This is a collection of data from the Leicester Hate Crime Project. It includes interview transcripts, survey data, reports, blogs, presentations, end of project conference details, the original proposal, and other information. To investigate victims’ experiences of hate and prejudice, the study used a mixed methods approach that included: (1) an online and hard-copy survey, translated into eight different languages; (2) in-depth, semi-structured face-to-face interviews; and (3) personal and reflective researcher field diary observations. From the outset we realised that for practical and logistical reasons we would not be able to attain a statistically representative sample of each of the myriad communities we wanted to hear from. We therefore developed a dual method of administering our survey – via hard copy questionnaires (which were distributed through dozens of community locations in the city, and through educational establishments, charitable institutions and other liaison points) and online – in order to gain as many and as diverse a range of responses as we possibly could. The research team worked with Ipsos MORI, a leading market research company in the UK and Ireland, to develop the survey instrument. This two-year study examined the experiences and expectations of those who are victimised because of their identity or perceived 'difference' in the eyes of the perpetrator. By exploring hate crime in a broader sense of 'targeted victimisation', the project aimed to investigate the experiences of the more ‘recognised’ hate crime victim communities, including those who experience racist, religiously motivated, homophobic, disablist and transphobic victimisation, as well as those who are marginalised from existing hate crime scholarly and policy frameworks. The study also investigated respondents’ perceptions of criminal justice agencies and other service providers in order to assess the needs of victims and to identify lessons for effective service delivery. The site for the research was Leicester, one of the most plural cities in the UK containing a diverse range of established and emerging minority communities. The research team administered online and written surveys to victims of hate crime within these communities and conducted in-depth interviews to probe issues in greater depth.

Within this project we employed a ‘softer’, more subtle approach to locating and engaging with a wide range of diverse communities. This approach involved the research team spending prolonged periods of time in public spaces and buildings across the city, including international supermarkets, cafes and restaurants, charity shops, community and neighbourhood centres, libraries, health centres, places of worship, pubs and clubs, taxi ranks, and shelters and drug and alcohol services that support ‘hard to reach’ groups. Adopting this method enabled us to engage with over 4,000 members of established and emerging communities in order to raise awareness of the project itself, and to promote further recognition of the harms of hate and available pathways of support for victims. A total of 1,106 questionnaires were completed by people aged 16 and over who had experienced a hate crime in accordance with the definition employed within this study. Of these questionnaires, 808 were completed on paper and 298 were completed online. Ipsos MORI entered the resultant survey data into data analysis software and worked with the research team in interrogating it. The project used in-depth face-to-face qualitative interviews to further explore the nature, extent and impact of hate crime victimisation. Depending on the individual or group, interviews were conducted either individually or in the presence of family members, friends or carers as appropriate. Overall, interviews were carried out with 374 victims, 59 of whom had also completed a survey. Therefore, in total we heard from 1,421 victims over the duration of the study. Additionally, the Lead Researcher kept a field-note diary throughout the research process. The diary was used to detail observations and informal conversations with community groups, participants and practitioners and provided additional insight into the context and impact of victimisation.