Ten Assumptions that Guide (and Limit) Research on Ethnic-Racial Identity Development

• In Event: 1-130 - A Lifespan Perspective of Ethnic-Racial Identity: Underlying Myths, Conceptual Expansions, and Opportunities for Application

Integrative Statement

Research on ethnic-racial identity (ERI) and its development has increased exponentially over the past decade yielding a robust literature on its conceptualization, development, and implications (Rivas-Drake et al., 2014; Umana-Taylor et al., 2014). The burgeoning literature has necessarily adopted particular perspectives, demographics, and approaches—studying adolescents, ethnic-racial minorities, and a narrow set of outcomes or adjustment markers (i.e., psychosocial and academic well-being). This focus has framed a manageable set of starting questions and fostered great strides in our collective understanding of ERI. However, it has also inadvertently limited the relevance of ERI across both development and populations and led to assumptions that ERI only applies within these bounds. It is time to call these assumptions into question. With a solid foundation of basic ERI research now a reality, inquiry should be expanded to address questions around the periphery.

First-generation ERI research has almost exclusively focused on adolescence or emerging adulthood. Although scholars acknowledge that ERI has earlier origins, theories and research have rarely looked earlier. Theories of childhood ERI emphasize specific domains or topics, such as ethnic knowledge or self-identification (e.g., Bernal et al., 1990; Byrd, 2012; Quintana, 1998), without exploring how early constructs map onto emergent identity in dominant theories (e.g., Umana-Taylor et al., 2014). To close this gap, a working group of ERI scholars convened to propose a lifespan model of ERI development. Taking this lifespan perspective fostered insight, identified key questions, and made salient long-standing assumptions in ERI research.

In this paper, we discuss 10 assumptions reflected in conventional scholarship on ERI development that we believe must be called into question to move the next generation of ERI theory and research forward: (1) ERI becomes relevant only in adolescence; (2) ERI is mostly a function of explicit processes and socialization; (3) E-R constancy is meaningful and necessary; (4) Adult ERI is the reference point for ERI development; (5) ERI is only relevant for the individual; (6) the developmental timing of ERI is ahistorical; (7) ERI is a marker of ‘adjustment’ to a racially stratified society; (8) ERI is not relevant to White youth; (9) ERI among biracial youth is too complex/unique to consider alongside monoracial ERI; (10) ERI can be understood in isolation from other identities.

We do not contend that these topics are never examined in ERI research nor that they raise purely novel topics; some have been challenged and questioned in the past. We do suggest that they reflect a tendency in developmental science to focus narrowly within particular developmental periods rather than across the lifespan. Our talk will provide context for these 10 assumptions, discuss their consequences for our knowledge of ERI, and create space to discuss recommendations for future scholarship. We suggest that when developmental scientists apply a lifespan perspective, it can shift what, how, and who we include in our research. We hope that identifying and deconstructing these assumptions will encourage us as a field to consider how a lifespan perspective can contribute to ERI scholarship.

Authors

• Leoandra Onnie Rogers, Northwestern University
  Presenting Author

• Lisa Kiang, Wake Forest University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Lauren White, University of Washington
  Non-Presenting Author

• Nancy Whitesell, University of Colorado, Denver
  Non-Presenting Author