While ethnicity was seen as something which was inherited it could also be complicated to define consistently. There could be many different reasons for this, such as:
the different levels of awareness, knowledge, and connection that people may have with their heritage – this means they have different starting points when defining their ethnicity;
the tendency for a person to ‘lean in’ to the cultural background which is closest to their environment and who they are surrounded by or most closely identify with;
migration to Britain, or parents or grandparents who migrated to Britain - the relevance, knowledge and importance of different national identities can be weighted differently, which can affect how people of a more mixed heritage describe themselves;
situational factors – this includes considerations about what a person may gain or lose by describing their ethnicity in a particular way in a given situation.
“I only know, like, my ‘Nigerianess’ from my mum and that's from her history and that's what I take to represent who I am.” 18-24 years and mixed ethnicity, Lower Education
1.4. Defining ethnicity outside of the UK
Participants in non-English language interviews were presented with the Census 2021 ethnicity question translated into their own language. Findings from these interviews suggest that the concept of ‘ethnicity’ has varying degrees of ambiguity and complexity when translated into different languages. For example, an Arabic speaking participant understood the translation for ethnicity to mean:
“a person’s roots, roots stem from the earth, and they grow, and so going back to one’s roots of where they grew up from.” Translation of an Arabic speaking participant’s interview
This suggests an emphasis on personal ancestry which is just one of the connotations that the word 'ethnicity' has in English. The Arabic Speaker later defined their ethnicity as “Arabic” in their interview.
A Vietnamese interviewee, by contrast, struggled with the translation. They said:
“you can talk about an ethnic group in terms of religion…It’s like a tradition…I don’t really understand it.” Translation of a Vietnamese speaking participant’s interview
Non-English interviews also showed that some participants were more familiar with the word ‘ethnicity’ in English, as well as the range of connotations that the English word can carry for people who have lower proficiency in English, or do not speak English at all. The Polish interviewee, for example, reported seeing the English word frequently in surveys and forms, and associated it with “roots” and “origins”.
“The first thing that comes to my mind is roots…Where do we come from? That's the first one for me. I don't know if that's the correct association or not, but that's just how I associate it. Just where we originate from.” Translation of a Polish speaking participant’s interview
For the Mandarin, Bengali and Vietnamese speaking interviewees, ‘ethnicity’ carried strong connotations of being ‘foreign’ and having minority status. They had heard the term most frequently in the context of communications around ‘ethnic minorities’, which is a phrase some people understood to mean ‘being from another country’.
“I didn’t even know what an ‘ethnic minority’ is at the beginning. Now gradually after living in this country I got to know the meaning. A lot of political incidents occur in this country. I got it gradually.…I just know that if anyone comes from another country, then it is called an ethnic minority.” Translation of a Bengali speaking participant’s interview
“[Ethnicity or ethnic group] means that he belongs to a minority in this society, a marginal group. There is a main group, and he needs to integrate into this main group.” Translation of a Mandarin speaking participant’s interview
1.5. Self-identifying ethnicity in different contexts
Most groups, except white British participants, reported that they would change the label they used to describe their ethnicity depending on the situation and context they were asked. There were several explanations about when and why some participants would change how they describe their ethnicity. These responses suggested two core themes.
Firstly, for many participants, defining ethnicity is an intersubjective process (i.e. a process which accounts for a social context and the interaction between two or more people). When participants were asked to define their ethnicity, they described making judgements about:
whether the questioner has another motive for asking this question;
what types of responses the questioner was likely to find acceptable;
whether the questioner would have knowledge and familiarity with their ethnicity.
Participants then adjust the labels they use to describe themselves to find a best fit between what is true for them, and what they believe about the purpose or intentions of those asking for their ethnicity, or where they are “from”. Participants also reported adjusting their responses when they fill in forms. This process sometimes meant participants would describe only a small part of their identity, perhaps at a more general level than they might do in other contexts. They may even deliberately leave out certain parts.
For example, participants reported suppressing their ‘Britishness’ when describing their ethnicity. This was often because they felt it was questionable because of external factors, such as accents.
“I can say I'm British because I have a British passport. I've been living here for so many years. But, I feel it's not right to say that. Because every time I say I'm originally from Poland, people can hear, and they kind of nudge.” White other, Lower Education
“I will always say Indian, because if I were to say British, I would feel the opposite person is definitely going to be thinking, 'She's not really British. What's her ethnicity?' I hope I do get comfortable to say British at some point. … filling a form, a document, I would definitely want to choose Indian over anything else because I just feel like the other person is going to judge my answer.” South Asian, Higher Education
Participants from a mixed background also spoke about times when they identified as black British, black African or black Caribbean in general conversation. This was partially because these were the aspects of their ethnicity they most identified with, but also because the colour of their skin was clearly “not white” so they felt that defining themselves in this way would also best align with the expectations of others.
Secondly, some participants described their ethnicity differently depending on the perceived risks and benefits of identifying in a particular way and in a specific context. Participants mentioned risks such as being stereotyped or discriminated against, for example in the form of jokes, or being passed over for promotion at work.
“When you say, 'I am from Colombia,' they start with a joke. The usual joke of, you know, Pablo, Narcos or whatever… And then they start to say, like, 'Oh, do you sell this?' And you're like, you know, it's kind of a joke, but it's racist… I think I am more comfortable with ‘South American’. I love my country. When I feel comfortable to disclose my nationality that's perfect. If I am with civilised people, you know. But with the rest, I am South American, or Latino, that's it, simple.” Other (Latin American), Lower Education
These findings exclude white British participants.
2. Attitudes towards current ethnicity classifications
Participants in both the focus groups and interviews were presented with the ethnicity question used in the 2021 Census for England and Wales. This helped us understand attitudes towards current ethnicity classifications. Participants were largely comfortable in identifying themselves within the range of options available to them, and while not all-encompassing, the opportunity to self-identify in free-text form meant that most people were satisfied with the ethnicity questions as presented to them.
2.1. Skin colour as a divisive ethnic signifier
Skin colour was mentioned by most participants recruited to the white British group, and the black African, black Caribbean or black British groups when defining their own ethnicity. Colour terminology is not currently used in Asian ethnicity labels and Asian and Asian British participants did not use skin colour to describe themselves. Across the participants, there was a range of views on both the acceptability and usefulness of including skin colour as an ethnic signifier.
Skin colour was an important part of self-identity for participants who identified as black or mixed. Discussions among participants of mixed ethnic backgrounds opened a much more nuanced vocabulary for defining skin colour. For example, they would use terms like “coffee coloured”, “pinky”, “light-skinned”, or “dark-skinned”. ‘Black’ was an important signifier of ethnicity for those who identified as black, integral to their self-identity and a point of pride.
“Ethnicity and race they go hand in hand to me, so it's saying your colour, kind of, establishes more of who you are.” Black British, black African, black Caribbean, or black other, Higher Education
“I am more proud of the fact that I'm black than I am of being British… I put more significance on the fact that I'm black.” Black British, black African, black Caribbean, or black other, Higher Education
Some, however, were distrustful about how the data would be used by authorities. This distrust was most widespread among lower educated participants from both mixed and black groups. It led some participants to choose not to report their ethnicity depending on who was asking and for what reasons
“I think 'How do I identify?' Do I identify as a black, British male? Do I identify as black, African, because on account of, you know, my family being from Ghana? And then, I have to ask myself the question 'Well, why is it relevant?'” Black British, black African, black Caribbean, or black other, Lower Education
On the other hand, participants of white and Asian ethnicities were largely uncomfortable with the use of skin colour and saw it as an outdated classifier. Beyond the appropriateness of classifying someone by their skin colour, many participants questioned how useful skin colour classifications were.
“I don't understand why people need to know this information. To me, it just seems to be defining, what colour is your skin. Because you're probably white. I'm not white. But you're referring to me as the group that is white. And you're referring to the next people as black and Asian. Why do you need to know?” White other, Lower Education
“I don't understand why complexion is even relevant to even ask, if that makes sense? I understand that the census wants to keep track of the data, and that makes sense…if you're asking about complexion, why don't you just put a colour chart…It feels like a pointless exercise.” Other (British Cypriot), Higher Education
Participants saw colour classifications as potentially misleading proxies for ethnicity or, at worst, racist. Asian and Asian British participants expressed strong personal discomfort with the prospect that they might be identified in such a way.
“When I hear describing people as white or black, I don't like the terms. It doesn't sound nice at all; I wouldn't like to be classed as a colour. You know? And, if somebody would put a label on me as a colour, they would say yellow. And I wouldn't feel good about that at all.” South East Asian, Lower Education
While white British and white other participants did use skin colour to describe themselves, there was a degree of discomfort in the use of skin colour, both in self-defining and in classifying people of black British, black African, black Caribbean or black other ethnicity.
“Ethnicity is where you're from, where your origins are, my origins are in England. Regardless of what the colour of my skin is, you know, that, to me, is that ethnicity is.” White, Lower Education
Despite these reservations, there was recognition from some participants that colour terminology has a purpose in some contexts. These participants were generally more educated or worked with data themselves. But many of these participants also felt that collecting data on skin colour should be confined to specific contexts, for example health research and when monitoring Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion outcomes.
2.2. National identity as an important ethnic signifier
Most participants referred to a place to describe their ethnicity. This could be a country, region, continent, or other geographic identifier. This was typically seen as the most important signifier of ethnicity in classifications.
Participants had different reasons for choosing to identify with specific places. They may choose to identify with a specific place because:
they were born there;
they grew up or spent their formative years there;
their parents, grandparents, or ancestors were born or grew up there;
they are a citizen of that place (e.g. by birth or naturalisation, as evidenced by having a passport);
they identified with the culture, values, customs, practices, and traditions of the place – this includes identifying with these things through their current relationship with members of that 'community'.
The ethnicity classification participants chose to identify with could vary depending on the perceived purpose of the survey or who was asking the question. For example, this could lead to nationality being used instead of national identity, or to a participant choosing not to answer the question.
Participants across multiple groups highlighted inconsistencies in the way the British label is used across different categories in the Census 2021 question. These inconsistencies have led some participants to feeling as though they could not or should not identify as British, even if they consider ‘British’ to be a core part of their ethnicity. For example, the fact that only one tick box explicitly mentions British, under the white category in a sequence including ‘English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish’, means that:
some white participants born outside of the British Isles feel discouraged to identify as British, even if they hold dual nationality;
British people belonging to an ‘other’ ethnic group can only identify as British by using free text;
Asian British and black British participants can’t distinguish themselves from others in their category who do not identify as British.
“I think the only improvement for me that would make sense, is if it's like British. The first one where it's English, Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish, British, then there is like ethnic British as a second option. Then that captures all first-generation British people and people that fall into that category that wouldn't necessarily identify themselves as any of the below. So, yes, ethnic British I think captures a lot of people.” Other (British Cypriot) Higher Education
“You have many generations of people who have lived here their entire life. And to just be, 'You are still Indian, you are still Pakistani,' but that person has, like, their family have lived here for three, four generations now and to not class them as British is pretty poor.” White, Lower Education
Some participants in the East and South-East Asian groups did not self-identify as ‘Asian’. They associated this label with the Indian sub-continent instead. These participants would prefer a separate top-level category that distinguishes South-East Asian from other Asian groups. We have insufficient data to determine exactly what top-level category people of South-East Asian descent would most prefer beyond the current ‘Asian’ category.
Both South-East Asian participants not from China and Han Chinese participants who are not from China reported that the use of the Chinese label is too broad. They felt that the label may encourage the assumption that “everyone who looks like me, will be Chinese”. These participants preferred a more nuanced set of options, for example, reflecting a wider range of South-East Asian countries including Korea, Vietnam, and the Philippines. They also preferred to have options that reflected the existence of Chinese people not from China, for example, Chinese from Hong Kong.
In all these cases participants would typically use the ‘Any other Asian background’ open text box response option, which satisfied their preference to identify in a particular manner.
2.3. Pride in ‘mixed’, or ‘multiple ethnic group’ identities
Participants of mixed backgrounds often expressed a high degree of pride in their heritage. They viewed the ‘mixed’ label as a byword for multiculturalism. They identified as ‘mixed race’ and had minimal issues with classification labels like white and black African, despite these being relatively broad.
Some participants who identify as mixed and participants with children who are mixed, identified that the tick boxes all assume a mix of white and something else. This can make it difficult for mixed children of non-white parents, two non-British white people, or any other mixes, to self-identify without using the free-text option. White Arabic and Anglo-Indian participants felt there was a lack of relevant options for them. They noted, for example, that “not all Indian people are Asian”.
Participants from a mixed background would often qualify their ‘mixed’ label in discussions about their ethnicity by explaining where their parents were from. Some identified more strongly with one culture than another. This could be because of the local community in which they were raised, or coming from a single-parent household. This meant they might identify as, for example, black Caribbean, even though they had more of a mixed background.
“I just say that I'm mixed race overall and then I go into what. So, specifically, I'm half English. No, so, I'm half Jamaican. I'm a quarter English and I'm a quarter Irish.” mixed, Higher Education
“When it boils down to it, I'm mixed-race or if it's between one of the two, I will be black. But, I'm just mixed-race and I take culture from a lot of things.” mixed, Lower Education
2.4. Inclusivity and the ‘other’ category
The Census 2021 question that the participants saw, uses ‘other’ in two ways. It is used as a top-level category, as well as within each top-level category as a response option. It includes a free-text option for respondents to write in their ethnicity if the tick-boxes do not present a good fit. Participants generally considered that the ability to write in their ethnicity increased the inclusivity of surveys by ensuring that everybody had an option to self-define according to their own preferences, regardless of the tick-boxes provided.
“I like the fact that they also give you space to write if you really want to express your identity, your ethnicity, a little better for people to understand…” 18-24 years and mixed ethnicity, Higher Education
Participants across most groups acknowledged the impracticality of providing a tick box for every possible way of defining ethnicity as this would lead to a very long list. The ‘other’ option was therefore seen as a practical middle-ground. But some participants suggested that it is inappropriate that relatively large and growing sub-groups like Latin Americans and Eastern Europeans do not have their own option.
“I don't feel offended but I do feel a bit left out. We (Latin Americans) are a big community in the UK, and I don't see why, so often, we are not mentioned. We have to tick the ‘other’ box.” Other (Latin American) Lower Education
2.5. Religion signifiers
“It's not relevant. I can't see the link between describing someone's ethnicity with religion, not at all.” South East Asian, Lower Education
“I think getting culture involved in forms overcomplicates things because it just becomes very subjective.” Mixed, Higher Education
Ethnicity was widely regarded as being fundamentally different from religion as it is something more fixed than personal beliefs, that cannot be changed ‘at will’. There was strong consensus across all the groups that labels referring to religion should not be used as part of the ethnicity question. Reasons for this included:
perceived differences between ethnicity and religion - ethnicity was seen as being relatively fixed and not changeable at will, unlike religion as a belief which can change;
religious beliefs transcend most conventional ethnicity classifications, so would make the ethnicity question impractical;
religion is private and personal, and so should not be collected by authorities
religion can be a sensitive and divisive topic;
data on religion is often collected through its own question, and so should not be included in the ethnicity question.
Participants also expressed little support for including more tick-boxes to capture data on culture and heritage. While relevant to personal definitions of ethnicity, they did not see how this data could be efficiently captured within the ethnicity question, or its relevance in most public data contexts. Regardless, this data could be captured through other questions that ask more directly about religious beliefs.
It should be noted that, while quotas were used to ensure representation of different faiths, some faiths were represented by only two participants. This includes the Jewish faith.
3. Stigmatising language and its consequences
Conversations in the focus groups and interviews included how ethnicity terminology is used in general discourse, demonstrated by representations in the media such as TV, film, print news and social media. These conversations helped us explore the types of language participants perceived as stigmatising and to understand the effects of such language.
3.1. Using ethnicity terminology divisively
Aside from obvious and widely recognisable derogatory language, there was little evidence that participants viewed the use of ethnicity terminology as stigmatising . What matters most is the context in which it is used. Participants recognised that simply referencing ethnicity sets a tone and contributes to a narrative which may be more or less positive depending on the ideological leaning of the author or channel.
The most common perception, and criticism, from participants of the way ethnicity terminology was used was that non-white skin colour or broad ethnic groups were used as identifiers in ‘negative’ stories. These identifiers were often not relevant to the story itself. In these cases, participants commonly assumed the ethnicity terminology is serving a hidden purpose to trigger a reaction. This could be to act as clickbait, or to play to the prejudices of particular audiences and ‘othering’.
“I just think sometimes the way that some in the media might not just mention the facts, but also might say ‘Muslim gentleman’ or stuff like that, or they might say ‘he's just come back from his country’, do you know what I mean? Stuff that they wouldn't say if it was just a white British person. You don't really describe people as Christian males, but if you were to say a Muslim male, I think it's got different connotations built up.” Mixed, Higher Education
Participants believed that this behaviour reinforces stereotypes in the minds of certain types of consumers. They provided numerous accounts of stories purposefully playing on and strengthening existing negative stereotypes.
Participants also referenced stories about non-white British celebrities and prominent figures as especially prone to racism and discrimination. They observed that these individuals are routinely criticised to a much greater extent and held to different standards than white British equivalents.
“He [Rishi Sunak] is British born. So, what does it matter if he's got brown skin? But he's not accepted, he's not one of them. Do you understand what I'm saying? He's not one of them because he's a different colour, and they have to highlight that.” Black British, black African, black Caribbean or black other, Higher Education
“If Lewis Hamilton was white I know that the media would have treated him differently from the way that he's treated. There's a lot of examples of that. It's subtle, it's never overt and on the headlines.” other (British Cypriot) Higher Education
Some participants imagined a similar story but featuring a white British person or group. If ethnicity would not be reported in this imagined story, then participants suggested that it should not be reported in the case of non-white British ethnicities either. That said, participants did reflect positively on examples of where their ethnicity was presented in a positive light, such as in films like Black Panther, or where headlines were informative, such as why Tyson Fury is called ‘The Gypsy King’. These were seen as a refreshing change to the way ethnic minorities were typically represented.
3.2. Using ethnicity terminology informatively
The use of umbrella labels, such as black African or Asian, were seen by most participants as unhelpful, especially when more specific alternatives could be used. Of all the examples shown to participants, the label ‘people of colour’ evoked the most negative emotions. Among other critiques, participants indicated that these sorts of labels encourage division by ignoring the diversity and nuance of how people actually identify, to create binary “us vs them” distinctions.
““Everybody's a person of colour, right? Some colour. So, they say white is the default colour and everybody else is different. It's like someone saying, 'You have an accent.' It’s got a certain racist connotation. Maybe it's mild but it's still racist.” South Asian, Higher Education
Participants expressed a preference for ethnicity references to be as specific as possible. This helps to avoid groups being associated with the subject of the story where this had no relevance to the story itself. This could be achieved by:
avoiding umbrella terms such as ‘people of colour’;
being more specific in references to ethnic groups if relevant to the story – for example say black Caribbean rather than just black;
shifting the emphasis away from an ethnic group by using other non-ethnic identifiers.
“Even the fact that they say 'black women in the UK are four times more likely to die in pregnancy and childbirth.' So, what are you trying to signify here, that black women can't carry kids as effectively as white women…Is it talking about black women from Africa, black women from the Caribbean, black women from where? What is the message it’s trying to convey?” Black British, black African, black Caribbean or black other, Lower Education
“I mean, for me, names make it a bit more relevant and a bit more individual, based on the individual and based on their story… You're trying to provoke by having a whole ethnicity there when the story doesn't necessarily apply to that whole ethnicity.” Other (British Cypriot), Higher Education
3.3. Reinforcing negative stereotypes and biases through ethnicity terminology
Most participants from ethnic groups other than white British reported disengaging from narratives perceived as encouraging discrimination. Participants used terms like “clickbait”, “lazy journalism” and “low quality” to refer to them. This was typically the case when ethnicity was referenced, as these were perceived to be stories which were negative. Some participants said that while they may once have felt personally attacked, they have now deliberately given up reading these stories and disengaged with them or developed a degree of resilience when encountering these types of stories.
“I don't think it affects my sense of belonging, no. I think, as I said, I think it plays a part in reinforcing stereotypes, but I don't think it affects my sense of belonging.” Other (Latin American), Lower Education
Some participants found reviewing headlines which portrayed their ethnic group in a negative light disconcerting and upsetting.
“It [headlines referencing ‘mixed race’] makes you feel divided from the country where you were born and raised. Divide and conquer, isn't it?!” Mixed, Lower Education
Most participants recognised they were not the audience these stories were being targeted at. The main initial negative effect was therefore on those who were the intended audience, particularly people already receptive to discriminatory and divisive rhetoric. This was perceived to reinforce negative stereotypes and encourage anger towards ethnic minority groups and people born outside of the UK. Participants felt that these portrayals would increase the likelihood that a person belonging to a stigmatised group would be the victim of racism and discrimination. This created anxiety at a personal level and concern for how their ethnic community was seen by others.
“I just feel really sad, and I just feel really helpless as well because I can't deny that I'm Chinese, but in a way, that's [the COVID-19 pandemic] got nothing to do with me, but you can’t actually totally disconnect yourself from that. You just really struggle, and you don’t know how to explain to people because obviously it’s not enough for you, for one person, to say, ‘That’s nothing to do with us’.” South East Asian, Higher Education
“If your group or your ethnicity or your religion is going to be targeted, then I guess it's a sense of when is it going to be you? Or when you're going to be targeted for something? So just the basically being unsure and quite wary of what you say or who you're around. Because you just never know.” 18-24 Years and mixed ethnicity, Higher Education
In a small number of cases participants did reflect on very specific and tangible effects of negative stories, portrayals or social media comments which were associated with their ethnic group. These ranged from abusive language directed at all Asian communities after reports of child sexual abuse scandals in places like Rotherham, Telford and Manchester, to the loss of business amongst Chinese and Asian businesses because of stories which suggested that Chinese people were spreading the Coronavirus (COVID-19 infection.
