Evaluating the Perception of Roma in Europe through Social Network Analysis
Authors: Giulia I. Pintea
The Roma people are a nomadic ethnic group native to India, and they are one of the most prevalent minorities in Europe. In the past, Roma were enslaved and they were imprisoned in concentration camps during the Holocaust; today, Roma are subject to hate crimes and are denied access to healthcare, education, and proper housing. The aim of this project is to analyze how the public perception of the Roma people may be influenced by antiziganist and pro-Roma institutions in Europe. In order to carry out this project, we used social network analysis to build two large social networks: The antiziganist network, which is composed of institutions that oppress and racialize Roma, and the pro-Roma network, which is composed of institutions that advocate for and protect Roma rights. Measures of centrality, density, and modularity were obtained to determine which of the two social networks is exerting the greatest influence on the public’s perception of Roma in European societies. Furthermore, data on hate crimes on Roma were gathered from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). We analyzed the trends in hate crimes on Roma for several European countries for 2009-2015 in order to see whether or not there have been changes in the public’s perception of Roma, thus helping us evaluate which of the two social networks has been more influential. Overall, the results suggest that there is a greater and faster exchange of information in the pro-Roma network. However, when taking the hate crimes into account, the impact of the pro-Roma institutions is ambiguous, due to differing patterns among European countries, suggesting that the impact of the pro-Roma network is inconsistent. Despite antiziganist institutions having a slower flow of information, the hate crime patterns also suggest that the antiziganist network has a higher impact on certain countries, which may be due to institutions outside the political sphere boosting the spread of antiziganist ideas and information to the European public.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1474823Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF
 S. Goodman, and L. Rowe (2014). “‘A stinking filthy race of people inbred with criminality’ A discourse analysis of prejudicial talk about Gypsies in discussion forums.” Romani Studies 5, Vol. 24, No. 1 (2014), 25-42.
 A. Oprea (2012). “Romani Feminism in Reactionary Times.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 38(1), 11–21.
 K. Grygierowska (2014). “When a Home Is Not a House: The Destruction of Romani Personal Property as a Human Rights Violation.” Emory International Law Review, 28(1), 557–595.
 J. Matthews (2015). “Mobilising the Imperial Uncanny: Nineteenth-Century Textual Attitudes to Travelling Romani People, Canal-Boat People, Showpeople and Hop-Pickers in Britain.” Nineteenth Century Contexts.
 T. Kóti, A. Pálóczi, and I. Süli-Zakar (2016). “Integration of Romani People, as the Most Important Internal Political Problems of Hungary.” Human Geography Journal 20(1), 109-120.
 K. Erjavec (2001). “Media representation of the discrimination against the Roma in Eastern Europe: the case of Slovenia.” Discourse & Society Vol 12(6), 699-727.
 J. A. Kelly et al. (2006). “Prevention of HIV and sexually transmitted diseases in high risk social networks of young Roma (Gypsy) men in Bulgaria: randomised controlled trial.” British Medical Journal Vol. 333, 1098- 1101.
 T. H. Stark (2015). “Understanding the Selection Bias: Social Network Processes and the Effect of Prejudice on the Avoidance of Outgroup Friends.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 78(2), 127-150.
 K. J. Ajouch, T. C. Antonucci, and M. R. Janevic (2001). “Social Networks Among Blacks and Whites: The Interaction Between Race and Age.” Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences, 56B(2), S112-S118.
 K. Verseck (2013). “Orban Friend Says Roma ‘Shouldn’t Be Allowed to Exist.’” Spiegel Online.
 J. Richardson (2014). “Rome in the News: an examination of media and political discourse and what needs to change.” People, Place and Policy 8(1).