Portfolio exam

Please also refer to the Department of Sociology’s detailed website on exams. Note that tables and figures do not count into the number of final pages and also that you please submit a log-file (Stata) or R-Markdown file (ideally, alternatively R-script) as appendix.

Throughout the class you will need to hand in three portfolios, all of which are regression analyses of the European Social Survey 2014. The first one shall be a classic OLS regression analysis of Racism/Xenophobia in Denmark. Your task will be to operationalize and test classic theories, which we discuss during the initial classes. You shall conduct your analysis based on the most recent Danish ESS data (2014). The second portfolio is to extend your initial analysis to a multilevel analysis of Racism/Xenophobia across the European countries covered by ESS 2014. In your final portfolio, you will extend your analysis even further by adding a cross-level interaction. Throughout all three portfolios we will make use of peer feedback. That is, I expect you to read and comment on two of your classmates’ portfolios (thus you will also receive two peer feedbacks, but only if you submit your feedback to your peers) per submitted portfolio. Each portfolio shall have 3-4 pages without counting tables and figures.

Eventually you will need to turn your three portfolio’s into one final paper. Refer to Leaflet 1 (on Absalon) for general guidelines on how to write up such an empirical study. Note that Leaflet 1 concerns the final essay that you are expected to submit, but the three portfolio’s are sub-steps on the way to that essay. Therefore, most of the guidelines of Leaflet 1 also hold for the three portfolios.

Portfolio 1

In this three to four page portfolio, you have four tasks, which you should sub-divide into three sections.

  • Theory section (1-2 pages): First, you need to define a sub-type of racist or xenophobic attitudes that you want to analyze. Your definition should be based on a theoretical elaboration of Clair and Denis (2015), Hervik (2015), and our classroom discussion. Ideally, you choose a different outcome variable than the two that we have used in class. Yet, make sure that it has at least four levels, so that you can roughly treat it as continuous. Second, you need to theoretically deduce at least one individual-level predictor of this type of attitude based on Dinesen and Hjorth (2020) and/or Pettigrew (1998), and at least two control variables you need to adjust for.

  • Data & Methods section (1 page): Third, you need to operationalize your sub-type of racist or xenophobic attitudes based on variables contained in the Danish ESS 2014, including a justification of this operationalization against your initial theoretical elaboration. Fourth you also need to briefly explain your operationalization of your individual-lev el predictor and your control variables.

  • Results section (1 page): You need to estimate an OLS regression testing your theoretical claims and explain the model’s results.

Portfolio 2

In this portfolio, you shall add another three to four pages to your existing portfolio. Overall, you have the following four tasks:

  1. Revise your Portfolio 1 according to the peer feedback that you have received.
  2. Extend your theory section: First, based on own reasoning but also on the different studies and review articles that we have read (i.e., especially Dinesen and Hjorth (2020), but also: Helbling and Kriesi (2014); Haderup Larsen and Schaeffer (2020); Schlueter, Masso, and Davidov (2019); Hiers, Soehl, and Wimmer (2017)) - and maybe also additional literature, if you like and are very ambitious - theoretically deduce a macro/country-level characteristic that may be a predictor of your outcome variable. For a top grade, you should identify a macro/country-level characteristic that we have not considered in class and that is not part of the ESS country, Schlueter, Masso, and Davidov (2019), or Hiers, Soehl, and Wimmer (2017) data. Note that there are tons of data sets about country attributes, such as the number and deaths of terror attacks, gay rights, parliament discourse, and so on. Second, theoretically deduce (again based on own reasoning and/or literature) a micro/person-level attribute that may exert a contextual effect on your outcome.
  3. Extend your data & methods section: Operationalize the two new variables, including a justification of this operationalization against your initial theoretical elaboration. Also consider which composition and contextual confounders you need to control for and how you operationalize them.
  4. Extend your results section: Estimate a random intercept model that tests both the hypotheses you tested for Portfolio 1 and your two new hypotheses. Give correct interpretation and explain your findings.

Portfolio 3

This portfolio ideally finalizes your exam paper making it a full 10 pages in which you should try to demonstrate as many of the technical skills that we have covered in class, mastery of the different theoretical explanations, and ideally also own sociological reasoning. Overall, you have the following four tasks:

  1. Revise your Portfolio 2 according to the peer feedback that you have received.
  2. Extend your theory section: Based on own reasoning but also on the different studies and review articles that we have read (i.e., especially Dinesen and Hjorth (2020), but also: Helbling and Kriesi (2014); Haderup Larsen and Schaeffer (2020); Schlueter, Masso, and Davidov (2019); Hiers, Soehl, and Wimmer (2017)) - and maybe also additional literature, if you like and are very ambitious - argue for the existence of a random slope, ideally of one of your main micro-level predictors. Further discuss what cross-level interaction potentially could explain that random slope. For a top grade, you will need to consider an innovative idea and argument about a random slope and cross-level interaction that we have not considered in class.
  3. Extend your results section: Estimate a random intercept and slope model that tests all your hypotheses. Give thorough and substantial interpretation of your results (i.e. fixed effects and random effects). Test whether the random slope is significant. Report accurate inference for the fixed effects, check model assumptions, briefly summarize their results, and adapt your model accordingly.

References

Clair, Matthew, and Jeffrey S. Denis. 2015. “Racism, Sociology Of.” Pp. 857–63 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Elsevier.
Dinesen, Peter Thisted, and Frederick Hjorth. 2020. “Attitudes Toward Immigration: Theories, Settings, and Approaches.” in The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science. Oxford University Press.
Haderup Larsen, Mikkel, and Merlin Schaeffer. 2020. “Healthcare Chauvinism During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Unpublished Manuscript.
Helbling, Marc, and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2014. “Why Citizens Prefer High- Over Low-Skilled Immigrants. Labor Market Competition, Welfare State, and Deservingness.” European Sociological Review 30(5):595–614. doi: 10.1093/esr/jcu061.
Hervik, Peter. 2015. “Xenophobia and Nativism.” Pp. 796–801 in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), edited by J. D. Wright. Oxford: Elsevier.
Hiers, Wesley, Thomas Soehl, and Andreas Wimmer. 2017. “National Trauma and the Fear of Foreigners: How Past Geopolitical Threat Heightens Anti-Immigration Sentiment Today.” Social Forces 96(1):361–88. doi: 10.1093/sf/sox045.
Pettigrew, Thomas F. 1998. “Intergroup Contact Theory.” Annual Review of Psychology 49(1):65–85.
Schlueter, Elmar, Anu Masso, and Eldad Davidov. 2019. “What Factors Explain Anti-Muslim Prejudice? An Assessment of the Effects of Muslim Population Size, Institutional Characteristics and Immigration-Related Media Claims.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 0(0):1–16. doi: 10.1080/1369183X.2018.1550160.