Introduction
A sociological subject that is often portrayed both in the media and through research and peer-reviewed articles is considered as racial disparities. Namely, one of the variables that are often implemented in such content pieces is employment. Racial disparities when it comes to income and employment statuses across different racial, ethnic, and national communities can showcase whether specific groups are marginalized and whether opportunities differ among the various demographics. In this paper, two pieces of content will be discussed. A peer-reviewed study and a Guardian article on race-based unemployment in the UK will be examined in regards to the provided information, the validity of the sources, and potential recommendations. Based on the prior examination, the media article, while accurate in representing statistics, lacks objectivity, and more statistical and evidence-based information could have been included for the overall reliability of the source.
Media Article Overview
The media article that will be examined was published on the Guardian online platform. “Racial disparities in the UK: Key findings of the report – and what its critics say” written by Peter Walker and Nazia Parveen in response to the UK government report on racial disparities. The content of the source includes direct information from the primary source and subjective commentary on the findings. Thus, the authors mention the report as showing a lack of systemic racial disparities while confronting the findings by mentioning social and economic issues certain demographics face. For example, the authors mention the statistics that the unemployment rate is especially prominent in relation to Black African and Bangladeshi individuals at around 25% compared to 10% among white youth (Walker & Parveen, 2021). At the same time, the report does not correlate the findings with injustice but rather with social factors such as single-parent households, a suggestion that is criticized by the authors.
It is inevitable that the media content does not directly report the findings highlighted in the official paper but provides a commentary that is not based on statistics but rather on social phenomena and terminology that is not supported through evidence. The journalists, however, deemed the subject relevant partially due to the fact that the topic of systemic racism in western countries is widely discussed and has been the reason for multiple protests and riots all over the world. Thus, the thesis of the article encompasses racial disparities in employment as a result of state injustice, lack of opportunities, and discrimination faces by minorities.
Primary Research Overview
The primary research examined in the current analysis is a study on the labor market. Precisely, “Persisting disadvantages: a study of labor market dynamics of ethnic unemployment and earnings in the UK (2009–2015)” published by Yaojun Li and Anthony Heath in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies provides direct evidence of inequalities. The peer-reviewed status supports the reliability of the source as it is evidence of the data being evaluated by experts in the field. The suitability for publication, unlike the publishing of media articles, is challenging to obtain and requires the content to be analyzed and cleared by other researchers. The authors have studied employment across multiple ethnicities and included gender differences compared to the authors of the media articles. Namely, it was mentioned that Pakistani and Bangladeshi individuals face unemployment more frequently, especially women at almost 30% (Li & Heath, 2018). Moreover, compared to the previous news article, the study divides unemployment through waves depending on the time in history.
Furthermore, the study provides more evidence on disparities being linked to inequality rather than cultural or social issues. As an example, the researchers mention that certain ethnic minorities are statistically more likely to be penalized in the workforce, as well as the fact that Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and black Caribbean individuals earn about £4 less than white workers. The findings are linked to the thesis, which is that the British employment system is discriminatory and lacks equality and equity. Moreover, the content published in the peer-reviewed journal is essential in determining direct and objective statistics that highlight the systemic problems related to racial injustice.
Recommendations
Based on the examination, it is certain that the media article lacks objectivity and uses more subjective terminology instead of adhering to facts. This is adequate since the content is to be entertaining and comprehensive, which is not the goal when it comes to peer-reviewed studies relying on exact data. However, the subjective commentary that may have data that can support it has not been properly addressed. For example, the authors mention the report suggesting that disparities may be linked to cultural differences, something that the media article denies and criticizes. Instead, evidence could be provided on statistics when it comes to single-parent household incomes. This would highlight the evidence behind the claims and allow the authors to state an opinion that is based on existing data.
Another aspect that may have improved the media article is having a broader perspective on racial disparities. As mentioned prior, the authors mention specific age groups, such as the youth, as well as focus on race rather than ethnical differences. The study, on the other hand, exemplified differences among ethnicities, providing statistics on various groups, including white Irish, black Caribbean, Indian, Chinese, and Pakistani (Li & Heath, 2018). Moreover, disparities are portrayed from the perspective of gender through the examination of employment among women of different ethnic backgrounds vs. males. The media article could have employed a similar technique, which would have facilitated a more in-depth examination of the issue that has been analyzed.
Last but not least, the media article could have included more sources of evidence to support the claims highlighted within the content. On the one hand, the news coverage was focused on the government report. However, in order for the statistics to be illustrated more precisely, more sources could have been implemented to provide an evidence-based coverage of the information. This includes similar statistics across history, comparisons with racial unemployment issues in other countries, or statistics examined by various platforms. As a result, more information would be available for commentary, and a more inclusive vision of the issue would be generated.
Conclusion
The peer-reviewed article is certainly less subjective and more evidence-based compared to the media article examined prior. The differences between the two pieces include language, the validity of information, and language. However, it is important to mention that the media article on the topic of racial disparities cannot be similar to a piece of research published in an academic journal. Nonetheless, certain measures would have improved the news article and facilitated a less biased view on the subject of employment injustice in the UK. Namely, the authors could have included more data on the subject, examined various sources for comparisons, and supported their claims with existing statistics on the topic.
References
Li, Y., & Heath, A. (2018). Persisting disadvantages: A study of labor market dynamics of ethnic unemployment and earnings in the UK (2009–2015). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 46(5), 857–878.
Walker, P., & Parveen, N. (2021). Racial disparities in the UK: Key findings of the report – and what its critics say. The Guardian.