Ethnic and Racial Bias in Language

General Principles

Authors must avoid language that may intentionally or unintentionally reflect racial and ethnic bias. Biased language involves problems of designation and problems of explicit or implicit evaluation.

Problems of Designation:

The problems of racial/ethnic designation are twofold: Authors must determine when to report these descriptions and how to refer to ethnic minority samples or other special interest groups. Researchers must determine the extent to which their investigation should report real or potential racial/ethnic variation. When such variation exists, racial/ethnic factors should be reported in theoretical and empirical aspects of the research. Reporting the racial/ethnic composition of research participants in these investigations is also necessary for determining the generalizability of results. When racial/ethnic variables are unimportant to the investigation, authors should state the basis for this assumption.

Perhaps more difficult is the selection of appropriate terminology to describe racially and ethnically diverse people. Name designations of racial/ethnic groups change over time, and members of a group may disagree about their preferred name at a specific time. When possible, authors should use the more specific rather than the less specific term (e.g., Choctaws is more specific than American Indian; Cubans is more specific than Hispanic).

When it is important for the interpretation of results, authors should report subjects’ national origin, generation, language preference and use, and geographical locale. For example, in a study of Japanese Americans, the percentage of subjects who are first, second, or third generation, along with language preference and use in each generational group, may need to be reported.

Where necessary, the composition of heterogeneous groups (multi-racial/ethnic, multinational, etc.) should be detailed. In other instances, the author may need to report the mixed ancestral heritage of individual subjects.

If a language other than English is used in the collection of information, the language should be specified. When an instrument is translated into another language, the specific method of translation should be described (e.g., in " back translation, " language is translated from one language to another and then back to the first, in an interactive process).

Racial/ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized. When names of colours are used to refer to human groups, they are capitalized (e.g., Blacks instead of blacks; Whites instead of whites). Hyphens are not used in multiword labels (e.g., Mexican Americans instead of Mexican-Americans).

Authors are encouraged to write in accordance with the principles of cultural relativism, that is, perceiving, understanding, and writing about individuals in their own terms. Thus, indigenous self-designations are as important as designations by others, although authors must be cognizant of the fact that members of different groups may disagree about their appropriate group designation and that these designations may change over time.

Problems of Evaluation

Problems of implicit or explicit evaluation of racial/ethnic difference arise from a number of sources. Bias may occur when the writer uses one group (usually the writer’s own group) as the standard against which others are evaluated. The term culturally deprived, for example, implies that one culture is the accepted standard against which others are judged. Authors should recognize that differences arising from racial/ethnic comparisons do not imply deficits.

More subtle forms of implicit group comparisons may occur by the use of adjectives (i.e., stereotypes) to apply to most or all members of a group. Stereotypes may be positive (e.g., intelligent, industrious, superior, attractive) or negative (e.g., sinister, violent, lazy, superstitious). Qualifying adjectives, even when positive, may communicate bias (whether intentional or unintentional). For example, the phrase " the intelligent Black student" may imply that this student is an " exception to the rule."

Problematic and Preferred Examples

These general principles and the examples that follow illustrate the subtle ways that language may intentionally or unintentionally create or convey intergroup attitudes. Authors should recognize the changing nature of language and remain current in terms of appropriate and inappropriate terminology for their situation.

Problems of Designation

1. Problematic: The sample included 400 undergraduate students Preferred: The sample of 400 undergraduate students included 250 Whites (125 males and 125 females) and 150 Blacks (75 males and 75 females).

Comment: When relevant, human subject samples should be fully described with respect to gender and race or ethnicity. Where appropriate, additional information should be presented (e.g., generation, linguistic background, socio-economic status, national origin, sexual orientation, special interest group membership, etc.).

2. Problematic: The 50 American Indians

Preferred: The 50 American Indians represented...(25 Choctaw, 15 Hopi, and 10 Seminole)...

Comment: When possible, authors should identify American Indian groups by specific or nation. Although there are some exceptions, American Indians, Africans, and other groups prefer people or nation to tribe.

Problems or Evaluation

3. Problematic:...the articulate Mexican American professor...

Preferred:...the Mexican American professor...

Comment: Qualifying adjectives may subtly suggest that the " articulate" Mexican American professor is an exception to the norm (for Mexican American professors).

And now there is some advise to sum up the issues we treated in this part of the book concerning the content and organization of a text.

The following questions (based on Bartol, 1981) may help you assess the quality of written text.

· Is the topic appropriate for the journal/ newspaper/ magazine to which the manuscript is submitted?

· Is the introduction clear and complete?

· Does the statement of purpose adequately and logically orient the reader?

· Is the literature adequately reviewed?

· Are the citations appropriate and complete?

· Are the conceptualization and rationale perfectly clear?

· Can the study be replicated from the description provided in the paper?

· If observers were used to assess variables, is the inter-observer reliability reported?

· Are the techniques of data analysis appropriate, and is the analysis clear? Are the assumptions underlying the statistical procedures clearly met by the data to which they are applied?

· Is the discussion thorough? Does it stick to the point?

· Is the paper concise?

· Is the manuscript prepared according to style norms?