Framing Ethnicity in Initial Teacher Education: A Focus Group Study with Student Teachers

ABSTRACT

This study aimed to explore how student teachers experienced the framing of ethnicity in initial teacher education in Sweden. Ten focus group discussions were conducted (N = 42; 21% minoritized ethnic background). An inductive thematic analysis was used. The findings showed that ethnicity was framed as mainly concerning “others” and that it was framed as sensitive. The current framing of ethnicity suggests that initial teacher education does not prepare student teachers to support positive youth ethnic-racial identity development. The findings highlight a need for student teachers, and teacher educators, to explore their own ethnic-racial identities through critical discussions that challenge notions of ethnicity as something that concerns “others”. Furthermore, the findings highlight student teachers’ and teacher educators’ needs for structured support in how to critically engage in “sensitive” discussions. Further, the results illustrate how the framing of ethnicity resonates with aspects of social identity theory and with the postcolonial concept “othering”.

KEYWORDS:

• Ethnicity
• ethnic-racial identity
• social identity
• othering
• teacher education

The importance of understanding identity development in context has long been stressed (Erikson, 1963, 1968), and one important aspect of understanding ethnic-racial identity is to understand its content in important contexts, such as educational settings. Educational settings are not only contexts in which ethnic-racial identity development takes place but are also contexts that play a role in shaping these aspects of identity (McLeod & Yates, 2003; Youdell, 2003). Youth may receive varyingly positive or negative messages about “race,” ethnicity, or ethnic-racial group memberships in school, which can impact both their engagement in ethnic-racial identity processes and their psychosocial and academic adjustment (Saleem et al., 2022; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2018). It is therefore crucial to understand how these constructs are addressed within specific educational contexts. Initial teacher education is of particular interest as it is the most important educational setting that prepares future teachers to interact with youth in schools. Thus, the current study aimed to explore how student teachers experience that ethnicity is framed in their initial teacher education in Sweden.

An increased focus on ethnicity in educational contexts

International migration has increasingly diversified classrooms in European cities and has rendered concepts such as ethnicity central to political discourse, educational policies, and research in European countries, including Sweden (European Commission, 2017). Relatedly, amplified calls for initial teacher education to better prepare teachers for ethnically diverse schools have followed. Preparation of future teachers and quality of teaching are generally emphasized in educational policies as key elements to promote equitable education for all pupils regardless of their backgrounds (Forghani-Arani et al., 2019). However, university-based teacher education has faced criticism regarding its ability to foster teachers who can effectively teach increasingly diverse populations of pupils (Cochran-Smith et al., 2015; European Commission, 2017). Thus, given the international calls to better prepare future teachers, and given that concepts such as ethnicity are sociohistorically and culturally embedded (Galliher et al., 2017), the current study argues that it is crucial to gain a contextualized understanding of how the concept ethnicity is framed in initial teacher education.

A sociohistoric understanding of race and ethnicity in Sweden

Following recent decades of migration, Sweden has gone from being one of the most ethno-racially homogenous countries in Europe to being among the most diverse (Hübinette et al., 2023). However, movement of peoples and variability in ethno-racial identifications have existed much longer. Furthermore, although race and ethnicity are ostensibly separate constructs, they are related to one another in a Swedish sociohistoric context.

Like several countries in Europe, race is a contested construct in Sweden (von Brömssen, 2021). It is colloquially understood in relation to its pseudo-scientific use during the first half of the 20^th century. Race was during this time mainly constructed as a biologically based hierarchical system of categorization, conceptualizing the “Swedish race” not only as a white race but the most pure and impeccable white race globally (Hübinette & Lundström, 2014). Race biology was used to legitimize state-sanctioned oppressive and violent politics toward indigenous and national minorities, i.e., Sámi, Roma, Jewish, Tornedalians, and Swedish Finns, and included mass sterilization of groups deemed “degenerate” as well as mass displacement of indigenous communities (Spektorowski & Mizrachi, 2008; Wasniowski, 2018). After WW2, race biology largely lost legitimacy and was gradually abandoned as an analytical category (Miles, 1993). As Sweden transitioned away from the pseudoscientific ideas of the eugenics movement, race became taboo, much like in Germany (Juang et al., 2021). During the 1970s, the concept race started to be removed from Swedish constitutional texts and was removed from official state documents by 2008 (von Brömssen, 2021). Instead, “ethnicity” was presented in state legislation as a replacement for race, and is the official term used up to date.

Race and ethnicity in initial teacher education

A substantial part of research on race and ethnicity has been conducted in the U.S. and U.K (Bhopal & Rhamie, 2014; Cochran-Smith & Villegas, 2015). The research generally concerns a “mismatch” between a predominantly white teacher workforce and a student body that increasingly includes pupils of color. Teacher education tends to presume racial and ethnic homogeneity among student teachers through curricula that focus on preparing white, middle- to upper class, higher familial education background students, to teach “ethno-racially and linguistically diverse others” (Bell & Busey, 2021; Dillard, 2019). However, strategies for increasing the number of minoritized student teachers in teacher education have also been implemented (Haddix, 2017). Nevertheless, while minoritized student teachers are seen as important for diversification, they have also been framed as representatives or “voices” for minoritized communities in majority white educational settings (Bell & Busey, 2021; Haddix, 2017; Sleeter, 2017). Thus, “diversity” pertaining to race and ethnicity tends to be seen as something embodied by minorities and/or communities of color.

Furthermore, U.S. based research has found that majoritized student teachers hold deficit views of ethno-racially minoritized pupils (Hollins & Guzman, 2005), and initial teacher education has faced critique for normalizing “whiteness” while exotifying minoritized communities (Sleeter, 2017). Studies that specifically examined experiences of teacher educators or student teachers of color indicated recurrent experiences of tokenization, being subjected to racialized tropes, and experiences of having their perspectives ignored or silenced (Bell & Busey, 2021; Endo, 2015; Irizarry, 2011). Nevertheless, challenging and replacing deficit views related to race and ethnicity and fostering asset-based approaches have been highlighted as main objectives of teacher education to become more equitable (Haddix, 2017). Thus, predominantly U.S. based educational contexts seemingly advocate both negative as well as equity-based messages regarding race and ethnicity.

Importantly, both teacher educators and student teachers in the U.S. have expressed beliefs that race plays a role in their pupils’ education and that race and racism are important to address (Milner, 2017). Nevertheless, they did not feel well-prepared to do so. Furthermore, white student teachers have expressed that race is too taboo and controversial to talk about in classrooms (Alvarez & Milner, 2018; Buchanan, 2015). Thus, despite acknowledging the importance of addressing ethnicity and race related themes, student teachers avoided discussions due to discomfort and fears of being seen as offensive or racist. It is plausible that such discomfort could make it difficult to support youth ethnic-racial identity development.

In Swedish contexts, inquiries into ethnicity within initial teacher education have been more implicitly addressed through related terms. Ethnographic studies using observations and interviews with student teachers or teacher educators have for example focused on examining general norms (Åberg, 2008) and diversity discourses (Rosén & Wedin, 2018). Regarding norms, teacher educators often strived to find strategies for acknowledging ethnic diversity when teaching, however, the author emphasized that the very strategies used could risk stigmatizing students seen as “non-Swedish” (Åberg, 2008). Some minoritized students were depicted as different or deviant and were contrasted to the label “Swedish.” Although the study identified a discourse of difference, the content of “Swedishness” was not explicitly discussed or given specific meanings. Similarly, Rosén and Wedin (2018) found that diversity discourses in initial teacher education focused on minoritized student teachers who were positioned as embodying ethnic diversity.

Furthermore, while not specifically seeking to examine the construction of ethnicity, Bayati (2014) studied the experiences of ethno-racially minoritized student teachers in Swedish initial teacher education. Minoritized student teachers experienced being “othered” and experienced institutional everyday racism. However, both students and faculty members with various backgrounds utilized resistance strategies. These strategies were used to identify and question racism and discriminatory discourses leading to inequality on an institutional level, albeit with the students’ reservations and fears of being framed as a problem (Ahmed, 2012; Bayati, 2014). The findings indicate that Swedish initial teacher education may contribute with problematic and negatively loaded messages regarding ethnicity.

The current study

The current study explored the research question, how do student teachers experience that ethnicity is framed in their initial teacher education in Sweden? While the focus of analysis in the current study was the framing of ethnicity, this paper also discusses the findings in relation to identity.

Method

Participants

Student teachers, henceforth also “participants” or “students” (“pupils” refers to youth in secondary schools) were recruited through an information letter about the study to their individual student e-mail accounts. The letter included the purpose of the study, information on informed consent, that participation was voluntary and could be ended without explanation, an overview of the topic of questions, a description of the questionnaire on demographic variables, that discussions would be audio-recorded, how data would be stored and who would have access to it, planned maximum duration of discussions, and that students would receive a voucher for 100SEK instead of the coffee and pastry (Swedish fika) that they would have received had the discussions been held in person.

The participants’ contact information was requested through two of the research team’s contacts at three universities in the southwest of Sweden. At one of the universities, the researcher was put in touch with course leaders in the initial teacher education, who then approved access to student teachers’ contact details. At the remaining two universities, the researcher sent a request to access contact information, which was then approved by the respective institutions. Only students in the final year of their education to become 7^th to 12^th-grade teachers were approached to ensure enough experience from initial teacher education. A total of 399 student teachers were contacted and 44 students responded with interest in participating in the study from December 2020 to April 2021. Two students withdrew prior to the focus groups, one due to scheduling difficulties and one for unknown reasons.

Finally, participants in the study were 42 student teachers, of which 66% attended a four-to-five-year long magistrate program of education, and 34% had prior academic competencies in teaching subjects that qualified them for a one-and-a-half-year long supplementary pedagogical education program. The participants were between 23 and 59 years old, 38% self-identified as women, 43% as men, and 19% did not respond regarding gender. Furthermore, 76% of participants were born in Sweden to at least one parent born in Sweden, i.e. majoritized, and 21% were either themselves born abroad or had two parents who were born abroad, i.e. minoritized, and 2% did not respond regarding nativity (the final percent lost due to rounding). Comparatively at the time of data collection, an average of 26% of individuals in Sweden were born abroad or had two parents born abroad (Statistics Sweden, 2020). Students’ teaching subjects were mainly within the social sciences (civics, history, religion) and languages (Swedish as a first or second language and English) and less so third language education, natural sciences, math, physical education, or the arts. The 42 participants were divided into a pre-defined number of 10 focus groups. See Table 1 for overview of demographics for each group.

Table 1. Sample descriptives for the focus groups.

		Minoritization			Gender			Type of Education
Group	n	Min	Maj	n/a	W	M	n/a	4–5 years	1,5 years
1	4	2	2		2	2		4
2	3		3		1	2		3
3	5	3	2		3		2	5
4	5	1	4		2	2	1	5
5	5		5		1	1	3	5
6	4	1	3		1	3		1	3
7	5		5		2	3		1	4
8	4	1	3		1	1	2	2	2
9	4	1	2	1	2	2			4
10	3		3		1	2		1	2
Total	42	9	32	1	16	18	8	27	15

n, number of participants. Min, minoritized ethnic background denoted as being born abroad and/or having two parents born abroad. Maj, majoritized ethnic background denoted as being born in Sweden to at least one parent born in Sweden. n/a, not applicable due to non-response on item. W, self-identified women, M, self-identified men. 4–5 years, initial teacher education. 1,5 years, supplementary pedagogical education program.

Procedure

Ethical approval for the study was received by The Swedish Ethical Review Authority (2020–06520). All focus group discussions were conducted through a video communication platform due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Each of the 10 focus groups were held as soon as at least three and at most five students could participate at a given date and time. Thus, the first focus group discussions were conducted while recruitment was still ongoing. At the beginning of each focus group, students were reminded of the content of the information letter they had received during recruitment.

The focus groups were moderated by the first and second authors (both clinical psychologists and PhD student and PhD in psychology respectively). The first moderator role included posing questions and explicitly encouraging the expression of varying perspectives throughout. The second moderator kept track of time, ensured that signals of wanting to speak were not missed, and posed follow-up questions if needed. To increase comfort in group discussions, students were informed that they could share as much or as little as they wanted and that they could choose not to respond if they did not want to do so. Further, all participants received contact details to the research team and a list of support agencies in case they needed additional support after the duration of the current study. The demographic variables place of birth, parental place of birth, age, gender and studied subjects were collected through an online questionnaire at the end of each focus group. The questionnaire included the same information regarding consent and students could once more assent to participating. The focus group discussions lasted between 48 and 57 minutes.

Interview guide

A semi-structured interview guide was developed by the research team. This guide was piloted with six student teachers, who were recruited through a Facebook group prior to the current study, to ensure that the questions would be understood and that enough time had been allocated for the focus groups. The questions were not altered as participants in the pilot expressed that they were relevant and possible to answer in relation to their own experiences from initial teacher education. However, the discussion time was reduced from 90 to 60 minutes as participants felt that 90 minutes was a substantial commitment to require and could ultimately make recruitment more difficult.

The participants were initially reminded of the voluntary nature of their participation and were asked for consent to be audio-recorded. The following official definition of ethnicity in Sweden from the Equality Ombudsman (2020) was presented before posing questions in the focus groups, “Ethnicity refers to someone belonging to a group of people who have the same national or ethnic origin, skin color, or other similar characteristics. Everyone has at least one ethnicity. People who belong to an ethnic minority often identify as both, for example, Sámi or Chilean and Swedish.”

The interview guide included three main topics of questions: Student teachers’ experiences regarding if or how ethnicity was addressed in their education, experiences regarding if or how students own ethnicities were addressed in their education, and finally, if there was a need to change anything in how ethnicity was addressed in teacher education.

Analysis

A thematic analysis was conducted in accordance with the reiterative steps outlined in Braun and Clarke (2006). The analysis was inductive, closed-to-data, and focused on semantic content (Braun & Clarke, 2022). Furthermore, the analysis was done at the focus group level so that each focus group was first coded separately, and analyses then focused on identifying themes across the groups.

The recorded focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim to facilitate in-depth data familiarity. The transcripts were read several times and were initially coded by the first author focusing on each of the first three, then first six, then all ten transcripts. This process included analytic discussions with the second and the fourth author, who also read the Swedish transcripts, regarding preliminary themes, between each block of coding. The third author read translated extracts and participated in later analytic discussions. Coding was guided by the research question to understand students’ experiences of how ethnicity was framed in their teacher education. Codes and their adherent quotes were repeatedly reviewed and organized into themes and subthemes, which were also recurrently reviewed and revised in relation to the transcripts and were adjusted throughout the analytic process in discussion with all coauthors. The major themes reflect patterns across all focus groups, and subthemes reflect different qualitative aspects of student teachers experiences of the framing of ethnicity in initial teacher education. The following findings are structured into two major themes with three and two subthemes respectively.

Results

The current study explored how student teachers experienced that ethnicity was framed in their initial teacher education. Importantly, students differentiated their pedagogical and didactics courses from their courses in teaching subject regarding the presence of discussions on ethnicity. Generally, ethnicity was perceived as ostensibly absent in pedagogics and didactics but more present in subjects such as Swedish as a second language, civics, religion, and history. Thus, the results should be understood as mainly reflecting students’ experiences of how ethnicity was framed in represented teaching subjects, and thus mainly reflecting experiences from the 4 to 5 year long initial teacher education. The findings are structured into two major themes with three and two subthemes respectively. See Table 2 for an overview of themes.

Table 2. Major themes and subthemes.

Major Theme	Subtheme
Ethnicity concerns “others”	Ethnicity equated with minoritized “others”
	“Others” framed through focus on problems or lack of skills
	”Others” framed as resources
Ethnicity framed as sensitive	Fear of discussing ethnicity
	Racism and sensitivity

Ethnicity concerns “others”

The focus group participants discussed that when ethnicity was addressed in their education, it mainly concerned notions of “the other” through categorical identifications such as having an “other” or “foreign” background, being “not white” or “not Swedish.” The presence or potential presence of pupils and students considered having “other” background in the classroom was understood as an element that made ethnicity more relevant to discuss. The first subtheme concerns perceptions of ethnicity being equated with minoritized “others.” The second subtheme illustrates how “others” were framed through a focus on problems or lack of skills and the third subtheme how “others” were framed as resources in teacher education.

Ethnicity equated with minoritized “others”

Participants expressed that when ethnicity was addressed in their education, it mainly concerned the presence of pupils or students labeled as having “other” background. Ethnicity was for example seen as naturally included in Swedish as a second language due to pupils often having an “other” ethnic background,

In Swedish as a second language, it [ethnicity] has been included very naturally because those who have Swedish as a second language often have an other ethnic background than a person who has Swedish as a first language. (Focus group 2)

The relevance of considering ethnicity was also related to the presence or potential presence of pupils in schools or students in teacher education seen as having an “immigrant background.” An example in relation to pupils was expressed in one of the focus groups,

There’s actually 20% of all pupils in Swedish schools that have immigrant background today and even if you would end up, well I work in a school where maybe you only have one pupil in your class that has immigrant background, then it’s a must that you have an understanding of the difficulties of having another language as a basis. (Focus group 7)

While the presence of pupils or students with minoritized backgrounds was something that could legitimize discussions on ethnicity, a perceived absence of minoritized backgrounds was seen as a possible reason to why ethnicity was not discussed,

We are very few [students] that have foreign background in my program and that could be a factor, that maybe you haven’t had to put as much importance on it [ethnicity]. (Focus group 6)

When ethnicity was framed as something that concerns “others” in initial teacher education, certain minoritized groups in the Swedish context were explicitly mentioned: “It’s a lot of the ‘Middle East,’ and at least in the schools I have been to it’s been a lot of the ‘Middle East’ and Somalia that is talked about” (Focus group 3). This occurred in teacher education courses and practical placements in schools as part of initial teacher education. Furthermore, participants also understood mentions of any of the five officially recognized Swedish indigenous (Sámi) or national minorities (Roma, Jews, Swedish Finns, Tornedalians) as part of the framing of ethnicity in the”regular” Swedish language subject.

Moreover, some focus groups experienced that ethnicity was framed in relation to whiteness. The following quote shows a perception of the invisibility of whiteness in framing ethnicity while at the same time highlighting whiteness as an unverbalized structural norm to which “others” were contrasted,

It is often pretty unambiguously ethnicity, like where you talk about others than the white, if you put it that way, the ones who stand outside of the white norm, which I think means that you disregard the white as the norm a little, which is problematic because then it is like you, in some ways, push something away from yourself. I have not heard anyone who has addressed the question of whiteness as ethnicity and problematized it based on the structures that are created from such norms. (Focus group 5)

In contrast to framing ethnicity as equated with “nonwhite,” “cultured,” and minoritized people, some participants experienced that their teacher educators framed white students as being void of ethnicity and culture, thus making the topic less relevant to discuss,

When I have gone to my courses it [ethnicity] has barely been mentioned and I think it has a lot to do with that you think that we who are sitting there in the classroom are some sort of, well that we are white and that we do not have culture and that ethnicity is something that others have, and sometimes, if the teachers see themselves as good, they might mention that these others exist, or like remind us that these others exist. (Focus group 4)

The student teachers in the focus group represented above went on to express a need to problematize concepts such as ethnicity and culture more, and voiced a need to self-reflect more, particularly in relation to “white,” “Swedish-speaking” or “non-religious” positionalities. The need to problematize ethnicity more was echoed in other focus groups,

It feels like we need more of it, to talk about exactly what ethnicity means and the problems that exist. I feel that more is needed to really be able to problematize it more than what is being done, that is how I feel anyway. (Focus group 1)

Importantly, there was variation in the extent to which students expressed legitimacy or critique of equating ethnicity with minoritized people in this theme. Similarly, participants expressed that how ethnicity was discussed in initial teacher education varied depending on the individual teacher educator, where some educators problematized the concept more than others.

“Others” framed through focus on problems or lack of skills

In addition to the framing of ethnicity as equated with minoritized “others,” some focus groups expressed that minoritized pupils and students were depicted with a focus on problems or a lack of capabilities and resources due to ascribed ethnicity, and that they were depicted through stereotypes,

Ethnicity was very clearly linked to something not Swedish and often linked to something problematic or something that makes it difficult for pupils to learn, but then I also have Swedish as a second language as a major, and it comes up a lot there. Partly in a more nuanced way but also maybe in a pretty stereotypical or homogeneous way where I experience that it is very much that we see our pupils then as weak on resources and like refugees, which many are, but far from everyone. (Focus group 4)

Furthermore, student teachers discussed that ethnicity was generally framed in relation to problems and differences such as forced migration, differences in gender equality or contexts of war and conflict,

The discussions seem to only surround, that you discuss these sad things, that people are being displaced, that there are differences in gender equality in different countries even though they belong to the same continent on so on […] You only mention these ethnicities and these differences, and it is almost always in a context of war and conflict. (Focus group 3)

Moreover, participants in some focus groups expressed that minoritized pupils were presented as incapable of talking about anything related to sexuality and were depicted as “all being homophobic,” by both students and teacher educators. They were thus assigned homogenized negative characteristics and values that they were presumed to hold meanwhile student teachers who did address sexuality with their pupils were seen as doing something much needed and even brave. Furthermore, in some of the focus groups student teachers discussed differences in the educational content directed at pupils in Swedish as a second language and pupils in “regular” Swedish. They described that literature in Swedish as a second language mostly focused on “being an immigrant, living in the ‘hood’ and like, being a victim of honor-related violence” (Focus group 4), meanwhile “the literature in the Swedish language subject addressed everyday issues like love or going to school or trying to fit in” (Focus group 2).

Furthermore, participants expressed how ethnicity was framed as deficit or presumed deficit language skills with a focus on minoritized student teachers, who were especially encouraged by teacher educators to do a language tracking test upon entrance to teacher education. Some participants described instances where minoritized student teachers were approached by teacher educators who questioned whether they should really become Swedish language teachers,

I had a classmate who didn’t have Swedish as their mother tongue but still had grades in Swedish. We were going to take an exam and there was this opportunity to get language supervision, then there was a teacher educator who directly went up to that student and said, “You probably need language supervision, this is how you get it”, without having read anything this student had written prior. The teacher didn’t really know where the [student’s] written level was at. This student was upset […] and felt singled out. (Focus group 2)

Comparably, in one of the focus groups a participant expressed how they were generally assumed to be Swedish, while alluding to their physical appearance, and that language became a point of differentiation only after assessment,

In teaching contexts, like I myself am German so you don’t see that I am a different ethnicity than Swedish. It’s nothing that I experience like personally, for me it’s not that obvious but then when it comes to evaluation, then I think that it comes through because the language isn’t as advanced as a Swedish mother tongue speaker. (Focus group 3)

“Others” framed as resources

Some focus groups expressed that the experiences of minoritized students and teacher educators described as having “other” backgrounds were valuable resources in their own learning to become teachers. Sharing experiences of learning Swedish as a second language was seen as particularly helpful. This was for instance exemplified by students who self-labeled with majoritized labels during the focus group discussions and expressed appreciation for minoritized teacher educators who asked students to share their own experiences in class, and who shared their personal journeys of learning Swedish,

I study with several people who have other ethnic backgrounds, and it’s come up a few times, but mostly when I’ve studied Swedish as a second language […] Sometimes the teachers have maybe started by asking what other languages we students speak except for Swedish and sometimes also ask about when you learned Swedish, if you can speak any other language and so on […] It has often been teachers who have also learned Swedish as a second language so then it has become more of a discussion between the teacher and the students. So, it has rather been to broaden knowledge and incorporate more own experiences so that for example I, who do not have any own experiences, can get a deeper understanding. (Focus group 4)

Minoritized “others” were not only framed as resources when they shared experiences of Swedish language acquisition, rather, classes with students of different backgrounds were framed as resources in relation to discussions that could be held in these classrooms. Sharing experiences in such classes resulted in an increased understanding of situations that majoritized students did not personally encounter. In one of the focus groups, a student articulated,

In my class, or in the class constellations we have had, it has been very mixed with a lot of different ethnicities from many different countries, and then maybe you also have this discussion, especially in connection to practical placements and how you should handle, for example, some situations that I as ethnically Swedish maybe don’t get subjected to in school, and that is, I suppose, it is very educational. (Focus group 5)

Participants described a greater sense of ease discussing ethnicity on a theoretical and practical level when they shared personal experiences outside of class with classmates who they knew compared to classroom discussions within their courses. When minoritized classmates on occasion shared personal experiences in class, some majoritized students found this helpful, as expressed in one of the focus groups,

It [ethnicity] becomes something concrete. It is almost like you can breathe, like as though this state of tension, that it is like, everyone relaxes and so it becomes like, “oh now we are going to talk about something real here and how nice it is that you are sharing this”. (Focus group 3)

While some students who in the focus group discussions referred to their majoritized self-labels expressed relief, as in the quote above, some who referred to their minoritized self-labels did not express the same relief and described instances of being asked by teacher educators to share their experiences of educational systems in their “home countries”, referring to places they had lived in their early childhood years. In doing so, these students described being met with prejudiced assumptions that they harbored “wishes of having the school-system there, here” (Focus group 8). Further, the students expressed that their teacher educator, upon their sharing, started explaining how great the Swedish school system was and how much it historically had been fought for.

Furthermore, contrary to framing “others’” ethnicity as a resource, some students naming their own whiteness did so in relation to not having something valuable to contribute to the conversation,

There are many who care about sharing their perspectives and experiences which is pretty, it is really valuable to us who are going to work with many different people and really valuable to me who is well from working class white, über über white “Svensson,” like who does not have any other perspective. (Focus group 5)

Thus, being a “typical Swede,” illustrated through the use of a common term of phrase utilizing a numerically majoritized surname “Svensson” bonded with whiteness, was framed by students as being void of important perspectives on the topic of ethnicity. While the “others’” ethnicity-related experiences were perceived as a resource, they were also perceived as a resource that could be used more adequately in teacher education. For instance, when students described that “others” were depicted in stereotypical or homogenous ways by teacher educators, they focused on the perception of unused potential of ethnic diversity within their university education,

It also feels like you choose to talk about a certain group based on a Eurocentric perspective and your own knowledge instead of maybe hearing more from the groups, taking into consideration the experiences that are in the very groups in initial teacher education where there are a lot of different people with different backgrounds. (Focus group 1)

Other participants in the focus groups described that they had not heard of ethnicity being addressed as a resource in their education, but they thought that there should be more support for multi-ethnic students in how they can use their ethnicity as a resource in their own teaching.

Ethnicity framed as sensitive

In the second major theme, the focus groups revealed students’ perceptions of ethnicity as an inherently sensitive and difficult topic to address in initial teacher education, “When you finally talk about it [ethnicity], in any course, then it can be very sensitive, it is kind of like this, you like walk on glass because it is a topic that is difficult to talk about” (Focus group 5). The first subtheme illustrated student teachers’ fears of discussing ethnicity, and the second subtheme highlighted the dynamics between racism and sensitivity in initial teacher education.

Fear of discussing ethnicity

This theme highlighted how student teachers experienced that students and teacher educators were often afraid of participating in ethnicity-related discussions in initial teacher education. A resounding sentiment in the focus groups was that,

You’re so scared to say something wrong when it’s about ethnicity and culture and so, yes, then you don’t address it at all instead. That is my experience. We do talk about the school’s values and heterogenous groups and like, but you leave ethnicity a little to the side, you don’t fully want to address it. (Focus group 5)

Specific fears that were mentioned included a fear of saying the wrong thing, a fear of a “misstep,” a fear of not knowing enough, a fear of being misunderstood, and a fear of offending others,

It’s very sensitive and difficult to navigate around different ethnicities […] this lack of insight or knowledge or understanding, and perhaps above all, maybe also that you don’t want to maybe offend anyone if you don’t have enough to go on or prefer to avoid this discussion. It’s a very sensitive discussion for many to have because they are scared that someone will feel offended or excluded. Above all, I think it’s the fear of a misstep. (Focus group 6)

The focus groups further discussed experiences of how some students in initial teacher education, due to their fears, would choose to stay silent rather than participate in classroom discussions. When discussing specific instances in which ethnicity had been addressed in their own classrooms, some focus groups expressed those discussions could be explosive and uncomfortable. Some students felt like they were often left to their own devices to figure out how to approach the topic. They expressed that the support they wanted from teacher educators was for them to intervene more when discussions got out of hand, while at the same time expressing that perhaps being uncomfortable was also necessary,

I wish that there had been a teacher that had intervened there in time because it was a very unpleasant atmosphere, and I think that almost everyone there also thought it was an. unpleasant and difficult atmosphere. Maybe that is what it takes to treat difficult topics, but in some way, there is a need for more direction, I think, like direction in the conversation. (Focus group 9)

Racism and sensitivity

While the above subtheme focused on student teachers’ fears, the current subtheme highlighted a relationship between expressions of racism in initial teacher education and notions of sensitivity. Some of the focus groups discussed experiences of racism being expressed in the form of derogatory racial slurs, racist “jokes,” exotification, or in the form of course content that students considered to be racist and sought to problematize, and were met with allusions to censorship,

We have discussed older classics, for example where like people have been portrayed in insensitive ways, racist, sexist and like, and there has been many occasions where I have experienced that it has become a pretty bad atmosphere because like, well we, in the class that I have been in, they have all been identified as white and I suppose it has become a little like, if I for example bring up “I think that this was a stereotypical portrayal or caricature of this human group” or something similar then it could, yes well it has been met with resistance like “Uh what? Should you not be able to show this [play] on stage now just because you think that, or people think that this is insensitive?” No, that is not really what I want but it is more about [that] we should be able to discuss it, but many times it has been like this, “it is so sensitive it is so sensitive”. (Focus group 5)

As illustrated above, some student teachers expressed experiences of being framed as sensitive individuals as well as discussions being framed as sensitive when students aimed to critically discuss content on ethnicity that they viewed as racist. Similar discussions were, in the focus groups, described as contributing to the classroom climate feeling tense. While the above exemplified students’ experiences of being framed as sensitive by their classmates, some participants expressed that they experienced their classmates as easily offended.

Students perceived discussions on ethnicity as tense when racist remarks were presented in class. Minoritized students in some of the focus groups also expressed that they had on few occasions been encouraged to share experiences from practical placements, and when they shared experiences of racism with their classmates and teachers at university, they had been met with silence.

Further, participants at times experienced that both classmates and teacher educators demonstrated ethnocentrism through a lack of shifting perspectives and a lack of understanding of the negative effect of presenting or using racial slurs in class, and expressed a need to problematize and historicize ethnicity and culture more, as expressed in one of the focus group discussions,

[I] have come in contact with both teachers and students that sometimes really cannot take that perspective because one may many times proceed from ones’ privileged position in society and is not able to listen or take in certain perspectives on culture and ethnicity. I think that it is problematic that one cannot understand that there are certain words in today’s society, certain words that you do not say because they quite simply hurt others. That is when I think, I suppose it is that which I think is important to problematize and talk about much, much more, and also talk about the historical aspect. (Focus group 1)

Taken together, the subtheme highlighted a relationship between student teachers’ experiences of (witnessing) racism in initial teacher education, attempts at problematizing expressions of racism and notions of sensitivity in such discussions.

Discussion

The current study explored how student teachers experienced the framing of ethnicity in their initial teacher education in Sweden. Two main themes were identified. First, ethnicity was framed as concerning “others” and second, ethnicity was framed as sensitive. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research as well as in dialogue with social identity theory and the concept of “othering” in postcolonial theory. The implications of findings are discussed throughout.

Concerning “others”

Even though the official Swedish definition of ethnicity, stating that “everyone has at least one ethnicity,” was given to the participants at the start of the focus groups, and thus set the stage for a plurality of ethnicities, student teachers experienced that ethnicity in their education was framed as mainly concerning “others.” The dominant focus on minoritized “others” points to a failure on the part of initial teacher education to implement a framing of ethnicity that relates to all and not just some.

Furthermore, framing “others” through a focus on problems or lack of skills indicates a failure to counteract deficit approaches to the education of minoritized pupils and student teachers. These findings resonate with Bayati’s (2014) study with minoritized student teachers in Swedish initial teacher education. They found that minoritized students shared experiences of being met with presumptions of lacking language skills and linguicism, where some students’ accents were a focus of conversation rather than the content of their communication. Additionally, experiences of being met with low expectations excluded them as knowledgeable contributors to their educational context (Bayati, 2014). Likewise, the reported occurrence of stereotypes in educational content directed at minoritized pupils in the current study aligns with previous studies of Swedish educational curricula, which indicated that teaching materials in educational contexts tend to reproduce negative stereotypes of minoritized “racial,” cultural, and religious groups (Otterbeck, 2006; Tholin, 2014). Moreover, in some of the focus groups of the current study, minoritized pupils were depicted as unable to discuss sex and relationships and as “all being homophobic.” This aligns with Reimers (2017) observational study in an initial teacher education setting in Sweden, where the construction of an “intolerant and homophobic immigrant” was contrasted to constructions of Swedish identity as “tolerant” and inherently good.

On the other hand, framing “others” as resources in the current study is similar to Rosén and Wedin’s (2018) findings in an initial teacher education for pre-school teachers in Sweden. In their study, minoritized student teachers were positioned as embodying ethnic diversity and were thus expected to add value to the educational context. The students were expected to be cultural representatives while also expected to live up to the regular academic expectations that existed for students in general (Rosén & Wedin, 2018). Although framing ethnicity as a resource can be seen as an attempt at inclusion, uncritically framing “others” as resources to learning about ethnicity-related experiences risks limiting ethno-racially minoritized students’ capabilities and competencies to questions of ethnicity (Ahmed, 2012). Furthermore, it risks enforcing minority taxation where minoritized students are tasked with the burden of having to explain and educate their fellow majoritized student teachers (Padilla, 1994). Thus, the current study findings, in combination with Rosén and Wedin’s (2018) findings, raise important questions for initial teacher education. How can the sharing of competencies and experiences of minoritized students be done in ways that do not instrumentalize them and that are on equal terms with their classmates who are given normative majoritized or white positionalities? One way forward is to explicitly problematize and historicize ethnicity more in initial teacher education.

Additionally, student teachers experienced that “Swedish” and/or “white” people were depicted as void of ethnicity, whilst majoritized student teachers were grateful for learning from minoritized student teachers and teacher educators. These results support Allard and Santoro’s (2006) findings that student teachers with Anglo-Saxon or white backgrounds expressed a need to know more about pupils with “other” cultures, including their specific learning difficulties and needs. However, they did not verbalize their own backgrounds in relation to ethnicity or culture (Allard & Santoro, 2006). Positioning “Swedish” and “white” as void of ethnicity or culture while positioning “others” as bearers of the same risks reinforcing whiteness as normative and neutral, and minoritized populations as deviating from norms. For transformative change to take place regarding the ways that ethnicity is ascribed to “others” and as absent for majoritized populations, critical self-reflection is suggested for student teachers and teacher educators alike (Milner, 2017). Milner (2017) emphasizes a need to critically examine one’s own background in relation to ethno-cultural-racialized experiences and how one has come to understand (or not understand) these experiences. They further emphasize critical reflection on how specific teaching choices may affect pupils. In other words, critical self-reflection that focuses on ethnic-racial identity exploration could help reach the goal for student teachers and teacher educators to better understand themselves. Furthermore, a focus on self-reflection can also include a needed critical examination of the framing of ethnicity and how it may impact the construction and content of ethnic-racial identity.

Framing ethnicity as something that concerns “others” in the first major theme can in part be understood with the help of social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Notably, social identities in this theoretical framework are based on group categorizations that entail some degree of differentiation and social comparison between people seen as part of “us” and those seen as part of “them.” According to the focus group discussions, the two groups described in these discussions were those who were seen as having ethnicity (ethno-racially minoritized people) and those who were seen as not having ethnicity (“Swedish” or “white”). However, while social identity theory postulates a focus of social comparison on both those seen as potentially part of an “us” and a “them” respectively, the current findings regarding the framing of ethnicity point to a predominant focus on categorizing and ascribing identification and description to “others.” Comparably, Brantefors (2015) argued, based on their analysis of Swedish school curricula, that an unarticulated “we” and a defined “them” has consistently been a prominent theme in the Swedish educational system. Thus, to complement our understanding of the current framing of ethnicity as concerning “others,” we also turn to the theoretical concept of Othering within the postcolonial tradition (Said, 1979).

Through the lens of Othering (Said, 1979), equating ethnicity with minoritized people who are seen as “not Swedish” or “not white” can be understood as a subtle way in which norms of “Swedishness” or “whiteness” are maintained in initial teacher education. Such norms may be maintained through the specific focus of social categorization on “others” while seldom verbalizing ethnicity as something that concerns majoritized or white populations. The implicit construction of whiteness has been suggested to depend on how minoritized bodies are assumed to be strangers and positioned as existing outside of norms (Fanon, 1986). According to Mulinari and Neergaard (2017), the process of ascribing racialization and ethnicization to “others” can signal how those who are racialized as deviating from normative whiteness (Swedishness) can be made hyper-visible. Further, it highlights the power that institutions, such as initial teacher education, have in creating and (re)producing “racialized Others” as perpetual strangers or “foreigners” (Ahmed, 2012; Miles, 1993). To continuously be positioned as deviating is a type of identity denial, in which an individual’s self-ascribed group identity is not recognized or is challenged (Armenta et al., 2013). Such identity denials can have a negative impact on young people’s interest in exploring their self-labeled ethnic-racial identities, and for minoritized pupils it may entail challenges regarding identification with traditionally majoritized self-labels or multiplicity in ethnic-racial identity (Jones & Rogers, 2022).

Sensitivity

Student teachers experienced that ethnicity was framed as a sensitive topic and that both student teachers and teacher educators were afraid of engaging in classroom discussions. This sensitivity could partially be related to the contemporary sociopolitical context in Sweden, and Europe, characterized by increased right wing nationalism and polarized political discourses focused on migration and minoritized populations (Groglopo et al., 2023).

Nevertheless, student teachers highlighted that especially sensitive discussions were those conducted without guidance or intervention from teacher educators. They expressed that both student teachers and teacher educators were afraid of or felt uneasy addressing ethnicity related topics. Discomfort related to discussions on race and ethnicity has been previously examined by scholars and has important implications for teacher education (Boler, 1999; Zembylas, 2015). Pedagogies of discomfort specifically encourage students and their educators to stay with and critically examine their own discomfort and to challenge their taken for granted assumptions, biases, and behaviors when engaging with the topics at hand (Boler, 1999). Discomfort that is utilized rather than avoided is viewed as a potential for transformative social change within educational contexts. On the contrary, a constant need to maintain comfort, enacted by strategies such as staying silent, disengaging from conversations, or stopping conversations that are seen as too sensitive by some, can hinder learning and social change (Ahmed, 2012; Applebaum, 2017). Importantly, high levels of discomfort without support can disrupt learning and thus student teachers could benefit from more structured support, for example through more teacher-led discussions (Zembylas, 2015). The fact that student teachers in the current study requested more teacher support whilst they also understood that being uncomfortable may be necessary can be used as a point of departure for critical reflection and discussion concerning the framing of ethnicity in initial teacher education.

Importantly, to provide support for student teachers, teacher educators need to have a sufficient sense of security to engage with these topics themselves, although complete comfort is not a prerequisite (Zembylas, 2015). The experiences of student teachers in the current study suggest that teacher educators could also benefit from engaging with the outlined pedagogies of discomfort to handle potential sensitivities. Structural support for teacher educators can be provided through allocation of time for collegial and/or professional supervision. Importantly, policy work within higher education builds on the Swedish Discrimination Act (SFS, 2016:828) which states that all institutions, including higher education, should promote equality, equal opportunity, and must work with active measures against racism. Thus, teacher educators could lean on such policy work to prioritize the support needed for a more critical engagement with the framing of ethnicity in initial teacher education.

Furthermore, some student teachers experienced being framed as sensitive by their classmates when they sought to problematize racism, while other students expressed that their classmates were easily offended. It is not uncommon for contestation of racism in educational settings to be met with labels of being too sensitive (Eisen, 2020). The findings have serious implications for teacher education as racism, including microaggressions, can have negative effects on well-being (Nadal et al., 2014) and can negatively impact social relationships (Eisen, 2020), and identity (Jones & Galliher, 2015). Microaggressions can include more or less overt expressions of racism. Jones and Galliher’s (2015) study with Native American young adults for example found that the most distressing microaggressions that were reported by minoritized women related to stereotypes that ascribed lower intelligence or skill to them, and experiences of being presumed to be less competent than white students. Such microaggressions were related to stereotype threat, a state in which people run the risk of conforming to stereotypes about their self-identified groups. It is thus imperative that teacher education challenges racism in its subtle and overt forms, which requires action at both individual and systemic levels (Legette et al., 2023).

Although student teachers were not specifically asked about racism or “race” in the current study, the framing of ethnicity as sensitive was related to expressions of racism. Similarly, in the first major theme, the framing of ethnicity was related to an absence of whiteness. The combination of these findings may reflect how ethnicity can be used as a catch-all term in Swedish contexts. This is for example illustrated in the official Swedish definition of ethnicity which refers to both ethnic and national origin as well as skin color or similar characteristics. Although race is seen as taboo by many in Sweden, the incorporation of phenotype under the term ethnicity points to its racialization. Thus, the incorporation of racialization within the concept ethnicity might also mean that ethnicity is sensitive in a similar way to race.

Taken together, the framing of ethnicity as something that concerns minoritized “others” and as something that is inherently sensitive to talk about suggests that initial teacher education does not prepare student teachers to support positive youth ethnic-racial identity development in schools. Rather, an educational context that supports positive youth ethnic-racial identity would require active engagement in critical self-reflection and discussions (Rivas-Drake & Umaña-Taylor, 2019). Activities should preferably encompass critical discussions on the concepts of race and ethnicity while incorporating crucial related topics such as prejudice, stereotyping, discrimination, racism, power, privilege, equity, and social justice. However, if both teacher educators and student teachers are afraid to engage in ethnicity-related discussions, they may equally fear discussions that explicitly and critically question the framing of ethnicity as something that concerns “others.”

Nevertheless, there were important variations in the extent to which student teachers were critical of framing ethnicity as something that concerned “others” and in how well they thought their teacher educators were at problematizing ethnicity. Thus, all student teachers did not just accept ethnicity being assigned to “others” or to expressions of racism in initial teacher education, highlighting that both students and teacher educators can be active agents seeking to challenge the status quo (Bayati, 2014).

An intervention that focuses on ethnic-racial identity exploration and self-reflection through structured critical discussions on race and ethnicity is the school-based intervention the Identity Project (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2018). The intervention has primarily been evaluated with adolescents and findings support increases in core process components of ethnic-racial identity (Ceccon et al., 2023; Juang et al., 2020; Umaña-Taylor et al., 2018) as well as positive associations with psychosocial and academic adjustment (Umaña-Taylor et al., 2018). Emergent studies indicate that the Identity Project is also feasible for use with college students in the U.S. and in seminar form with student teachers in Germany (Montgomery Jones et al., 2024; Pevec-Zimmer et al., 2024). These findings are promising as the seminar can support student teachers to engage in critical self-reflection and exploration of own ethnic-racial identity to better understand themselves and to better support their future pupils. Student teachers generally felt more confident to participate in ethnicity related discussions as well as more confident to interact with ethnically diverse pupils post-seminar (Pevec-Zimmer et al., 2024). It could also be of interest to explore whether such a seminar could be equally beneficial for teacher educators as the current study implies that they also need support.

Strengths and limitations

The current study has both strengths and limitations in relation to design, data collection, and analyses. The study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic and thus recruitment and focus group discussions had to be digitalized, which may have affected the response rate. Only 11% of contacted student teachers responded and there was an underrepresentation of minoritized students. Thus, there could be unknown important perspectives on the framing of ethnicity in initial teacher education that this study has been unable to identify. Furthermore, most of the participating students majored in Swedish as a second language and in the social sciences. Although qualitative research does not necessarily seek to generalize findings broadly but rather prioritize in-depth understanding of a topic, the low response rate, and the focus on the subject Swedish as a second language must be taken into consideration when drawing inferences.

Furthermore, the mode of data collection was through focus groups, a well-established method for qualitative studies in the social sciences, including the field of psychology (Willig, 2013). Nevertheless, focus groups have both methodological strengths and limitations. Amongst the strengths of focus groups is the possibility for participants to build on as well as challenge each other’s accounts, which may holistically allow for more nuances to materialize in the study of various phenomenon. Furthermore, focus groups have the possibility to disrupt some of the power imbalances in researcher-participant dynamics in one-to-one interviews (Wilkinson, 1999). Particularly, this is possible when participants outnumber researchers. However, the group dynamics of focus groups may also contain limitations (Willig, 2013). The degree of perceived homogeneity or heterogeneity in focus groups could affect what or how participants choose to share experiences and opinions (Greenwood et al., 2014). For example, homogenous groups have been found to more likely express provocative statements whereas heterogenous groups tend to be more critical. Some participants may feel less comfortable sharing their experiences or perspectives in groups, some may stay silent to avoid conflict, or may feel pressure to conform to others (Greenwood et al., 2014). Thus, in the current study the focus group moderators explicitly normalized that the participants could have more or less similar or differing experiences from their educational contexts, and that all experiences were of interest as a means to encourage openness and the expression of varying perspectives. Furthermore, the groups were relatively small (3–5 participants) and had two moderators to ensure that signals of wanting to speak were not missed. Finally, the analysis of discussions at the focus group level entailed some limitations as it limited the possibility to analyze individual or subgroup perspectives on the topic at hand.

Additionally, participants were shown the official definition of ethnicity from the Swedish Equality Ombudsman at the beginning of discussions (Equality ombudsman, 2020), which could potentially have affected the direction that the focus group discussions took. An alternative to presenting the definition would have been to initially ask participants what they understood ethnicity to be as a concept in teacher education, prior to asking questions about if or how ethnicity was or was not addressed. On the other hand, providing a definition at the start of the focus groups can also be seen as a strength and a part of providing a common place of departure in discussions (Willig, 2013).

Finally, the participants were asked where they were born and where their parent(s) were born as part of collecting information on demographic variables which was coded in accordance with Statistics Sweden (2020). This, in order to describe one aspect of who participated in the study i.e. coded as majoritized and minoritized. Nevertheless, such categorization may risk reinforcing a dichotomy between those coded as majoritized and those coded as minoritized, simply due to familial migrations histories, and does not acknowledge within-group variability. The study adopted the terminology “minoritized” and “majoritized” student teachers or pupils respectively instead of more static binaries such as “foreign/Swedish,” “immigrant/Swedish,” or “minority/majority” to acknowledge that categories are socially constructed rather than essentialist and stable properties of people (Black et al., 2023). However, future research could more adequately use self-identifications rather than institutionally or researcher enforced social categories.

Conclusion

The current study explored how student teachers experienced the framing of ethnicity in initial teacher education in Sweden. Ethnicity was framed as something that concerned minoritized “others”. “Others” were framed through a focus on problems or lack of skills and as resources in initial teacher education. Ethnicity was also framed as an inherently sensitive and difficult topic to address. Furthermore, student teachers identified expressions of racism in initial teacher education. Taken together, the findings suggests that initial teacher education does not prepare student teachers to support positive youth ethnic-racial identity development in schools. The current framing of ethnicity risks reproducing whiteness and/or “Swedishness” as neutral while disproportionately assigning ethnicity to minoritized pupils, student teachers, and teacher educators. Further, the framing of ethnicity as sensitive could negatively impact the readiness to engage in critical discussions that question the focus on minoritized “others”. The findings highlight a need for student teachers, and teacher educators, to engage in critical self-reflection and discussions on the construction of ethnicity in initial teacher education. Furthermore, the findings highlight student teachers’ and teacher educators’ need for more structured support in how to engage in such critical discussions. Importantly, there is a need to address expressions of racism in initial teacher education.

Authors’ contributions

All authors contributed to the conception and design of the study. A.K.A. and S.B. collected the data. All authors partook in data analyses. A.K.A. drafted the manuscript. All authors contributed to the editing process and have read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics statement

Ethical approval for the study was granted by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (reference nr: 2020–06520).

Acknowledgments

We thank all the student teachers who contributed to this study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Authors agree to make materials supporting the results presented in their paper available upon reasonable request. However, this does not include sharing raw data as they contain personal information that may lead to identification, and which researchers are prohibited to share.

Additional information

Funding

This research was funded by Sten. A. Olsson Foundation for Research and Culture.