British Journal of Sociology of Education, Vol. 21, No.

4, 2000

Fitting into Categories or Falling Between Them? Rethinking

ethnic classication

ALASTAIR BONNETT, Department of Geography, University of Newcastle, UK

BRUCE CARRINGTON, Department of Education, University of Newcastle, UK

ABSTRACT The collection of ethnic and racial statistics has become common in a growing number of
institutional settings. Yet contemporary approaches to race and ethnicity suggest that the very process of
compelling people to assign themselves to one of a small number of racial or ethnic boxes is, at best,
essentialist and, at worst, racist. This article will explore this problematic terrain, and venture a pathway
through it, with the aid of ndings from a study of ethnic minority English and Welsh student teachers
attitudes to ethnic classication. The discussion comprises three parts. The rst sets out to provide a brief
theoretical analysis of the genesis of ethnic monitoring within the modern state. It is concluded that ethnic
monitoring may usefully be regarded as a problematic necessity, a process that itself needs constant
monitoring. With this agenda in place, we move on to assess the implications of our ndings on student
teachers attitudes to ethnic monitoring. Their pointers for reform are discussed in the third and nal
section of the paper, where the policy implications of research are outlined.

Introduction
The collection of ethnic and racial statistics has become common in a growing number
of institutional settings. Yet it can sometimes appear as if this mass of information is
destined to decompose in archival gloom. Indeed, the suspicion that the collection of
such data is a largely symbolic act enabling institutions, by means of a cheap and easy
paper exercise, to signify an egalitarian disposition remains a persistent concern (Bonnett,
2000). Such criticism has also been propelled by a deeper worry, an underlying unease
about the value of ethnic classi cation per se. For those committed to improving access
to higher education and greater equality in the workplace, the issue has developed into
a disabling paradox. On the one hand, it seems self-evident that a necessary component
of creating more inclusive institutions is the availability of more comprehensive infor-
mation on racial and ethnic differences in workforce composition and career advance-
ment. The of cial justi cation for ethnic monitoring in employment offered by the
ISSN 01425692 (print)/ISSN 1465-334 6 (online)/00/04048714 2000 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/0142569002001725 6
488 A. Bonnett & B. Carrington

Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) (Commission for Racial Equality, 2000) in the
UK explains that:

Although ethnic records are not obligatory under the Race Relations Act of
1976, the legislation does place the responsibility for providing equality of
opportunity for all job applicants and employees primarily with employers.
Ethnic records are an important tool in ful lling this responsibility. Many
organisationsfor example, the Civil Service, the police, local authorities,
banks, retailers, and other employershave now extended their personnel
records to include ethnic origins [] The analysis of ethnic data helps not only
in identifying and dealing with unlawful discrimination, but also frequently
highlights other employment practices in need of improvement.

Clearly mindful of the concerns that have been voiced about the practice of labelling
itself, the CRE goes on to note:

Labelling people, and differentiating between them according to their racial or

ethnic origin is already a fairly common practice in society, and has developed
irrespective of ethnic record-keeping. Racial origin, like gender, is a matter of
fact [] Ethnic records should therefore be seen as an essential tool in
achieving racial equality, because without them, it would be dif cult to
establish the nature or extent of inequality, the areas where action is most
needed, and whether measures aimed at reducing inequality are succeeding.

However, despite such injunctions, many contemporary theorisations of, and much
political activism around, race and ethnicity suggest that the very process of compelling
people to assign themselves to one of a small number of racial or ethnic boxes is, at best,
essentialist and, at worst, racist (see, for example, Bird, 1996; Byrd, 2000).
This article will explore this problematic terrain, and venture a pathway through it,
with the aid of ndings from a study of English and Welsh student teachers attitudes to
ethnic classi cation, conducted in 1999. Drawing upon both questionnaire and interview
data, the research focuses exclusively on Postgraduate Certi cate in Education (PGCE)
students who were either of cially classi ed as having ethnic minority status or,
alternatively, had withheld details of their ethnic origins when applying to the course.
The discussion comprises three parts. The rst sets out to provide a brief theoretical
analysis of the genesis of ethnic monitoring within the modern state. This process, we
argue, can be seen as embodying a political tension between an authoritarian aspect of
social surveillance and control and an egalitarian principle of redistribution and open,
transparent management. From this discussion, it is concluded that ethnic monitoring
may usefully be regarded as a problematic necessity, a process that itself needs constant
monitoring. With this agenda in place, we move on to assess the adequacy of existing
categories used within the English and Welsh education system. Particular attention is
given to the implications of our ndings on student teachers attitudes to ethnic
monitoring. We show that, despite their criticisms of the present system of ethnic
classi cation, the students accepted the need for such monitoring. As well as taking issue
with the rigid, one-dimensional and anachronistic nature of the of cial categories
currently used to describe visible ethnic minorities, the students also expressed reserva-
tions about the catch-all term used to describe the ethnic majority, i.e. White. Their
pointers for reform are discussed in the third and nal section of the paper, where the
policy implications of research are outlined.
 Ethnic and Racial Classication 489

Producing Ethnic Categories: the dialectic of control and emancipation?

Recent years have seen social scientists taking an increasingly critical interest in the uses
and production of statistics. More precisely, sociologists in uenced by Michel Foucault
and, subsequently, by Bruno Latour have argued that the power and authority of the
state is applied through the rendering of society as visible, as capable of being monitored.
Thus, these critics are interested in the translation of the social into categories that are
amenable and comprehensible to the bureaucratic procedures and ideologies of modern
government (Hacking, 1990; Rose, 1991; Murdoch & Ward, 1997). The paradigmatic
form of this process is understood to be social quanti cation. As this implies, the
dissemination of the ideal and necessity of social self-categorisation is viewed as a form
of acculturation into the rationality of government. The regulatory logic behind this
process may be described as governmentality (Dean, 1999). Murdoch and Ward,
following Hacking (1990), explain that
The collection of statistics and the proliferation of inscriptions, with their
technologies for classifying and enumerating, become effective techniques of
govermentality, allowing civil domains to be rendered visible, calculable and,
therefore, governable. Furthermore, they heralded the advent of subjects who
remain free but come to calculate themselves in terms derived from the tools
and techniques of governmentality. (1997, p. 312)
This perspective on social statistics emphasises its normative function. Hacking (1990, p.
6) notes enumeration requires categorisation, and [the] de ning [of] new classes of
people for the purpose of statistics has consequences for the ways in which we conceive
of others and think of our own possibilities and potentialities. Fleshing out this rather
abstract description, Murdoch and Ward suggest that, Counting leads to the articu-
lation of norms whereby people are considered normal if in their characteristics they
conform to the central tendencies of statistical laws; those that do not are considered
pathological (1997, p. 312).
These new theorisations of the political context and signi cance of statistical knowl-
edge have helped to subvert the empiricism that has traditionally dominated the area.
They are also suggestive of the political connections between seemingly disparate
attempts to generate social statistics. Indeed, Deans (1999, p. 168) account of what he
calls the recent swarming of technologies of performance implies that monitoring is
extending its terrain, penetrating the enclosures of expertise fostered under the welfare
state to transform them into cost centres. The rationality of such calculable spaces is
that social categorisation and enumeration must be constantly extended and enforced;
that, without this constant pressure, local agencies would slip from visibility and, hence,
from state control.
Yet, despite the insights that a focus on govermentality allows, it is equally important
to challenge the reductive and functionalist aspects of its advocates approach to
statisticalisation. Certainly, the study of the production of racial and ethnic statistics in
Britain suggests a more complex reality. More precisely, it indicates how categories and
statistics can, and have been, produced as both forms of resistance to and signs of
acculturation by government. Whether ethnic and racial statistics are unique in this
respect is a topic beyond the scope of the present paper. However, it may be useful to
note that, unlike many other areas of social life, the core categories and ideas within
racial demarcation are widely acknowledged as problematic and controversial. This
implies that it may be sensible to distinguish between the production of statistics within
a site of political struggle that habitually unsettles its own constituent categories and other
490 A. Bonnett & B. Carrington

arenas that, however politically turbulent, are less prone to controversies of terminology
and identity.
In view of the controversy that continues to surround the practice of racial demar-
cation, it is not surprising that some authorities have poured scorn on the idea that race
could ever be properly quanti ed by government. Roger Ballard, appearing before the
Home Affairs Committee in 1983, noted that it is virtually impossible to pose askable
or answerable questions about race (cited by Skellington, 1996, p. 26). The problem,
however, is more than simply one of enumeration or taxonomy. With the historical links
in the UK between ethnic monitoring and immigration control, ethnic minority organ-
isations have tended to treat any moves to extend this form of of cial data collection with
suspicion. Gathered by the Home Of ce since the advent of the Commonwealth
Immigrants Act 1962, such data have been amassed and disseminated by successive
administrations concerned with demonstrating their grip on the problem of immigration
(i.e. of non-white immigration). The attempts by the Department of Education and
Science (DES), during the late 1960s and early 1970s, to collect data on immigrant
children in schools embodied the same logic. From the standpoint that ethnic diversity
had a destabilising effect on schools, the DES statistics were used to inform the divisive
strategy of bussing (Kirp, 1979). This assimilationist measure was designed to ensure
that the ethnic minority population of schools never exceeded 30%. With the ending of
central government support for bussing in 1971, the DES felt able to justify its decision
in the following year to cease collecting statistics on ethnicity. As many analysts have
noted, playing the numbers game has been a central racist discourse in government
circles in Britain. When combined with increasingly restrictive immigration laws, it is
little wonder that the sociologist Charles Moore felt moved to explain to the Home
Affairs Committee in 1983 that given the record of governments since 1961, I would
advise the black population not to collaborate in the provision of such data in the present
circumstances (cited by Skellington, 1996, p. 34).
Such suspicions would seem to support the kind of Foucauldian critiques already
alluded to. Notwithstanding this, however, the collection of racial and ethnic data does
not t easily within a reductive model of political agency. The short history of ethnic
monitoring in the UK shows that this practice cannot be regarded as the outcome of
some unilateral and largely uncontested action by the state. Rather, the systems of ethnic
classi cation that have emerged have done so, in part, as the result of the continuing
efforts of marginalised communities to assert their own (and others) distinctive identities,
and legitimate claims to full participation in every facet of civil and political life. If this
formulation is accepted, then we must conclude that the inclusion of categories such as
Pakistani or West Indian on of cial forms constitutes something more than the mere
exercise of state control. Rather, it represents the power of these communities to ensure
that the government of the day takes cognisance of their interests. As such, it may be
regarded as constituting a challenge to governmentality itself. An instructive example of
this process is the of cial acceptance of the category Black. The emergence of the
politically in ected term Black in the 1970s does not t easily within the logic of
transparency that has so impressed the new theorists of enumeration. This category was
asserted as a challenge to the state. The fact that the state eventually incorporated and
used the category is surely more a testament to the exibility and adaptive nature of
modern government than to its totalitarian, all-seeing, power. The same process may
be witnessed in the increasing tendency for of cial categorisations to expand their range
of ethnic and racial terms. For, with the move away from monolithic notions of
Blackness and the rise of the new ethnic assertiveness (Modood, 1993a, 1994; for an
 Ethnic and Racial Classication 491

account of the dehomogenization of blackness in the USA see Hinton, 1991), the state
has had to respond to increasing calls for the diversity of identities within ethnic
minority and Black communities to be recognised.
In education, the power of grass-roots campaigning may also be cited as a key
explanation for the re-introduction of ethnic and racial enumeration in the late 1970s.
Mounting consternation among Afro-Britons throughout the decade about the relatively
poor educational performance of black children and the over-representation of this
group in schools for the educationally subnormal was eventually to result in a shift in
of cial attitudes (Tomlinson, 1982). Following the establishment in 1979 of the
Committee of Enquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups,
chaired initially by Anthony Rampton and then subsequently by Lord Swann, the
practice of ethnic monitoring was re-instated by the DES. Not surprisingly, the
three category typology (West Indians, Asians and All Other School Leavers) used
by the Committee in its analysis of ethnic differences in achievement (Department of
Education and Science, 1981, 1985) was subjected to widespread criticism throughout
the 1980s (see, for example, Demaine, 1989; Gillborn, 1990; Troyna & Carrington,
1990). Despite the limitations of this typology, with its monolithic catch all categories,
it was not until the end of that decade, with the advent of a national system of
ethnic monitoring in higher education, that an alternative typology was devised. This
system, which was up and running by 1990, was, in large part, a response to the
ndings of the Commission for Racial Equalitys (1988) formal investigation into the
admissions procedures at St Georges Medical School, which had revealed evidence
of both racial and sexual discrimination (Modood, 1993b). The revised of cial typology,
utilising the Of ce of Population Censuses and Surveys (OPCS) 10 ethnic categor-
ies (i.e. White, Black Caribbean, Black African, Black Other, Asian Indian,
Asian Pakistani, Asian Bangladeshi, Asian Chinese, Asian Other, Other),
has continued to provide the basis for ethnic monitoring in higher education and other
elds.
The OPCS ethnic categories, while an improvement upon those of Rampton and
Swann, are similarly awed. The categories can be criticised as being ambiguous,
anachronistic and discrepant with commonly held subjective de nitions. Among other
things, they take no account of people who view their ethnic identities in hyphenated
British terms (e.g. BritishAfro-Caribbean, PakistaniBritish), or those of mixed
parentage or diverse cultural heritage (Mason, 1990; Modood, 1992; Tizard & Phoenix,
1993; Berrington, 1995; Bird, 1996). These de ciencies are likely to have a bearing upon
students responses to the forms and questionnaires used for the purposes of ethnic
monitoring. Indeed, some may nd themselves entirely alienated as a result of this
process. As John Bird noted when re ecting on the ndings of his own research into
ethnic minority students attitudes towards ethnic monitoring in higher education:

Classi cations derived from the OPCS categories limit the possibility of
self-de nition and use categories that are resonant with the history of colonial-
ism. In part, non-response rates relate to both these design features of
monitoring forms. Black students very often do not relate to, or understand, the
reference to Asian, African, Afro-Caribbean and so on. This is clear, for
example, when students of dual heritage discuss monitoring forms: I didnt
know which box to tick and in the end I ticked both the white and black box
(Maria) and I am British and black and I dont know why Im being asked if
I am Afro-Caribbean (Delroy). (1996, pp. 9697).
492 A. Bonnett & B. Carrington

Bird goes to make a number of additional equally trenchant criticisms relating to the
handling of white ethnicity in ethnic monitoring. He states:
There is a further point about ethnic classi cations, and that is how they treat
white as a unitary and unproblematic category. This is a deeply rooted
problem in the sense both that white includes a wide variety of ethnicities
Welsh, Scottish, Polish, English and so onand this category presents white
people as having something in common (1996, p. 97).

Fitting into Categories or Falling Between Them? Ethnic monitoring and

initial teacher training
We shared many of Birds concerns as we embarked upon our own programme of
research into of ethnic minority recruitment to teaching. This ongoing study, which
focuses on the 199899 intake to the PGCE, seeks to provide an evidence-base for
current policies to widen ethnic minority participation in this eld (Department for
Education and Employment, 1998). The research draws upon data from these sources:

A national questionnaire survey of full-time ethnic-minority PGCE students under-

taken at the beginning of their initial teacher training. The sample comprised 289
student teachers (73 males, 216 females) drawn from a wide range of ethnic back-
grounds (see Table 1). It included students who had either described their ethnic
origins in terms of one of the eight of cial ethnic minority categories when applying
to the Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR), or who had ticked the category
Other.
Interviews with PGCE course directors and admissions tutors in 16 training institu-
tionswith above average levels of ethnic minority recruitmentlocated in London
and the South East, the Midlands and the North of England. The sample included an
institution offering School Centred Initial Teacher Training, along with seven old
universities (pre-1992) and eight new universities (post-1992).
Follow-up interviews with a cross-section of 49 student teachers (11 males, 38 females)
drawn from 11 English universities (see Table II).

One of the objectives of the research was nd out why such a large proportion of
entrants to the PGCE, 13% in 1997 and 16% in 1998 (Graduate Teacher Training
Registry, 1998, 1999), were either unable or unwilling to furnish details of their ethnicity
when applying for teacher training. We recognised that of cial descriptors may be
viewed as discrepant with subjective de nitions of ethnic identity and cultural heritage.
In addition, we felt that there was little point in monitoring intakes by ethnicity if the
data were neither complete nor valid. As well as seeking to disaggregate the category of
Other, by providing details of respondents preferred ethnic identities, we wanted to
gauge the extent to which the remainder of our respondents were comfortable with the
extant of cial categories. We felt that such an exercise would be useful in so far as it may
provide the basis for a more valid way of describing this particular form of collective
identity, i.e. one that is more congruent with commonly-held subjective perceptions.
As Table 1 shows, almost one in ve (48 students) of the respondents to our survey
indicated that they were of mixed parentage. This no doubt re ects a wider demographic
change currently taking place in British society. Berrington (1995), for example, has
shown that 60% of the young men and 52% of the young women reporting themselves
as Black Other in the 1991 Census had white partners. In addition, more than one- fth
 TABLE I. The survey sample: of cial and preferred descriptors of ethnicity

Students Preferred Descriptors of Ethnicity

Hyphenated Single
Mixed parentage Supra-national British Identity ethnic or national
Ethnicity by Uses of cial or heritage identity (e.g. Religious identity (e.g. Black British identity other than Other
of cial category category only (e.g. Indo-Irish) Latin American) only (e.g. Sikh) or simply British) British (e.g. Jamaican) (e.g. White) Total

Asian 51 2 2 2 3 3 1 64
Indian (80%) (3%) (3%) (3%) (5%) (5%) (2%) (101%)
Asian 15 0 0 1 0 0 0 16
Bangladeshi (94%) (0%) (0%) (6%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (100%)
Asian 19 0 0 0 5 0 0 24
Pakistani (79%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (21%) (0%) (0%) (100%)
Asian 5 0 0 0 1 0 1 7
Chinese (71%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (28%) (0%) (28%) (99%)
Asian Other 7 2 2 1 3 9 1 25
(28%) (8%) (8%) (4%) (12%) (36%) (4%) (100%)
Black African 25 1 1 0 1 0 0 28
(89%) (4%) (4%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (0%) (101%)
Black 19 0 3 0 6 1 0 29
Caribbean (66%) (0%) (10%) (0%) (21%) (3%) (0%) (100%)
Black Other 3 5 1 0 3 0 1 13
(23%) (38%) (8%) (0%) (23%) (0%) (8%) (100%)
Other 7 38 15 1 5 10 7 83
(9%) (46%) (18%) (1%) (6%) (12%) (8%) (100%)
Total 151 48 24 5 27 23 11 289
52% 17% 8% 2% 9% 8% (4%) (100%)
Ethnic and Racial Classication
493
494 A. Bonnett & B. Carrington

TABLE II. The interview sample: of cial and alternative descriptors of ethnicity

Prefers to use an
Ethnicity by of cial Uses of cial alternative description of
category category only ethnicity Preferred descriptors

Asian Indian 9 2 British Indian, Hindu Indian

Asian Bangladeshi 3 2 Bengali British, Bengali
Asian Pakistani 5 1 Pakistani Muslim
Asian Other 0 1 Kenyan Indian
Black African 3 2 Nigerian (2)
Black Caribbean 1 3 British Caribbean, Black West Indian,
African Caribbean
Black Other 1 2 Black UK, Black British
Other 0 14 Mixed Parentage, Multiracial, Mixed
Heritage, Mixed Ethnic Origin, Mixed
Descent, Bicultural, Irish Egyptian, Half
British, Half Sudanese, Black English,
Latin American, Eurasian (2), Middle
Eastern, European White
Total 22 27

of ethnic minority children in the country under 4 years of age were found to have mixed
parentage. When asked whether they preferred to use different categories from the
of cial ones when describing their ethnicity, almost one-half of those surveyed (48%)
answered af rmatively. Not surprisingly, those who seemed to exhibit the highest level
of dissonance were found in the category of Other. Indeed, the majority of this group
(91%) went on to provide details of their preferred ethnic identity and cultural heritage.
Concern about the adequacy of of cial categories, however, was not con ned to this
section of the sample: almost one-third (29%) of the remainder furnished alternative
descriptors of their ethnicity. Having said this, acceptance of the of cial categories
seemed to vary from group to group. For example, almost every Asian Bangladeshi
(94%) and the majority of Black Africans (89%), Indians (80%), Asian Pakistanis
(79%), Asian Chinese (71%) and Black Caribbeans (66%) felt able to use the of cial
categories when describing their ethnic origins. However, this was not the case with
respondents ticking the categories of Black Other and Asian Other. About three-quar-
ters of the students who had assigned themselves to these particular categories preferred
to describe their ethnicity differently (i.e. Black Other, 77%; Asian Other, 72%).
We will now consider, in greater detail, the students preferred descriptors of ethnicity
(for these could provide a basis for a revised of cial classi cation). We begin by focusing
on the group for whom the of cial typology appeared to have the least relevance, i.e.
those ticking the category of Other. As Table 1 indicates, about one-half (46%) of this
group referred directly their diverse origins. Of these, some said, quite simply, that they
were of mixed parentage, mixed heritage, or mixed race, while others went on to
qualify their responses. The following comments illustrate the diversity:

Mixed race: black/white

Mixed: Scottish/Mauritian
 Ethnic and Racial Classication 495

Anglo Indian, mixed race

Chinese mum/White dad
English/African: mum/dad
EurasianPortuguese/English/Dutch/Chinese
Father Indian origin/English mother
Irish/Egyptian
Sudanese/English
Human being, White/Burmese
The remainder of the group said that they preferred to describe their ethnicity in
supra-national terms (e.g. Latin American, European, Mediterranean, European
White), underlined their Britishness (e.g. Black-British: Caribbean descent, Pakistani
British), or made reference to an additional form of ethnic or national identity (e.g.
Filipino, Japanese, Irish, Mauritian, Goan). A small minority of those ticking the
category of Other described themselves as White. We are only able to speculate about
the motives underlying such responses. However, it was apparent from one or two of the
students comments at the end of the questionnaire that they were sceptical about the
of cial typology (with its focus upon so-called visible minorities). As one woman, who
had ticked the Other category, wrote:
I dont really perceive myself as an ethnic minority and nd this classi cation
somewhat amusing. If you met me, youd realise why: I am a native speaker
of English and speak the Queens English. My Yorkshire husband describes it
as plummy. I live in fear of my children growing up with his accent. I am also
a Roman Catholic and found at university that I had much more in common
with other English students, than Muslim and Hindu Indian students. I have
been in England since I was 12 years old and have only once met a fellow
Goan in normal circumstances. So I live among the natives quite happily and
often forget that I am any different, as do my two children.
In a similar vein, a male student made the following observation about his own ethnicity
(and the limitations of of cial classi cations):
Id also like to say that, although I dont look like a White European (people
usually take me for Middle Eastern or Mediterranean), I have no connection
to the Indian part of my familyI am culturally completely English. There-
fore, I nd it dif cult to describe my ethnicity. I feel that, rather than t into
a category, I fall between them.
The of cial categories of Black Other and Asian Other were found to be almost as
amorphous as the category of Other. For example, about one-third (38%) of the student
teachers checking the former category said that they preferred to describe themselves as
having mixed parentage or heritage (e.g. Mixed: Black Caribbean/English, Mixed:
Black/White parents). In contrast, a similar proportion (36%) of those in the Asian
Other category chose a single ethnic or national identity (other than British) when
outlining their alternative descriptors of ethnicity: for example, Vietnamese, Sri-
Lankan, Goanese, Kashmiri and Mauritian.
As we have already noted, the existing OPCS categories are resonant with the history
of colonialism (Bird, 1996). Moreover, rigid archaic descriptors such as Asian Pakistani
or Black Caribbean not only fail to convey an inclusivist image of the UK as a
multi-ethnic and pluralist society, but also take no account of those who view themselves
as having dual or hyphenated British identities (for example, Modood, 1992). More
496 A. Bonnett & B. Carrington

than one- fth of the respondents to our survey assigned to the two foregoing groups
described themselves in this way: for example, British-Afro-Caribbean, Black-British,
African descent, Black-English, British-Asian, British-Muslim, Pakistani-British.
The following observations would seem to be especially germane:
I am at a loss to comprehend why after over 300 years of a black presence in
this countryin areas like Bristol, Cardiff and Liverpoolmost job application
forms refer to Black African and Black Caribbean. Why not Black British?
Black Americans see themselves as American, yet this country continues to do
a disservice to Black British people by treating as if they are Black yet not
British. (Male, Black Caribbean)
The follow-up interviews, undertaken with a cross-section of 49 students enabled us to
explore further the issues raised in the questionnaire. The interview ndings broadly
corroborated those of the survey. As Table II shows, rather more than one-half of the
interviewees (27 students) felt uncomfortable about using the limited range of of cial
descriptors when applying for a place on the PGCE. Once again, those who had ticked
the Other box seemed to exhibit the highest levels of dissatisfaction, and generally
complained of falling between categories. The following comments are illustrative of their
views:
I always tick Other and put origin Middle Eastern. I never know what to
write for that really. (Female)
Im not unhappy (about ethnic monitoring)I just think that theres another
way of doing it so that were not [classi ed as] Other [] Im mixed race,
but Im not just an Other, you knowin the spare box! (Female)
Every time I need to ll in a form [] I dont know how to classify myself
because I look white, but Im not completely white. (Female)
Were never given the choice of half and half. (Female)
I usually tick Other because Im very proud of both my cultures and I dont
want to leave either of them behind. Theyre very important to me. (Female)
I always tick Other because theres nothing really on there [the GTTR form]
for me [] I dont class myself as Caribbean. (Female)
Resistance to the extant of cial categories was not only con ned to those assigning
themselves to the category of Other. Of these, a few underlined the salience of their
religious identities or described their identities in hyphenated British terms. One
interviewee went to some lengths to criticise the emphasis given to colour differences in
the OPCS categories, and their concomitant treatment of white ethnicity as a monolithic
and undifferentiated entity. The student noted, with irony:
Theres one category for White. Theres no shade of White! Its White, but
theres a million shades. Therere about three shades of Black and about three
or four shades of Asians (if you want to call it shades). Right, so they know
exactly whos coming! (Male, Black Other)
Another pointed to the anachronistic nature of the categories, questioning relevance both
to British-born black people and rst-generation black immigrants:
It [the of cial classi cation] doesnt really take into account [] the culture,
the way youve been brought up [] You can have a student who is from a
 Ethnic and Racial Classication 497

Black Caribbean background but has been living here for a long time, was
born in this country and can have few links with this Black Caribbean culture.
(Female, Black Caribbean)
Although more than one-half of the interviewees expressed reservations about the
existing of cial categories, only one seemed to be alienated by the process to ethnic
monitoring per se:
I cant stand it [ethnic categorisation]; I just think its horrid [] Im sorry I
dont think it should be on any form. There are so many things we ll out and
weve got to tick what minority group were in. I dont think it matters [] I
can tick the Indian box or whatever, but [] Ive been born here, Ive lived
here all my life, my parents have lived here for forty odd years. Yes, Im Asian
and yes I have links with my culture and everything. But, I am English as well
[] I think of myself being English and British and Bengali, side by side.
(Female, Asian Bangladeshi)
Criticisms of the current system of ethnic monitoring were not only con ned to the
students. Our interviews with PGCE staff also revealed that they had fundamental
misgivings about various facets of current practice. The data produced by the GTTR
monitoring exercise were viewed as having little or no value by those responsible for
institutional strategies to widen ethnic minority participation. Because the GTTR does
not provide institutions with advance information about a candidates ethnicity during
the selection process, such a practice can only be based on guesswork. One Primary
Course Director, clearly frustrated by the lack of information, remarked:
We cant actually identify them [minority applicants] because the GTTR takes
the ethnic monitoring bit off the form before we get it. But as I said to you,
you can guess possibly by looking at their names or place of birth [] Whilst
we cant lower the standards of the candidates we choose even for interview,
we would look favourably on any ethnic minority students or any men.
Details of a candidates ethnicity are withheld from selectors on the grounds that
decisions could be negatively in uenced by such information. However, many admissions
tutors indicated that they would have made constructive use of this information in
pursuing their efforts to achieve a better balance in their intakes. Despite the shortcom-
ings of the GTTR data, ve institutions made use of them for post hoc monitoring of their
intakes on a year-by-year basis, and also as a means of tracking students progress during
training.

Rethinking Ethnic Monitoring

We began this paper on a sceptical note by taking issue with the practice of governmen-
tality and by suggesting that ethnic monitoring was a problematic necessity. Ethnic
monitoring re ects the logic of state surveillance and control. Yet it also acts as a site of
social change and emancipation. The statisticalisation of identity is a bureaucratic devise
but it can also be something else, something that escapes and even challenges the attempt
to x and manage group de nitions. As the foregoing analysis indicates, ethnic minority
student teachers would seem to hold a similarly ambivalent view, i.e. they accept the
need for policies to make teaching a more inclusive occupation but recognise that the
data currently collected to inform such policies are, at best, of limited value. Although
they acknowledge that enumeration requires categorisation, they recognise that the
498 A. Bonnett & B. Carrington

present categories used for monitoring are awed. Their comments reveal that the
categories are variously perceived as nebulous, quaint and discrepant with commonly
held subjective de nitions. Among other things, the student teachers take issue with a
reductionist emphasis on differences of colour and the concomitant neglect of other
salient forms of collective identity (e.g. cultural, religious and national). Moreover, they
note that the present classi catory system not only ignores the burgeoning sector of the
population with diverse cultural or biological antecedents, but it also fails to take account
of the growing proportion of ethnic minorities who see themselves as having bifurcated
or hyphenated British identities. Finally, their comments reveal that some of the extant
categories may be far less robust than others (e.g. Black Other, Asian Other).
The students observations offer several useful pointers for policy. First, they indicate
that a root and branch review of the existing system of ethnic classi cation is long
overdue. Furthermore, such a review would need to consider ways of deconstructing the
all-embracing category White, as well as the current ethnic minority categories. The
students comments not only provide the basis for a revised classi catory system, but also
suggest that any alternative taxonomy should be the subject of continuing critical scrutiny
and review. In other words, monitoring should not be developed as an attempt to
concoct a xed and immutable solution to the problem of ethnic diversity. Rather, it
needs to be conceptualised as inherently exible and provisional; as a system that is
always tryingand always, in part, failingto accommodate itself to a permanently
changing terrain. Such an approach may be summarised as re exive monitoring.
Re exive monitoring is self-conscious and anti-essentialist; its categories, its boxes, are
explicitly open to change and adaptation. We would argue that such a stance might be
defended on two main grounds. First, self-de nitions of collective identity tend to change
over time: it is imperative that ethnic monitoring systems keep abreast of such changes.
The of cial category Black Caribbean is a case in point. While this category may
continue to have salience for some rst-generation migrants to Britain, it is unlikely that
it will hold the same signi cance for subsequent generations of British-born black people
who often view their identities in hyphenated terms. By contrast, the utility and meaning
of another of cial category, White, requires attention by virtue of its power to remove,
and disengage, huge swaths of people from the monitoring process. However non-con-
tentious the term may appear to many white people today, it seems to us increasingly
necessary to look forward to a time when it is demoted from its dominant and axial
position within racial classi cation. This would imply that white people need to think
about themselvesmore speci cally, their shifting ethnic identitiesin a somewhat
similar fashion to the way non-white people have been required to do for many years.
We would emphasise that this suggestion arises from the need to critically interrogate
whiteness rather than from the idea that skin colour is no longer salient in the process
of discrimination. Clearly, as William Macphersons (1999) inquiry into the murder of
black teenager Stephen Lawrence has shown, colour-based racism continues to pervade
institutional life in contemporary Britain.
Second, as well as taking stock of changing self-de nitions, any revised ethnic
monitoring system should take account of continuing demographic changes. As well as
re ecting the growing number of mixed heritage/parentage people in British society, an
alternative classi catory system will need to make appropriate provision for, among
others, recent migrants to this country from mainland Europe (including the European
Union), South America and the Paci c Rim.
In addition to these changes, respondents to ethnic monitoring questions ought to be
given an opportunity to de ne their identities in their own terms. As well as offering a
 Ethnic and Racial Classication 499

potential means of addressing the issue of essentialism that labelling of this kind may
engender, self-de nitions would enable those administering the census to keep a check on
the validity of the categories employed for monitoring purposes. The use of open-ended
questions of this type could have other tangible bene ts. For example, user alienation
(and, consequently, non-response) may be reduced. Furthermore, useful, as well as
meaningful, additional data to inform policy measures could be elicited. For example, as
our own research suggests, religious af liation continues to be a paramount in uence on
the identities of many people. Furthermore, information on such differences would be of
value to universities (and other institutions) when taking a proactive stance to meet the
needs of particular groups. Whereas some individuals would regard a direct question on
religious af liation as an unwarranted intrusion on their privacy, an open-ended question
on self-de nition could provide a potentially less contentious means of collecting these
data. Finally, some of the resistance to ethnic monitoring could be obviated if its purposes
were better explained.
If universities are to become truly inclusive institutions, then more detailed and
comprehensive information on both students and staff will be required. Policies to widen
access and achieve more balanced student intakes, to improve pastoral care provision or
to increase equal opportunities in staf ng should be informed by reliable data rather than
anecdote or hunch (Runnymede Trust, 2000). Ethnic monitoring, despite its chequered
history and potential weaknesses, has a part to play in this process.

Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) for funding the
research upon which this article is based. They are particularly grateful to Jane Benham,
the Agencys former Head of Teacher Supply and Recruitment, and Helen Lipieta at the
TTA for advice and practical support. The authors would also like to thank all of those
who took part in the research and to acknowledge the contributions of other members
of the research team: Anoop Nayak, Chris Skelton, Fay Smith and Richard Tomlin
(University of Newcastle), Jack Demaine (Loughborough University) and Geoffrey Short
(University of Hertfordshire).

Correspondence: Dr Alastair Bonnett, Department of Geography, University of Newcastle

upon Tyne, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 7RU, UK.

REFERENCES
BERRINGTON, A. (1995) Marriage patterns and inter-ethnic unions, in D. COLEMAN & J. SALT (Eds) Ethnicity in
the 1991 Census (London, OPCS).
BIRD, J. (1996) Black Students and Higher Education: rhetorics and realities (Buckingham, Open University Press).
BONNETT, A. (2000) Anti-Racism (London, Routledge).
BYRD, C. (2000) The Multiracial Activist: Census 2000 protest (Interacial Voice), http://multiracial.com/news/
protest.html
COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (1988) Medical School Admissions: report of a formal investigation into St Georges
Hospital Medical School (London, Commission for Racial Equality).
COMMISSION FOR RACIAL EQUALITY (2000) Why Keep Ethnic Records? Questions and answers for employers and employees
(London, Commission for Racial Equality) http://www.cre.gov.uk/publs/dl.wker.html
DEAN, M. (1999) Governmentality (London, Sage).
500 A. Bonnett & B. Carrington

DEMAINE, J. (1989) Race, categorisation and educational achievement, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 10,
pp. 195214.
DEPARTMENT FOR EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT (1998) Teachers: meeting the challenge of change (London, HMSO).
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1981) West Indian Children in our Schools, Interim Report of the
Committee of Inquiry into the Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups, Cmnd. 8723 (London, HMSO).
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1985) Education for All, Final Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the
Education of Children from Ethnic Minority Groups, Cmnd. 9543 (London, HMSO).
GILLBORN, D. (1990) Race, Ethnicity and Education (London, Unwin Hyman).
GRADUATE TEACHER TRAINING REGISTRY (1998) Annual Statistical Report: Autumn 1997 entry (Cheltenham,
GTTR).
GRADUATE TEACHER TRAINING REGISTRY (1999) Annual Statistical Report: Autumn 1998 entry (Cheltenham,
GTTR).
HACKING, I. (1990) The Taming of Chance (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press).
HINTON, D. (1991) Ethnicity in the United States: dehomogenizing Blackness in American society, Ethnic Forum,
11, pp. 3138.
KIRP, D. (1979) Doing Good by Doing Little (Berkeley, CA, University of California Press).
MACPHERSON, SIR WILLIAM (1999) The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, Cmnd 42641 (London, HMSO).
MASON, D. (1990) A rose by any other name ? Categorisation, identity and social science, New Community,
17, pp. 123133.
MODOOD , T. (1992) On not being white in Britain: discrimination, diversity and commonality, in M.
LEICESTER & M. TAYLOR (Eds) Ethics, Ethnicity and Education (London, Kogan Page).
MODOOD , T. (1993a) Muslim views on religious identity and racial equality, New Community, 19, pp. 513519.
MODOOD , T. (1993b) The number of ethnic minority students in British higher education: some grounds for
optimism, Oxford Review of Education, 19, pp. 167182.
MODOOD , T. (1994) Political Blackness and British Asians, Sociology, 28, pp. 859876.
MURDOCH, J. & WARD, N. (1997) Governmentality and territoriality: the statistical manufacture of Britains
national farm, Political Geography, 16, pp. 307324.
ROSE , N. (1991) Governing by numbers: guring out democracy, According, Organisation and Society, 16, pp.
673692.
RUNNYMEDE TRUST (2000) The Future of Multi-ethnic Britain (The Parekh Report) (London, Pro le).
SKELLINGTON, R. (1996) Race in Britain today, 2nd edition (London, Sage).
TIZARD, B. & PHOENIX, A. (1993) Black, White or Mixed Race? Racism in the lives of young people of mixed heritage
(London, Routledge).
TOMLINSON, S. (1982) A Sociology of Special Education, (London, Routledge and Kegan Paul).
TROYNA, B. & CARRINGTON, B. (1990) Education, Racism and Reform (London, Routledge).