Ethnicity and Ethnic Identity in Context

As a developmental psychologist (DP) – the abbreviation refers to both practitioners and the discipline – who engages in ethnicity research, I read Gjerde’s paper [this issue] with great interest and welcome the opportunity to provide my own evaluation and critique. Ultimately, Gjerde succeeds in what I sense is his broadest goal – to drive DPs to think deeply about the way ethnicity and ethnic identity have been conceptualized and investigated. Although Gjerde states that he does not necessarily recommend a “full-scale rebellion in which the field of DP would be radically transformed,” while reading his arguments, I repeatedly found myself concerned about the poor, proverbial baby being mistakenly thrown out with the bathwater. If the conceptual water temperature is getting a little tepid, I can see the value in heating things up a bit. Gjerde conveys meaningful points that have the potential to influence the way we study ethnicity. However, while flaws and shortcomings of developmental research exist, I continue to see merit in some of the approaches that he challenges. I also argue that many DPs are already incorporating Gjerde’s recommendations, which makes some of his criticisms seem unjustified. In this commentary, I highlight what I think are his most insightful points as well as offer my own evaluation with the consequent aim of providing a more balanced view of the state of ethnicity and ethnic identity research.