) at the level of the neighbourhood (3) taking account of diversity as well as deprivation (4) using multi-level analysis
12
(PIs: M. Hewstone, A. Heath, C. Peach, S. Spencer; Post docs: A. Al Ramiah, N. Demireva, S. Hussain, K. Schmid)
Test of integrated model of group threat theory and contact theory, to examine relationship between macro-level diversity and both individual-level and neighbourhood-level attitudinal outcomes
Sampled respondents from neighbourhoods of varying degrees of ethnic diversity
Control for additional key macro-level variable: neighbourhood deprivation
13
Oxford Leverhulme Project
14
Between-level neighbourhood measures
14
Percentage Non-White British (range: 1% - 84%)
Index of multiple deprivation (IMD; based on variety of indicators, e.g. income, employment, health deprivation)
Analysis
Data hierarchically ordered in a two-level structure (respondents nested within neighbourhoods)
Multilevel structural equation modeling to account for both within-level and between-level variance of constructs
15
Overview of research
Test of effects of diversity on: Outgroup trust Ingroup trust Neighbourhood trust
Focus on key role of intergroup contact
16
16
Putnam (2007)
PERCEIVED THREAT
TRUSTDIVERSITY+ –
–
Diversity is perceived as threatening and has negative consequences for trust
17
17
Our Research
+ –
Prediction: Diversity will have positive indirect effects on trust
INTERGROUP CONTACT
PERCEIVED THREAT
TRUSTDIVERSITY+ –
–
Diversity offers opportunities for positive contact
Positive contact reduces perceived threat
18
18
Results: White British respondents (N = 868)
Trust in neighbo
urs
Diversity(Ethnic
fractionalization)
.55**
–.34***
–.23**
–.43***
Ingroup Trust
Outgroup Trust
Perceived Threat
Intergroup
Contact
–.29***
–.30***
Diversity has positive indirect effects on TrustOutgroup Trust (b = .31, z = 2.93, p < .01), Ingroup Trust (b = .21, z = 2.72, p < .01), Neighbourhood Trust (b = .23, z = 2.93, p < .01)
19
19
Results: Ethnic minority respondents (N = 797)
Trust in neighbo
urs
Diversity(Herfindahl)
.30**
–.38*** –.30**
*
Ingroup Trust
Outgroup Trust
Perceived Threat
Intergroup
Contact
–.31***
–.22***
.16*
.17*
.24**
.21**
Diversity has positive indirect effects on TrustOutgroup Trust (b = .16, z = 2.65, p < .01), Ingroup Trust (b = .16, z = 2.60, p = .01), Neighbourhood Trust (b = .12, z = 2.42, p = .02)
20
20
Contextual effect of intergroup contact
Do individuals from different contexts who have the same amount of intergroup contact differ in their intergroup attitudes?
Does the context influence intergroup attitudes over and above individual level variables?
If so, then context drives this difference (contextual effect) -- can’t be explained with individual level variables.
21
Contextual effect of intergroup contact
Direct Intergroup Contact
Intergroup attitudes(i.e., prejudice)
Within Group Effect (Level 1): e.g., βW = -.30Between Group Effect (Level 2): e.g., βB = -.50Contextual Effect: e.g., βC = βB - βW = -.20(Extended Contact)
βW
βBβC
Context C
Context B
Context A
Do individuals from different contexts who have the same amount of intergroup contact differ in their intergroup attitudes? Then context drives this difference (contextual effect) -- can’t be explained with individual level variables.
22
Results: Leverhulme, UK data
Intergroup contact
Ingroup Bias
Individual level
Context level
βW = -0.346***
βB = -2.223***
Contextual Effect: βC = βB - βW = -1.877**
Intergroup
contact
Ingroup Bias
*controlled for age, sex, education, and IMD
23
Results: Leverhulme, UK data
Intergroup contact
Ingroup Bias
Individual level
Context level
βW = -0.346***
βB = -0.614
Contextual Effect: βC = βB - βW = -0.270
Indirect effect on context level: -0.343***
Intergroup
contact
Ingroup Bias
*controlled for age, sex, education, and IMD
Tolerant norms0.892*** -1.840***
Results: MPI data, German longit. Data
24
Intergroup contact
Ingroup Bias
Individual level
Context level
βW = -0.031*
Contextual Effect: βC = βB - βW = -0.161*
Indirect effect on context level: -0.041+
*controlled for age, sex, education, and unemployment, and sse rate
βB = -0.192**
Intergroup
contact
Intergroup
contact
Tolerant norms
Tolerant norms
time 1 time 2
Threat Threat
0.130+
-0.318*
25
25
Putnam’s impact
“Will first-hand experience weaken stereotypes? That was the belief of the sociologist Samuel Stouffer, who observed during the Second World War that white soldiers who fought alongside blacks were less racially prejudiced than white soldiers who had not. The political scientist Robert Putnam has stood Stouffer, and Aristotle, on their heads. Putnam has found that first-hand experience of diversity in fact leads people to withdraw from these neighbours” (p. 5)
Direct and extended contact
Types of intergroup contact:whether and how they work
26
DIRECT CONTACT Quantity of contact – frequency of interaction with
outgroup members, e.g., ‘how often do you meet/talk to/etc. outgroup members where you live/shop/socialize, etc?’
Quality of contact – nature of the interaction with outgroup members, e.g., how positive/negative; friendly/unfriendly, etc, is the contact?’
Cross-group friendship – being friends with outgroup members, e.g., ‘How many close outgroup friends?’
EXTENDED CONTACT Indirect/Vicarious contact, via family or friends, e.g., ‘How
many of your family members/friends have outgroup friends?
27
Types of contact
Longitudinal Effects and Evidence of Mediators
Direct contact: 28
29
3-Wave Study of Longitudinal Contact in South African ‘Coloured’ Schools(Swart, Hewstone, Christ, & Voci, JPSP, 2011)
Age (yrs): T1: Mean (SD) = 14.68 (1.06) T2 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.31 (1.03) T3 (+ 6 mths): Mean (SD) = 15.67 (1.05)
Variables: Predictors: cross-group (white) friends Mediators: intergroup anxiety; empathy Outcomes: positive outgroup attitudes; outgroup variability;
negative action tendencies
3-wave cross-lagged analyses 3-waves permit mediation analyses Time 1 ‘predictor’ -> Time 2 ‘mediator’ -> Time 3 ‘Outcome’
30
31
x10 x12x9
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
x11y28 y30
y27
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
y29y10 y12y9
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
y11
x14 x15x13
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
y14 y15y13
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
y32 y33y31
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
x17 x18x16
NegativeAction
Tendencies
y17 y18y16
NegativeAction
Tendencies
y35 y36y34
NegativeAction
Tendencies
x1 x2
OutgroupFriendships
y1 y2
OutgroupFriendships
y19 y20
OutgroupFriendships
x4 x5x3
IntergroupAnxiety
y4 y5y3
IntergroupAnxiety
y22 y23y21
IntergroupAnxiety
x7 x8x6
Empathy
y7 y8y6
Empathy
y25 y26y24
Empathy
32
Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
NegativeAction
Tendencies
NegativeAction
Tendencies
NegativeAction
Tendencies
OutgroupFriendships
OutgroupFriendships
OutgroupFriendships
IntergroupAnxiety
IntergroupAnxiety
IntergroupAnxiety
Empathy Empathy Empathy
-.15**-.27***
-.14**
-.11**
.13** -.14**
.23***
.15**
.23***
-.14**
-.11**
.13**-.14**
.23***
-.15**
.23***
.15**
-.27***
Making Sense of ‘Spaghetti’
Green paths are autoregressive.
Blue paths are 'forward' paths (as predicted by contact
model).
Red paths are 'reverse' paths (self-selection).
Model equates paths from Wave 1-2, and 2-3
All paths indicated are significant.
33
34
Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
NegativeAction
Tendencies
NegativeAction
Tendencies
NegativeAction
Tendencies
OutgroupFriendships
OutgroupFriendships
OutgroupFriendships
IntergroupAnxiety
IntergroupAnxiety
IntergroupAnxiety
Empathy Empathy Empathy
-.15**-.27***
-.14**
-.11**
.13** -.14**
.23***
.15**
.23***
-.14**
-.11**
.13**-.14**
.23***
-.15**
.23***
.15**
-.27***
35
Blue: ‘forward’; Red: ‘reverse’
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
PositiveOutgroupAttitudes
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
Perceivedoutgroup
Variability
NegativeAction
Tendencies
NegativeAction
Tendencies
NegativeAction
Tendencies
OutgroupFriendships
OutgroupFriendships
OutgroupFriendships
IntergroupAnxiety
IntergroupAnxiety
IntergroupAnxiety
Empathy Empathy Empathy
-.15**-.27***
-.14**
-.11**
.13** -.14**
.23***
.15**
.23***
The Surprising Impact of “weak ties”
Extended Contact: 36
37
Some of my friends have friends who are . . . (outgroup members)
‘Extended contact’ is second-hand, rather than involving the participants in direct intergroup contact themselves
Just knowing other people in your group who have out-group friends might improve attitudes to the out-group (Wright et al., 1997)
38
Number of Direct Friends
IntergroupAnxietyR2 = .21
Number ofIndirectFriends
GeneralGroup
VariabilityR2 = .11
PrejudiceTowards
The GroupR2 = .48
-.18***
.17**
- .03.53***
.52
- .31***
- .21
***
.60*
**
- .22***
Extended Contact in Northern Ireland(Results for Catholics and Protestants; N = 316)
(Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns & Voci, 2004)
.79
.89
40
Key facts about extended contact
It works by changing group norms
It is especially effective for those who have no direct contact
It should lead people to take up more opportunities for direct contact in the future
41
Impact of Indirect Contact is Moderated by Amount of Direct (Friendship) Contact (NI- CRU Survey, N=984; Christ, Hewstone et al., PSPB, 2010)
-1
0
1
Low High
Indirect contact
In-g
roup
bia
s
Low cross-group friendship High cross-group friendship
When does extended contact work best? When direct contact is low.
42
Longitudinal analysis of the effects of extended contact at time 1 on direct contact at time 2(Swart, Hewstone, Tausch et al., in prep.)
Extended Contact(Time 1)
Neighbourhood Contact Quantity
(Time 2)
Controlling for direct contact scores at Time
1
Neighbourhood Contact Quality
(Time 2)
Contact with Friends(Time 2)
.15***
.23***
.21***
An Experimental Comparison of Different Forms of Contact
44http://www.isxys.org/isolation/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/turkishpopulation1960-present.jpg
Evidence from Cyprus
Study 1
Participants: 52 female students (26 pairs) at the University of Cyprus
Recruitment criteria: Greek/Cypriots Friends with each other Good knowledge of English
Study 1: Methodology- Procedure
T1
Pre- test(baseline
measures)
1 WEEK
T2
Intervention&
Post- test
47
Type of Contact – Manipulation of Direct vs Extended contact
Randomly allocate one of each pair of participants to each of the two conditions:
Direct contact: a 10 minute structured face-to-face interaction of the first member of the pair with a T/C confederate.*
Extended contact: the 2nd member of the pair observed her friend interacting with the T/C through a one-way mirror.
* the T/C confederate was trained to give the same answers every time.
Study 1: Methodology - Contact Intervention
Study 1: Results
Direct ContactMean (SD)
Extended contactMean (SD)
Attitudes tow. out-group member (thermometer)
8.44 (.92) 8.23 (1.31)
Typicality of out-group member
2.28 (.89) 2.58 (1.20)
In-group (Self) disclosure
3.40 (.76) 3.50 (.81)
Out-group disclosure 3.36 (.57) 3.38 (.75)
Group Salience 1.97 (.87) 2.26 (1)
Contact (State) Anxiety
1.47 (.34) 1.5 (.41)
Study 1: Attitudes ResultsPre – Post Contact (improved attitudes, esp. Direct contact)
Impact of contact50
51
Multiple Outcomes of Intergroup Contact
51
Explicit attitudes Attitude strength Implicit attitudes Neural processes Trust Forgiveness Behavioural intentions Outgroup-to-outgroup generalization: the
‘secondary transfer effect’. *
Are the effects of contact with members of one group restricted to that outgroup, or do they have ‘knock-on’ or ‘trickle-down’ effects on attitudes towards other groups?
Schmid, K., Hewstone, M., Küpper, B., Zick, A., & Wagner, U. (2012). Social Psychology Quarterly, 75, 28–51.
‘Secondary Transfer Effect’
53
Overview
Test of secondary transfer effects in cross-national comparison 8 European countries: France, Germany, Hungary,
Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, UK
Moderation by Social dominance orientation (SDO)? Ideology of inequality (Pratto, Sidanius et al.,
1994)
Data from GFE Europe survey (30-minute cross-sectional CATI survey)
Full sample analysis (N = 7042; Schmid, Hewstone et al., 2012; controls: age, gender, education, income, political orientation )
Intergroup Contact – Immigrant
s
NegativeAttitudes – Immigrant
s
Attitudes Jewish
Negative attitudes –homosexu
als–.13***
–.15***
.39***
.37***
Low SDO: –.22***
High SDO: –.08ns
Overall mediation: b = –.06, z = –6.68***Moderated mediation:Low SDO: b = –.08, z = –6.65***High SDO: b = –.02, z = –3.14***
55
1.76*
Longitudinal Secondary transfer effect in Northern Ireland (N = 181 Catholics, 223 Protestants; matched at T1-T2, 1 year; Tausch et al.,2010)
.43***
1.84*
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
1.07, n.s.
Attitude toracial
minorities T2
Ingroupfeeling
thermometerT2
Attitude toethno-religious
outgroup T2
Neighbourhood contact with
ethno-religious outgroup T1
Controlling for:Contact with and attitude to racial minorities T1
Attitude toethno-religious
outgroup T1
56
Kronenberg & Hewstone (in prep.)
Does contact impact behaviour, and when it really matters?Archival re-analysis of contact effects in extreme conditions:Rescuers of Jews from Nazi Europe
57
58
Data
Data from the Altruistic Personality and Prosocial Behaviour Institute (Oliner/Oliner 1988)
510 respondents from 15 European countries Collected in the 1980s Retrospective case-control sample:
Case sample of identified rescuers (N=346, recognized by Yad Vashem, The Holocaust Martyrs’ and Heroes’ Remembrance Authority, as ‘Righteous among the Nations’)
Control sample matched on age, sex, education, region (N=164)
Final sample 412 respondents (297 rescuers, 115 non-rescuers)
59
Main Hypothesis (with multiple controls, e.g. for opportunities to help; pro-social orientation)
59
Pre-war friendships with Jews increase the probability of rescuing Jews (especially Jewish friends) (direct contact via friends)
Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):
Pre-war frnds. w Jews
Helping Jewish friends
12.19**
Helping other Jews
2.24**
Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. No control variables.
+ p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
3. Empirical ApplicationThe Impact of Pre-war Friendships with Jews
61
Odds Ratio
Odds ratio (OR) calculated shows the probability of helping (Jewish friends; other Jews) vs not-helping
OR of 12.19 in previous table 1 means:
The odds of helping other Jews vs. not helping increase (only) by
a factor of 2.24 if respondents had Jewish friends before the war.
Less technically:
If you had pre-war Jewish friends, the probability of Helping Jewish Friends divided by the probability of not-Helping was 12.19 times higher than if you did not have pre-war Jewish friends.
Having Jewish friends before the war made potential rescuers more likely to help, especially to help Jewish friends, but also to help other Jews.
Pre-war frnds. w Jews
Age
Prosocial orientation
Command zone
Size Jewish population
Number of rooms
Many neighbours
Helping Jewish friends
15.41**
1.07**
18.43**
10.89**
0.98
15.28**
0.86
Helping other Jews
2.89**
1.05*
5.18*
10.36**
1.19**
12.11**
0.39*
Multinomial logistic regression (variables coded [0,1]):
Notes: N = 412. Coefficients are odds ratios. Additional control variables: gender; education level; religiosity; religious confession; SS zone, Jewish Neighbours, partner/children in household, financial resources. + p < 0.10, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
3. Empirical ApplicationThe Impact of Pre-war Friendships with Jews: Effect of adding controls
Is everything for the best in this best of all possible worlds?
Limits to the impact of contact: Segregation, de-segregation, and re-segregation
Observational research:
64
Cafeteria study in mixed school
64
Coded who sat where and with whom in cafeteria of a 6th Form College (16-18 yrs) in NW England
(40% ethnic minority, mostly Pakistani- and Bangladeshi-heritage British Asians)
Area A1
Costa
Food s
erv
ice
counte
rs
Area A3
Pizz
a
counte
r
Area A4
Area A2
DOOR DOOR
KitchenDay 1
Time 1
Occupied seats 89
Mixed tables 1
66
Coding and measures
Over a two day period, 3,037 seating positions were coded; we analysed the data using:
the segregation index of dissimilarity (D; Clack et al., 2005)
Ethnic composition of ‘social units’ Side-by-side and face-to-face cross-race
adjacencies (Campbell et al., 1966) Aggregation Index of ethnic clustering (I; difference
between actual vs. expected frequency with which Whites and Asians sat opposite each other; Campbell et al., 1966)
Asian*
White*
Black
Other
Pillar (i.e., not a seat)
Empty seat
Key
68
68
Coded data of 22 time intervals . . .
Area A1
Costa
Food s
erv
ice
counte
rs
Area A3
Pizz
a
counte
r
Area A4
Area A2
DOOR DOOR
KitchenDay 1
Time 1
Occupied seats 89
Mixed tables 1
Area A1
Costa
Food s
erv
ice
counte
rs
Area A3
Pizz
a
counte
r
Area A4
Area A2
DOOR DOOR
KitchenDay 1
Time 2
Occupied seats 189
Mixed tables 5
Area A1
Costa
Food s
erv
ice
counte
rs
Area A3
Pizz
a
counte
r
Area A4
Area A2
DOOR DOOR
KitchenDay 1
Time 6
Occupied seats 295
Mixed tables 11
72
All White
All Asian
White/ Asian
White/ Asian/ Black/ Other
White/ Black/ Other
Asian/ Black/Other
Black/ Other
% of social units
58.97%
30.91%
4.18% 0.33% 4.73% 0.55%
0.33%
Ethnic composition of social units
73
Day Area No. of Intervals I Upper Limit Lower Limit
1 1 10 -1.99 -0.98 -4.36
1 2 10 -0.71 0 -2.57
1 3 10 -0.29 0 -1.48
1 4 10 -1.09 0 -3.04
2 1 12 -1.6 -0.32 -3.82
2 2 12 -0.39 0 -1.52
2 3 12 -0.44 0 -3.44
2 4 12 -1.19 0 -3.02
Note: I denotes aggregation index (negative values indicate more ethnic clustering/less cross-ethnic mixing than expected from randomdistribution). See Area 1 . . .
Mean Ethnic Aggregation Indices for each area across both days
Area A1
Costa
Food s
erv
ice
counte
rs
Area A3
Pizz
a
counte
r
Area A4
Area A2
DOOR DOOR
KitchenDay 2
Time 7
Occupied seats 142
Mixed tables 4
75
Day Area No. of
intervals
Number of
Whites
Number of
Asians
1 1 10 251 366
1 2 10 254 16
1 3 10 141 9
1 4 10 282 46
2 1 12 241 461
2 2 12 278 16
2 3 12 182 13
2 4 12 381 36
The number of Whites versus Asians in each area for both days
76
Lessons from cafeteria study
76
Mixed student body does not equate with intergroup contact
Students do, in fact, report contact, including outgroup friends, and contact is associated with more positive attitudes
But why do students choose to sit apart at lunch? Does it even matter that they do?
Ongoing research
77
Actual contact is crucial for integration
Just ‘living together’ is not enough (re-segregation problem in cafeteria)
Contact does mediate impact of neighbourhood diversity; Putnam is too pessimistic
Direct and extended and forms of contact have effects
Contact has multiple outcomes; STE especially important
Effects of contact shown via multi-method approach:
Surveys (cross-sect’l. &longitud.); experiments; archival analysis
To understand diversity effects you have to study contact.
Conclusions
77
FundingLeverhulme Trust
Community Relations Unit (N.I.)Economic and Social Research CouncilNuffield FoundationRussell Sage Foundation, U.S.A.Templeton Foundation, U.S.A.
78
Acknowledgements
(ex) Graduate students Maria IoannouDr Ananthi al-RamiahDr Hermann SwartDr Nicole TauschDr Rhiannon TurnerDr Christiana Vonofakou
Research collaboratorsProf. Ed Cairns (University of Ulster)Dr Oliver Christ (University of Marburg,
Germany)Prof. Joanne Hughes (University of Ulster)Dr Jared Kenworthy (University of Texas)Prof. Clemens Kronenberg (University of
Mannheim)Dr Katharina Schmid (University of
Oxford)Dr Alberto Voci (University of Padua,
Italy)
Undergraduate students Eleanor BakerChristina FloeCaroline PovahElisabeth ReedAnna Westlake
79