Models, Methods, and Stereotypes: Efforts to Maintain, Reify, and Create Macedonia’s Ethno-Political Identities and How Research Can Move beyond Them Philip J. Murphy, Doctoral Candidate, Graduate School of Public and International International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
[email protected]
Results
Introduction Contemporary scholars and practitioners from both in- and outside of the Balkans frequently focus on ethnic tensions when characterizing identity systems in the Republic of Macedonia.
Stage 1: Student Interviews
Inquiry into Macedonia’s political development falls into one of four general categories: 1.
Western models and stereotypes (e.g. primordial divisions, nationalism, ‘Balkanization’)
2.
Generalized deductive research
Stage 2: National Survey
Over 35
Rotated Factor Matrix*
formation of the state of Macedonia identity issues
violence
Factor
manipulates
3.
M28M3
Retrospective creation or justification of identity
diplomacy M59F4 M08M1
1
foreign vs. domestic issues A08F1
M29F3
4.
Generative or hypothesis-generating inquiry
A55M2 A53M2
A26M1 A04M1 A23M1
The current study of Balkan politics and identity moves beyond ethnopolitics to incorporate the richness and complexity that characterizes this population.
development
A32M2 Religion
M47M4
multiethnic
A57F2A50F2
stability reforms influence
Kosovo
A52M2
A34M2
A54M2
minorities M07M1
M41F3A46M2
A29F1 A33M2
Indirect / direct
humanism
self-interest
M56F4 A39M1
A40M1
Region
employment M25M3
M21M4
M06M1 M19M4
experience
M09M1
power nationalist nepotism communist leadership skills special vs. general interest
education
loyal
M16F1 M27M3
A38M1
corruption
local / global
nation vs. people
M22F4
bravery Anticipation
A42M1
qualifications
promising M33F3
communicator Strategy
Methods
M52M4
M24M3 M30F3M23M3
popular support social issues old style / new style
M60F4
similarity
A48M1 patriot
Charisma
M03F1 M46M4
Stage 1: Student Interviews
Four clusters of respondents (red boxes) who share constructs (blue circles) that comprise elements of their frames of reference [via 2-mode MDS of affiliation matrix]
Data Collection
.610
Self-Interest 2
.601
.254
9Elements – to be compared 9Constructs – to differentiate between elements
.599
.262
.558
.224
Corruption 1
.546
Population in General
.534
Self-Interest 1
.513
Development
.511
Confidence
.510
.291
Macedonia in General
.486
.369
Transparency 1
.482
Social Issues
.482
Nepotism
.476
Region
.465
Education
.446
Leadership Skills
.436
Employment
.420
Democracy
.406
Economics
Constructs were standardized linguistically and divided into 77 construct groups and a respondent-construct affiliation matrix was constructed.
.220
.332
Administrative Reforms
.253
Anticipation
.235
Strategy
.203
Average grids to reach a “consensus configuration.”
Partial list of constructs that are shared by at least 25% (yellow) of respondents per cluster. Orange = highest % sharing
¾
Generate consensus proportion (CP) that expresses the percentage of within-group agreement & test for significance by permutation.
Stage 2: National Survey Study sample: 447 randomly selected respondents (≥ 18 years old) from across Macedonia (298 Macedonian, 134 Albanian, 15 other)
Data Collection Construct survey based upon constructs elicited in Stage 1 to assess reliability & validity of repertory grid analyses.
Analytic Approach Conduct exploratory factor analysis to determine what underlying structure exists in the scaled responses to the 60 bipolar constructs Conduct analysis of variance on each of the five factors to test for association of each factor with ethnicity (Macedonian or Albanian). Analysis of variance was conducted on entire sample (not shown) and again, dividing sample according to respondent age.
Sample Kiro Gligorov
3.85
Cluster 1 2.95
Cluster 2 2.92
.323
.229
.294
.045
.000
.009
.000
.000
Chi-Square
4.868
14.894
1.145
8.861
8.684
df
1
1
1
1
1
Asymp. Sig.
.027
.000
.284
.003
.000
Cluster 3 3.05
Cluster 4 3.69
Outliers 5.98
.238
STAGE 2: National Survey Factor analysis and the cluster analysis yield similar results Factor 3 – Earned Characteristics, bears strong similarities to Cluster 4,
.555
Both are dominated by references to earned characteristics such as “qualifications,” “liberal or conservative,” “corruption,” and “experience”.
.541 .250
Factor 3 and Cluster 4 cross ethnicities only among Macedonia’s younger generation.
.537
Religion
.511
Violence
.478
.211
.235
.429
.274
.245
.227
.248
The younger generation shares a frame of reference that is common to both ethnicities.
.203 .246
Qualifications
.442
Experience
.215
EU Issues
.312
.215
Their shared frame of reference, represented by Cluster 4 and Factor 3, consist of ‘earned,’ as opposed to ascribed, characteristics, a development is commonly lauded among modernization theorists.
.522 .496 .458
.208
Ability / Effectiveness
.436 .205
.399
Communist
.292
.390
.290
Cooperative Tendencies
.211
The presence of shared ideas in the younger generations generations is an encouraging indicator of the burgeoning maturation of what is still a newly formed multiethnic state.
.344 .316
Reforms
.324 .301
.238
.255
Influence
2.45
5.47
Lupco Georgievski
3.83
3.27
3.70
2.23
3.20
4.97
Formation of the State of MK
George Bush
3.35
2.65
3.20
2.06
3.01
4.84
Legal Aspects 1
.215
.237
.283
.430
Branko Crvenkovski
3.28
3.06
2.80
3.00
2.32
5.28
Identity Issues
.318
.304
.212
.383
Arben Jaferi
3.83
3.67
3.34
3.47
2.65
4.41
Legal Aspects 2
.285
.300
.250
.371
Nikola Gruevski
3.79
3.19
2.75
3.19
2.75
5.89
Mother Teresa
4.21
2.79
3.55
3.14
4.27
5.77
.232
.296
Havier Solana
3.49
2.94
2.77
3.89
2.79
3.75
Vlado Buckovski
3.46
2.80
2.67
3.07
2.85
5.35
.313
Popular Support
.528
Nationalist
.302 -.226
For/Against Albanians
.651
State University Tetovo
0.70
0.48
.584
Ohrid Agreement Equality / Proportionality
.220 .202
p<0.01
p<0.01
p<0.01
p<0.01
p<0.01
p<0.01
Multiethnic
Min/max
0.56/0.57
0.62/0.63
0.57/0.60
0.54/0.60
0.63/0.66
0.43/0.51
Extraction Method: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Higher residual values = less agreement over a given public figure Lower residual values = more agreement over a given public figure
.491
Borgatti, S.P. (2002) NetDraw: Graph Visualization Software. Harvard: Analytic Technologies. Borgatti, S.P. and M.G. Everett (1997) “Network analysis of 2-mode data,” Social Networks. 19: 243-269. Djiksterhuis, G.B. and J.C. Gower. (1992) “The interpretation of Generalized Procrustes Analysis and allied methods,” Food Quality and Preference. 3: 67-87. Gaines, B.R. and Mildred L. G. Shaw. (2005b) Rep IV Research Version 1.12. Cobble Hill, British Columbia, Canada: Centre for Person-Computer Studies. Grice, J. (2004) Idiogrid: Idiographic Analysis with Repertory Grids Version 2.3. Stillwater, OK:
. Kelly, G.R. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
.480
Permutation test pvalue (100 reps.)
Residuals and within cluster agreement via GPA.
Works Cited
.224
2.12
0.71
The future of political communication in Macedonia will will require the continued growth of a cognitive middle ground, where frames of reference are based primarily on expertise rather than ethnic affiliation. affiliation.
.201
.443
Transparency 2
Balance
Findings indicate that there exists a new, shared identity within within the younger demographic of Macedonia. The under-35 generation has little, and in some cases no memory of the socialist Yugoslav state.
.437 .277 -.205
Liberal / Conservative
Corruption 2
Inquiry of this sort is a valuable aid to understanding how identity and perception relate to macro-level behavior.
2.76
0.70
1
Asymp. Sig.
-.245
3.29
0.69
12.304
1
Measures of perception offer an important approach for understanding identity.
.368
3.55
0.63
14.197
1
This approach provides deeper insight into the frames of reference (constructs) that define identity groups than is possible when partitioning solely on the basis of ethnicity.
Ali Ahmeti
Consensus proportion (CP)
6.733
1
This study measures the similarities and differences in how individuals perceive public figures who have an affect on their country, regardless of variations in language, culture, or other social and demographic characteristics.
.352 .220
Uniting or Dividing MK
Radical
Comparing across grids: Generalized Procrustes Analysis (GPA)
¾
18.703
1
.250
.621
Capitalism
Generate a bipartite matrix from 2-mode data and compute geodesic distances for use in the MDS algorithm (NetDraw, [Borgatti 2002])
Determine how similarly individuals construe the same stimuli by minimizing spurious differences between individual grids through a process of scaling, rotating, and centering.
4.033
df
STAGE 1: Student Interviews
War / Conflict
Stability
Mapping ‘cognitive space’: Multidimensional scaling (MDS) of 2-mode data
¾
Chi-Square
Conclusions
.253
.383
.358 -.344
Patriot
Constitutional Name
Analytic Approach
Emergent clusters were further analyzed as ‘identity groups’ (clusters of actors whose frames of reference overlap substantially).
Factor 5: Albanian Interests
.291 .242
.392
Media
Peace
¾
Factor 4: Macedonian Identity
Test for association of each factor with ethnicity (Macedonian or Albanian) by age category.
-.363
Federalism
Example of a repertory grid matrix
Respondents compared and rated 10 pre-determined domestic and international public figures according to their individual frames of reference
Factor 3: Earned Characteristics
.261
Humanism
International Relations
¾ Semi-structured psychological interview technique employing:
¾
Age 35 and under
.223
Promises
Local vs. Global
Elicitation of frames of reference: Repertory Grid Method
¾
Special vs. General Interests
Intolerance/bias
Study sample: 109 students (54 Albanian, 54 Macedonian, 1 other) from Macedonia’s four accredited universities.
¾
.662
autocratic tendencies
M18M4
M39F3
Grass Roots
legalGovernment aspects leadership / opposition
M04F1 M43F3 M36F3
M49M4
5
Factor 2: Peace & Conflict
Dependent/Independent
political / non-political T01M1
4
A41M1 A45M2
A49M1 Promises
problem solving
Bureaucratic politics
issues pertaining to "nations" M32F3
war / conflict
liberal / conservative
A07M1 A02F1 A13M1 M42F3
balance
Effort
cooperative tendencies M17M4 transparency ability / effectiveness
equality / proportionality results international relations
M15F1
A10F1 M02M1 M12F1
M55F4
population in general
M10M1
M48M4 Western interests radical
M26M3
A03M1
A17F1 A09F1 M31F3
3
M57F4
M40F3
A20F1 A47M2
A27M1
M44F3 A24M1 M13F1 A35F1
A31M2
A28F1 A14M1 A15M1
A22M1 A21M1A36F1
A12M1A58F2 M38F3
administrative reforms
AIM 2: To partition a population into groups based on respondent input, rather than bias-laden external characterizations
A11M1
M58F4
Grass roots
A51F1 M11F1
M45F3
A43M2 economics Macedonia in general For/against Albanians
State University of Tetovo Ohrid agreement democracy
AIM 1: To partition a study population into ‘identity groups’ according to patterns indicating clusters of respondents whose frames of reference overlap
A37F2
M50F4
M01F4 A56F2
A30M2 A19F1
peace
Issues uniting or dividingEU Macedonia
Assuming that individuals who share a common identity should also share some common views (Kelly 1955), it is possible to distinguish identity groups within a population if one can first discern where individual frames of reference overlap within that population.
A18F1
A44M1
2
Factor 1: State Development
M35F3
M37F3
M20M4
A01F1
9Ratings – of elements according to supplied constructs
Analysis of Variance – Kruskall-Wallis Respondent age
.398
* Rotation converged in 27 iterations.
Factor analysis of 60 bipolar, Likert-type scale survey questions. (Cronbach’s α=0.907; Loadings <.200 suppressed)
.412
Acknowledgements This study was supported in part through grants from South East European University and the French Embassy to the Republic of Macedonia.
