Marginality Theory: The Lack of Construct Validity

Abstract

The 75-year history of marginality theory is reviewed and evaluated, leading to the recommendation that the use of the marginality idea be discarded by social scientists because it lacks construct validity. A review of the literature reveals that, at present, the concept of marginality is employed in five different social science lines of investigation. These models are examined fromthe perspective of their contribution to the validity of the construct and are found wanting. Marginality is shown to be a concept that did not fulfill its promise of explaining the effects on people of immigration, culture clash, and other transitional situations, such as status, role, or class changes. Evidence is presented that marginality is unscientifically founded and has been applied so indiscriminately as to be useless in the social sciences.

Psychometric Properties of the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans—II

“…In many studies that involve acculturation and marginality, there is little consistency in the correlated effects and relationships to demographic variables and psychological variables (Del Pilar & Udasco, 2004). While the Marginality Scale and the newly developed AMS may need further exploration, this study suggests that marginality may be of questionable value.…”

“…In a review of the literature, it was found that marginality theory has been illconceived and functions with a number of different conceptualizations, with most lacking construct validity. Del Pilar and Udasco (2004) also argue that marginality theory has contributed to the development of negative stereotypes of immigrants. Although it may capture individual experiences of feeling caught between two cultures, it has not provided much utility as a concept.…”

Boundary Zone between Cultural Worlds or the Edge of the Dominant Culture? Two Conceptual Metaphors of Marginality

“…Given this mutual affinity of concepts of marginality (in unicultural formulation) and social exclusion, and in light of concerns of lack of construct validity voiced with regard to the notion of marginality (Rudmin 2003, Del Pilar andUdasco 2004), it appears that a proliferation of the concept is occurring whereby it loses its analytical power to distinguish and define specific and distinct phenomena. If people living in poverty are pooled together with lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender activists and assistant professors under an umbrella notion of marginality, there seems to be little analytical sense (apart from pure rhetorical considerations) in retaining the concept in the vocabulary of theory construction and methodology of social sciences.…”

Flexible Loyalties: How Malleable Are Bicultural Loyalties?

“…LaFromboise et al, 1993). Although in recent decades research on biculturalism has greatly expanded our understanding of bicultural cognition and identity organization (Hong et al, 2000; Benet-Martínez et al, 2002), while bringing to question the very concept of biculturals as marginal individuals (Pilar and Udasco, 2004), less research has been conducted on the extent to which biculturals identify with either of their cultural backgrounds. This question is of practical importance given issues prevalent in the United States, such as the forced relocation of Japanese-Americans during the Second World War, the anti-Muslim sentiment faced by Muslim- and Arab-Americans (Krieg, 2015), and allegations of espionage faced by Asian-Americans (Purdy, 2001; Asher-Shapiro, 2015; Stewart, 2016) in the twenty first century.…”