Companion Websites

Mark R.D. Johnson is Professor of Diversity in Health and Social Care and Director of the Mary Seacole Research Centre, in the Faculty of Health and Life Sciences at De Montfort University, Leicester, UK. His research interests include all aspects of practice for welfare service delivery in a multi-cultural society. As Lead of the NHS Specialist Library for Ethnicity and Health, and Editor of the Journal Diversity in Health & Social Care, he is concerned to ensure high quality research in ethnicity and health which can contribute to improved policy and practice.

Chapter overview

Ethnicity is a key variable in explaining inequalities in health and is therefore an important area of study. The chapter discusses the major challenges in identifying ethnic origin and some of the approaches commonly used by social researchers. It analyzes the various components of ‘ethnic identity’ and demonstrates how these affect health and health care, and suggests ways of ensuring that research captures the essential elements of ethnic identity. The importance of grounded and ethical use of qualitative methods is illustrated.

Chapter links

Chapter 8 - Action Research and Health
Chapter 19 - Involving the Consumer in Health Research

Suggested Online Readings

Johnson, M.R.D. and Morjaria-Keval, A .(2007) ‘Ethnicity, Sight Loss and Invisibility’, British Journal of Visual Impairment, 25 (1) : 21-31.

Research and development in the field of sight loss and provision for visual impairment among black and minority ethnic groups in Britain is poorly developed. There are real and inexcusable inequalities in access to services for people from minority ethnic communities, and a distinct lack of knowledge about the issues involved among both sight-loss service-providing bodies who are relatively uninformed about ethnic and cultural diversity, and among black and minority ethnic communities in respect of sight loss and provision to meet the needs of visually impaired people. The article, based on systematic review of published and ‘grey’ literature and action research, describes some key issues which might be taken into account to ensure that the gulf between these two silos of information and experience may be bridged, and insists that so-called ‘colour-blind practice’ is not acceptable.

Wallerstein, N.B. and Duran, B. (2006) ‘Using Community-based Participatory Research to Address Health Disparities’, Health Promotion Practice, 7 (3): 312-23.

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has emerged in the past decades as an alternative research paradigm, which integrates education and social action to improve health and reduce health disparities. More than a set of research methods, CBPR is an orientation to research that focuses on relationships between academic and community partners, with principles of co-learning, mutual benefit, and long-term commitment and incorporates community theories, participation, and practices into the research efforts. As CBPR matures, tensions have become recognized that challenge the mutuality of the research relationship, including issues of power, privilege, participation, community consent, racial and/or ethnic discrimination, and the role of research in social change. This article focuses on these challenges as a dynamic and ever-changing context of the researcher-community relationship, provides examples of these paradoxes from work in tribal communities, discusses the evidence that CBPR reduces disparities, and recommends transforming the culture of academia to strengthen collaborative research relationships.

Saltus, R. (2006) ‘The Benefits and Challenges of Voluntary-Academic-Sector Research Partnerships’, Journal of Research in Nursing, 11 (6) : 531-40.

This paper offers a critical reflection on some of the benefits and challenges of conducting research that seeks to improve the health of Black and minority ethnic groups, with a specific focus on voluntary-academic-sector research collaboration. It uses a case study of a recently completed study, on improving the quality of access to mental health information and care to targeted Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups based in Wales. The critical reflection will be framed in the context of the eight categories or dimensions that Meleis (1996) proposed as essential for evaluating methodological rigour in research and scholarship: contextuality, relevance, communication styles, the awareness of identity and power differentials, disclosure, reciprocation, empowerment and time. The paper will conclude by highlighting the usefulness of tools such as the Meleis criteria in both the design and the evaluation of research activity.

Further Reading

Johnson, M.R.D. (2006) ‘Engaging Communities and Users: Health and Social Care Research with Ethnic Minority Communities’, in Nazroo J. (ed) Health and Social Research in Multiethnic Societies. London: Routledge.

This chapter considers the merits and problems of engaging with communities in participatory action for empowerment through the social action research model, in a Department of Health commissioned handbook covering the major issues involved in research with ethnic minority groups.

Johnson, M.R.D. (2006) ‘Ethnicity’, in Killoran, A., Swann, C., Kelly, M. (eds.) Public Health Evidence: Changing the Health of the Public. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

This chapter discusses the nature of ethnicity and the problems in defining, measuring and using it as a research category, in a volume addressing a wide range of issues by leading experts in public health research.

Johnson, M.R.D. (2003) ‘Research Governance and Diversity: Quality Standards for a Multi-ethnic NHS’, Nursing Times Research 8 (1): 2-10.

This article discusses the ethical issues lying behind the design of health care research to meet the needs of the wider population and especially the inclusion of minority ethnic groups in that objective.

<< Previous Chapter

Next Chapter >>

Return to chapter list