National identity labels dominated responses to an open-ended German survey about ethnic and racial identification. The results highlight how questionnaire wording can shape what researchers learn.
What researchers studied
Jonas Köhler investigated how survey respondents in Germany describe their own identifications when they are not restricted to predefined ethnic or racial categories.
The research reviewed seven existing questionnaire approaches and introduced an open-ended instrument that allowed people to use their own terms and combinations of terms.
The empirical analysis drew on 3,700 participants from the randomly sampled DeZIM.panel general-population survey. Responses were classified across dimensions including nation states, regions, migration status and explicit ethnic-racial labels.
What they found
References to nation states appeared in 64% of responses, while 14% referred to regions. The single most common identification was ‘German’, appearing in 61% of responses.
Explicit ethnic-racial terms appeared in 4% of responses when ‘European’ was excluded, and migration-status labels appeared in 3%. Another 7% combined ‘German’ with additional labels.
Explicit ethnic-racial labels and multiple-label identifications involving ‘German’ were more common among younger participants and first- or second-generation individuals. Educational and political-engagement differences were weaker.
What it means
A closed questionnaire may impose distinctions that respondents would not spontaneously use, particularly where terminology is socially contested.
Allowing people to describe themselves can reveal different patterns from a fixed list of boxes. That may improve the design of surveys on belonging, inequality and social identity.
The results also show why categories should be explained and tested in the population where they are used. An approach appropriate in one country may not translate neatly into another.
Important limitation
The percentages describe answers to one particular open-ended survey question, not the prevalence of underlying identities or experiences of discrimination.
Coding free-text responses involves interpretation, and respondents may understand or avoid labels for different reasons. The study does not establish that any one survey format is universally superior.
Germany’s linguistic and historical context limits direct transfer to countries with different identity terminology.
Source Information
Study: Survey instruments beyond the German race taboo? A new open-ended approach to identifications with ethnic-racial labels
Authors: Jonas Köhler
Journal / Source: Frontiers in Sociology
Published: 11 November 2026
