Measuring Islamophobia requires reliable indicators rather than anecdotal evidence.
Evidence
Assembling multiple, reliable, and consistent indicators provides a more systematic and accurate sense of levels of Islamophobia within a particular society at a specific time. It may not be possible to develop a meaningful aggregate index of Islamophobia given the currently available data, and there are some purposes for which attempting to do so would be pointless, but it is vital to move beyond using indirect, anecdotal, or conflating indicators as evidence of contemporary Islamophobia. — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 59
Previous research has outlined the need for and development of a psychometrically sound self-report measure of an individual’s fear-related attitudes toward Muslims and the religion of Islam. The IS, consisting of two factors (i.e., I-C and I-AB) and 16 items, was developed in order to provide a psychometrically sound measure of this much-debated construct (Lee et al., 2009). With the reliable and valid assessment of Islamophobia needed to scientifically understand this construct, the IS has demonstrated adequate psychometric properties. However, the literature on Islamophobia has called for research to “move beyond using indirect, anecdotal, or conflating indicators as evidence of contemporary Islamophobia,” (Bleich, 2011, p. 1592), meaning that additional tests of reliability and validity should be provided for this instrument. Therefore, the purpose of the current investigation is to further investigate the psychometric properties of the IS. — Sherman A. Lee, Chelsea A. Reid, Stephen D. Short, Jeffrey A. Gibbons, Ruth Yeh, and Matthew L. Campbell, Fear of Muslims, 25
Categorization
- DEFINE: Shows the operationalist half of Bleich’s concept-formation: ‘indiscriminate negative attitudes or emotions directed at Islam or Muslims’ must be measured with multiple reliable indicators.
- QUESTION: What counts as a ‘reliable and consistent indicator’ in Bleich’s own empirical work under this definition — worth tracing how he operationalizes his own definition.
- XREF: Connects to scholarship on measurement validity in social science and to the reader’s interest in Islamophobia as a theme (e.g., The Reluctant Fundamentalist). — connects to: Passing judgment on veiling requires an explicit normative framework, not raw empirics. — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 597; Public Islamophobia debate lacks empirical grounding and nuance — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 42; Islamophobia lacks the analytical metrics needed to assess whether Muslim conditions worsen — Runnymede Trust (ed. Farah Elahi & Omar Khan), Islamophobia: Still a Challenge for Us…, 599 (+16 more)
- corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 59; Sherman A. Lee, Chelsea A. Reid, Stephen D. Short, Jeffrey A. Gibbons, Ruth Yeh, and Matthew L. Campbell, Fear of Muslims: Psychometric…, 25
Broader Connections
- Inconsistent operational definitions prevent cumulating research on Islamophobia.
#expands(0.85) — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 66 - Accurate Islamophobia measurement should guide resource allocation across prejudice causes
#expands(0.85) — Erik Bleich, What Is Islamophobia and How Much Is…, 72 - Existing instruments for detecting Islamophobia fail to match its theory
#corroborates(0.82) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 664 - Islamophobia requires an acknowledged Muslim or Islamic element to be identified.
#expands(0.78) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 911 - Poor evidence plus subjective definitions make Islamophobia easy to dismiss
#complicates(0.75) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 657 - Defining Islamophobia requires abandoning checklists of identifying criteria.
#expands(0.75) — Chris Allen, Islamophobia, 898 - Islamophobia is best understood by what it does rather than by defining its boundaries
#expands(0.72) — A. Hussain, N. Meer, Framing Muslim Integration, 178