The University of Huddersfield
School of Human & Health Sciences
Division of Criminology, Politics and Sociology

Full Time PhD Bursary

Applications are invited for a three year full time PhD bursary on
‘Threatened identities?: difference and diversity in contemporary
Britishness’, under the supervision of Professor James McAuley; Dr. Chris
Gifford and Dr. Peter Woodcock.

The bursary is £12600 per year for three years, plus full PhD fees of £3250.
It is expected that some additional paid teaching at undergraduate level
will also be available to the successful candidate.

The project considers difference and diversity in the construction of
contemporary British identity, through the study of three groups: Ulster
unionists; British Muslims and Cornish nationalists.

It has a number of key aims, to explore:

•   how identified groups construct national and self-identity and to what
extent this sense of identity is perceived as ‘threatened’;
•   the relationship between Britishness, current social and political
attitudes and ethno-specific memories;
•   the nature and implications of in-group identity, in particular by
examining stability and change in identity over time linked to real world
events  (e.g. political demonstrations, religious festivals, civil unrest),
a sense of place and occasion.

Candidates should hold an upper second, or first class honours degree in
sociology, politics, or a closely related discipline. They should complete
an application form for a research degree, which can be downloaded for the
university website along with a brief statement (one side of A4) indicating
the methodological approach they would adopt to undertake such a project.
Any continuation of funding will be contingent on satisfactory progress.

Candidates should complete an application form for a research degree which
can be downloaded from the university’s website
(http://www.hud.ac.uk/registry/research/docs/homeform.doc).

The completed application form should be returned to the Research Office at
the University by 15th August 2007. Interviews will take place on Wednesday
5th September and the person appointed will take up the post on 1st October
2007.

If you would like further information, or if you have any queries, please
contact: Dr. David Robinson (Head of Department) on 01484 47 472459 [email:
[log in to unmask]] or Dr. Chris Gifford on 01484 472298 [email:
[log in to unmask] ].

Further Details

Overview of Project

Issues surrounding social diversity and cohesion are high on the
contemporary political agenda. Gordon Brown has recently proposed that
Britain should have a day to celebrate its national identity, portraying New
Labour as a modern patriotic party. Such arguments have an important
context. Contemporary debates began with the publication of the MacPherson
Report (1999) into the death of Stephen Lawrence, and its re-definition of
institutional racism; debates about refugees and asylum seekers. Their
relevance developed through the Runnymede Trust Report (2000) on
multiculturalism; devolution and the peace process in Ireland; the increase
in ‘Islamaphobia’ following the attack on the World Trade Center; and, the
war in Iraq.

Such events have created challenges to the comfortable consensus that
‘Britishness’ reflects a multicultural society characterised by tolerance
and respect for social diversity and ethnic difference. This was brought
into focus by the outbreak in 2001 of street violence in several northern
towns and the increased electoral profile of the British National Party
(BNP). The challenge sharpened and the London bombings of July 2005.
Elsewhere in Northern Ireland, Unionist concerns that their strength of
‘identity’ is being diluted have raised core issues surrounding meanings of
‘British’ identity and belonging in ‘multi-ethnic Britain’.

From within traditional perspectives, Britishness is seen almost as
‘natural’ entity. If, however, we approach the nation and Britishness as
social and political constructions, subject to constant invention and
reinvention the notion is radically reconstructed. As Parekh (2000)
indicates multiculturalism has too often has been set in a context of an
unproblematised understanding of British national homogeneity. Rather,
Britishness remains a highly contested signifier of personal and social
identity.

British national identity is an ideological matter, particularly manifest in
debates over devolution, the United Kingdom’s place in Europe and the ways
in which ‘Britishness’ is represented, both internally and to the rest of
the world. Indeed, if we reduce populist notions of Britishness to its
essence, we find predominantly English historical myths, values and
institutions. Both Hall (2000) and Parekh (2000) argue that in order to
develop a common feeling of belonging in the new millennium, the British
need to redefine national identity in a way that is more encompassing and
acceptable to all of its citizens. This will no doubt involve a continuing
divorce of elements of Britishness from Englishness based on a more acute
awareness of difference between those grouping who claim ‘Britishness’.

What evidence is there, however, that this process is under way? For
example, as the Runnymede Trust Report (2000) argues, while whiteness
nowhere features as an explicit condition of being British, it is widely
understood that Englishness, and therefore by extension Britishness. Thus
Britishness is racially coded and ‘overloaded with racist connotations’ and
white homogeneity. For some within the sample, ‘whiteness’ will remain a
core construct of Britishness. Others such as unionists in Northern Ireland
also base their sense of identity on a strong sense of ethnic difference.
Many, however fear their Britishness is being undermined by the peace process.

The notion of ‘Britishness’ is contested in other ways. Even as devolution
is granted around the United Kingdom, many on the Celtic Fringe still demand
they be afforded the status of nationhood. Why, for example, is Cornwall,
with its ancient language and legal privileges, relegated to being a county
of England or a Duchy of the Kingdom? Why are Cornish claims to national
identity often treated as a joke. Indeed, Deacon et al (2003) argue that
from the 1980s onwards the regional institutions of governance have moved to
Devon in a process known as ‘Devonwall’, taking with them the well-paid
executive jobs.

Is defining oneself as ‘Cornish’ in contemporary society therefore a
statement with the same level of meaning as defining oneself as from
‘Yorkshire’ (and therefore meaning English), or does it mean something
different?  How, therefore, does the disputed status of Cornwall affect
those who identify themselves as Cornish?

This project considers those on the margins of Britishness – geographically,
socially or politically. It aims to explore the construction of difference
in the development and maintenance of social identity. This is done under
conditions in which these groupings are seen as both threatened by, and a
threat to traditional constructions of Britishness – ‘British’ Muslims;
‘Cornish nationalists; and Ulster unionists.

It will employ a wide range of methodologies to explore senses of
Britishness. At the core of our approach, however, is a common understanding
of identity as a multi-faceted construct. Further to this, this project is
underpinned by a belief that individuals have multiple identities that will
have varying strengths and relevance (salience) in various social contexts.
Central therefore to this perspective is the notion that social identity
will be effected by what is seen as outside of norm. At a basic level
difference is about boundaries and their formation and maintenance; between
what is seen as acceptable and not; and between the British/English/ Celtic
Fringe and ethnic minorities.