For ongoing debates on the potential of social transformation in mixed methods research, see Teresa Sorde Marti and Donna Mertens, “Mixed Methods Research with Groups at Risk: New Developments and Key Debates,” Journal of Mixed Methods and Research 8, no. 3 (2014): 207–211. See also Donna Mertens, “Mixed Methods as Tools for Social Change,” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 5, no. 3 (2011): 195–197; and Linda T. Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples (London: Zed Books, 1999).

For an overview of the situation of the Roma in the European Union, see fra and undp, The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States: Survey Results at a Glance (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2012); fra, Roma Survey – Data in Focus: Poverty and Employment: The Situation of Roma in 11 EU Member States (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2014); fra, Second European Union Minorities and Discrimination Survey: Roma – Selected Finding (Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2018); Galina Kostadinova, “Minority Rights as a Normative Framework for Addressing the Situation of Roma in Europe,” Oxford Development Studies 39, no. 2 (2011): 163–183.

For estimates on the Roma population in European countries, see “Roma and Travellers Team”, Council of Europe website, accessed March 30, 2018, https://www.coe.int/en/web/portal/roma. In this preface, I use numbers presented in Christine O’Hanlon, “The European Struggle to Educate and Include Roma People: A Critique of Differences in Policy and Practice in Western and Eastern EU Countries,” Social Inclusion 4, no. 1 (2016): 1–10, accessed March 30, 2018, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/socialinclusion/article/viewFile/363/363.

For the situation of Roma in Hungary, see European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, ECRI Report on Hungary (Council of Europe, 2015), accessed March 30, 2018, https://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Hungary/HUN-CbC-V-2015-19-ENG.pdf.

Ramon Flecha, “Using Mixed Methods from a Communicative Orientation: Researching with Grassroots Roma,” Journal of Mixed Methods Research 8, no. 3 (2014): 245–254.

A critical summary and history of academic research on the genocide of the Roma is available in Ilsen About and Anna Abakunova, The Genocide and Persecution of Roma and Sinti. Bibliography and Historiographical Review (Berlin: International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, 2016), 139. The overdue involvement of Roma in the research of the Holocaust is exemplified by the belated appointment of Romani scholar Ethel Brooks to the US Holocaust Memorial Council, the governing body of the Washington-based US Holocaust Memorial Museum, by President Obama in 2016. On a political level, for the first time ever, it was only in January 2018 that the European Parliament’s annual event to commemorate International Holocaust Remembrance Day marked both the Holocaust of the Jews and the genocide of the Roma and Sinti populations.

A further example is tli’s collection of working papers on Roma resistance during the Holocaust and in its aftermath, which was conceptualized, researched and published in cooperation with Roma organizations and scholars. See Angéla Kóczé and Anna Lujza Szász, eds., Roma Resistance during the Holocaust and in its Aftermath (Budapest: Tom Lantos Institute, 2018).

See Randolph L. Braham, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, vol. 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1981). See also Randolph L. Braham and András Kovács, The Holocaust in Hungary – Seventy Years Later (Budapest: Central University Press, 2016); and Zoltán Vági, László Csősz and Gábor Kádár, The Holocaust in Hungary: Evolution of a Genocide (Lanham: AltaMira Press, 2013), 510.

According to a census conducted in 2011, 10,965 people in Hungary identified their religion as Judaism.

András Kovács, ed., Zsidók és zsidóság a mai Magyarországon [Jews and Jewry in contemporary Hungary] (Budapest: Múlt és Jövő Kiadó, 2002), 23–24.

For the history of antisemitism in Hungary, see Krisztián Ungváry, A Horthy-rendszer mérlege: Diszkrimináció, szociálpolitika és antiszemitizmus Magyarországon [The balance of the Horthy-regime: discrimination, social policy and antisemitism in Hungary] (Pécs: Jelenkor Kiado, 2012); and, more recently, Ildikó Barna, “Hungary,” in Modern Antisemitism in the Visegrád Countries, ed. Ildikó Barna and Anikó Félix (Budapest: Tom Lantos Institute, 2017), 47–77.

These issues are further explored in Andrea Pető and Helga Thorson, eds., The Future of Holocaust Memorialization: Confronting Racism, Antisemitism and Homophobia through Memory Work (Budapest: Tom Lantos Institute, 2015). This publication can be retrieved at http://tomlantosinstitute.hu/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/hm_final.pdf. See also Mónika Kovács, Kollektív ​emlékezet és holokausztmúlt [Collective memory and the past of the Holocaust] (Budapest: Corvina Kiadó, 2016).

For an analysis of the relationship between the “politics of reconciliation” and “politics of difference”, exploring their potential convergence and divergence, see Will Kymlicka and Bashir Bashir, eds., The Politics of Reconciliation in Multicultural Societies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

On the importance of empirically-driven research in the field of international minority protection, see Anna-Maria Bíró and Corinne Lennox, “Global Governance on Minority Rights: Assessing the Participation of Non-State Actors (nsas) in the UN Forum on Minority Issues” (paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Baltimore, US, 2017), on file with authors.

Ferenc Eiler’s study relies on archival research undertaken in both Hungarian and German. It is a valuable addition to John Hiden’s book documenting and discussing the liberal origins of norm-making in the Congress of European Nationalities spearheaded by the Baltic German minority scholar Paul Schiemann. See John Hiden, Defender of Minorities: Paul Schiemann, 1876–1944 (London: Hurst & Company, 2004), 326. For further analysis see also, Anna-Mária Bíró, “The internationalisation of minority protection in Europe: an ingo perspective,” (PhD Thesis, Eötvös Lóránd University, 2012).

András Bozóki and Zoltán Ádám, “State and Faith: Right-wing Populism and Nationalized Religion in Hungary,” Intersections: East European Journal of Society and Politics 2, no. 1 (2016): 98–122.

For an interesting treatment of human rights as a complex blend of the universal and the particular, see Neil Walker, “Universalism and Particularism in Human Right,” in Human Rights: The Hard Questions, ed. Cindy Holder and David Reidy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 39–58. For Walker’s approach applied in the field of international minority protection, see Gaetano Pentassuglia, “Introduction: The Unpacking of Ethnocultural Diversity,” in Ethno-Cultural Diversity and Human Rights, ed. Gaetano Pentassuglia (Leiden/Boston: Nijhoff/Brill, 2018).

The Visegrád Group is an alliance of four Central European states (the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia) for the purpose of advancing political, cultural and economic – as well as energy and military – cooperation.

The nexus between liberal multiculturalism, minority rights and human rights in the context of established democracies and post-communist societies is examined in Will Kymlicka, “Minority Rights in Political Philosophy and International Law,” in The Philosophy of International Law, ed. Samantha Besson and John Tasioulas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 377–383.

For an excellent account of the poor integration of international minority rights in the UN system and beyond, see Gay McDougall, “Introduction,” in The First United Nations Mandate on Minority Issues, ed. Gay McDougall (Leiden/Boston: Nijhoff/Brill, 2015).