IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/camsys/v20y2024i2ne1397.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mapping the scientific knowledge and approaches to defining and measuring hate crime, hate speech, and hate incidents: A systematic review

Author

Listed:
  • Matteo Vergani
  • Barbara Perry
  • Joshua Freilich
  • Steven Chermak
  • Ryan Scrivens
  • Rouven Link
  • Daniel Kleinsman
  • John Betts
  • Muhammad Iqbal

Abstract

Background The difficulties in defining hate crime, hate incidents and hate speech, and in finding a common conceptual basis constitute a key barrier toward operationalisation in research, policy and programming. Definitions disagree about issues such as the identities that should be protected, the types of behaviours that should be referred to as hateful, and how the ‘hate element’ should be assessed. The lack of solid conceptual foundations is reflected in the absence of sound data. These issues have been raised since the early 1990s (Berk, 1990; Byers & Venturelli, 1994) but they proved to be an intractable problem that continues to affect this research and policy domain. Objectives Our systematic review has two objectives that are fundamentally connected: mapping (1) original definitions and (2) original measurement tools of hate crime, hate speech, hate incidents and surrogate terms, that is, alternative terms used for these concepts (e.g., prejudice‐motivated crime, bias crime, among many others). Search Methods We systematically searched over 19 databases to retrieve academic and grey literature, as well as legislation. In addition, we contacted 26 country experts and searched 211 websites, as well as bibliographies of published reviews of related literature, and scrutiny of annotated bibliographies of related literature. Inclusion Criteria This review included documents published after 1990 found in academic literature, grey literature and legislation. We included academic empirical articles with any study design, as well as theoretical articles that focused specifically on defining hate crime, hate speech, hate incidents or surrogate terms. We also reviewed current criminal or civil legislation that is intended to regulate forms of hate speech, hate incidents and hate crimes. Eligible countries included Canada, USA, UK, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Australia and New Zealand. For documents to be included in relation to research objective (1), they had to contain at least one original definition of hate speech, hate incidents or hate crimes, or any surrogate term. For documents to be included in relation to research objective (2), they had to contain at least one original measurement tool of hate speech, hate incidents or hate crimes, or any surrogate term. Documents could be included in relation to both research objectives. Data Collection and Analysis The systematic search covered 1 January 1990 to 31 December 2021, with searches of academic databases conducted between 8th March and 12th April 2022 yielding 35,191 references. We carried out country‐specific searches for grey literature published in the same time period between 27th August and 2nd December 2021. These searches yielded a total of 2748 results. We coded characteristics of the definitions and measurement tools, including the protected characteristics, the approaches to categorise the ‘hate element’ and other variables. We used univariate and bivariate statistical methods for data analysis. We also carried out a social network analysis. Main Results We provide as annex complete lists of the original definitions and measurement tools that met our inclusion criteria, for the use of researchers and policy makers worldwide. We included 423 definitions and 168 measurement tools in academic and grey literature, and 83 definitions found in legislation. To support future research and policy work in this area, we included a synthetic assessment of the (1) the operationalisability of each definition and (2) the theoretical robustness and transparency of each measurement tool. Our mapping of the definitions and measurement tools revealed numerous significant trends, clusters and differences between and within definitions and measurement tools focusing on hate crime, hate speech and hate incidents. For example, definitions and measurement tools tend to focus more on ethnic and religious identities (e.g., racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia) compared to sexual, gender and disability‐related identities. This gap is greater in the definitions and measurement tools of hate speech than hate crime. Our analysis showed geographical patterns: hate crime definitions and measurement tools are more likely to originate from Anglophonic countries, especially the USA, but hate speech definitions and measurement tools are more likely to originate from continental Europe. In terms of disciplinary fragmentation, our social network analysis revealed that the collaboration and exchange of conceptual frameworks and methodological tools between social sciences and computer science is limited, with most definitions and measurement tools clustering along disciplinary lines. More detailed findings are presented in the results section of the report. Authors' Conclusions There is an urgent need to close the research and policy gap between the protections of ‘ethnic and religious identities’ and other (less) protected characteristics such as gender and sexual identities, age and disability. There is also an urgent need to improve the quality of methodological and reporting standards in research examining hate behaviours, including transparency in methodology and data reporting, and discussion of limitations (e.g., bias in data). Many of the measurement tools found in the academic literature were excluded because they did not report transparently how they collected and analysed the data. Further, 41% of documents presenting research on hate behaviours did not provide a definition of what they were looking at. Given the importance of this policy domain, it is vital to raise the quality and trustworthiness of research in this area. This review found that researchers in different disciplinary areas (e.g., social sciences and computer science) rarely collaborate. Future research should attempt to build on existing definitions and measurement tools (instead of duplicating efforts), and engage in more interdisciplinary collaborations. It is our hope that that this review can provide a solid foundation for researchers, government, and other bodies to build cumulative knowledge and collaboration in this important field.

Suggested Citation

  • Matteo Vergani & Barbara Perry & Joshua Freilich & Steven Chermak & Ryan Scrivens & Rouven Link & Daniel Kleinsman & John Betts & Muhammad Iqbal, 2024. "Mapping the scientific knowledge and approaches to defining and measuring hate crime, hate speech, and hate incidents: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(2), June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:20:y:2024:i:2:n:e1397
    DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1397
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1397
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/cl2.1397?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan B. Krueger & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 1997. "A Statistical Analysis of Crime against Foreigners in Unified Germany," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 32(1), pages 182-209.
    2. Mireille Jacobson & Heather Royer, 2011. "Aftershocks: The Impact of Clinic Violence on Abortion Services," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 3(1), pages 189-223, January.
    3. Benček, David & Strasheim, Julia, 2016. "Refugees welcome? Introducing a new dataset on anti-refugee violence in Germany, 2014-2015," Kiel Working Papers 2032, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    4. Nigel Harriman & Neil Shortland & Max Su & Tyler Cote & Marcia A. Testa & Elena Savoia, 2020. "Youth Exposure to Hate in the Online Space: An Exploratory Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(22), pages 1-14, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Entorf, Horst & Spengler, Hannes, 2000. "Socioeconomic and demographic factors of crime in Germany: Evidence from panel data of the German states," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 75-106, March.
    2. Fischer, Stefanie & Royer, Heather & White, Corey, 2017. "The Impacts of Reduced Access to Abortion and Family Planning Services: Evidence from Texas," IZA Discussion Papers 10920, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Chen, Daniel L. & Levonyan, Vardges & Yeh, Susan, 2016. "Policies Affect Preferences: Evidence from Random Variation in Abortion Jurisprudence," IAST Working Papers 16-58, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    4. Brodeur, Abel & Yousaf, Hasin, 2019. "The Economics of Mass Shootings," IZA Discussion Papers 12728, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Simone Schüller, 2016. "The Effects of 9/11 on Attitudes toward Immigration and the Moderating Role of Education," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(4), pages 604-632, November.
    6. Fenet Jima Bedaso & Uwe Jirjahn, 2024. "Immigrants and trade union membership: Does integration into society and workplace play a moderating role?," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 62(2), pages 262-292, June.
    7. Armin Falk & Andreas Kuhn & Josef Zweimüller, 2011. "Unemployment and Right‐wing Extremist Crime," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 113, pages 260-285, June.
    8. Aksoy, Cevat Giray & Poutvaara, Panu & Schikora, Felicitas, 2023. "First time around: Local conditions and multi-dimensional integration of refugees," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    9. Kayaoglu, Aysegul, 2022. "Do refugees cause crime?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    10. Cornelissen, Thomas & Jirjahn, Uwe, 2012. "September 11th and the earnings of Muslims in Germany—The moderating role of education and firm size," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 490-504.
    11. Gil S. Epstein & Shirit Katav Herz, 2019. "Who is in favor of immigration: the wealthy or the poor? the old or the young?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(2), pages 1424-1434.
    12. Hyll, Walter & Schneider, Lutz, 2016. "Social Comparisons and Attitudes towards Foreigners. Evidence from the ‘Fall of the Iron Curtain’," IWH Discussion Papers 12/2016, Halle Institute for Economic Research (IWH).
    13. Nils Braakmann, 2010. "Neo-Nazism and discrimination against foreigners: A direct test of taste discrimination," Working Paper Series in Economics 165, University of Lüneburg, Institute of Economics.
    14. Clarke, Damian, 2023. "The Economics of Abortion Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 16395, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    15. Gil S. Epstein & Shirit Katav-Herz, 2019. "Who Is in Favor of Immigration," Working Papers 2019-05, Bar-Ilan University, Department of Economics.
    16. Verena Dill & Uwe Jirjahn, 2011. "Ethnic Residential Segregation and Immigrants' Perceptions of Discrimination in West Germany," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 416, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).
    17. Fischer, Stefanie & Royer, Heather & White, Corey, 2018. "The impacts of reduced access to abortion and family planning services on abortions, births, and contraceptive purchases," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 43-68.
    18. Gang, Ira N. & Rivera-Batiz, Francisco L. & Yun, Myeong-Su, 2002. "Economic Strain, Ethnic Concentration and Attitudes Towards Foreigners in the European Union," IZA Discussion Papers 578, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Brian Bell & Stephen Machin, 2013. "Immigration and crime," Chapters, in: Amelie F. Constant & Klaus F. Zimmermann (ed.), International Handbook on the Economics of Migration, chapter 19, pages 353-372, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    20. Christian Dustmann & Francesca Fabbri & Ian Preston, 2011. "Racial Harassment, Ethnic Concentration, and Economic Conditions," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 113(3), pages 689-711, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:camsys:v:20:y:2024:i:2:n:e1397. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1891-1803 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.