JOB APPLICANTS with typical Irish names are twice as likely to be called for interview as those with minority names, according to a groundbreaking study by the ESRI.
In the first experiment of its kind in Ireland, researchers found that candidates with non-Irish names were subjected to “strong discrimination” by employers across the three sectors of the labour market that were tested.
There was no significant difference between the minority groups, with African, Asian and German names all twice as likely to be overlooked at the initial recruitment stage as Irish ones, even where applicants had equivalent qualifications.
“The extent of discrimination observed in this experiment directly contradicts any notions of equality in terms of access to employment,” the report concluded.
“Individuals with non-Irish backgrounds do not have equal access to the Irish labour market if they are being screened out at the first stage of recruitment.”
Between March and October last year, researchers sent out pairs of matched CVs in response to 240 job adverts in administration, lower-level accountancy or in retail. The two fictitious applicants had equivalent qualifications, skills and expertise – all gained in Ireland – but while one candidate had an Irish name, the other was Asian, African or German.
Both candidates were invited for interview on 23 occasions. In 55 cases, the Irish names were called for interview and the foreign-named applicants were rejected, while in just 15 cases, the minority names were called and the Irish-named were ignored.
From this, the ESRI calculated that candidates with Irish names were over twice as likely to be invited to interview as those with non-Irish names. “It does prove that a very old ghost of discrimination still haunts us,” said Richard Fallon, acting chief executive of the Equality Authority, which commissioned the study.
“You’re twice as likely to encounter this spectre with a non-Irish surname than with an identifiably Irish one – that’s even with Irish citizenship and with Irish qualifications.”
The strength of the discrimination recorded in the Irish experiment is high relative to similar studies carried out in other countries, but not unprecedented.
The authors noted that their findings were also consistent with previous research showing immigrants’ disadvantage in the labour market. But while previous studies found that black respondents stood out as faring worse than other groups, this experiment found no difference in discrimination rates between those with minority names.
Interpreting the results, Dr Pete Lunn, an ESRI economist and co-author of the report, suggested the discrimination may be explained by “in-group favouritism”, which suggests “the positive desire to hire Irish workers, as opposed to a dislike of hiring foreign workers”.
“We didn’t observe a different level of discrimination against the three minorities. If this was based on negative feelings towards the minorities, you might expect some variation in the extent of that negative feeling,” he explained.
“Whereas if it’s predominantly based on a desire to favour one’s own . . . then you would expect to see equal discrimination against the other three minority groups.”
The report suggested a number of measures to help reduce discrimination. These include the provision of more information for employers and workers on the equality laws and the introduction of random audits of hiring practices. If employers were required to keep all records of job applications for 12 months and to justify their hiring decisions, it would reinforce the pressure to adhere to good practice.