Ethnic and Racial Self-Identifications of Second-Generation Canadians of African and Caribbean Heritage

Abstract

This study investigated how second-generation Canadian youth of African and Caribbean heritage constructed racial, ethnic, and national identities and categories. Twenty-two participants aged 13 to 18 years of East and West African, and Caribbean background, were recruited from communities in the Greater Toronto Area to participate in four discussion groups. Discourse analysis was used to demonstrate the fluidity and negotiability of racial and ethnic identities and categories. Participants constructed the category of “Black” using historical, social, and descriptive references and in support of their identifications or lack thereof with this category. Categories associated with “ethnicity” and nationality were also constructed to support participants’ identifications, with some contradictory representations. Disagreements over category constructions were also present. The study highlights the performative, as opposed to cognitive, features of identities. It also brings attention to how flexible the characterizations of racial and ethnic labels can be and argues for researcher consideration of this flexibility in relation to their participants and to the social contexts of their research. Implications for research in Canadian contexts are also discussed.

Keywords

ethnic identity racial identity Black Canadians discourse analysis

Psychological research on Black Canadians has been increasing over the last two decades. Investigations of group identity, specifically racial identity have made notable contributions to the academic literature on this demographic (e.g., Boatswain & Lalonde, 2000; Lalonde, Jones, & Stroink, 2008). Much of this work has been approached from social-cognitive perspectives, where the emphasis has been on the internal features of racial, and in some cases, ethnic identity. The relationships between these constructs and behavior, as well as other psychological outcomes have also been examined (e.g., Outten, Giguere, Schmitt, & Lalonde, 2010). However, while research from social-cognitive perspectives is useful in developing our understanding of certain aspects of ethnic and racial identities, sole reliance on these approaches does little to address the social construction of these identities and the groups with which they are associated.

In this study, we employ discourse analysis to explore group identities among youth of African and Caribbean heritage who may also self-identify as Black. Discursive approaches are useful in bringing attention to the flexibility of social identity categories. These approaches also demonstrate the social actions that are performed through talk in and of itself, rather than treating language as merely representative of an external social world (Edwards, 1991). We therefore investigated how second-generation Canadian youth of African and Caribbean heritage construct what are normally considered to be racial, ethnic, and national categories and identities through talk. We also sought to examine the immediate and wider social contexts of these interactions, and to determine the social actions that were performed in these discussions. With increasing media attention to people of African and Caribbean heritage in Canada, specifically surrounding educational needs (e.g., Hammer, 2012) and negative social outcomes (e.g., Rankin, Duncanson, Quinn, Shephard, & Simmie, 2002), it is important that any research conducted on this demographic account for the complexity and fluidity of identities and social categories. Failure to do so may lead to unnecessary generalizations about people who are regarded as members of a particular social group. By focusing on second-generation youth who can be identified as Black in Canada, we sought to extend research on this demographic and to shed light on the diversity of this group.

Social Cognitive Approaches to Ethnic, Racial, and National Identities

Social-cognitive approaches examine how ethnic and/or racial identity develops in the individual, and how these identities are associated with other aspects of a person’s life (Verkuyten, 2004). Although the influence of the social world is acknowledged, the emphasis here is on how particular social influences are internalized, and on how these internalizations affect other psychological processes and external behavior. As much of the social cognitive work on race and ethnicity in Canada that involves people categorized as Black has been grounded in research on African Americans in the United States, it is necessary to give attention to this work in order to contextualize the work in Canada.

In these approaches, ethnicity and race, as well as ethnic identity and racial identity have been defined and operationalized to facilitate measurement of the relationship between these and other psychological constructs or behaviors (e.g., O’Brien, Kopala, & Martinez-Pons, 1999; Sellers & Shelton, 2003). However, despite efforts to distinguish between these constructs, it has been noted that the terms race and ethnicity have frequently been used interchangeably in psychological research (Helms & Talleyrand, 1997; Markus, 2008; Phinney, 1996). This has led to much debate on the meanings of and relationship between the terms (see Cokley, 2005, Helms & Talleyrand, 1997). For example, Phinney (1996) argues for the use of the term ethnicity to encompass both the visible “racial” characteristics of a group—such as skin color and facial features—as well as culture of origin. However, Helms and Talleyrand (1997) argue that the term ethnicity in American society essentially has no real meaning aside from its use as a replacement term for race or immigrant status. They argue that race, on the other hand, does have a clear meaning because individuals receive differential treatment due to physical appearance. Conversely, Cokley defines both terms as relevant, with race described as “a characterization of a group of people believed to share certain physical characteristics such as skin colour and facial features,” and ethnicity as “a characterization of a group of people who see themselves and are seen by others as having a common ancestry, shared history, shared traditions and shared cultural traits such as language, beliefs, values, music, dress and food” (Cokley, 2007, p. 225).

Research in the area of acculturation adds another layer to these distinctions, by giving specific attention to how ethnic cultures and identities are negotiated in relation to “host,” “mainstream,” “majority,” or “national” culture and identity. Here, the processes of adjustment that immigrants undergo in their new societies of settlement are studied (e.g., Berry, Phinney, Sam, & Vedder, 2006; Safdar, Calvez, & Lewis, 2012). The experiences of second generation and cultural minority citizens of these countries are also explored (e.g., Berry et al., 2006; Obasi & Leong, 2010). The term bicultural is often used to describe individuals who identify with the national culture and their heritage culture (Benet-Martinez, Leu, Lee, & Morris, 2002); however, it is also recognized that an individual can be influenced by the multiple cultures that may exist in a particular context (Obasi &Leong, 2010; Phinney, 2003). Social-cognitive studies have also demonstrated that individual perception and expression of various cultural identities can be fairly complex and, at the very least, dependent on the individual and the situation (Benet-Martinez et al., 2002; Sirin et al., 2008)

The flexibility with which racial, ethnic, and national labels and the meanings behind how they are used in real world settings has been demonstrated to be of great import, particularly for African American populations. Philogene (1994) outlines how the cultural or ethnic term of African American came to replacing the term Black, which is typically regarded as a racial term in American society. Use of the term Black was advocated in the 1960s as a source of racial pride in the fight against racism. In the 1980s, leaders in the Black community advocated for the use of the term African American to signify a place of origin, and therefore the cultural characteristics of this group in a manner similar to other ethnic groups in the United States. Appending “African” to “American” also acted as a signifier of national identity; that this group shared the values and ideals that are associated with being members of American society (Philogene, 1994).

Despite these apparent flexibilities, much of the social cognitive work on racial and/or ethnic minority populations has been focused on exploring what has been treated as relatively stable internal features of ethnicity and race—that is ethnic identity and racial identity. For example, the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney, 1992) was designed as a universal measure of ethnic identity—that is, it is meant to be applicable to multiple ethnic groups—and is the most commonly used ethnic identity scale in the field (Gaines et al., 2010). It measures sense of belonging to an ethnic group and identity achievement. The extent to which individuals perform “ethnic behaviors and practices” is also assessed (Phinney, 1992, p. 164). The Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (Sellers, Smith, Shelton, Rowley, & Chavous, 1998) was designed specifically to measure African American racial identity. Its four dimensions—centrality, regard, ideology, and salience—assess the extent to which participants identify with being African American, their evaluative feelings toward that group, and the situational salience of racial identity (Sellers et al., 1998). This measure has been utilized with Canadian populations (Lalonde et al., 2008; Outten et al., 2010), which will be discussed in the following section.

Cross’s Nigrescence Model (Cross, 1978) has been the most influential model in racial identity research in the United States. It was originally framed as a developmental process involving five stages through which African Americans developed a “Black” racial identity (Cross, 1978, 1995). The original theory was situated within the context of the Black Power Movement in the United States in the 1960s and 1970s (Cross, 1978). The term Black in this model was therefore not simply a descriptor of a particular group of people, but a politically significant term embedded in the context within which it arose (De Walt, 2013). The revision of the model, the Nigrescence Theory–Expanded (NT-E; Cross, 1995), has more subdued political connotations. It also does not treat each stage as a developmental progression (Worrell & Watson, 2008), and the stages are no longer linked to self-esteem and mental health (Vandiver, Cross, Worrell, & Fhagen-Smith, 2002). The stages of this model are (1) Pre-encounter, (2) Encounter, (3) Immersion-Emersion, and (4) Internalization. In Pre-encounter, the individual may be either “assimilated” into Euro American culture, or Anti-Black, where individuals have an overall negative view of Blackness. At Encounter, the individual has one or more experiences where she/he is forced to reevaluate her/his pre-encounter worldview. The Immersion-Emersion stage involves two identity profiles, Intense Black Involvement where the individual idealizes Blackness; and Anti-White, where the individual rejects and disparages Whiteness. Finally, The Internalization stage has three identity profiles—Black Nationalist, Biculturalist, and Multiculturalist—underscored by a high and positive salience of race in the individual’s life (see Cross, 1995 for a detailed discussion of these profiles). The Cross Racial Identity Scale (Vandiver et al., 2002) was recently created to operationalize the NT-E.

For the purposes of this article, we do not seek expand racial identity development theories to the Canadian context, nor to propose the adaptation or development of scales for Canadian populations. We instead aim to question the automatic associations that tend to be made in psychological research between labels, and enduring cognitive characteristics of individuals who identify with, or are ascribed to a particular label. We argue that approaching these issues from alternative perspectives can contribute greatly to our overall understandings of how group-based identities and labels are navigated in day-to-day life. It has also been argued that researchers have a tendency of projecting their categorizations of the social world unto their research participants, and that participants are included in research studies only to the extent that they accept these categorizations (Reicher, 2004; Zagefka, 2008). Therefore, research that outlines the processes through which participants identify themselves, and the flexibility of these identifications, allows for exploration of the dynamics of social categories and identities that is often downplayed in social-cognitive research.

Social-Cognitive Research on Black Canadians

Currently, people categorized under the label of Black in Canada make up approximately 2% to 3% of the Canadian population (Statistics Canada, 2011). The majority of this population is comprised of first and second generation Canadians (57% and 34%, respectively; Statistics Canada, 2011). Given that the term Black is customarily used to indicate persons of African descent, previous census data indicates great diversity in the origins of people who could be designated under this label (Statistics Canada, 2006). These origins include but are not limited to the United States, the Caribbean, and the continent of Africa. The cultural affiliations and histories of these peoples within Canada are therefore extremely diverse. It is however important to note that Canadian census data did not record what are known as racial statistics until 1996, and instead used the designations “ethnicity” or “country of birth” to delineate specific groups (Mensah, 2010). Historical and contemporary use of the term Black to describe Canadian populations of African descent has therefore been embedded in varying levels of controversy (see Mensah, 2010). Some scholars have resisted use of the label, arguing that its use opens the door for racist treatment associated with the homogenization of a diverse group (e.g., Anderson, 1993). Others have used it freely in order to signify common historically shaped experiences associated with race (Mensah, 2010), while calling for continuous and critical examination of the heterogeneity of persons categorized as Black (e.g., Walcott, 1996). The historical relationship between its use in Canada and in the United States is also significant. For example, Sealy (2000) discusses a 1969 newspaper article where the writer suggested that the terms Negro or Afro-American were preferred by Toronto populations at the time, as the term Black was regarded as too militant for Black Canadians as compared with their U.S. counterparts. This impression was based on the Canadian positioning as anti-American and as not having levels of racism comparable with the United States.

Despite these complexities, and the more recent immigration experiences of the majority of the population categorized as Black in Canada, the primary focus of Canadian psychological research has been on the cognitive features of race and racial identity for this demographic, which has somewhat downplayed the unique features of the Canadian context and the flexibility of group labels (Boatswain & Lalonde, 2000; Joseph & Kuo, 2009; Lalonde et al., 2008; Outten et al., 2010; Smith & Lalonde, 2003).

Although some studies have highlighted the cultural diversity of this group (e.g., Boatswain & Lalonde, 2000), others have tended more toward homogenization. For example, Joseph and Kuo (2009) examined the ways in which Black Canadians cope with racial discrimination. Specifically, they investigated whether “Africultural coping” strategies (Utsey, Adams, & Bolden, 2000) were utilized by their sample in response to various forms of discrimination. The Utsey et al. study pointed to the preservation of various African cultural practices and customs among African Americans, which were hypothesized to play a role in the coping strategies that this group would display. However unlike Utsey et al., Joseph and Kuo did not provide adequate evidence that Black Canadians had any level of preservation of African culture that would influence their coping strategies; nor did they provide a breakdown of the ethno-cultural composition of their sample. They only indicated that half of their sample was composed of first-generation immigrants, and that their participants reported that their parents’ racial background was Black. The researchers did find that Black Canadians use both Africultural and general coping strategies. However given the ethnic diversity of Black Canadians outlined above, it is quite likely that there would be various cultural influences which may or may not have been directly connected to African ancestry that could be associated with the preferred coping strategies in this sample. Instead there was an unexplored yet underlying assumption that participants identified as Black in the study were culturally similar to their African American counterparts, and would therefore possess cognitive similarities to them as well.

Similarly, Lalonde et al. (2008) acknowledge the differences between the United States and Canada regarding the “politics of race” (p. 129), but point to a “shared cultural experience” of discrimination as a point of comparison between the two populations (p. 130). These researchers used the MIBI (Sellers et al., 1998) in their study to determine the relationship between Black parents’ racial identity and their socialization practices with their children regarding issues of racism and discrimination. They did not find the expected relationship between racial centrality and nationalism in parents, and the racial socialization (preparation for bias) of their children, as has been found in American samples. They did, however, find that the private regard and assimilationist subscales of the measure had low internal reliability within this sample. The researchers partially attributed this low reliability to a possible lack of relevance to the particular sample of Black Canadians studied, that is, majority first generation immigrants of Caribbean background. Recognizing the potential cultural differences between African Americans and the sample of Canadians recruited, as well as the diversity of the phenotypically Black Canadian population, the researchers called for further investigation of the experiences of Black Canadians as a disaggregated group.

Ultimately, these studies suggest that researchers must take care to examine their assumptions underlying how they study individuals who self-identify with, or are ascribed to a particular label in the research context. Failing to do so may lead to unintentional homogenization of, as well as unwarranted generalizations about the psychological characteristics of perceived group members. The research presented in this study uses discourse analysis to demonstrate how flexible the labels attached to perceived social groups can be. In doing so, we argue for more careful attention to how researchers approach work on cognitive social identities.

Discursive Approaches to Racial, Ethnic, and National Identity

Taking a discursive approach to the study of racial and ethnic identity allows us to look at the nuances of these identities and categories within the Canadian context. Whereas more mainstream cognitive approaches emphasize the inner world of individuals (Edwards, 1998; Verkuyten, 2004), discursive approaches emphasize the role of the social world. The focus of analysis here is social interaction, and identity is viewed as constructed within particular contexts. The implications of these constructions are consequently examined using evidence from the particular interactions that occur in these social contexts (Verkuyten, 2004). Looking not only at the content of talk, but also at how talk is used to achieve certain ends within an interaction, is imperative for understanding the real life work of how people construct their worlds and themselves within these worlds (Edwards & Potter, 1992; Potter, 1996). Additionally, unlike in social-cognitive work, self-categorizations are not regarded as starting points for explaining how individuals experience the world (Edwards, 1998).

The approach of analyzing discourse is not new to the study of social identity. Several studies have been conducted over the past few decades that have illustrated the complexity of identity construction and categorization in various contexts (e.g., Carbaugh, 1999; Edwards, 1998). Ullah (1990) demonstrated how second-generation Irish youths drew on the current social and political climate in Britain to construct and justify their identity choices. In addition, he illustrated how these individuals accepted and resisted categorization by others, and how claims to identity were sometimes inconsistent. Interestingly, participants did not see these inconsistencies as problematic. Other researchers have illustrated how identities and social categories are constructed and negotiated within immediate interactive situations (Malhi, Boon, & Rogers, 2009; Merino & Tilega, 2011; Verkuyten & de Wolf, 2002). There is also a growing body of research that demonstrates the constructed nature of cultural and national boundaries (e.g., O’Doherty & Augoustinos, 2008), as well as heterogeneity of “within group” cultural representations (e.g., Yon, 1999).

The current analysis employs discourse analysis to demonstrate how identities and category content are constructed among second-generation Canadian youth who could be categorized as Black. Our research aims were (a) to determine how these youth talk about racial and ethnic and national identities in a community setting and (b) to examine how individuals interact with immediate and wider social contexts, and with each other, to construct categories and identities.

Methodology

Participants

After receiving ethics approval from the Research Ethics Board of the university, Twenty-two participants were recruited to participate in four separate focus groups.¹ Criteria for participation included being of high school age (i.e., adolescents) and being a second-generation Canadian.² We chose to focus specifically on youth of high-school age as this demographic has been of specific interest to the first author for community program development. Additionally, researchers have traditionally focused on adolescence as an integral stage of ethnic/racial identity exploration and development (e.g., Fordham, 1988; Phinney, 1992). As the majority of Canadians who are categorized as Black are of first or second-generation status, we focused on recruiting second-generation participants. Our reasoning was that these youths would have been socialized within Canadian culture, and would conceivably—but not necessarily—have some connection to the cultural backgrounds of their parents.

Participants were also recruited to reflect diversity in cultural background, with parents being born and/or raised in East Africa, West Africa, and the Caribbean (specific countries of origin of participants’ parents are provided in Table 1). These designations are based on general categories used in the 2006 Statistics Canada census (Statistics Canada, 2006). The sample, although not representative, allows for investigation of some of the diversity that exists among individuals who can be categorized as Black in a major Canadian city. Therefore, a purposive sampling method was used to recruit participants. Local youth serving community organizations, churches, and personal contacts were solicited to gain contact with participants. One of our discussion groups was with young people of East African background (EA), one with young people of West African background (WA), and two with young people of Caribbean background (CRB1 and CRB2). In keeping with previous discursive work on ethnic identities (Malhi et al., 2009; Verkuyten & de Wolf, 2002) we chose to group participants in this manner in order to determine how participants positioned themselves in reference to shared group labels, as well as to individual self-identifications. In presenting the data here, we made every effort to ensure that the contexts and categorizations deemed relevant by the participants are foregrounded (Wetherell, 1998). Four to seven participants were in attendance at each group.

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants of the Groups Included in This Article.

Group	Participant	Age	Gender	Place of birth	Parents born and raised in
Group	Participant	Age	Gender	Place of birth	Mother	Father
CRB1	Alicia	16	Female	Canada	Jamaica	Born in Cuba; raised in Jamaica
	Francis	14	Male	Canada	Canada (Trinidadian background)	Canada (Trinidadian background)
	Michael	13	Male	Canada	Jamaica	Jamaica
	Shawn	16	Male	Jamaica (arrived at age 13)	Jamaica	Jamaica
	Stacey	16	Female	Canada	Jamaica	Spain
CRB2	Andrea	15	Female	Canada	Canada (Hungarian Background	Guyana
	Brittany	18	Female	Canada	Jamaica	Barbados
	Marsha	14	Female	Canada	Nigeria	Nigeria
	Natasha	15	Female	United States (arrived at age 7)	Canada	United States
	O’Neil	18	Male	Canada	Jamaica	Canada
	Sade	18	Female	Canada	Jamaica	Jamaica
EA	Celeste	14	Female	Canada	Ethiopia; raised in Somalia	Ethiopia
	David	16	Male	Canada	Somalia	Somalia
	Donna	14	Female	Canada	Eretria	Saudi Arabia
	Kimberly	14	Female	Canada	Somalia	Somalia
	Nathaniel	16	Male	Canada	Somalia	Somalia
	Rachel	15	Female	Canada	Somalia	Somalia
	Stephen	17	Male	Canada	Ethiopia; raised in Somalia	Ethiopia
WA	Cathy	15	Female	Canada	Ghana	Ghana
	Damion	17	Male	Ghana (grew up in the United States, arrived in Canada age 15)	Ghana	Ghana
	Felicia	18	Female	Canada	Ghana	Ghana
	Rudy	15	Female	Canada	Ghana	Ghana

Note: CRB1 = Caribbean Group 1; CRB2 = Caribbean Group 2; EA = East African Group; WA = West African Group.

Participants’ ages ranged from 13 to 18 years (M = 15.6; SD = 1.5). Nineteen participants were second-generation Canadians, and three were first generation.³ The sample was 63.6% female. In EA, all of the female participants wore hijabs. Demographic information for the four groups are provided in Table 1.

Procedure

This project was conducted in part to facilitate the creation of a community program in the GTA for youth of African and Caribbean decent. Participants were asked to participate in a discussion group to make recommendations for this program, which led to a large range of conversation topics in the groups. Participant assent and parental consent was obtained for participants under the age of 18 years. All participants were given a pizza dinner and public transportation tickets for participation in the discussions.

Discussion groups were chosen as the method of data collection in order to obtain a relatively large amount of interaction pertaining to the topic of interest in a short period of time (Morgan, 1997). Although groups arranged in this manner have a level of artificiality, the primary focus of discourse analysis is talk, and the interactions that occur in the discussion group setting does have a level of generalizability to more naturally occurring day-to-day conversations. The discussions were open-ended and semistructured.

The first author (R) facilitated each session. She is a female, first-generation graduate student of Caribbean background, who has experience working with youth in community settings. Also present at each session was as a male note-taker.⁴ Both the first author and note-taker identify as Black. Sharing common backgrounds with the participants was a potential means of facilitating rapport (Malhi et al., 2009). However there was no guarantee that such commonalities would be mutually or consistently recognized by all parties involved. Factors such as age differences between the first author and participants, as well as differences in education level, may have contributed to unequal power dynamics in each group. Consequently, the first author attempted to minimize her contributions to the discussions as much as possible to allow the course of each discussion to be led largely by the participants.

All the discussion groups were conducted in the community settings in which the participants were recruited. In each discussion, at least two participants knew each other before coming to the sessions. Therefore, each group contained a mix of individuals who were both familiar and unfamiliar to varying degrees with their conversation partners. Sessions lasted between 1 and 2 hours each.

Analysis and Discussion

All discussions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, eliciting over 151 pages of text for the four groups. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were done by the first author with the aid of NVivo software. In consultation with second and third authors, these codes were subsequently grouped into one or more of three overarching categories as relevant to the research aims: (1) Negotiation and justification of identities, which was further broken down into (a) negotiation of racial and ethnic labels and (b) racial, ethnic, and national labels; (2) constructing and identifying with categories, which was further broken down into (a) constructing national and ethnic categories and (b) constructing racial categories; and (3) other categories and identities of relevance. These included gender, religion, social class, and neighborhood of residence. Discussions of participants who reported “mixed” racial backgrounds were also coded separately (see Litchmore, 2012). Excerpts that exemplify the first two categories of analysis are presented here. All names used in the extracts, with the exception of the first author (R) are pseudonyms.

The analysis is organized into two sections. The first section examines how participants discussed the label of Black as a social category and identity option. The second section examines how participants spoke of “ethnic” categories, that is, the countries in which their parents were raised, and the “national” category of Canada. For both sections, we examined how participants constructed particular categories, and their justifications for identifying or not identifying with these categories. In some cases, participants expressed agreement regarding the characterization of the category in question, whereas in other cases there was disagreement. In our analysis, we highlight how the participants’ characterizations of identity categories were flexible and sometimes contradictory, depending on the content of the discussions.

“Respecting Your Culture . . .”

The content of the category of “Black” and the significance of this label was debated both within and across discussion groups. In these discussions, participants also argued for their identifications, or lack thereof, with this and other categories. In the following excerpt, participants in CRB1 attempt to attribute a significant meaning to the category of Black. Initially, ideas of culture are invoked (see Table 2 for a breakdown of the transcription notation):

Table 2.

Transcription Notation.

Symbol	Name	Use
[text]	Square brackets	Indicates overlap between speakers. The left bracket marks the beginning of the overlap and the right bracket marks the end.
=	Equal sign	Indicates a direct continuation between the end of one speaker’s utterance and the beginning of another speaker’s utterance
↓	Down arrow	Indicates falling pitch or intonation
↑	Up arrow	Indicates rising pitch or intonation that does not correspond with a clear question being asked
?	Question mark	Indicates a rising pitch or intonation that is usually accompanied by the asking of a question
-	Hyphen	Indicates an abrupt halt or interruption in utterance
ALL CAPS	Capitalized text	Indicates shouted or increased volume in speech
underline	Underlined speech	Indicates the speaker is emphasizing or stressing the speech
::	Colon or colons	Indicates prolongation of sound
(text)	Text in parenthesis	Speech which is unclear or in doubt in the transcript
((text))	Double parenthesis	Transcriber’s descriptions, including substitution of possibly identifying information
( )	Empty parenthesis	Something is being said but speech cannot be determined
“text”	Quotation marks	Indicates speech that the speaker attributes to someone other than her/him self
hh hh hh	Laugh syllable	Laughter. Number of h’s indicate the approximate length of the laughter
HH HH HH	Laugh syllable	Indicates loud laughter
text	Text in italics	Indicates a slang term or a word in a language other than English

Excerpt 1

It is apparent here that these participants experience some difficulty in answering R’s initial question. In Line 4, Michael initially characterizes Blackness as something active, as “respecting” one’s “culture.” It is therefore depicted as something one has to do, rather than as something one simply is. In this description, there is also a connection made between the category Black and unnamed characteristics that are presented here as “culture.” However, when R asks Michael to clarify what is meant by “your culture,” no clear definition is given. Michael then brings up an idea of acceptance (Line 9), and when R seeks clarification on this as well, a clear response is also not given right away. However, there appears to be agreement among the participants that Black is not just a descriptive term, but has associated characteristics that are to be treated in a particular way, that is, to be respected or accepted. The specifics of these characteristics ultimately remain vague within this exchange, but shortly afterwards in the same discussion, Michael is able to specify an aspect of Blackness that to him requires acceptance:

Excerpt 2

Here, Michael refers to the historical period of trans-Atlantic slavery, which would be a common point of reference for most individuals who are indeed descendants of enslaved Africans brought to North and South America and the Caribbean. Michael indicates that some people take issue with what he states as a general truth for anyone identifiable as Black (Line 4). In this exchange, Shawn is the only participant who appears to disagree with Michael’s point (Lines 8 and 10), and later goes on to elaborate on his opinion (not shown here) that no one is able to tell whether their specific ancestors were enslaved Africans.

Alicia also expresses frustration at the experience of having individuals who she might identify as Black deny their connection to this point in history (Line 9), something that Michael also appears to be frustrated with (Line 13). Consequently in this exchange, Alicia and Michael perform the social action of disapproving of individuals who may to them be identifiable as Black, but who do not identify as such. This demonstrates how social categories can be mobilized within particular contexts to achieve certain ends, rather than acting simply as descriptors. Additionally, the fluidity of category membership is also implicit in these participants’ assertions. Identifying as Black is characterized not only as ascribed, and based on internal understandings (i.e., acceptance implies a pre-existing category and identity), but also as a choice, as evidenced by the described ability of individuals to accept or reject category membership.

Whereas the option of identifying as Black is depicted as favorable in the preceding excerpt, one participant in EA2 describes other means of classification as more valid and desirable than calling oneself Black. Here, the discussion takes place following R’s question of whether the females in the group identify as Black or Somali. Three of the girls including Rachel were adamant about their dislike for identifying as Black:

Excerpt 3

Rachel reduces the racial category of Black to the color/shade that the word also indicates. She suggests that to apply the word Black as a means of categorization of people is invalid because no one is literally the color of Black. By describing the category as only—as she sees it—an inaccurate description of physical appearance, Rachel strips away any qualitative meaning that could be associated with it. She then compares this characterization to two concepts that she presents as more valid means of identification: nationality and background (Lines 3 and 5). Interestingly, in Excerpt 1 Stacey associates the term “background” with Blackness, which is in opposition to how this term was used by Rachel here. Instead, Rachel argues that Blackness is not a part of, or does not define one’s background. Rachel therefore rejects identification by skin color, on the grounds that there is no meaning behind this type of classification, while at the same time suggesting that identification by other means is more acceptable.

In contrast to the participants in CRB1, Rachel’s Somali background likely means that her ancestry cannot be traced to enslaved Africans brought to the Western world. This history is therefore likely not a conscious point of reference for her. Existing research has in fact demonstrated that there is a wider tension for many people of Somali background surrounding identification as Black in North America due to the existence of negative perceptions of this category (Basford, 2010; Cromwell, 2012). However, earlier in the discussion, one of Rachel’s conversation partners, also of Somali background, explained why he would identify as Black:

Excerpt 4

Just prior to this exchange, R asked the participants of EA2 about the labels that they identify with. Most of the participants identified as Somali or African, but Nathaniel was the only participant to identify as Black. The term category entitlement (Potter, 1996; Potter, Edwards, & Wetherell, 1993) can be used to describe what Nathaniel does in the process of justifying his identification as Black as opposed to Somali. Discursive psychologists note that certain categories carry with them certain claims to knowledge, for example doctors are expected to be knowledgeable about health and illness (Potter et al., 1993). Therefore, by bringing up a personal experience of what is recognized in Western society as a highly specific form of racism, and by describing an instance of being referred to by a term that is an insult reserved specifically for people classified as Black, Nathaniel establishes his position as a member of this category (i.e., “Black”). In response to R’s question at the end of the excerpt, Nathaniel describes being on vacation in Europe where a relative resides, in the previous year. He states that while at the beach, he mistakenly assumed that a group of “Caucasian” men were waving at him. When he waved back, they told him that they were not waving at him, at which point he was called the N-word. By referencing this experience, Nathaniel legitimizes his position to not only challenge his group members’ responses, but to include them in the category with which he identifies. By stating that “they” identify “us” by the racially charged term (Line 13), Nathaniel groups his fellow participants, and perhaps people from Somalia in general, into the category of people who could potentially be identified as Black, and by extension, with the characteristics that are perceived to be associated with this label by those responsible for the categorization.

Nathaniel further builds the legitimacy of his claims by describing his previous belief that such an incident would never happen to him. He states that not only was this his personal belief, but also a widely held belief in his “country” (i.e., Somalia; Line 10). This further legitimizes the authority of Nathaniel’s assertion, as he invokes an idea of consensus among the people of Somalia. Consensus is constructed when a description is presented as shared across many individuals, rather than being unique to the speaker. This suggests that the opinion is not based solely in the individual’s self-interest (Potter, 1996). By arguing that people from Somalia in general (including himself) did not believe that such an incident could happen to them, and then demonstrating that the incident has happened to him, Nathaniel strengthens his argument that anyone from Somalia could encounter such racism and therefore be implicated into the category of Black.

Therefore, in contrast to Rachel, the label and category of Black are constructed as highly relevant for Nathaniel, and by extension, all individuals who could potentially be affected by anti-Black racism. The divergence of not only identifications, but of the characterizations of the category in question between two individuals who can be described as being of the same ethnic background—as irrelevant by Rachel and highly relevant by Nathaniel—serves as evidence for how carefully psychologists should approach studies of group identification.

Additionally, under the NT-E (Cross, 1995) Nathaniel’s experience of racism could be interpreted as the “encounter” stage of racial identity development. Similarly, Rachel’s insistence on identifying with categories other than “Black,” could be interpreted as the “pre-encounter” stage. However, in these instances it would be erroneous to equate label choices with underlying cognitive processes without further exploration. More relevant to this analysis is how the chosen categories were constructed in conversation and the social actions performed through the process of these constructions.

The category of Black was also discussed with regard to societal status. In the next excerpt from CRB2, one group member’s construction of the category “Black youth” draws disagreement from one other group member. The following discussion occurs in response to R’s question of whether community programs specific to Black youth were needed:

Excerpt 5

In this excerpt O’Neil first identifies himself as a “Black kid” (Line 5), therefore claiming membership in the category of interest. He then goes on to provide a description of Black youth as being in need of particular resources and activities (Lines 5 to 10). Black youths are therefore initially constructed as having specific attributes that require them to have particular programming available to them. O’Neil also supports his arguments by using the terms “we” and “we’re” to invoke consensus among this group. In other words, he depicts the needs of Black Youth as he describes them, as mutually agreed on by Black youth at large.

However, Brittany, who had previously also identified as Black, does not agree with O’Neil’s characterizations. She challenges his position at almost every turn, first by questioning the validity of his statements (Line 14), and then by questioning his authority to speak on behalf of Black youth in general (Lines 18 to 20). Brittany’s contributions serve to undermine a particular depiction of this group, while at the same time offering an alternative depiction that there is no deficit experienced by Black youth. Although she agrees with O’Neil that there may not be enough programs that are designed specifically for this group, she asserts that they cannot be sure that Black youths do not like the programs that already exist. In other words, she is suggesting that there are options already available to Black youths. The two descriptions are therefore in direct opposition to each other, and O’Neil is consequently left to revise his position. Whereas he begins by creating a general picture of the experiences of Black youth, he ends by presenting his initial characterizations as experienced specifically by him and his friends. O’Neil does not elaborate on the programming he had in mind, and the overall result of this exchange is that no conclusive picture is presented about this group.

Excerpts 1 to 5 demonstrate the multiple characterizations that can exist for a social category at any one time. Here, participants described Blackness with regard to history, physical appearance, and societal status. However these descriptions did not exist in isolation, but were deployed in attempts to justify choices of identifications. This demonstrates that categories and identifications are not simply descriptive, nor do they have fixed characteristics independent of social context. When examining these discussions, the question of who has the authority to ascribe particular meanings to group membership becomes apparent. Each participant spoke with some level of authority about the characterization that they depicted; however, when looking at these excerpts together, we see that these characterizations are not necessarily complementary. These findings can be extended to research settings where the researcher defines the relevant characteristics of the group in question, such as through identity measurement scales. In these cases, the characterizations of the researcher are automatically privileged over those of the participants, and there is no opportunity for the participants to negotiate any disagreements that they may have. The excerpts presented here therefore highlight the importance of examining the idiosyncratic meanings that individuals place on their group memberships when examining group identities, as well as the social contexts within which these meanings are deployed.

“What Is Canadian . . .?”

Categories associated with particular countries that would customarily be regarded as ethnic and national categories in line with acculturation research were also discussed by participants. In the excerpts below, the content of these categories is constructed in order to support participants’ identity choices.

In Excerpt 6, the participants in CRB1 describe why they do not identify with the national category of Canadian. This sentiment was a fairly prominent theme throughout the four discussion groups. As a lead up to this discussion, the participants were asked by R what their response to the question of “what are you” would be. This excerpt occurs after a brief debate regarding the meaning of the question, where Alicia states that she would describe herself as “what [her] parents are,” that is, the ethnic or national category that her parents identify with. Here, the participants characterize Canadian culture in a way that supported their stated lack of identification with this category:

Excerpt 6

Alicia acknowledges that to identify as what her parents are may not be completely logical because she has not actually lived “there”—“there” being the countries in which her parents were born (Lines 1 and 2). However, she describes identifying as Canadian as even more illogical. Her description of why she does not identify as Canadian is interrupted by Stacey, who attributes the inability to identify as Canadian to the lack of a clear definition of what Canadian culture looks like (Line 5). Alicia then goes from questioning the definition of Canadian culture, to outright denying that such a culture exists. The two then work to construct Canadian culture, and interestingly, American culture, as being indefinable, due to the racial or cultural diversity that exists in these countries. Stacey suggests that in other countries, a particular race is representative of that country, “Jamaicans are Black, Chinese are Asian,” but that this is not the case for Canada due to the diversity that exists. Identifying as a particular nationality is therefore constructed in both cultural and racial terms in this account. In terms of culture, being Canadian is indefinable, therefore one cannot identify with something that does not exist. Pertaining to race, other countries have a specific race that is clearly associated with that country; Canada does not have this, and therefore it is even more difficult to define what a Canadian looks like or is. These participants do not construct Canada as undesirable to identify with due to, for example, the cultural practices of Canadians that they do not want to take on, or even perhaps due to feeling marginalized from Canadian culture. They instead construct Canadian culture as something that an individual cannot claim as it does not exist; a characterization that is quite similar to Rachel’s description of Black as a social identity in Excerpt 3.

Interestingly, the same line of reasoning that Stacey and Alicia drew on in Excerpt 6 to construct Canada as too diverse to be identified with, was used to legitimize their identifications with the countries and cultures (i.e., what would be regarded as ethnic labels in Canada) that they claim later on in the discussion. In this excerpt, it is Alicia’s identity that is being debated:

Excerpt 7

Whereas in Excerpt 6 Stacey uses the generalization that, “Jamaicans are Black . . .” in order to emphasize her point that it is difficult to identify as Canadian because there is no one race that represents Canada, here she uses a strategy called particularization (Billig, 1985). Particularization is used in arguments as a way of countering a general category with a particular instance of that category. By stating “[j]ust like there’s White Jamaicans . . . they’re Black, like, Hispanic people,” (Lines 9 and 10). Stacey points out particularizations of the categories Jamaicans and Hispanics to support Alicia’s expressed frustration of being denied a Cuban identity. She singles out White Jamaicans and Black Hispanics as examples illustrating that assumptions of racial homogeneity in these nations are incorrect. She therefore argues that Alicia has a right to claim Cuban identity in the face of others’ assumptions that Alicia does not fit the physical description of a Cuban. Both participants draw on the idea of diversity to support Alicia’s identification with a specific group here, whereas before, this diversity was used to dismiss identification with a particular group. They construct Jamaica and Cuba as diverse in order to justify Alicia’s identification with Cuba, whereas before they had constructed Canada as diverse in order to justify their lack of identification with this country.

Finally, participants in the following excerpt, WA2 explain their preferred labels for identification. In this instance, reference is once again made to broader national contexts in the process of justifying the identifications chosen within this interaction. The exchange occurs after R asks the group whether they would identify as Black, Ghanaian, or Canadian:

Excerpt 8

Rudy first states that she identifies as both Ghanaian and Canadian. However, when Cathy suggests that she only identifies as Canadian when she is in the United States, the discussion turns to a comparison between the two national contexts. Rudy’s reference to her upbringing in a particular area of the United States can be seen as an example of use of category entitlement (Line 14). By referencing her experience in the United States, she claims some authority on the ethnic relations in both the United States and Canada. Rudy suggests that in the United States, people tend to associate with the common national identity category of “American” compared with people in Canada who do not do this. Her descriptions first depict the area in which she was raised as having little diversity with regard to the labels that individuals used to describe themselves (Lines 22 and 23). She compares this with Canada, where she notes that individuals readily identify with various nationalities (Lines 34 and 35). She also refers specifically to Black people, who she describes as all adopting the label of “African American,” something that she describes as not being done in Canada. Cathy concludes the discussion by stating, “no one likes to acknowledge Canada” (Line 44). She moves from speaking in personal terms initially, to broad terms where she implicates people in general as not acknowledging Canada in their identifications.

These participants use a similar strategy to that used by the participants in Excerpt 5 to justify their lack of identification with Canada. However, these participants do not describe Canada itself as being diverse. Instead, they depict themselves as merely following the trend set by other Canadians of identifying with alterative national labels. In doing so, consensus is invoked among the Canadian public (Potter, 1996), as the participants who do not identify as Canadian here, frame this choice as a social norm. However, Cathy suggests early in the exchange that identifying as Canadian is indeed an option, but just not when one is in Canada (Lines 4 and 5). Here, again, it is not pride as a Ghanaian that is referenced to justify identification as such, or conversely lack of attachment to Canadian culture. The participants instead make note of what they frame as broader practices of identification in the two national contexts to support their identifications in this interaction.

Taken together ethnic and national labels in the preceding excerpts serve similar purposes as racial labels in Excerpts 1 to 4. Categories were drawn on and constructed in order to make specific arguments for or against identifying with particular labels. Therefore, the immediate context of conversation is important, but as can be seen in the excerpts, wider societal contexts were also drawn on in support of participants’ choices. In these excerpts, culture, specifically the lack thereof, was used to justify lack of identification with Canada, but was not explicitly used to justify identification with other countries. It therefore is clear that the contexts of the conversations, as well as the particular arguments being made were instrumental in the types of identity choices expressed.

General Discussion

Mainstream psychological research on ethnic and racial identity is largely concerned with the cognitive features of these identities (Verkuyten, 2004). We have argued here that the sole reliance on social-cognitive approaches in research concerning these identities runs the risk of overgeneralizing the psychological attributes of members of perceived social groups by not giving explicit attention to the social construction of group identities and the social categories to which they are attached. We have also argued that the utilization of discursive approaches can assist in shedding light on these issues, by focusing on the social actions that are performed in conversation. By enlisting the help of a sample of second-generation Canadian youths of African and Caribbean background, we sought to demonstrate, on a micro-level, the social construction of categories and identities. By extension, it was our goal to bring attention to the diversity of experiences of individuals who may be categorized as Black in Canada.

Our analysis illustrated how what are regarded as racial, ethnic, and national social categories were constructed in conversation as participants negotiated their identity choices. In the first section, characterizations of Blackness were constructed based on history, physical appearance, and societal status. These characterizations represent multiple understandings of the social category by a diverse set of individuals who could arguably identify as Black. Although measures such as the Multidimensional Model of Racial Identity and Cross Racial Identity Scale capture diverse understandings of Black racial identity, using a discursive approach gives emphasis to a wider range of social-interactive, as opposed to cognitive characteristics of these understandings.

Through this analysis we were able to examine the social tensions that exist when individuals choose, or do not choose to subscribe to the category of Black. For example, whereas some participants laid claim to the label Black and attempted to construct this category in a manner that had some social or historical significance, others did not agree with this significance, or did not regard the label as relevant to them. Therefore, the actual meanings that individuals associate with particular categories appear to be important for justifying identity choices within specific social contexts.

When ethnic and national identities were discussed, diversity appeared to be a common point of distinction used in negotiating identities. This argument was used to both justify and deny particular identities. It is also a common practice in Canada, which is officially multicultural, for visible minority Canadians to either identify with nationalities other than Canadian or claim hyphenated identities (e.g., Jamaican-Canadian; Berry et al., 2006; Malhi et al., 2009).

Discursive psychologists also argue that the identity choices that individuals may make are based on the stories and narratives surrounding identities that exist in a social context, as well as on situational constraints that may restrict choices or justifications (Malhi et al., 2009; Wetherell& Potter, 1992). The participants’ identity choices in this study are therefore likely embedded in larger societal discourses and histories. We see some evidence of this in the participants’ discussions of trans-Atlantic slavery, anti-Black racism, and Canadian diversity. However, further investigation into the broader conversations surrounding the identities discussed in this study in the Canadian context would be needed to shed further light on this issue. We did however see the participants negotiating their choices against the constraints of certain ascribed identities. Many of the participants commented on their and others’ resistance to being included in particular categories. Therefore, although the participants may have laid claim to certain identities, the impact of outside ascriptions was clearly apparent in their negotiations of these identities. Finally, we saw that participants often drew on their personal experiences during their justifications of their identity choices. Therefore, their own social locations (e.g., as second-generation, or of Somali background) were also important to the types of identities that they drew on and the types of category constructions that they made. Some discursive work explicitly considers how individual social locations and personal histories shape the types of identity constructions that individuals draw on or make (e.g., Falmagne, 2004). Therefore, further exploration of the personal histories and experiences of participants can also paint a broader picture of the types of identifications and category constructions that are made by these individuals within particular contexts.

Limitations and Future Research

As with all forms of research, this study has its own set of limitations. As discourse analysis is concerned with the performative functions of identity claims, it does not address enduring cognitive and emotive features and functions of identities. This is where social-cognitive work can complement discursive work, so long as social categories are not treated as static or internally homogenous.

Our choice to sample only second-generation participants may also be viewed as a limitation in our study. The participants’ abilities to reference identities outside of Canadian nationality or Blackness, are likely due to their connection to their parents’ countries of origin. We would therefore expect different category constructions and identity references from individuals with longer histories in Canada and perhaps with different parental origins. However, the data collected in this study are not meant to be representative of the thoughts and opinions of individuals of this demographic, nor of individuals who may identify as Black in general. Instead, what is important to note is that talk surrounding, and expressed opinions on particular issues are likely to fluctuate depending on the social context, which includes the general discourses on identity that are accessible within a social setting, as well as the social position of the individual speaker. The implications of this are relevant both to social-cognitive and discursive, as well as quantitative and qualitative forms of research. Our method of data collection also does not allow for generalizations to be made about the nature of Black Canadian identities. We also cannot comment on whether the arguments made by the participants to support their identifications in this study, represent stable beliefs that the participants hold over time and in different social contexts.

The diversity of arguments as well as commonalities among them do however suggest that more work needs to be done to determine how second-generation youth of African and Caribbean background build their various identities. Research that explicitly explores the societal discourses, as well as the resources that youth draw on to build their interpretations of certain identities would give insight into why particular justifications may be used over others. Specifically, study of discourses on race and ethnicity in Canada, as well as how discourse in the United States may influence Canadian identifications, would be of value here. Greater exploration of youths’ personal histories, including parental socialization practices, could also give greater insight into the particular category content and constructions used. Further research also needs to be conducted on Black Canadians who have more long-term presence in Canada, in order to determine whether and how their social positions and the societal discourses available to them may shape the types of identities they choose, and the category constructions that they may make.

Conclusions

Overall, the analytical finding that the meanings associated with “Black” and other racial, ethnic, and national categories are not fixed, but rather dependent on social context, is what can be generalized from this study. The action orientation of discourse and the in-situ construction of category content and identities have been demonstrated repeatedly in discourse analytic studies. The present study adds to this body of research by demonstrating the contextual features that were relevant to the sample of participants studied here, and can be used as a means of expanding knowledge among this and other populations in future studies.

Current research on Black Canadian identity has not adequately interrogated the cultural diversity of this group as well as the socially constructed nature of social identities and racial and ethnic categories. By failing to ask questions of who considers themselves to be a part of a particular category and how they define these categories, researchers risk treating these categories and associated identities as essential and fixed, rather than as flexible social constructions. As research on racial and ethnic identity is already mostly conducted among minority group members (Markus, 2008) who, as a consequence of societal structures and history may already be at a social disadvantage, psychologists must be careful not to contribute to social discourse that may promote ideas of homogenous groups and identities. Discursive approaches are one avenue for addressing this issue, and here, we have demonstrated the merits of this approach among Canadian populations of African and Caribbean backgrounds.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Special thanks to Claude Olugbala and Emmanuel Bondzie Jr. for assisting with note taking in the discussion groups. We would also like to thank the community organizations that aided in the recruitment of research participants and the participants themselves.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Anderson

W. W.

(1993). Caribbean immigrants: A socio-demographic profile. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Scholars’ Press.

Basford

(2010). From mainstream to East African charter: Cultural and religious experiences of Somali youth in U.S. schools. Journal of School Choice, 4, 485-509. doi:10.1080/15582159.2010.526859

Benet-Martinez

Leu

Lee

Morris

M. W.

(2002). Negotiating biculturalism: Cultural frame switching in biculturals with oppositional versus compatible cultural identities. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 492-516. doi:10.1177/0022022102033005005

Berry

J. W.

Phinney

J. S.

Sam

D. L.

Vedder

(Eds.). (2006). Immigrant youth in cultural transition: Acculturation, identity and adaptation across national contexts. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Billig

(1985). Prejudice, categorization and particularization: From a perceptual to a rhetorical approach. European Journal of Social Psychology, 15, 79-103. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420150107

Boatswain

S. J.

Lalonde

R. N.

(2000). Social identity and preferred ethnic/racial labels for Blacks in Canada. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 216-234. doi:10.1177/0095798400026002006

Carbaugh

(1999). Positioning as a display of cultural identity. In Harre

van Langenhove

(Eds.), Positioning theory (pp. 160-177). Oxford, England: Blackwell.

Cokley

K. O.

(2005). Racial(ized) identity, ethnic identity, and Afrocentric values: Conceptual and methodological challenges in understanding African American Identity. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 517-526. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.52.4.517

Cokley

K. O.

(2007). Critical issues in the measurement of ethnic and racial identity: A referendum on the state of the field. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 224-234.

10.

Cromwell

(2012, May 25). Being Black in Canada: The Somali experience. Sway Magazine. Retrieved from http://diversitynowbyegloballearning.blogspot.in/2012/05/being-black-in-canada-somali-experience.html

11.

Cross

W. E.

Jr. (1978). The Thomas and Cross models of psychological nigrescence: A review. Journal of Black Psychology, 5, 13-31. doi:10.1177/009579847800-500102

12.

Cross

W. E.

Jr. (1995). The psychology of Nigrescence: Revising the Cross model. In Ponterotto

J. G.

Casas

J. M.

Suzuki

L. A.

Alexander

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counselling (pp. 93-122). London, England: Sage.

13.

De Walt

P. S.

(2013). Discourse on African American/Black identity: Engaging the expanded nigrescence theory with diasporic consciousness. SpringerPlus, 2, 233. doi:10.1186/2193-1801-2-233

14.

Edwards

(1991). Categories are for talking: On the cognitive and discursive bases for categorization. Theory & Psychology, 1, 515-542. doi:10.1177/095935439-1014007

15.

Edwards

(1998). The relevant thing about her: Social identity categories in use. In Antaki

Widdicombe

(Eds.), Identities in talk (pp. 15-33). London, England: Sage.

16.

Edwards

Potter

(1992). Discursive psychology. London, England: Sage.

17.

Falmagne

R. J.

(2004). On the constitution of “self” and “mind”: The dialectic of the system of the person. Theory & Psychology, 14, 822-845. doi:10.1177/095935430-4048108

18.

Fordham

(1988). Racelessness as a factor in Black students’ school success: Pragmatic strategy or Pyrrhic victory ? Harvard Educational Review, 58(1), 54-84.

19.

Gaines

S. O.

Jr. Bunce

Robertson

Wright

Goossens

Heer

Lidder

. . .Minhas

(2010). Evaluating the psychometric properties of the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (MEIM) within the United Kingdom. Identity: AnInternational Journal of Theory and Research, 10, 1-19. doi:1080/1528348100-3676176

20.

Hammer

(2012, September 20). Toronto’s Africentric high school has modest start. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/torontos-africentric-high-school-has-modest-start/article4556941/

21.

Helms

J. E.

Talleyrand

R. M.

(1997). Race is not ethnicity. American Psychologist, 52, 1246-1247. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.11.1246

22.

Joseph

J. C.

Kuo

B. C. H.

(2009). Black Canadians’ coping responses to racial discrimination. Journal of Black Psychology, 35, 78-101. doi:10.1177/009579840-8323384

23.

Lalonde

R. N.

Jones

J. M.

Stroink

M. L.

(2008). Racial identity, racial attitudes and race socialization among Black Canadian parents. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 40, 129-139. doi:10.1037/0008-400X.40.3.129

24.

Litchmore

R. V. H.

(2012). Ethnic and racial self-definitions of second-generation Black Canadians: An analysis of discourse (Master’s thesis). University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Retrieved from https://hdl-handle-net.web.bisu.edu.cn/10214/4144

25.

Malhi

R. L.

Boon

S. D.

Rogers

T.B.

(2009). “Being Canadian” and “Being Indian”: Subject positions and discourses used in South Asian-Canadian women’s talk about ethnic identity. Culture & Psychology, 15, 255-283. doi:10.1177/1354067X09102893

26.

Markus

H. R.

(2008). Pride, prejudice and ambivalence: Toward a unified theory of race and ethnicity. American Psychologist, 63, 651-670. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.651

27.

Mensah

(2010). Black Canadians (2nd ed.). Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada: Fernwood.

28.

Merino

M. E.

Tilega

(2011). The construction of ethnic minority identity: A discursive psychological approach to ethnic self-definition in action. Discourse & Society, 22, 86-101. doi:10.1177/0957926510382834

29.

Meyers

Gao

Emeka

(2009). The gradient of immigrant age-at arrival effects on socioeconomic outcomes in the US. International Migration Review, 43, 205-229. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.01153.x

30.

Morgan

D. L.

(1997). Focus groups as qualitative method (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Retrieved from https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.4135/9781412984287

31.

Obasi

E. M.

Leong

F. T.

(2010). Construction and validation of the measurement of acculturation strategies for people of African Descent (MASPAD). Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 16, 526-539.

32.

O’Brien

Kopala

Martinez-Pons

(1999). Mathematics self-efficacy, ethnic identity, gender and career interests related to mathematics and science. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 231-235. doi:10.1080/00220679909597600

33.

O’Doherty

Augoustinos

(2008). Protecting the nation: Nationalist rhetoric on asylum seekers and the Tampa. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 18, 576-592.

34.

Outten

H. R.

Giguere

Schmitt

M. T.

Lalonde

R. N.

(2010). Racial identity, racial context, and ingroup status: Implications for attributions to discrimination among Black Canadians. Journal of Black Psychology, 36, 172-196. doi:10.1177/0095798409344083

35.

Philogene

(1994). “African American” as a new social representation. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 24, 89-109. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5914.1994.tb00248.x

36.

Phinney

J. S.

(1992). The multigroup ethnic identity measure: A new scale for use with diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research, 7, 156-176. doi:10.1177/074355489272003

37.

Phinney

J. S.

(1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918-927. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.9.918

38.

Phinney

(2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In Chun

Organista

Marin

(Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 63-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association

39.

Potter

(1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London, England: Sage.

40.

Potter

Edwards

Wetherell

(1993). A model of discourse in action. American Behavioral Scientist, 36, 383-401. doi:10.1177/0002764293036003008

41.

Rankin

Duncanson

Quinn

Shephard

Simmie

(2002, August 26). Black arrest rates highest. The Toronto Star. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/raceandcrime/black-arrest-rates-highest.html

42.

Reicher

(2004). The context of social identity: Domination, resistance and change. Political Psychology, 25, 921-945. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00403.x

43.

Rumbaut

R. G.

(2004). Ages, life stages and generational cohorts: Decomposing immigrant first and second generations in the United States. International Migration Review, 38, 1160-1205. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00232.x

44.

Safdar

Calvez

Lewis

J. R.

(2012). Multi-group analysis of the MIDA model: Acculturation of Indian and Russian immigrants to Canada. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 36, 200-212. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2011.11.006

45.

Sealy

(2000). “Canadianizing” Blackness: Resisting the political. In Walcott

(Ed.), Rude: contemporary Black Canadian cultural criticism (pp. 87-108). Toronto,Ontario, Canada: Insomniac Press.

46.

Sellers

R. M.

Shelton

J. N.

(2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079-1092. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079

47.

Sellers

R. M.

Smith

M. A.

Shelton

Rowley

S. A. J.

Chavous

T. M.

(1998). Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18-39. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_2

48.

Sirin

S. R.

Bikmen

Mir

Fine

Zaal

Katsiaficas

(2008). Exploring dual identification among Muslim-American emerging adults: A mixed methods study. Journal of Adolescence, 31, 259-279. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.10.009

49.

Smith

Lalonde

R. N.

(2003). “Racelessness” in a Canadian context? Exploring the link between Black students’ identity, achievement, and mental health. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 142-164. doi:10.1177/0095798403029002002

50.

Statistics Canada. (2006). Immigrant status and period of immigration (8) and place of birth (261) for the immigrants and non-permanent residents of Canada, provinces, territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2006 Census—20% Sample data. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/

51.

Statistics Canada. (2011). Visible minority (15), immigrant status and period of immigration (11), age groups (10) and sex (3) for the population in private households of Canada, provinces, territories, census metropolitan areas and census agglomerations, 2011 National Household Survey. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.gc.ca

52.

Ullah

(1990). Rhetoric and ideology in social identification: The case of second generation Irish youths. Discourse & Society, 1, 167-188. doi:10.1177/0957926-590001002003

53.

Utsey

S. O.

Adams

E. P.

Bolden

(2000). Development and initial validation of the Africultural coping systems inventory. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 194-215. doi:10.1177/0095798400026002005

54.

Vandiver

B. J.

Cross

W. E.

Jr. Worrell

F. C.

Fhagen-Smith

P. E.

(2002). Validating the cross racial identity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49, 71-85. doi:10.1037//0022-0167.49.1.71

55.

Verkuyten

(2004). The social psychology of ethnic identity. Hove, England: Psychology Press.

56.

Verkuyten

de Wolf

(2002). Being, feeling and doing: Discourses and ethnic self-definitions among minority group members. Culture & Psychology, 8, 371-399. doi:10.1177/1354067X0284001

57.

Walcott

(1996). Beyond sameness: Thinking through Black heterogeneity. In Braithwaite

James

C. E.

(Eds.), Educating African Canadians (pp. 284-294) Toronto,Ontario, Canada: James Lorimer.

58.

Wetherell

Potter

(1992). Mapping the language of racism: Discourse and the legitimation of exploitation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

59.

Wetherell

(1998). Positioning and interpretive repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society, 8, 387-412. doi:10.1177/0957926598009003005

60.

Worrell

F. C.

Watson

(2008). Confirmatory factor analysis of Cross Racial Identity Scale (CRIS) scores: Testing the expanded nigrescence model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 1041-1058. doi:10.1177/0013164408318771

61.

Yon

D. A.

(1999). Pedagogy and the “problem” of difference: On reading community in The Darker Side of Black. Qualitative Studies in Education, 12, 623-641. doi:10.1080/095183999235782

62.

Zagefka

(2008). The concept of ethnicity in social psychological research: Definitional issues. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 33, 228-241. doi:10.1016/j.ijintrel.2008.08.001