Ethnic and National Identity in Russian Research: A Scoping Review

Abstract

This scoping review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the contemporary studies regarding ethnic and national identities written in the Russian language. The study reveals major contexts and patterns of the operationalization of the concepts. The scoping review is based on the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley, with qualitative content analysis as its primary method. Samples from 114 papers were analyzed to find existing approaches to identity studies and conceptualization. Explicit and implicit identity definitions and identity attributes were mapped and coded. The research found that scholars tend to provide original definitions and relate identity to consciousness. Implying the idea of a person’s uniqueness, identity is often regarded as rooted in memory, hence the number of mentions of memory studies and memory politics in the reviewed articles. Another finding is that multiple and/or complex identities are widely investigated, and these identity types are given original names, mostly compound. With a great number of identity types, there is still a common understanding of identity as a constructed, dynamic phenomenon. The study concludes that identity is a common value-charged notion for Russian academic discourse, with national and ethnic identities being at the heart of the ongoing studies. The paper concentrates on identities of large groups, which is viewed as a politically sensitive issue, closely intertwined with the view of identity as a factor and resource of the development of society. Main topics are politics, history, representation, dynamics, plurality, communication, cultural factors, and territory. The analysis of the identity studies contributes to professional discourse by illuminating how concepts of ethnic and national identities are operationalized and communicated in the Russian-language academic community, thus enhancing cross-cultural understanding and facilitating more effective professional communication in related fields. Given the limitations, the findings identify the main patterns of concept usage, point to research gaps, and provide a basis for future research.