Working with diversity: A geographical analysis of ethno-racial discrimination in Toronto

Abstract

Work is an important location for examining the heterogeneity of contemporary urban societies that are being transformed by migration, aging, and economic restructuring. At work locations, people from different ethnic and racial groups often encounter one another, regardless of whether they live in close proximity. Work is also a frequent site of discrimination, particularly for racial minorities. This study evaluates ethno-racial heterogeneity by documenting the spatial patterns of workplace location for ethno-racial groups in Toronto. We also compare and contrast the degree to which racial minorities experience discrimination at work. Based on our findings that underline a strong association between discrimination, racial minority status, and ethno-cultural group identification, we argue that it is important to examine critically the ways in which discrimination persists in racially and ethnically diverse work locations.

Keywords

discrimination diversity ethno-racial residential work

Workplaces throughout North America and Europe are undergoing major changes due to ever greater numbers of foreign-born and minority workers (Bielenski and Wagner, 2003; Echaveste, 2009; Pendakur, 2000; Portes, 1995; Scott, 1996). Nowhere are these processes of change more evident than in Toronto, Canada’s most important urban economy that is an influential node of economic growth due to its large size and broad industrial base¹ (Bourne et al., 2011: 236). The workforce is as diverse as the city’s industries; in 2006, 43% of the Toronto metropolitan population self-identified as a racial minority, much higher than the equivalent 16.2% for the Canadian population.² The sheer size of the minority population and a large and complex economy of more than three million jobs make Toronto an ideal laboratory for examining issues of workplace diversity.

Toronto’s population reflects a sustained national commitment to recruit immigrants who will contribute to the nation’s economic growth regardless of their ethnic or racial backgrounds (Simmons, 2010). Beginning in the early 1960s, Canada removed blatantly racist provisions in immigration policy that had permitted only white Europeans to settle. Immigration has transformed all parts of Toronto from the central city and post-war inner suburbs to the metropolitan fringe. Some individuals still live with others who share their ethno-racial, social, and demographic characteristics, but on a daily basis most people negotiate ethnic and racial difference in the places where they live and work (Walks and Bourne, 2006). Little consensus exists about the impact of these daily interactions, although racialised minorities often report unfair treatment because of their race, colour, and ethnicity (Statistics Canada, 2003). Of all the locations where discrimination is reported, the workplace stands out (Bourhis et al., 2007).

Much urban and spatial research about discrimination experienced by ethnic and racial minorities has focused on where people live, although individuals daily weave their lives through a number of different locales, including places of work. Following American research suggesting that the locations where people work are often more diverse than the residential areas where they live (Ellis et al., 2004; Leitner, 2012), we investigate ethno-racial diversity and the outcomes of interactions between people in work locations. In this respect, our research extends scholarship in disciplines such as sociology (Pager and Shepherd, 2008), cultural studies (Ahmed, 2012) and management (Agóçs and Burr, 1996; Shen et al., 2009; Yap et al., 2010) that has investigated the experiences of minorities in workplaces, the unfair treatment that they often report, and institutional responses to such discrimination. Much of this research focuses on diversity training that attempts to enhance productivity by improving interpersonal relationships in workplaces (Ahmed, 2012; Shen et al., 2009; Yap et al., 2010) and affirmative action and employment equity programmes designed to address discriminatory hiring, promotion, and remuneration policies (Agóçs and Burr, 1996). We bring a geographical perspective to the analysis of workplace diversity and discrimination by comparing the spatial patterns of ethno-racial diversity where people work and live, and the factors influencing reports of discrimination at work with those affecting overall discrimination.

We conduct our analysis in two stages. First, we use custom tabulations of data from the 2001 Canadian census to compare diversity in work and residential locations by mapping where people from different ethno-racial groups live and work. In our analysis, a diverse locale is one in which the ethnic and racial characteristics of the population are heterogeneous. Secondly, data from the Ethnic Diversity Survey are analysed to investigate similarities and differences between ethno-racial groups in reports of discrimination at work, as well as discrimination overall. Each component of the study draws on information collected in 2001 and 2002. Combining the two data sources allows us to establish both the extent of ethno-racial diversity in Toronto work locations and the degree to which social mixing influences reports of discrimination at work locations.

Our analysis is presented in four sections. A brief review of relevant literature about ethno-racial diversity and discrimination provides the background for a discussion of the research methods and data used in the analysis. In the third section, the empirical findings are outlined and interpreted beginning with a description of the ethno-racial diversity of work and residential locations in Toronto. Experiences of discrimination are then discussed in the context of geographical patterns of diversity. The conclusions reflect on the frequency with which people report discrimination at work and the factors that influence perceptions of unfair treatment in a city where most people live and work in multiethnic and multiracial locations.

Urban experiences of difference

Recent research has drawn attention to growing ethno-racial diversity in cities (Amin, 2002, 2012; Glick Schiller and Çaglar, 2010; Sandercock, 2003; Wessel, 2009), as well as the continuing residential segregation of ethno-racial groups (Fong and Shibuya, 2005; Walks and Bourne, 2006). In Toronto, residential segregation has increased slightly as racialised minorities account for an increasing share of the metropolitan population (Hou and Wu, 2009; Walks and Bourne, 2006). Few people, however, spend their days only in their houses and neighbourhoods – adults commute to work, children frequently go outside their neighbourhoods to attend school, and everyone travels for countless daily activities (Janelle et al., 1998). Based on their analysis of residential and work locations in Los Angeles, Ellis et al. (2004) argued that work locations are usually more diverse than residential locations.

Where people work is complex, and especially so in Toronto with its diverse population and large economy. Downtown Toronto is the single largest employment node, but areas adjacent to the city’s international airport – located in suburban Mississauga – constitute the second largest employment concentration in the metropolitan area. The growth of all types of employment in the suburbs, including jobs in services and knowledge-based industries, does not always facilitate suburban residents’ access to workplaces. In suburban locations, commuting distances are often longer than in central locations, and public transit is often slow and unreliable. Commuting times are especially long for recent immigrants who rely on public transit more than Canadian-born commuters (Lo et al., 2011). Nevertheless, the majority of workers are employed somewhere other than where they live, which means that people from different ethno-racial backgrounds stand a good chance of rubbing shoulders in work locations (Statistics Canada, 2013). At the same time, some minorities, particularly recently arrived immigrants, work in locations proximate to where they live. Dependent on public transit and confronting labour market barriers related to language, skills, credential recognition, and racial discrimination, some recently arrived immigrants rely on nearby employment opportunities in ethnic enclaves and economic niches where they are more likely to also work with co-ethnics (Ellis et al., 2004; Hagan, 1998; Li, 2009; Wang, 2010).

Ethno-racial diversity in work locations is also influenced by the nature and size of firms. Immigrants and their descendants are sometimes segmented into employment niches so that specific ethno-racial groups come to dominate particular economic sectors (Hiebert, 1999; Wright et al., 2010). Firm size also affects ethno-racial diversity. Large firms are more likely than small ones to rely on formal hiring methods that encourage qualified applicants from all ethno-racial groups and from diverse residential locations (Hanson and Pratt, 1995; Rynes and Rosen, 1995). Diversity training and affirmative action programmes that make the workplace more comfortable for workers from diverse ethno-racial backgrounds are also more prevalent in large firms (Rynes and Rosen, 1995).

The question of how ethno-racial diversity influences intergroup relations continues to be a topic of much debate. Thinkers as diverse as Jane Jacobs (1961) and Iris Marion Young (1990) have emphasised the importance of bringing strangers into contact to diminish prejudice (see also Germain, 1995). These views draw on ‘contact theory’ (Allport, 1954), which posits that interaction with unfamiliar groups is a way to initiate learning and over time allows people to move beyond prejudicial stereotypes (Wessel, 2009). Research emphasises that sustained casual interaction is the most beneficial; however, even superficial contacts can contribute to more tolerant attitudes and an improvement in the degree to which people positively value difference by changing perceptions of normality (Wessel, 2009: 12). According to contact theory, prejudice may decline when there is contact between individuals of equal status from majority and minority groups. Social inequality, however, can heighten intolerance, setting the stage for discriminatory treatment (Matejskova and Leitner, 2011). In work locations where people from diverse ethno-racial groups are called upon to work together, their interactions are influenced by hierarchical social relations among co-workers that characterise most workplaces and that may reduce the efficacious impacts of contact. The adverse effects of these hierarchical relations may be confounded at least partially by repeated, albeit superficial, contacts with diverse strangers that characterise many work locations. Amin (2002) argues that ‘micro-publics’ such as workplaces, where people have a shared project, can create meaningful interactions that reduce prejudice.

The places in which contact occurs can deter the positive effects of interaction. Justifications for prejudices are often organised around place-specific socio-economic circumstances, and notions of shared local community values (Valentine, 2010). Leitner (2012: 831) found that white individuals’ discourses about immigration in a small Minnesota town are:

informed by their understanding of the rural Midwest as a white place and associated conceptions of a white American nation. Residents try to defend their place and associated identities that they feel are under threat … conceiving of place as a site with a clearly circumscribed culture and identity, rather than a site that is open and constantly emerging.

Several scholars also question contact theory’s fundamental premise that social interaction will increase respect and tolerance. Some suggest that contact may encourage inter-group competition and conflict, and ultimately strengthen prejudice and discrimination (Blalock, 1967; Valenty and Sylvia, 2004). Recently, Putnam (2007) has also argued that one of the principal outcomes of an awareness of diversity encourages social isolation or ‘hunkering down’ into the familiarity of one’s family and close friends (see also Savelkoul et al., 2011). Similarly, Valentine (2008) contends that the power of mundane encounters to promote understanding between different social groups has been overdrawn. Encounters can be quite affable and friendly, but white majority individuals often continue to express prejudices that are ‘… rooted in narratives of economic and/or cultural victimhood’ (Valentine, 2008: 334). Our study contributes to these debates by examining the geographical patterns of diversity where people work and how individuals interpret encounters with difference in Toronto work locations. By investigating reported discrimination, our analysis necessarily emphasises the adverse impacts of social interaction among people from different ethno-racial backgrounds; however, attention is also given to the positive possibilities that may flow from certain social interactions and relationships.

Data and methods of analysis

The data utilised in this project illustrate the challenges of identifying ethno-racial minorities, the geographical limits of census tract information, and the difficulties of measuring unfair treatment. We focus on the experiences of individuals who self-identify as visible minorities (i.e. racial minorities); however, our analysis also includes two ‘white’ groups in order to distinguish the highly differentiated white experience in Toronto. One group –‘white charter’– is composed of individuals claiming French, English, Canadian, American, Australian, and New Zealand ethnic ancestry. This social group has largely set the terms of admission for all other groups to Canada (Kymlicka, 2007; Porter, 1965). The second group –‘Europeans’– includes those who trace their ethnic origins to other parts of Northern, Western, Eastern, and Southern Europe. A large proportion of the European group is also foreign-born.

The analysis draws on data collected in 2001 and 2002, when the Canadian government sought detailed information about social engagement and Canadians’ ethno-racial backgrounds (Statistics Canada, 2003). The first section of the analysis uses special tabulations of data from the census in which white and racial minority groups are cross-tabulated by Canadian- or foreign-born status.³ To measure and represent geographic segregation and diversity, this study uses census tracts.⁴ Although intended to be areas of homogeneous housing and social characteristics, census tracts, especially in Toronto, are often somewhat heterogeneous. We also use census tracts to examine the ethno-racial characteristics of the workforce, recognising that the aggregation makes it impossible to examine interactions within a single workplace.⁵ Census tracts have the advantage of allowing comparisons of group concentration or diversity at home and work without concern for scale differences between the two locations (Ellis et al., 2004: 626).

The first part of the analysis describes ethno-racial diversity at a neighbourhood level using diversity scores. The diversity or entropy index score for each census tract assesses how diverse an area is with respect to the total number of ethno-racial groups in the entire metropolitan area (Allen, 2005; Sandoval et al., 2002; White, 1986). Scores range from 0 to 100, where 0 is complete homogeneity (i.e. the area is dominated exclusively by one group) and 100 is complete heterogeneity (i.e. all the groups are equally represented). In short, the higher the number, the more equal the representation of all groups, and the lower the number, the more one racial or ethnic group dominates.⁶

Diversity maps are presented for residential and work locations based on the population aged 15 and over. Residential and work location diversity is calculated using 11 categories (Table 1) in which some of the largest ethno-racial groups – Chinese, South Asian, black and white – are subdivided by whether they were foreign-born or Canadian-born. The intent is to capture the fact that the Canadian-born do not necessarily live or work in the same areas as their immigrant parents and grandparents. Our analysis of work location diversity considers only people aged 15+ who participate in the paid labour force and work in a specified geographic location.

Table 1.

Racial minority groups.

East Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) FB

East Asian (Chinese, Korean, Japanese) CB

South Asian FB

South Asian CB

Black FB

Black CB

Southeast Asian (Southeast Asian, Filipino)

Arab

Others (Latin American, West Asian, visible minority not included elsewhere, multiple visible minority)

White FB

White CB

FB = foreign-born.

CB = Canadian-born.

The second part of the analysis draws on data from the Ethnic Diversity Survey (EDS) to investigate individual experiences of discrimination (i.e. when people felt that unfair treatment could be attributed to ethnicity, race, language, and religion). The EDS is a post-censal survey completed by 42,476 respondents in 2002, with the target population being non-Aboriginal individuals 15 years of age and over living in Canada’s 10 provinces (Statistics Canada, 2003). To assess discrimination, people were asked to recall experiences that occurred in the previous five years. Our analysis is limited to people between the ages of 18 and 70 who are active in the labour market to ensure the reliability of reports about discrimination.⁷ The controls for age and labour market activity reduce the sample to 4590 individuals in the Toronto metropolitan area.

This study draws on the results from binary logistic regression analyses that evaluate the impact of a number of socio-demographic, affective, and employment characteristics on the likelihood of reporting discrimination at work. Our analysis focuses on reports of discrimination that occur when individuals perceive themselves to have been treated unfairly due to their ethnicity, culture, language, religion, race, or skin colour (Statistics Canada, 2003: 11–12). Whether or not the person has been treated unfairly, the perception of unfair treatment influences well-being and life chances (Dion, 2002; Reitz and Banerjee, 2007).

Places of residence and work: Complex geographies

The vast majority of newcomers today settle directly in post-war suburbs (Murdie, 2008) that are home to ‘… multiracial/multiethnic, multicultural, multilingual, and often multinational communities’ (Li, 2009: 29). Following Sandoval et al.’s (2002) recommendation that an entropy index score of 75 or greater indicates a high degree of diversity, in terms of the residential population, 31.3% of Toronto’s tracts are very diverse and another 28% are diverse (score of 60 to 74.9) (Figure 1). Many tracts in the inner suburbs, especially in Scarborough, North York and Etobicoke, are highly diverse. In addition, several outer suburbs including Mississauga, Brampton and Markham also have high diversity scores. Areas that stand out as homogeneous are in and around Toronto’s downtown core and on the fringes of the metropolitan area (Figure 1). Many inner-city neighbourhoods have low diversity scores due to gentrification and condominium redevelopment. The core of Toronto has become increasingly affluent and home to the Canadian-born (Hulchanski, 2010). Between 1971 and 2006, the immigrant population declined from 35% to 28%, and by 2006 approximately 82% of the population in the central core neighbourhoods was white. The ethno-racial homogeneity of the ex-urban areas is also striking. The vast majority of the population in these new low-density neighbourhoods is white. The heterogeneity of the inner suburbs, however, stands out.

Figure 1.

Residential location by ethno-racial diversity, Toronto, 2001.

The geography of employment is very complex, with individuals working in almost every census tract in the metropolitan area. By far, the largest concentration of employment is in the downtown core (415,000 jobs), followed by tracts around the airport (198,000) (Bourne et al., 2011: 245). There are also smaller employment nodes around shopping centres and office and industrial parks near subway and commuter rail stations across the metropolitan area. Overlaid on this dispersed landscape of employment are the ethno-racial characteristics of the workforce. Again using the entropy index, it is clear that the ethno-racial diversity of the workforce exceeds that of the resident population in many parts of the city (Figure 2). Overall, 11.5% of tracts in Toronto have high workforce diversity scores (75 or greater) and another 49% are diverse (60 to 74.9).

Figure 2.

Work tracts by ethno-racial diversity, Toronto, 2001.

The inner suburbs and downtown core stand out as highly diverse work locations. The downtown core, which scores low in terms of residential diversity, is a location of medium to high workforce diversity. A very large number of tracts throughout the inner suburbs also have a highly diversified workforce. Areas in Scarborough, North York, Etobicoke and Mississauga have diversity scores in excess of 70. In contrast to the central core, where the residential and workforce populations differ, in the inner suburbs, ethno-racial diversity typifies both residential and work locations.

In Toronto, work locations are highly diverse, creating the potential for workers from different ethno-racial groups to experience – if only in passing – the city’s cultural pluralism. At the very least, these results destabilise the notion that a full understanding of Toronto’s racial and ethnic geographies can be gained from analysis of residential locations. Such findings, however, provide little insight into the social interactions that happen in work locations or the degree to which these locations are sites of discrimination.

How the workplace is experienced: Insights from Toronto

The Ethnic Diversity Survey enables an investigation of the various forms of discrimination that individuals from different ethno-racial groups experience. From the outset, it is important to recognise that overall minorities are more likely than other ethno-racial groups to report discrimination; 42.1%, 13.2%, and 12.9% of racial minorities, Europeans, and white charter individuals, respectively. Work is the most often cited location where Toronto respondents report experiencing discrimination. Approximately one quarter of the racial minority population (26.6%) reports experiencing discrimination at work compared to only 6.8% and 6.5% of European and white charter individuals.⁸ The proportion reporting discrimination at work is much higher than for other locales such as streets or stores, banks and restaurants where less than 15% of racial minorities and 4% of each of the white groups report discrimination.⁹

We examine how selected socio-demographic, social, affective, and employment characteristics for each respondent who is active in the labour force affect the likelihood of reporting discrimination at work. The understanding of individual differences in the propensity to perceive discrimination largely derives from research in social psychology. This literature suggests that in Canada, racial minorities, particularly blacks and South Asians, are more likely to report discrimination than whites (Dion, 2002; Dion and Kawakami, 1996; Taylor et al., 1990). Perceived discrimination is also reported more frequently by men, especially those who are affluent and well educated (Dion, 2002). Highly educated people are often more aware of hidden barriers to advancement, such as discrimination. We also include occupation and industry of employment in the analysis to examine whether reports of discrimination vary systematically across occupational groups and industries.¹⁰ The characteristics of social interactions also influence perceptions of discrimination (Townshend, 2001). Specifically, people are more likely to report discrimination when they do not trust other people to treat them fairly (Dion, 2002; Ray and Preston, 2009). Positive interactions with people outside one’s own ethno-racial group often promote trust and may reduce reports of discrimination (Hou and Wu, 2009). On the other hand, Magee et al. (2007) suggest that minorities whose networks are comprised of co-ethnics are also more likely to hear about incidents of discrimination and, in turn, report these experiences. Sense of belonging captures another aspect of involvement with one’s own ethno-racial group. Those who report a strong sense of belonging to their ethnic group are more likely to report discrimination than those expressing a weak attachment (Dion, 2002; Reitz and Banerjee, 2007).

To assess the effects of these ethno-racial, socio-demographic, employment and affective characteristics on reporting unfair treatment overall and at work, we constructed a series of logistic regression analyses. Binomial logistic regression analysis requires reference categories for the dependent and independent variables, and our choice of these categories was determined by a negative condition (e.g. no discrimination experienced) or a characteristic that is frequently regarded as normative (e.g. being Canadian-born, English/French home language use, or male). All of the independent variables were used in each analysis.¹¹

Experiences of discrimination: What factors are important?

The logistic regression analyses underline an inescapable fact in Toronto: people of colour are much more likely to report discrimination at work or overall than either of the white groups, holding other factors constant (Table 2). Simply being a racial minority raises the odds¹² of reporting discrimination at work by a factor of 4 (odds ratio = 4.017) and discrimination overall by a greater factor (odds ratio = 5.516). No other variable has such a significant effect. The large magnitudes of the odds ratios underline the degree to which perceptions of discrimination in Toronto are a function of ethno-racial identity.

Table 2.

Logistic regression results for ‘workplace discrimination’ and ‘experiences of discrimination’ for individuals in the labour force, Toronto, 2001.

Characteristics	Workplace discrimination		Discrimination overall
	Odds ratio	S. E. (BRR)	Odds ratio	S. E. (BRR)
Ethno-cultural
White charter	1.000		1.000
European	1.006	0.219	1.271	0.222
Racial minority	4.017**	0.873	5.516**	1.008
Language at home (En/Fr)	1.000		1.000
Language at home (notEn/Fr)	0.615**	0.091	0.774*	0.098
Canadian place of birth	1.000		1.000
Foreign place of birth	1.553**	0.241	1.107	0.160
Socio-demographic
Age (continuous)	1.000	0.006	0.997	0.005
Sex (male)	1.000		1.000
Sex (female)	0.994	0.142	0.848	0.099
Single, divorced, separated	1.000		1.000
Married, common law couple	1.046	0.158	0.869	0.107
Less than high school	1.000		1.000
High school +	1.538	0.411	1.266	0.301
College, university degree	2.265**	0.626	1.373	0.334
Social and affective
Belong eth. group – weak	1.000		1.000
Belong eth. group – moderate	1.736*	0.393	1.528*	0.274
Belong eth. group – strong	1.899**	0.441	1.766**	0.324
Ethnic club involvement – none	1.000		1.000
Ethnic club involvement – some	1.381*	0.196	1.320*	0.162
Co-ethnics network – none	1.000		1.000
Co-ethnics network – some	1.226	0.318	1.416	0.287
Co-ethnics network – 50% +	1.929*	0.498	1.803**	0.363
Belong to city – weak	1.000		1.000
Belong to city – modest	0.880	0.186	0.989	0.176
Belong to city – strong	0.822	0.172	0.773	0.129
Overall trust – no trust	1.000		1.000
Overall trust – can trust	0.659*	0.094	0.802	0.101
Trust neighbours – none	1.000		1.000
Trust neighbours – somewhat	0.598*	0.128	0.606**	0.111
Trust neighbours – a lot	0.533*	0.149	0.439**	0.105
Employment
Occ: Primary, processing, trades, equipment	1.000		1.000
Occ: Management, business	0.740	0.164	0.772	0.153
Occ: Health, sciences, education	0.699	0.176	0.910	0.203
Occ: Sales and services	0.955	0.245	0.820	0.181
Ind: Primary, manufacturing, transport	1.000		1.000
Ind: Trade, accommodation, food	0.915	0.212	1.351	0.267
Ind: FIRE, professional, managerial services	1.237	0.253	1.483*	0.268
Ind: Information, culture, education, health, public administration	1.254	0.254	1.452*	0.270
N (unweighted)	4042		4040
N (weighted)	1,765,430		1,762,306
LR (d.f.)	198,138.35 (25)**		265,661.58 (25)**

p ≤ 0.01.

p ≤ 0.05.

Source: Ethnic Diversity Survey, 2002. Calculations by authors.

Other factors also have an important role in accounting for reports of discrimination. Racial minorities in the labour force are overwhelmingly foreign born (90.2%), especially when compared to the white charter (13.8%) and European (45.7%) groups (Table 3). It is not surprising, therefore, that being foreign born also significantly increases the likelihood of reporting discrimination at work (odds ratio = 1.553), although the effect for reports of discrimination overall is not significant (Table 2). Experiences of discrimination overall are more common than discrimination at work among white charter and European respondents, and as a consequence being foreign born may be less of a distinguishing factor. Speaking a language other than English or French at home actually lowers the odds of reporting either form of discrimination, particularly discrimination at work. Given the recent arrival of many racial minorities in Toronto, it is not surprising that approximately 60% speak neither English nor French at home, a characteristic shared by approximately 40% of Europeans. The lower likelihood of reporting discrimination among people who speak a non-official language at home may reflect their recent arrival and a stronger propensity to work with co-ethnics in enclave economies (Li, 2009).

Table 3.

Socio-demographic and employment characteristics of ethno-racial groups in Toronto, 2002.^*

	Racial minority	European	White charter
	Per cent
Age
18–30	19.7	17.5	14.8
31–54	70.0	68.9	68.0
55–70	10.3	13.6	17.2
Sex
Male	54.3	55.9	55.0
Female	45.7	44.1	45.0
Home language
English/French	40.5	60.9	98.7
Other	59.5	39.1	1.3
Foreign born	90.2	45.7	13.8
Marital status
Single/unmarried	62.7	66.6	64.3
Married/common-law	37.3	33.4	35.7
Education
Less than high school	11.1	13.8	10.5
High school and some post-secondary	34.8	31.4	32.6
College diploma or university degree	54.1	54.9	56.9
Occupation
Primary, processing, trades, equipment	24.3	21.6	18.7
Management, business services	32.2	31.0	33.3
Health, sciences, education, religion, arts	23.7	25.3	29.6
Sales and services	19.9	22.1	18.3
Industry
Manufacturing, construction, transportation, warehousing, primary	30.4	29.6	26.3
Wholesale/retail trade, accommodation, food	20.3	17.7	15.0
FIRE, professional, managerial services	26.7	24.8	25.2
Information, culture, arts, recreation, education, social services, public administration	22.6	28.0	33.5

The absolute values are not reported because of confidentiality requirements imposed by Statistics Canada.

Source: Ethnic Diversity Survey, 2002. Calculations by authors.

Given that our analysis focuses only on individuals employed in the paid labour force, there is more convergence around several socio-demographic characteristics than would be true for the entire population. For example, racial minorities, Europeans and white charter individuals are fairly similar in terms of age, gender, and marital status (Table 3). In turn, these variables have little influence on the likelihood of reporting discrimination overall or discrimination at work (Table 2). In contrast, education does have a significant effect on reports of discrimination at work with highly educated individuals being much more likely to identify instances of unfair treatment (odds ratio = 2.2656). As other research suggests (Dion, 2002), highly educated individuals may be more aware of barriers to advancement in the workplace.

Several social and affective characteristics are also influential (Table 4). The EDS shows that racial minorities have a much stronger sense of belonging to their ethnic group than do the two white groups; they are also much more likely to participate in an ethnic club, especially compared with white charter individuals, and are more likely than people from either of the two white groups to have social networks in which 50% of friends are co-ethnics (Magee et al., 2007). In fact, half of all employed racial minorities have social networks dominated by co-ethnics compared to only 20% of white charter individuals. The logistic regression analyses speak to the importance of these social differences: individuals who indicate a moderate to strong sense of belonging to an ethnic group are significantly more likely to report discrimination at work and discrimination overall (Table 2). Involvement in ethnic clubs also has a modest effect in terms of raising the odds of reporting discrimination, but a social network dominated by co-ethnics doubles the odds of reporting discrimination at work. Although racial minority status is overwhelmingly important in distinguishing who reports workplace discrimination and discrimination overall, the ethnic composition of individuals’ social networks cannot be ignored. It may well be that individuals with strong ties to their ethnic community are more aware of instances of discrimination experienced by co-ethnic friends and relatives (Magee et al., 2007). Moreover, cross-sectional data such as the Ethnic Diversity Survey cannot capture the impact of discriminatory experiences that may encourage people to socialise with co-ethnics, maintain strong ties with ethnic organisations, and value their minority identities.

Table 4.

Social and affective characteristics of ethno-racial groups in Toronto, 2002.^*

	Racial minority	European	White charter
	Per cent
Strength of belonging to ethnic group
Weak	12.9	24.3	33.9
Moderate	23.8	24.3	25.5
Strong	63.3	51.4	40.7
Involvement in an ethnic club
Yes	18.6	12.4	1.7
Number of co-ethnics in social network
None	7.8	19.6	13.3
Some	42.9	54.2	67.3
Over 50%	49.3	26.2	19.4
Sense of belonging to city/town
Weak	12.8	16.7	24.3
Modest	22.3	27.6	31.3
Strong	64.9	55.6	44.4
Overall level of trust
Can trust	45.5	53.0	64.6
Trust neighbours
No trust	13.1	10.6	8.2
Somewhat	36.6	30.6	26.5
A lot	50.3	58.8	65.2

The absolute values are not reported because of confidentiality requirements imposed by Statistics Canada.

Source: Ethnic Diversity Survey, 2002. Calculations by authors.

On the other hand, a positive sense of trust appears to significantly improve the ways in which social interactions are interpreted (Table 4). The extent to which each respondent trusts fellow Canadians is described by two variables: overall levels of trust (whether people are seen as trustworthy) and the degree of trust in the neighbours (ranging from not trusting any neighbours to trusting the neighbours a lot). Approximately 20% more white charter than racial minority individuals believe that people in general can be trusted, and white charter individuals also lead in terms of believing that neighbours can be trusted a lot (65.2% compared to 50.2% and 58.8% of racial minority and European respondents). We hypothesised that people who are less trusting are more likely to report discrimination. Trusting neighbours somewhat or a lot is especially important in diminishing the likelihood of reporting discrimination at work and discrimination overall (Table 4). The role of trust cannot be ignored, as it may influence how people interpret everyday encounters with difference.¹³ In this respect, the relationships formed at the neighbourhood scale seem to be especially important. In contrast, a strong sense of belonging does not appear to be influential. Although 65% of racial minorities – 20% greater than the white charter group – report a strong sense of belonging to Toronto, it does not have a significant influence on the likelihood of reporting either workplace discrimination or discrimination overall.

Finally, to capture some of the effects of firm size and activities, our analysis considered whether occupation and industry of employment had a significant bearing on the likelihood of reporting discrimination (Table 3). The bivariate analysis reveals modest differences in the occupations and industries of employment for the three ethno-racial groups. Racial minorities are slightly more likely to be employed in lower-skilled occupations. In terms of industry of employment, more racial minorities work in manufacturing, construction, transportation, and warehousing, as well as in low-wage service industries (e.g. retail, food, accommodation). Nevertheless, neither occupation nor industry of employment has a significant influence on the likelihood of reporting workplace discrimination (Table 2). This finding may indicate that workplace discrimination is more or less equally common across all occupations and industries at a high level of aggregation. Industry of employment, however, does have a modest influence on reports of discrimination overall. In industries where the majority of workers are highly skilled, the likelihood of reporting discrimination overall is greater. The odds ratios for individuals working in business and professional services and health, education and public services are 1.483 and 1.452. Workers in these two industries appear to have an increased probability of encountering unfair treatment but they do not necessarily associate these experiences with the workplace itself. In general, the influence of employment characteristics is much less than that of ethno-cultural, social, and affective characteristics.

The results from the logistic regression analyses emphasise the importance of ethno-racial identity in unravelling who reports discrimination at work and discrimination in general. Quite simply, being a racial minority significantly increases the likelihood of reporting discrimination among employed workers. Furthermore, strong ties to an ethnic community also significantly influences the chances that a worker will report either form of discrimination. Importantly, a strong sense of trust lowers the odds of reporting discrimination. The findings point to a city where many minority workers experience discrimination in workplaces and overall, despite residential and work geographies that exemplify living together in ethno-racial diversity.

Summary and conclusion

This study presents two different and somewhat contradictory interpretations of social life in Toronto. On the one hand, the geographies of where people live and work reveal a city of considerable ethno-racial mixing. It appears to be almost a quintessential cosmopolitan environment and ideal place to test various propositions of contact theory. In Toronto, where no ethno-racial group experiences the levels of residential segregation seen in US cities (Walks and Bourne, 2006), the extent to which different ethno-racial groups live apart is modest. Most certainly, parts of metropolitan Toronto do stand out as having a homogeneous residential population. Some of the oldest central neighbourhoods where there has been substantial gentrification and condominium development are notable in this regard, as are newly developed suburban areas on the urban fringe. Nevertheless, many areas of the city, especially the inner suburbs, are characterised by ethno-racial heterogeneity. When locations of employment are considered, the city’s ethno-racial diversity is even more evident. In central city areas where the residential populations are fairly homogeneous, work locations are diverse. In contrast, many inner suburban neighbourhoods are ethno-racially diverse whether the resident or workforce populations are considered.

Our analysis raises questions about the ease with which people negotiate difference in workplaces, quintessential micro-publics where people actively engage with difference (Amin, 2002). The workplace leads other locales and situations in reports of discriminatory experiences. Racial minorities have a much greater likelihood of reporting these discriminatory experiences, as do individuals who have strong social relationships with co-ethnics or intense involvement with their ethno-racial group. The only factors that lower the probability of reporting discrimination are associated with trust and belonging – people who trust others are substantially less likely to report discrimination.

What this means for understanding inequality in Canadian cities is challenging (Gee et al., 2006; Picot et al., 2008). At one scale, there is reason for optimism because the locations of work are so ethno-racially diverse. Following contact theory, even transitory or superficial interactions should lead to somewhat greater understanding and less prejudice. While some people, particularly the affluent who are disproportionately white and Canadian-born, may be able to avoid the city’s diversity by opting to live in more homogeneous districts, the diversity of Toronto’s population is unavoidable in work locations. In principle, work locations should provide opportunity for active forms of intercultural mixing in which difference is negotiated. Work locations, however, are hierarchical and imbued with differential power relations. In work locations, people do not always meet as equals, a prerequisite for interactions that may reduce ethno-racial stereotypes. Our analysis shows that encounters with difference in work locations generate perceptions of unfair treatment. In this regard, discrimination is experienced overwhelmingly by racial minorities and points to challenges around difference in many workplaces. It may well be important to move away from associating ethno-racial diversity with a progressive social environment, and examine much more critically the ways in which practices of discrimination persist in locales of diversity.

To advance understanding of the social interactions associated with ethno-racial diversity in work locations, comparative, detailed, and longitudinal analysis is warranted. For example, previous research suggests important differences in experiences of discrimination overall across Canadian metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas (Ray and Preston, 2013). To evaluate the generalisability of our findings about discrimination in Toronto work locations requires equivalent comparative analyses. Research examining the frequency and determinants of positive interactions associated with ethno-racial diversity would complement our analysis focusing on discrimination. Our study was constrained by the small number of minorities in the Ethnic Diversity Survey, which in turn limited possibilities for disaggregation. In-depth examinations of the experiences of blacks, Chinese, South Asians, and other minorities are needed to take account of their distinct histories of inequality and social mobility in Canada. The research also focused on the most fortunate minority residents of Toronto, those who are employed. Minorities who have withdrawn from the labour market as a result of discrimination warrant separate investigation to understand fully how unfair treatment alters life prospects. Research examining how perceived discrimination alters employment decisions over time is required, as are studies about discrimination and belonging, identity, and social participation at a number of spatial scales in immigrant gateway cities. Additional research probing the qualitative aspects of living and negotiating difference across a number of locales will enhance understanding of the spatiality of racial hierarchies of power and contemporary experiences of inequality amid diversity.

Footnotes

Funding

This research was partially supported by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, Multiculturalism Issues in Canada. Grant number 853-2005-0048.

Notes

References

Agóçs

Burr

(1996) Employment equity, affirmative action and managing diversity: Assessing the differences. International Journal of Manpower 17: 30–45.

Ahmed

(2012) On Being Included: Racism and Diversity in Institutional Life. Chapel Hill, NC: Duke University Press.

Allen

(2005) Ethnic geography dynamics: Clues from Los Angeles. Association of Pacific Coast Geographers Yearbook 67: 97–116.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing.

Amin

(2002) Ethnicity and the multicultural city: Living with diversity. Report for the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions. January. Durham: University of Durham.

Amin

(2012) Land of Strangers. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bielenski

Wagner

(2003) Employment options of men and women in Europe. Advances in Life Course Research 8: 137–162.

Blalock

(1967) Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York: Wiley.

Bourhis

Montreuil

Helly

. (2007) Discrimination et linguicisme au Québec: Enquête sur la diversité ethnique au Canada. Canadian Ethnic Studies 39: 31–49.

10.

Bourne

Britton

JNH

Leslie

(2011) The Greater Toronto region: The challenges of economic restructuring, social diversity, and globalization. In: Bourne

Hutton

Shearmur

. (eds) The Greater Toronto Region: The Challenges of Economic Restructuring, Social Diversity, and Globalization. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, pp. 236–268.

11.

Dion

(2002) The social psychology of perceived prejudice and discrimination. Canadian Psychology 43(1): 1–9.

12.

Dion

Kawakami

(1996) Ethnicity and perceived discrimination in Toronto: Another look at the personal/group discrimination discrepancy. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 28(3): 203–213.

13.

Echaveste

(2009) Invisible yet essential: Immigrant women in America. In: Boushey

O’Leary

(eds) Invisible Yet Essential: Immigrant Women in America. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress, pp. 114–119.

14.

Ellis

Wright

Parks

(2004) Work together, live apart? Geographies of residential and workplace segregation in Los Angeles. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 94(3): 620–637.

15.

Fong

Shibuya

(2005) Multiethnic cities in North America. Annual Review of Sociology 31: 285–304.

16.

Gee

Kobayashi

Prus

(2006) Ethnic inequality in Canada : Economic and health dimensions. In: Green

Kesselman

(eds) Dimensions of Inequality in Canada. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press, pp. 249–271.

17.

Germain

(ed) (1995) Cohabitation interethnique et vie de quartier. Québec: Ministère des Affaires internationales de l’immigration et des Communautés culturelles.

18.

Glick Schiller

Çaglar

(2010) Locating Migration: Rescaling Cities and Migrants. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

19.

Hagan

(1998) Social networks, gender, and immigrant incorporation: Resources and constraints. American Sociological Review 63(1): 55–67.

20.

Hanson

Pratt

(1995) Gender, Work, and Space. London: Routledge.

21.

Hiebert

(1999) Local geographies of labor market segmentation: Montréal, Toronto, and Vancouver, 1991. Economic Geography 75(4): 339–369.

22.

Hou

(2009) Racial diversity, minority concentration, and trust in Canadian urban neighborhoods. Social Science Research 38(3): 693–716.

23.

Hulchanski

(2010) The Three Cities Within Toronto: Income Polarization Among Toronto’s Neighbourhoods, 1970–2005. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto.

24.

Jacobs

(1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Modern Library.

25.

Janelle

Klinkenberg

Goodchild

(1998) The temporal ordering of urban space and daily activity patterns for population role groups. Geographical Systems 5(1–2): 117–137.

26.

Knoke

Burke

(1980) Log-Linear Models. Beverly Hills: Sage.

27.

Kymlicka

(2007) Multicultural Odysseys, Navigating the New International Politics of Diversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

28.

Lamphere

(ed.) (1992) Structuring Diversity: Ethnographic Perspectives on the New Immigration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

29.

Leitner

(2012) Spaces of encounters: Immigration, race, class and the politics of belonging in small town America. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 102(4): 828–846.

30.

(2009) Ethnoburb: The New Ethnic Community in Urban America. Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press.

31.

Shalaby

Alshalalfah

(2011) Relationship between immigrant settlement patterns and transit use in the Greater Toronto area. Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137(4): 470–476.

32.

Magee

Fong

Wilkes

(2007) Neighbourhood ethnic concentration and discrimination. Journal of Social Policy 37(1): 37–61.

33.

Matejskova

Leitner

(2011) Urban encounters with difference: The contact hypothesis and immigrant integration projects in eastern Berlin. Social and Cultural Geography 12(7): 717–441.

34.

McDowell

Court

(1994) Performing work: Bodily representations in merchant banks. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 12(6): 727–750.

35.

Murdie

(2008) Diversity and Concentration in Canadian Immigration, Trends in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, 1971–2006. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto.

36.

Pager

Shepherd

(2008) The sociology of discrimination: Racial discrimination in employment, housing, credit, and consumer markets. Annual Review of Sociology 34: 181.

37.

Pendakur

(2000) Immigrants and the Labour Force: Policy, regulation, and impact. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

38.

Picot

Hou

Coulombe

(2008) Poverty dynamics among recent immigrants to Canada. International Migration Review 42(2): 393–424.

39.

Porter

(1965) The Vertical Mosaic: An Analysis of Social Class and Power in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

40.

Portes

(ed.) (1995) The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity and Entrepreneurship. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

41.

Putnam

(2007) E Pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies 30(2): 137–174.

42.

Ray

Preston

(2009) Geographies of discrimination: Variations in perceived discomfort and discrimination in Canada’s gateway cities. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies 7(3): 228–249.

43.

Ray

Preston

(2013) Experiences of discrimination and discomfort: A comparison of metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations. The Canadian Geographer 57(2): 233–254.

44.

Reitz

Banerjee

(2007) Racial inequality, social cohesion, and policy issues in Canada. In: Banting

Courchene

Seidle

(eds) Belonging? Diversity, Recognition and Shared Citizenship in Canada. Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy, pp. 489–545.

45.

Rynes

Rosen

(1995) A field survey of factors affecting the adoption and perceived success of diversity training. Personnel Psychology 48(2): 247–270.

46.

Sandercock

(2003) Cosmopolis II: Mongrel cities of the 21st century. New York: Continuum.

47.

Sandoval

Johnson

Tafoya

(2002) Who’s your neighbour? Residential segregation and diversity in California. In: Johnson

(ed.) California Counts Population Trends and Profiles. Los Angeles: Public Policy Institute of California, pp. 1–19.

48.

Savelkoul

Gesthuizen

Scheepers

(2011) Explaining relationships between ethnic diversity and informal social capital across European countries and regions: Tests of constrict, conflict and contact theory. Social Science Research 40(4): 1091–1107.

49.

Scott

(1996) The manufacturing economy: Ethnic and gender divisions of labor. In: Waldinger

Bozorgmehr

(eds) Ethnic Los Angeles. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 215–244.

50.

Shen

Chanda

D’Netto

. (2009) Managing diversity through human resource management: An international perspective and conceptual framework. The International Journal of Human Resource Management 20(2): 235–251.

51.

Simmons

(2010) Immigration and Canada: Global and Transnational Perspectives. Toronto: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

52.

Statistics Canada (2003) Ethnic Diversity Survey: Content Overview. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

53.

Statistics Canada (2011) Census Dictionary: Census Year 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

54.

Statistics Canada (2013) Commuting to Work: National Household Survey (NHS), 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

55.

Taylor

Wright

Moghaddam

. (1990) The personal/group discrimination discrepancy: Perceiving my group, but not myself to be a target for discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 16(2): 254–262.

56.

Townshend

(2001) The contribution of social and experiential community structures to the intra-urban ecology of well-being. Canadian Journal of Urban Research 10(2): 175–215.

57.

Valentine

(2008) Living with difference: Reflections on geographies of encounter. Progress in Human Geography 32(3): 323–337.

58.

Valentine

(2010) Prejudice: Rethinking geographies of oppression. Social & Cultural Geography 11(6): 519–537.

59.

Valenty

Sylvia

(2004) Thresholds for tolerance: The impact of racial and ethnic population composition on the vote for California propositions 187 and 209. The Social Science Journal 41(3): 433–446.

60.

Walks

Bourne

(2006) Ghettos in Canada’s cities? Racial segregation, ethnic enclaves and poverty concentration in Canadian urban areas. The Canadian Geographer 50(3): 273–297.

61.

Wang

(2010) How does geography matter in the ethnic labor market segmentation process? A case study of Chinese immigrants in the San Francisco CMSA. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 100(1): 182–201.

62.

Wessel

(2009) Does diversity in urban space enhance intergroup contact and tolerance? Geografiska Annaler Series B-Human Geography 91B(1): 5–17.

63.

White

(1986) Segregation and diversity measures in population distribution. Population Index 52: 198–221.

64.

Wright

Ellis

Parks

(2010) Immigrant niches and the intrametropolitan spatial division of labour. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(7): 1033–1059.

65.

Yap

Holmes

Hannan

C-A

. (2010) The relationship between diversity training, organizational commitment, and career satisfaction. Journal of European Industrial Training 34(6): 519–538.

66.

Young

(1990) Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.