How diverse is the UK? How British is the UK? Alita Nandi Lucinda Platt ISER IOE anandi@

1. How diverse is the UK? How British is the UK? Alita Nandi Lucinda PlattISER IOEanandi@essex.ac.ukL.Platt@ioe.ac.uk Presented by: Alita Nandi, ISER, University of Essex ESRC Research Methods Festival 5th July 2012 Oxford

2. Understanding Society • Household longitudinal (annual) multipurpose survey in UK • Started in January 2009 • Approximately 30,000 households and 77,000 adults (16+years) interviewed in wave 1 • Rich (longitudinal) resource for ethnicity related research: Ethnicity Strand

3. Understanding Society: Ethnicity Strand • Ethnicity at the core of the study • Ethnic Minority Boost Sample of at least 1000 adult interviews in each of the five ethnic groups (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, Black African) selected from areas of high ethnic minority concentration • Extra five minute of question time was set aside for questions relevant for ethnicity related research which were asked of • Ethnic Minority Boost Sample • A sub-sample of the general sample (General population comparison sample) • Ethnic Minority persons in areas of low ethnic minority concentration • Some of the questions we use were asked as part of the extra five minutes

4. How diverse is the UK?

5. Background • The British Isles have always been countries of immigration and the current UK represents a combination of a wide range of different nations and peoples with union across the four countries also coming in distinct periods (Parekh 2000). • Most of the political and sociological interest in immigrant populations has nevertheless primarily focused those who immigrated (often from former colonies) since 1948. • These groups are often opposed to an apparently homogenous ‘White British’ majority who may be much more diverse than claimed

6. Research questions • The minority populations of the UK are often opposed to an apparently homogenous ‘White British’ majority. But how homogeneous is that majority and what is the extent of diversity if we explore the populations antecedents? • Does this diversity in ancestral background translate into assimilation in later generations or continued diverse ethnic identification?

7. How diverse is the UK? The minority populations of the UK are often opposed to an apparently homogenous ‘White British’ majority. But how homogeneous is that majority and what is the extent of diversity if we explore the populations antecedents?

8. Distribution of UK population by country of birth

9. Distribution of UK migrants by country of birth

10. Roots

11. How diverse is the UK? Does this diversity in ancestral background translate into assimilation in later generations or continued diverse ethnic identification?

12. Self-reported ethnic group British/ English/ Scottish/ Welsh/ Northern Irish 85.6% Mixed: White and Black Caribbean White and Black African White and Asian Any other mixed background

13. Self-reported ethnic group of UK residents whose parents were of different ethnic groups

14. Self-reported ethnic group of UK residents one of their parents is white

15. ethnic group of non-white parent(other parent is white)

16. How British is UK?

17. Background • When multiple ethnically distinct groups come in close contact with each other issues of acculturation and identification arise • (Strong) identity is considered both • Important for psychological well-being; and • Having behavioural implications that are consequential for society • Much of the focus on identity and its consequences has focused on minority identities and in the past has opposed these to majority identities • It is now widely recognised that people can have dual identities (Berry’s acculturation framework); but correlates of different forms of dual identity have not been extensively explored.

18. Berry’s Acculturation framework in a culturally plural societyBerry and Sam (1997), Berry (1997), Berry (1998) Berry’s acculturation framework assumes a degree of freedom to choose identification and/or participation among different cultural groups – both dominant or majority and non-dominant or minority [minority is not necessarily restricted to groups who are smaller in size, it refers to their non-dominant status Tajfel (1981)] Alternative framework: Gordon’s unidirectional framework which only explains assimilation (Vijver and Phalet 2004)

19. Background • Ethnic identification as ‘white’ is common for the majority of those in all four UK countries, and is regarded as the majority ethnicity. • Identification as ‘British’, however, while also a majority identification, does not necessarily imply identification as ‘white’, and is thus open to non-white minorities • On the other hand ‘British’ identity may be regarded as inappropriate for those for whom it is felt to be at odds (as an overarching state identity) with their national identity, or simply not meaningful • Finally, minority identities can only be understood in context if we can locate them in relation to overall patterns of national identity and identity formation

20. Research questions • [Psychological Acculturation] How do minority / non-British and British identities covary? And what factors influence different combinations of identity formation, for • British and minority identities for minority ethnic groups • British and within-UK country identities for the overall population

21. How British is the UK? [Psychological Acculturation] How do minority / non-British and British identities covary? And what factors influence different combinations of identity formation, for British and minority identities for minority ethnic groups

22. Measuring Psychological Acculturation • ‘Britishness’ • Most people who live in the UK may think of themselves as being British in some way. On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 means 'not at all important' and 10 means 'extremely important', how important is being British to you? • Identification with parents’ ethnic group, measured as: • On a scale of 0 to 10 where 0 means 'not at all important' and 10 means 'extremely important', how important is being [father’s ethnic group] to you? • On a …. [mother’s ethnic group] to you?... Asked only if mother’s and father’s ethnic groups are different • These are asked if ethnic group is NOT White British • In each case we consider scores above median scores as an indicator for “strong” identification

23. Acculturation Index

24. Estimating a model of acculturation index • Using multinomial logit • Sample • Includes only the extra five minute sample (ethnic minority boost sample, general population comparison sample, ethnic minority persons living in low ethnic minority concentration areas) • But excludes those who reported their ethnic group as British/English/Scottish/Welsh/Northern as they were not asked parents’ strength of identification • Also excludes Other White: Irish/Irish/Any Other White Background

25. Model of AcculturationOther resultsOmitted category is Separated Identity • No association with marital status, ethnic minority concentration of area living in, experience of harassment • Compared to 40-49 year olds, those who are 60+ are more likely to report an integrated identity, while those who are 16-29 are less likely to report an integrated or an assimilated identity • Excluding white persons, estimated coefficients for 16-19 year olds are not statistically significant • Women are less likely to report an assimilated or marginalized identity

26. Model of AcculturationOther resultsOmitted category is Separated Identity • Those living in the Midlands are more likely to report an integrated or a marginalized identity compared to Londoners • Those living in the North are less likely to report an assimilated identity compared to Londoners • Those who are taking care of family are less likely to report a marginalized identity as compared to employed persons • Compared to those with college or university degree, those without any qualification are more likely to report an integrated or assimilated identity, while those with 0-levels are more likely to report an integrated identity

27. Model of AcculturationOther resultsOmitted category is Separated Identity • Compared to those who can’t vote or have no political preference, those who have some political preference (Conservative, Labour or Other) are more likely to report an integrated, assimilated or marginalized identities • Compared to first generation immigrants all others are more likely to report an integrated, assimilated or marginalized identities • Those living in ethnically diverse households are more likely to report assimilated or marginalized identities

28. How British is the UK? [Psychological Acculturation] How do minority / non-British and British identities covary? And what factors influence different combinations of identity formation, for British and within-UK country identities for the overall population

29. Measuring Acculturation • A single, multi-coded question on national identity • Looking at this card, what do you consider your national identity to be? You may choose as many or as few as apply. • Response categories are: British; English; Welsh; Scottish; Northern Irish; Irish; Other (which is then specified) • Version of acculturation index according to whether responses include country and British

30. Acculturation Index

31. Results for country of birth • Scots whether Catholic or Protestant are less likely than English people to express a British only identity relative to a separated (country only) identity. This is the case even when controlling for current region / country of residence. • Northern Irish Protestants are more likely than English people to express both integrated and assimilated identities relative to country only. While Northern Irish Catholics are much less likely than English people to express integrated or assimilated identities relative to country only and are also much more likely to claim neither a UK country nor British as their identity. • Welsh are also less likely than English to adopt a British identity whether with country identity (integrated) or on its own (assimilated) relative to a country only identity (separated). • Those born outside the UK are less likely to have an integrated identity relative to country only but are also more likely to be assimilated (British only) relative to a country identity. They are also more likely than English born to claim neither British nor country as their national identity relative to a country only identity.

32. Results (cont.): regional variation • We can see that region and country of residence effects operate alongside these country of birth patterns of identity claims, with, for example, those in Northern Ireland more likely to express both assimilated and integrated and marginalised identities relative to separated, even when country of birth and religious affiliation have been controlled. • Those living in Scotland are also less likely than Londoners to express British only identities relative to country ones, even after controlling for country of birth. However, for Wales, country of residence has no additional impact on top of the country of birth patterns of identification. • Those in almost all English regions outside London are more likely to express integrated and assimilated national identities relative to separated ones and less likely to identify with neither country or British, with the exception of the South West, where marginalised identities are (perhaps unsurprisingly) more common. Why SW?

33. Other factors associated with national identity • Greater levels of educational qualifications are associated with relatively greater propensities towards assimilated and integrated identities, but also, for those with A’ levels and above relative to no qualifications, to greater marginalisation. • Women are significantly more likely to express assimilated or integrated identities (i.e. to include British in their identification); as are large employers and higher management. • Those who are married are less likely than those who are single never married to express assimilated or integrated identities relative to separated. But also less likely to have marginalised identities. Why? • Non-employed are less likely to be have integrated relative to separated identities. • Strong support for political party of preference decreases the chances of integrated identities relative to separated but not the relative chance of an assimilated identity.

34. Summary and conclusions (1) • UK is not as homogeneous as we think, but is a core group • Assimilation over generations • All minorities (other than mixed) identify more strongly as British than the White majority do • British identification doesn’t necessarily mean rejection of minority identification. Muslim Pakistanis are not more likely to have a separated (strong minority only) identification than any other group – in fact the opposite. • Indian Sikhs, Indian Hindus and Black African Christians seem least likely to have a marginalised identity (weak ethnic and weak British). • Those with strongly political affiliations are less likely to have a separated identity (all others more likely), than those without. • There is a clear generational pattern: compared to first generation immigrants all others are more likely to report an integrated, assimilated or marginalized identities

35. Summary and conclusions (2) • There is a clear generational pattern: compared to first generation immigrants all others are more likely to report an integrated, assimilated or marginalized identities • Northern Irish-born Protestants are more likely than English to include British as part of their national identity, while Northern Irish-born Catholics are not only less likely to include British but also less likely to include Northern Ireland. This is robust to controlling for current country of residence (90% of those born in Northern Ireland live in Northern Ireland). • Welsh-born were also significantly less likely than English-born to include British as part of their identity.

36. Summary and Conclusions (3) • There is a huge emphasis in public and policy discourse concerned with immigration, and its potential challenge to cultural homogeneity and national identity. • In fact, on the one hand, we show that non-immigrant homogeneity is overstated; and on the other hand, we demonstrate that the assumed “others” are not identifiable by patterns of identity and national identification. • Instead, people manage dual identities; and in addition, British identity increases across generation. Moreover, many within the majority population maintain strong non-British identities.