Development of the Census 2021 Ethnic Group Question Focus groups to consider the addition of possible new tick boxes - Kantar
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
additi Development of the Census 2021 Ethnic Group Question Focus groups to consider the addition of possible new tick boxes July 2018 260414304 Research report prepared for ONS by Kantar Public Authors: Catriona Hay, Emily Fu, Kelsey Beninger © Kantar Public 2018
Contents
1. Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 0
2. Background and Methodology ............................................................................................................ 5
3. Key Findings from Across Target Groups ........................................................................................... 8
4. Response to a Jewish Tick-box ..........................................................................................................11
5. Response to a Sikh Tick-box ..............................................................................................................15
6. Response to a Somali Tick-box .........................................................................................................19
7. Response to a Roma Tick-box ............................................................................................................24
8. Key Principles for ONS ........................................................................................................................29
9. Appendix ...............................................................................................................................................31
© Kantar Public 2018
1. Executive Summary
Introduction
Kantar Public, an independent social research agency, was commissioned by ONS to conduct qualitative
research on the ethnic group question in the census, on behalf of the Census Transformation Programme.
The census has collected data on ethnicity since 1991 and has become one of the most widely used
variables. ONS is currently developing the ethnic group question, to include possible new ethnic group tick-
boxes.
The research tested how participants across five ethnic groups reacted to the possible introduction of a
Jewish, Sikh, Somali and Roma tick-box within the 2021 census. Through assessing participants’ reaction to
the possible new tick-boxes, this research aimed to provide ONS with evidence about the acceptability,
clarity and impact on data quality of adding a new tick box, as well as feedback about its potential
positioning.
Kantar Public conducted 25 x 90-minute focus groups across five target groups – convening a total of 210
participants. These groups were sampled according to (self-defined) ethnic and religious identity and
included Jewish; Sikh; Somali; Black African and Roma participants.
Research participants were consulted about the introduction of a tick-box naming their own group, though
both the Somali and Black African groups were separately consulted about the introduction of a Somali tick-
box. Within each group, participants were asked to respond to the 2011 census, before testing and
comparing their responses to several different designs and iterations of the relevant ethnic group question
and positioning of the possible new tick-box.
Key findings across the target audiences
▪ Participants across the groups tended to answer questions about their ethnicity habitually - without too
much thought or reflection. Locating the most relevant ethnicity response options on job applications,
medical or educational forms was a routine behaviour. Participants therefore expected the process to be
as quick and simple within the census
▪ Changes to the ethnic group question that disrupted how people normally responded had an impact on
how participants answered and the quality of their response. For instance, when new tick-boxes were
introduced or placed in new positions, participants could become confused or make errors by ticking
multiple boxes
▪ Once habitual behaviour was disrupted, participants could start to question where they should locate
themselves, the acceptability and comparability of the categories and response options, as well as what
constitutes a person’s ‘ethnicity’
▪ Participants therefore began to question the complexity of ethnic identity and the difficulties in
deciphering what information the census is asking them to provide. Some referred to ambiguity in the
current guidance, which asks for respondents to record their ‘ethnic group or background’
▪ When considering how to answer, participants sought fairness and parity across the high-level
categories and recognised when response options were not consistently applied. For example, it was
important that if ‘British’ appeared in one high level category, then, if possible, it would be expected to
appear also in the Mixed, Asian and Black categories
© Kantar Public 2018 0
▪ Though participants broadly wanted the process to be quick and simple, a tension could arise between
simplicity and acceptability. For instance, introducing new tick-boxes was seen to minimise respondent
burden and confusion, yet could lead some participants to think that certain ethnic or religious groups
were being ‘singled out’
▪ Several research participants, particularly within the Somali and Roma groups, were unable or hesitant
to complete the census – due to low literacy levels or fears about recording their identity on official
Government documents. These participants were unlikely to complete the census on their own – instead
friends or family members, and in some cases, support or community organisations may complete it on
their behalf
▪ For those participants in the Somali groups who struggled with reading English but could still complete
the census unassisted, the ease of answering was often more important than the acceptability of terms.
This underlined tensions between ease and acceptability, given that those who expressed most concern
about the acceptability of ‘singling out’ were also more likely to actually complete the census. Some
support organisations engaged as part of this research reported completing the census on behalf of
large numbers of these minority populations 1. They requested more guidance and support ahead of 2021
to ensure they are recording the right information about the people they work with. This was particularly
as support organisations were recording people’s identities in different ways (and often incorrectly)
without knowing whether this information would be recorded by ONS
Evaluating the tick-boxes
The responses to each question design and iteration were analysed and given a RAG rating in terms of how
each new question compared to 2011 census. More specifically each question was evaluated according to:
▪ Acceptability: Are respondents comfortable with this term?
▪ Quality: Does the addition of this tick box result in greater or fewer respondents
unsure/uncertain/confused about which box to tick?
▪ Clarity: If the tick box is available, the target group identifies with that tick box term and is likely to use
that tick box over others presented in the ethnic group question
1.3.1 Jewish:
Across the Jewish groups, there was a strong consensus that a Jewish tick-box is unacceptable, irrespective
of placement. For participants across the groups, its inclusion was viewed as a negative attempt to ‘single
out’ the Jewish population and evoked comparisons to histories of discrimination. Despite this, some who
would complete online said they might tick this box as they would not be aware that the upcoming religion
question would provide them with another opportunity to record their Jewish identity. Yet even for these
participants, its inclusion within the ethnic group question was viewed as unacceptable.
Acceptability Seen as highly unacceptable and raised concerns about discrimination
Quality Generally, participants would not tick the box under the ethnic group question.
Those who would complete online may tick if they can’t anticipate religious
question – potentially increasing respondent burden or confusion in the process
Clarity Generally, participants did not ethnically identify as ‘Jewish’
1.3.2 Sikh:
1
One community worker explained that he independently completed the last census on behalf of 1000 people
© Kantar Public 2018 1
A Sikh tick-box was not viewed as acceptable to participants (though feelings were less strong than among
the Jewish groups). Specifically, younger ‘second-generation’ participants, whose parents were born in India
or the Punjab, raised concerns that Sikhism was not an ‘ethnic identity.’ Its inclusion under ‘Asian’ may also
cause confusion for participants feeling they had to ‘choose’ between an Indian and Sikh tick-box – both of
which could be important but overlapping markers of their identity. Similarly, it’s inclusion under ‘Other’ also
caused confusion and was even missed by some. In contrast, a small group of older, male participants would
identify with the tick-box if it was included.
Acceptability Seen as unacceptable – particularly amongst younger, second-generation
participants
Quality Causes confusion as to whether participants had to choose between ‘Indian’ and
‘Sikh’ ethnic identity
Clarity Generally participants did not identify with this tick-box apart from a small group
of older, male participants
1.3.3 Somali & Black African
There was a mixed response to the inclusion of a Somali tick-box across the groups. Within the Somali
groups it was evident that several participants would identify with a Somali tick-box if it was included,
particularly those who struggled with literacy and sought ease of understanding. Yet, its inclusion raised
concerns amongst others, particularly amongst the Black African groups and the more politically engaged,
about why the Somali population was being ‘singled out’.
Acceptability Seen as unacceptable by Black African and British groups, and some Somali
participants with higher levels of literacy
Quality Positioning under African caused some confusion as to which box to tick (African
or Somali)
Clarity In general Somali participants would identify with this tick-box
1.3.4 Roma
Across the groups participants recognised that they would identify with and tick a Roma tick-box if it was
included. This was echoed by organisations who supported the recruitment of these groups, who noted that
the inclusion of a distinct box would ease confusion in how they should respond on behalf of Roma
participants. Nevertheless, the inclusion of the word ‘Romany’ in some of the question versions caused some
confusion, with some preferring its complete removal. However, this would need further consideration in
relation to its impact on Gypsy and Irish Traveller responses given that early feedback from wider work being
conducted by ONS and Kantar with these groups suggests ‘Romany’ is important to include for some English
born Gypsies.2
2
Feedback on the acceptability of this term amongst Romany Gypsy and Irish Traveller groups is being tested but the full results of this
will not be available until after the completion of this research.
© Kantar Public 2018 2
Acceptability Inclusion of tick-box viewed as most acceptable option – yet tensions arise
around use of ‘Romany’
Quality Positioning under White clearest place for tick-box as it would be missed under
‘Other’
Clarity Roma participants would identify with this tick-box if included
Principles for ONS
Based on the feedback across the groups, several principles have emerged pertaining to design of the ethnic
group question more broadly. These principles fall across both the question design and formatting, as well as
surrounding engagement and outreach work ahead of 2021:
PRINCIPLE DISCUSSION / RATIONALE
Aim for parity and
▪ Respondents compare categories across the census form to ensure
consistency across
they answer correctly – meaning they recognise when the language
categories and response
and terms used are not consistent
options
▪ Being able to re-assert a national identity with the ethnic group
Ensure equal access to question is important for respondents – regardless of whether they
British identity across high- have just answered this under Q14 (national identity question)
level categories ▪ Removing ‘British’ from one high-level category and not another
causes concern about who is able to access this identity
▪ There is no consistent view about the extent to which religion factors
into ethnic identity. Yet its inclusion can be a sensitive issue and raise
concerns about the ‘racialisation’ of religious groups (particularly
Do not include religions amongst Jewish participants referencing comparisons to the
under the ethnic group discrimination and persecution suffered by Jewish people over the last
question century)
▪ The absence of other religions is viewed as unacceptable and raises
concerns about singling out religious groups
▪ Black respondents in general prefer colour terminology to be used in a
Consider wording that couplet e.g. ‘Black British’
accompanies colour ▪ Using language such as ‘any other’ raises concerns about
terminology discrimination and is reminiscent of a history of discrimination and
‘othering’
▪ Ethnic identity is viewed as complex and relatively difficult to describe
Provide guidance about what and record
information the ethnic group
question is trying to achieve ▪ Current guidance asks for ‘ethnic group or background’ which raises
questions about what information is required
▪ Given the complexity of ethnicity, people may ethnically identify under
Provide clear instructions more than one high-level category or in more than one tick-box
about how to complete ▪ Current guidance asking respondents to choose one section and then
tick one box can lead some to respond twice
© Kantar Public 2018 3
▪ Those with low literacy levels, recently migrated to the UK or have a
fear of Government forms capturing data about identity are unlikely to
Provide assistance and complete the census themselves
guidance through outreach ▪ Outreach and engagement work with support organisations who will
complete the census on these individual’s behalf would ensure they
are completing accurately and consistently
© Kantar Public 2018 4
2. Background and Methodology
Background
Kantar Public, an independent social research agency, was commissioned by ONS to conduct qualitative
research on the ethnic group question in the census, on behalf of the Census Transformation Programme.
The aim of the Census Transformation Programme is to make the best use of all available data in England
and Wales to enhance the provision of population statistics. A core objective of the programme, and in focus
for this research, was to test the understanding and acceptability of changes to the ethnic group question
and possible introduction of four new response options. Through assessing participants understanding and
acceptability of the possible introduction of a Jewish, Sikh, Somali and Roma tick-box, this research aimed to
provide ONS with evidence that will inform the design of the ethnic group question ahead of 2021.
The 2011 ethnic group question is a single-coded question, with response codes grouped into 5 high-level
categories: White, Mixed/Multiple ethnic groups, Asian/Asian British, Black/African/Caribbean/Black British,
and Other ethnic group. Respondents are required to select one high level category, and tick or write in their
response underneath that category.
Aims and Objectives
The primary aim for research was to test how participants reacted to a revised census question (and
guidance), in terms of:
▪ How they responded (and how they would have responded in the absence of a new category)
▪ Their understanding of the question/guidance
▪ The appropriateness of the response (and reasons for this) – i.e. whether it represents their
ethnic/religious identity
▪ Placement, ease of answering, comparison to expectations
▪ Impact on acceptability of/response to other questions (including on national identity).
The responses to each question design and iteration were analysed and given a RAG rating in terms of how
each new question compared to 2011 census. More specifically each question was evaluated according to:
CRITERIA DEFINITION RAG RATING
Are respondents comfortable or uncomfortable
Acceptability
with this term?
Does the addition of this tick box result in greater
Green: More than 2011
Quality or fewer respondents unsure/uncertain/confused
about which box to tick? Amber: No change from 2011
Red: Less than 2011
If the tick box is available, the target group
identifies with that tick box term and is likely to
Clarity
use that tick box over others presented in the
ethnic group question
© Kantar Public 2018 5
Methodology
2.3.1 Sample and Recruitment
This research involved 25 x 90-minute focus groups across five target groups. Groups were conducted
between April and May 2018 with a total of 210 participants across England and Wales who identified as
Jewish, Sikh, Roma, Somali and Black African. Each participant was given a £50 incentive to take part and
interpreters were used for two of the Roma and one of the Somali groups.
Purposive sampling was used to understand how participants who were part of each of the target groups
would be likely to respond. In the first instance, groups were sampled by ethnic or religious identity (in the
case of Sikh and Jewish), and to further capture both a range and diversity of views, each group also
included a demographic, and where appropriate, generational mix. For the Somali groups, further quotas
were therefore set to ensure representation from both first and second-generation participants.
More specifically the groups were broken down as follows3:
GROUP SAMPLE LOCATIONS TOTAL
PARTICIPANTS
6 groups London &
Jewish 55
Mix age / gender Manchester
6 groups London, Birmingham
Sikh 53
Mix age / gender & Leicester
5 groups London, Birmingham
Somali 38
Mix age / gender / 1st & 2nd generation & Cardiff
5 groups London, Birmingham
Black African 42
Mix age / gender & Cardiff
3 groups Peterborough, Luton
Roma 22
Mix age / gender / nationality & London
While most of these groups were recruited using Kantar Public’s network of professional recruiters, due to
the challenges associated with accessing Roma populations, two groups were recruited with the aid of Roma
support organisations who found participants across a range of ages and genders and they would consider
to be ‘Roma’. Due to differences in how Roma people self-identify, depending on the European country they
originated from, they may not have used self-identified themselves using this word. These two groups were
moderated with the aid of an interpreter, who in both cases were also the individuals who had previously
supported participants to complete the census. These groups were also smaller in size compared to the
other groups to ensure that interpretation of everyone’s responses was possible within the time allocated.
3
For full breakdown please see appendix
© Kantar Public 2018 6
2.3.2 Approach
The aim of this qualitative research was to uncover whether and why participants favoured or rejected the
introduction of new response options and how they understood and rationalised answering questions about
ethnicity. The research was not concerned with capturing numerical data on the statistical impact of how
participants responded, but instead was focused on gathering insights into opinions and behaviours
surrounding the ethnic group question. This approach therefore provides an indicative picture of how people
might respond, the mistakes they could make and highlights any potential areas of confusion or contention.
In all groups, participants were asked to initially complete the 2011 version of the census questions on:
▪ Q14: How would you describe your national identity?
▪ Q15: What is your ethnic group?
▪ Q21: What is your religion?
Each participant was given the option to complete on paper or through a digital version of the questions
(mirroring the mode in which they would usually complete the census or similar forms). This enabled
researchers to gauge how participants would spontaneously respond and formed the basis of comparison
between new question designs and iterations. Following this, participants were asked to feedback on the
acceptability, quality and clarity of different designs and iterations of the possible new tick-boxes. Each group
was also asked to share their experience in answering official forms, as well as how they defined and
understood their ‘ethnic identity.’ At the end of each group, each possible iteration was ranked from the most
to least acceptable and easy to understand. Despite this, there are some limitations to this approach in terms
of measuring impact on how participants would normally answer the question (as the more they discussed
the question, the less ‘natural’ their response became. To mitigate research and ordering effects, within each
group researchers rotated which question iteration they tested first.
While not necessarily affecting how they would individually self-identify within the ethnic group question, Sikh
and Jewish tick-boxes were tested with both groups to assess the response to including any religion under
the Ethnic group question. Similarly, a Somali tick-box was also tested with Black African groups to assess
the impact on their responses if only this African nation was represented.
The responses from these groups were analysed by Kantar researchers, both independently and in
collaborative analysis sessions with ONS. This analysis covered both how each group self-identified and
conceptualised their ethnicity, their responses to each question version, as well as how the former influenced
the latter. The analysis of these groups, the RAG rating given to each question version and verbatim quotes
are included in this report.
© Kantar Public 2018 73. Key findings from across the target groups
The role of habit in answering ethnic group questions
Across the groups, participants recognised that answering questions about their ethnicity was something they
were relatively used to doing on forms and applications. This meant that when asked to self-complete the 2011
census ethnic group question, participants tended to answer quickly and with little reflection. Some further
commented that answering forms could be a relatively time-consuming and mundane task and so the ability
to complete quickly and simply was important.
‘You have to answer these questions on school and doctor’s forms so you kind of get used to writing the
same answer.’ – Jewish, London
Usual behaviour could be disrupted by the introduction of a new response option, or when tick-boxes were
placed in new or unexpected positions. Once this habitual behaviour was disrupted, participants could start
to question where they should locate themselves, the acceptability and comparability of the categories and
response options, but also what the ‘ethnic group question’ is trying to achieve in general. The more
participants slowed down and engaged with the question in detail, the less clear they felt about what the
ethnic group question was asking them.
‘If you look across the form, ethnic group includes different things about who you are. It’s got reference to
race, nationality, country of birth, so really, I don’t know what this question is about. Especially as it asks for
background too.’ – Sikh, Leicester
This disruption to habit was particularly salient amongst those who were completing online, who due to the
digital formatting, were unable to quickly sense-check what question was coming up next. For these
participants, particularly amongst the Jewish groups, not being able to check that there was another
opportunity to assert this facet of their identity under the religion question caused some to identify
themselves as Jewish under ethnicity instead. This was of concern to these participants as they did not
necessarily view being ‘Jewish’ as part of their ethnic identity, but were adamant that it should be recorded
somewhere on the census.
The tension between acceptability and ease
A tension emerged between participants wanting the process of answering to be quick and simple, as well as
acceptable. The introduction of new tick-boxes related to religion or a new ethnic group raised concerns
about the rationale behind singling out certain groups or facets of someone’s identity. Yet despite concerns
about acceptability, the inclusion of new tick-boxes could make the process of answering the census far
easier for participants. This was particularly the case for those with lower literacy. This highlights the tension
between the evaluation criteria used to determine whether new tick-boxes should be added to the ethnic
group question – whereas clarity may yield better data quality, prioritising this could lead to low acceptability.
© Kantar Public 2018 8‘I struggle with English, so seeing a Somali box just like that, I know to tick that.’ – Somali, Birmingham
The importance of fairness, parity and consistency
It was clear that once participants started to reflect on how to answer, they were comparing categories
across the census form. Initially, the assessment of other categories provided reassurance that participants
had selected the most appropriate category for them. This process of sense-checking led some to compare
the language and terms being used across categories, which highlighted disparities and inconsistencies.
Participants were particularly concerned when ‘British’ had been removed from one high-level category and
not another. This most strongly resonated with participants in the Black African groups, who were concerned
when ‘Black British’ had been removed from ‘African’ and ‘Caribbean’ but remained under the high-level
‘Asian’ category. It was clear that this was not only an issue regarding fairness and consistency, but also
highlighted participants’ desire to re-assert a British national identity within the ethnic group question,
particularly where this seemed available to others.
‘It’s unacceptable to remove Black British. I can still see it in Asian and White people can be British too. Why
are they saying I can’t be?’ – Black African, London
The importance of fairness and parity was also evident when discussing the acceptability of singling out
certain groups within the census. This included when new tick-boxes were added and when examples were
provided, such as ‘e.g. Somali and Nigerian.’ Across the groups, singling out certain groups, religions or
countries raised questions and concerns about the rationale behind this. This sentiment was expressed most
strongly when religious response options were added – causing some to evoke comparisons to histories of
racialisation and discrimination of Jewish people and other minorities.
The impact of literacy on the likelihood of completing the census
Several participants within the Somali and Roma groups were unable, or hesitant to, complete the census.
For these participants, many of whom were not born in the UK, issues with literacy meant they were unlikely
to complete the census without this being done on their behalf by more confident friends, family members or
support or community organisations. As previously mentioned, for these individuals, the inclusion of new tick-
boxes could make the process of answering the census far easier, particularly those who had not previously
encountered the terms or ethnic classifications being used or learnt how to respond to UK Government forms
about identity.
‘I moved to this country from Denmark and the way they ask you questions isn’t the same. I feel confident
enough that I could answer this (2011 census), but I have family and friends who wouldn’t know how to
because they’re English isn’t good.’ – Somali, Birmingham
Participants in the Roma groups had rarely completed the census, even amongst those who were able to
read and understand the questions being asked. Among those who had completed it, a member of a Roma
support organisation had completed the census on their behalf. It was evident that due to low-literacy levels,
without this kind of support it would be unlikely that they would self-complete the census. Therefore, it is
these kinds of organisations who would benefit from guidance and support to ensure they are correctly
recording data for the minority populations they support.
9‘I have previously answered the census, well tried to, for over 1000 Roma people. Now I ticked Gypsy and
then I think I wrote in Roma, but couldn’t be sure. It would be helpful if I know what would be the best
approach so I can be sure the data is being recorded.’ – Roma Support Worker, Luton
104. Response to a Jewish tick-box
Key Findings:
▪ Responses to the addition of a Jewish tick box were framed by collective history of discrimination –
where references to Jewishness as an ethnicity (in the context of a form) evoked comparisons to the
discrimination and persecution suffered by Jewish people over the last century
▪ There was a strong consensus that a Jewish tick-box was unacceptable regardless of where it is
positioned
▪ The inclusion of other religions, such as Sikh, was also viewed as unacceptable
Introduction
The way Jewish participants thought about their identity and collective history is important for understanding
how and why they responded to the possible introduction of ‘Jewish’ under the ethnic group question. Across
the groups, regardless of location, age or gender, participants spoke about the racialisation of the Jewish
religion and how any reference to singling out or segregating Jewish participants evoked comparisons to
Nazi Germany. This was deemed to be particularly problematic when made explicit on official government
forms, and raised concerns about why the state was exclusively pronouncing Jewish as an ethnicity. Some
participants also described personal experiences of anti-Semitism and discrimination, and said they were
already reluctant to disclose their Jewish identity in certain social situations. These participants were most
uncomfortable with the idea of recording a Jewish identity on an official form.
‘Yes, being Jewish is an important part of my identity, but I don’t always disclose it to people unless I felt
safe. There’s a lot of Anti-Semitism going on now and you’re never too far away from memories about what
happened in World War Two.’ – Jewish, London
Despite this, participants within the groups stated that they would still record themselves as ‘Jewish’ under
the religion question. For them, being Jewish was an important part of their identity they wanted to
communicate and have documented in some way, regardless of whether they were 'practising' religiously.
For them, the 2011 census, from question 14 to 21, made logical sense and allowed them to assert a
national, ethnic and religious identity in that order.
‘I don’t consider myself practicing but I would always put Jewish under religion.’ – Jewish, London
Testing a Jewish and Sikh tick-box
Within the Jewish groups, participants were asked to provide feedback on three new possible question
versions. These included:
11▪ Jewish under ‘White’
▪ Jewish under ‘Other’
▪ Sikh under ‘Asian’.
4.2.1 Response to Jewish under ‘White’
Across the Jewish groups, including Jewish under ‘White’ was seen to be unacceptable and caused
confusion, given that Jewish was not viewed as a marker of ethnicity. In general, participants commented
that while they might classify themselves as White and therefore identify as White British or White Welsh,
this is not representative of all Jewish people. Therefore, inclusion of a Jewish tick-box under this high-level
category assumes that all Jewish people are White, excluding non-white people who identify as Jewish.
Nevertheless, in general, participants did identify with and tick the box when included under White, due to
concern that this would be their only opportunity to identify as Jewish on the census. When giving their initial
responses to the census, researchers did not make them aware of the upcoming religious question but
allowed them to self-complete independently. However, once informed by a researcher, participants
recognised that if they had known it was coming up then they would be likely to wait to mark their Jewish
identity under religion instead. This has implications for those who would complete the census online, as in
the current questionnaire respondents cannot preview the next question. This may lead to higher respondent
burden, with respondents selecting Jewish under ethnicity, then considering whether to return to the ethnic
group question and amend their response once they encountered the religion question (six questions later).
‘I would tick Jewish under White if I didn’t know I was going to get another chance to record it. I don’t think
Jewish is an ethnicity, and I don’t find that comfortable, but I would be concerned that this data wasn’t
recorded about me.’ – Jewish, Manchester
Acceptability:
Across the groups seen as highly unacceptable and
raised concerns about discrimination
Quality:
In general, participants ignored the tick-box and
instead elected to only tick Jewish under religion
Some (completing online) ticked in case it was their
only opportunity to assert this part of their identity
Clarity:
Participants did not identify with Jewish as an ethnicity
and did not understand why it was included here -
especially as you might be Jewish but not ‘White’
4.2.2 Response to Jewish under ‘Other’
While the feedback was relatively similar to the responses given for ‘Jewish under White,’ some participants
raised further concerns regarding the acceptability of positioning this tick-box within the ‘Other’ high level
category. In the first instance, participants recognised that given that they habitually locate themselves under
12the ‘White,’ high-level category, then they would be unlikely to see the Jewish tick-box at the bottom of the
form, under ‘Other.’
Once prompted to look at this category, some participants raised additional concerns about the historical
connotations of classifying Jewish as ‘Other,’ as well as the political motives of placing a Jewish tick-box next
to an ‘Arab’ tick-box. Because of the placement of this tick-box and the language surrounding it, some felt
that this raised questions about the UK Government’s position on Jewish and Arab people in British society.
This resulted in some questioning whether they would be likely to complete the census at all.
‘It’s like we’ve been relegated to the bottom with Arabs. It feels very political, like you two groups are now the
ultimate other and no longer part of society.’ – Jewish, London
Acceptability:
Seen as unacceptable and raised further concerns
that it was a political decision to classify the Jewish
population as ‘Other’ alongside an Arab tick-box
Quality:
Some missed the box under ‘Other’ as they were not
expecting to see it there
Clarity:
As with the previous tick-box, participants did not
identify with Jewish as a marker of ethnicity and did
not understand why it was included here
4.2.3 Response to Sikh under ‘Asian’
Within the groups participants did not spontaneously recognise that a Sikh tick-box had been included, as
they were unlikely to focus on the high-level ‘Asian’ category. Its inclusion was therefore unlikely to impact on
how they self-identified within the census, with the majority answering as they would have done in 2011.
Despite this, once prompted, across the groups its inclusion was deemed to be similarly unacceptable to
including a Jewish tick-box. Participants further commented that comparability and parity across the
categories and response options is important and to only include one religion is unfair, provokes concern as
to the political motives behind its inclusion and may cause confusion as to what the ‘ethnic group question’ is
trying to achieve more generally.
‘I have to be honest I didn’t see the Sikh box. But I also don’t think it makes sense. Sikh isn’t an ethnicity and
you shouldn’t single out one religion like that. What about Hindus or Muslims?’ – Jewish, Manchester
13Acceptability:
Seen as unacceptable and raised concerns about
singling out only one religion
Quality:
Some did not notice the box as they skimmed the
‘Asian’ category
The inclusion caused some to search for other religions
and become confused what information was required
Clarity:
As participants did not identify with the high-level ‘Asian’
category, the inclusion had no impact on how they
would self-identify in the census
Overall feedback
▪ The strength of feedback from the Jewish groups shows that the inclusion of a distinct Jewish tick-box
is highly unacceptable and its inclusion may cause participants to question whether they wanted to
complete the census.
▪ The feedback that the inclusion of Sikh, or any other religion, is unacceptable and causes confusion
for respondents should also be recognised as grounds not to include any religion within the ethnic
group question.
145. Response to a Sikh tick-box
Key Findings:
▪ Responses to the Sikh tick-box varied depending on generational and gender differences - with
younger, second generation participants more likely to identify as British and less likely to want Sikh
included under ethnicity
▪ A small group of older, male participants viewed Sikhism as an important part of their background and
preferred a Sikh tick-box in the ethnic group question
▪ In general, however, the inclusion of a Sikh tick-box was viewed as unacceptable regardless of where
or how it is positioned
▪ The inclusion of other religions, such as Jewish, was also viewed as unacceptable
Introduction to the Sikh Groups
Across the Sikh groups there were varied responses to how participants self-identified and understood their
‘ethnic identity.’ In the first instance, a few participants recognised that despite habitually locating themselves
under the ‘Asian’ high-level category, both under the ethnic group question and on official forms more
generally, they did not self-identify as either ‘Asian’ or ‘Indian.’ These participants commented that they more
closely identified as Punjabi, and were therefore likely to tick Indian or locate themselves under ‘Other ethnic
group’, before writing in ‘Punjabi’ or ‘Punjabi Sikh’. Despite this, a small group of older, male participants
were keen to express their Sikh identity within the ethnic group question and were more likely to tick Indian
before writing in ‘Punjabi-Sikh.’ For them, being ‘Sikh’ was described as an important part of their
background. One participant also pointed out that identifying as Sikh under an ethnic group question was
perfectly reasonable, given that the current instructions ask participants to ‘best describe your ethnic group
or background.’
‘I don’t really consider myself Indian, I much more closely see myself as Punjabi. I mean I would still tick
Indian, but write in Punjabi.’ – Sikh, Leicester
In contrast, younger, second-generation participants were less likely to identify themselves as Sikh under the
ethnic group question and were more concerned about the ability to re-assert an English or British identity.
For them, while also habitually locating themselves under ‘Asian,’ they preferred being able to describe
themselves as ‘British Asian’ over ‘Asian British.’ This was because an ‘Asian’ identity was seen as
secondary to their ‘British’ identity.
‘I was born in this country so I feel British. Yes, I acknowledge my heritage and it’s important to me but I
much prefer British Asian.’ – Sikh, London
15Despite some not fully identifying with the high-level categories or tick box options available, in general,
participants did not perceive this as particularly burdensome and felt they were both used to identifying
themselves in this way and had enough space to identify as wished.
Testing a Sikh and Jewish tick-box
Within the Sikh groups, participants were asked to provide feedback on three new possible question
versions. These included:
▪ Sikh under ‘Asian’
▪ Sikh under ‘Other’ and
▪ Jewish under ‘White’.
5.2.1 Response to Sikh under ‘Asian’
Across the groups, the addition of a Sikh tick-box generated a debate about whether being Sikh could be
considered an ethnic identity. In general, while Sikh was described as a core part of their identity, it was not
deemed to constitute an ‘ethnic group’ and to suggest otherwise was viewed as unacceptable and confusing.
This view was expressed particularly strongly amongst younger, second generation participants who saw the
inclusion as an attempt to unfairly ‘segregate them.’ Despite this, a small group of older, male participants
commented that it did form a core part of their background and its inclusion was both acceptable and
necessary.
Nevertheless, the positioning of Sikh under Asian caused confusion and increased respondent burden. This
was because inclusion under ‘Asian’ caused confusion for participants feeling they had to ‘choose’ between
an Indian and Sikh tick-box – both of which were important though overlapping markers of their identity. For
others, this lead them to tick both ‘Indian’ and ‘Sikh’ tick-boxes on the assumption that data from both would
be recorded.
‘I am both Indian and Sikh, they’re both important parts of me and I can’t choose which is more important.
Indian is where my heritage is, where my parents were born and Sikh is my religion and forms my culture.’ –
Sikh, Leicester
Acceptability:
Viewed as unacceptable – particularly amongst younger,
second generation participants
Quality:
Some found it confusing having to choose between an
‘Indian’ and ‘Sikh’ identity and felt that they were being
asked to make a ‘choice.’ This caused hesitation and
mistakes, with some ticking multiple boxes.
Clarity:
While many recognised that Sikh was not a marker of
ethnicity, some were likely to identify with the tick-box -
particularly older male participants
165.2.2 Response to Sikh under ‘Other’
The inclusion of Sikh under ‘Other’ was viewed as even more unacceptable and unclear than when included
under ‘Asian.’ Given that participants habitually located themselves under ‘Asian,’ regardless of whether they
felt this adequately captured their identity, re-positioning this tick-box to ‘Other’ meant this tick-box was often
missed, causing them to answer as they would have done in 2011. For some, this positioning was deemed
to be illogical, particularly as its positioning next to ‘Arab,’ was described as making little sense, given that
the two groups were not deemed to be ethnically similar. This reflects how participants assess the other
categories and response options to sense-check the clarity and acceptability of their own.
In addition to this, the repositioning of Sikh to ‘Other’ caused concern and raised questions about why Sikhs
were being separated from the high-level Asian category and why other religions were not also being
represented. Interestingly, this group highlighted not only concern about Sikhs being ‘singled out,’ but the
issues of fairness to other religious groups who were not being given an opportunity to assert their religious
identify here too.
‘I don’t think it’s fair to allow Sikhs an opportunity to be given their own category and not give that opportunity
to other religions.’ – Sikh, London
Acceptability:
Raised concerns and suspicions about why Sikh was
being separated from the Asian / Indian tick-boxes -
with some also viewing this as unfair to other religious
groups
Quality:
Some missed the box under ‘Other’
There was confusion as to why Sikh was in ‘Other’
and not under ‘Asian’ which was viewed more logical
Clarity:
As with Sikh under Asian, despite not viewing Sikh as
a marker of ethnicity, a small group of older male
participants were likely to tick this box
5.2.3 Response to Jewish under ‘White’
As with testing the Sikh tick-box with Jewish groups, in general, participants did not spontaneously recognise
that a Jewish tick-box had been included, given the improbability that they would look at the ‘White’ category.
Its inclusion was therefore unlikely to impact on how they self-identified in the census, with the majority
answering as they would have done in 2011.
Nevertheless, as with the Jewish groups, participants pointed out that its inclusion was unacceptable and
unfair. For Sikh respondents, their main concern was not only about other religions being identified but that
other groups were not also being given access to a ‘White’ identity. For instance, some participants pointed
out that if the census was trying to improve population statistics, then Eastern Europeans should also be
given a distinct tick-box under White.
17‘I don’t really understand it because not all Jews are White. I also think there are other groups which are
massive in the UK, like Eastern Europeans who also should be given a tick-box too. It doesn’t seem fair.’
– Sikh, London
Acceptability:
Viewed as unacceptable, with participants raising
concerns about why other groups (e.g. Eastern
Europeans) were not also under ‘White’
Quality:
Participants missed the box as they were unlikely
to pay attention to the ‘White’ category
Once pointed out, the inclusion caused some
confusion about why it was the only religious option
available
Clarity:
As participants did not identify with the high-level
‘White’ category, the inclusion had no impact on
how they would self-identify
Overall feedback
▪ While the feedback from the Sikh groups was not as strong as from the Jewish groups, responses
show that the inclusion of a distinct Sikh tick-box is unacceptable
▪ Its inclusion may cause errors in how participants respond to the census by ticking more than one
response option
▪ Greater clarity about what information the ethnic group question is requiring should be outlined –
particularly as the current guidance that asks for ‘ethnic group or background’ may lead some to want
to refer to other aspects of their identity
186. Response to a Somali tick-box
Key Findings:
▪ The views across these groups were mixed – with variations in literacy levels, political engagement
and time spent in the UK influencing views about the clarity and acceptability of a Somali tick-box
▪ Somali participants said they would be likely to identify with a tick-box if it was included
▪ However, the inclusion of a Somali tick-box caused concern about acceptability among other black
African participants, as well as Somali participants with higher literacy levels
▪ For those who proudly identified as Black British, the ability to record this within the Ethnic group
question was important
▪ For Somali participants, the ability to identify as African was important, yet the inclusion of Somali tick-
box could lead to multiple ticking as some felt they had to choose between a Somali or African identity
when included under the same high-level category
Introduction to the Somali and Black African Groups
Across these groups, there were key variations in levels of literacy, education and political engagement,
meaning both the responses and opinions were very mixed. This ranged from those who could confidently
complete and express their opinion about the census, to those who were less able to fully understand the
question and response options. For those who struggled with language issues, the ability to recognise
familiar words (e.g. ‘Somali’) and avoid having to write in, was often more important than how acceptable the
inclusion of the term was. Yet, it was these participants with lower education and literacy levels who were
less likely to have heard of or previously completed the census and were unlikely to complete online. In
general, these participants were Somali and either were not born in the UK, were not in the country during
the 2011 census, or were of an age where they were reliant on friends or family members to complete this
kind of documentation on their behalf.
Participants across the Somali groups often expressed a strong desire to identify as ‘African’ on the census.
These Somali participants commented that their African identity was an important aspect of their ethnic
identity, yet they often felt they were denied this identity by others in the African diaspora who suggested
they were not ‘really African.’
‘Being African is a core part of me, but you always get this feeling that other Africans don’t really see you like
that. They’ll go you’re not African, you’re Somali. People always use your hair as a sign you’re not African, or
the fact I am Muslim.’ – Somali, Birmingham
19While many Somali participants expressed a desire to identify as ‘African,’ several participants within the
Black African groups expressed a stronger desire to assert their ‘Britishness’ on the census. For those who
were born in this country, a British national identity was often as, if not more, important to them as identifying
with an African heritage. Therefore, any suggestion they were being denied of this caused concern and
tension within the groups. These groups, which generally included participants with higher literacy levels,
were also more likely to seek out parity and consistency across the census. Any suggestion that one ethnic
group was being singled out or given access to a facet of an identity which was being denied to others,
therefore caused concern about the acceptability of the census more generally.
‘I am so conscious of our history and the amount we have had to fight in this country. Removing Black British
feels like a step back and like we’re being told, thanks for helping build this country but unfortunately you’ve
not made the cut.’ – Black African, Birmingham
Testing a Somali tick-box and amendments to high-level African & Caribbean categories
Within the Somali and Black African groups, participants were asked to provide feedback on three new
possible question versions. These included:
▪ Somali under ‘African’
▪ Splitting high level ‘Black, African, Caribbean or Black British’ category to ‘African and Caribbean’ and
removing colour terminology
▪ Splitting high level ‘Black, African, Caribbean or Black British’ category as before but including colour
terminology
6.2.1 Response to Somali under ‘African’
There was a mixed response to the introduction of Somali under African. In general, Somali participants
recognised that they would identify with the tick-box it was included - particularly as it eased the process of
answering for those who otherwise struggled with reading and writing English. Some participants within the
Somali groups also expressed ‘pride’ in identifying with a distinct Somali box, with some further commenting
that it suggested the UK Government was now recognising Somalis as an important group within the English
and Welsh population. Nevertheless, this sentiment was not always shared by Somali participants with
higher literacy levels, the more politically engaged and amongst the Black African groups. These participants
expressed discomfort and suspicion as to why this data was being sought out, with some commenting that it
reflected histories of discrimination against the Somali population. This led them to comment that the
inclusion of this tick-box was unacceptable.
‘I am proud to be Somali and I am happy to shout about that. I do want to know why we are being given a
tick-box though, what’s the reason behind it? If we are being singled out I want to know the intentions,
particularly as we are a group of people who have experienced discrimination and marginalisation for who
we are.’ – Somali, London
Regardless of whether participants found the tick-box acceptable, across the groups there was concern that
its positioning under an African tick-box could lead to confusion in completion. Given that many Somali
participants expressed a desire to identify as ‘African,’ the inclusion of a Somali tick-box directly underneath
either left some conflicted as to ‘which they should choose.’ In these cases, some participants ticked both.
20Acceptability:
Inclusion of a distinct tick-box raised suspicions about
why ‘Somali’ was being singled out. This was particularly
amongst other Black African participants
Quality:
The positioning caused some confusion about which box
participants were supposed to tick and whether they had
to make a choice between ‘African’ or ‘Somali – leading
to some ticking both response options
Clarity:
Somali participants identified with this tick-box and were
clear this box was for them
6.2.2 Response to the splitting of high level Black category to ‘African and Caribbean’ and removing
colour terminology
Within these groups, not only was a distinct Somali tick-box tested, but also amendments to the high-level ‘D’
category in the census. Unlike the 2011 census, whereby category D has ‘Black, African, Caribbean or Black
British’ on one line, participants were asked to provide feedback on African and Caribbean being split into
two distinct categories, as well as all reference to ‘Black’ being removed from the response options.
It was clear across the groups that for those who identified strongly with an African identity, this posed no
challenges and the clarity and acceptability of the split was an improvement from 2011, especially when
provided with additional write-in lines. Despite this, it was clear that those with lower literacy levels struggled
with self-completing this section, particularly when two Somali and Nigerian examples were added. For
instance, researchers observed some Somali participants circling ‘Somali’ instead of writing in, while others
struggled to recognise whether they were required to both tick and write-in. For some Black African
participants, the inclusion of only two examples also suggested that these were either being singled out or
favoured. For others, the inclusion of examples only under categories D and E was seen to be relatively
patronising - with some commenting that this suggests that unlike all other ethnic groups, African and
Caribbean respondents would not know how to answer without explicit examples.
‘I don’t know why we need these two examples – Somali and Nigerian. I know what an African country is, I
don’t need an example of how to answer a question. You don’t see the White people being shown how to
write.’ – Black African, Birmingham
In contrast, for those participants who more strongly identified as ‘Black British,’ the complete removal of this
response option not only made the process of identifying themselves with either category more challenging,
but it was also viewed as an unacceptable attempt to deny them access to a British national identity. This
was deemed to be particularly problematic given that when sense-checking the rest of the categories on the
form they could see that ‘White’ and ‘Asian’ respondents would still be able to record ‘British.’
21You can also read
