Weber maintained that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು were "künstlich" (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared "Gemeinschaft" (community). Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the ಗುಂಪು; the ಗುಂಪು created the belief. Third, ಗುಂಪು formation resulted from the drive to monopolise power and status. This was contrary to the prevailing naturaಪಟ್ಟಿ belief of the time, which held that socio-cultural and behavioral differences between ಜನರುs stemmed from inherited traits and tendencies derived from common ತಲೆಮಾರು, then called "race".

Another influential theoretician of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ was ಫ್ರೆಡ್ರಿಕ್‌ ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌, whose "ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಬೌಂಡರೀಸ್‌" from 1969 has been described as instrumental in spreading the usage of the term in social studies in the 1980s and 1990s. ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌ went further than Weber in stressing the constructed nature of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ. To ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌, ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification. ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌'s view is that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು are not discontinuous cultural isolates, or logical "a prioris" to which ಜನರು naturally belong. He wanted to part with anthropological notions of cultures as bounded entities, and ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ as primordiaಪಟ್ಟಿ bonds, replacing it with a focus on the interface between ಗುಂಪುಗಳು. "ಎತ್ನಿಕ್‌ ಗ್ರೂಪ್ಸ್‌ ಅಂಡ್‌ ಬೌಂಡರೀಸ್‌", therefore, is a focus on the interconnectedness of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identities. ಬಾರ್ಥ್‌ writes: "[...] categorical ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ distinctions do not depend on an absence of mobility, contact and information, but do entail social processes of exclusion and incorporation whereby discrete categories are maintained despite changing participation and membership in the course of individual life histories."

In 1978, anthropologist ರೊನಾಲ್ಡ್‌‌ ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ claimed that the identification of "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪುಗಳು" in the usage of social scientists often reflected inaccurate labels more than indigenous realities:
... the named ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identities we accept, often unthinkingly, as basic givens in the literature are often arbitrarily, or even worse inaccurately, imposed. 
In this way, he pointed to the fact that identification of an ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ ಗುಂಪು by outಸೈಡರ್‌s, e.g. anthropologists, may not coincide with the self-identification of the members of that ಗುಂಪು. He also described that in the first decades of usage, the term ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ had often been used in lieu of older terms such as "cultural" or "tribal" when referring to smaller ಗುಂಪುಗಳು with shared cultural systems and shared heritage, but that "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ" had the added value of being able to describe the commonalities between systems of ಗುಂಪು identity in both tribal and modern societies. ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ also suggested that claims concerning "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ" identity (like earlier claims concerning "tribal" identity) are often coloniaಪಟ್ಟಿ practices and effects of the relations between colonized ಜನರುs and ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ-states.

Social scientists have thus focused on how, when, and why different markers of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ identity become salient. Thus, anthropologist ಜೋವನ್‌ ವಿನ್ಸೆಂಟ್‌ observed that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ boundaries often have a mercurial character. ರೊನಾಲ್ಡ್‌‌ ಕೋಹೆನ್‌ concluded that ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is "a series of nesting dichotomizations of inclusiveness and exclusiveness". He agrees with ಜೋವನ್‌ ವಿನ್ಸೆಂಟ್‌'s observation that (in ಕೋಹೆನ್‌'s paraphrase) "ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ ... can be narrowed or broadened in boundary terms in relation to the specific needs of political mobilization. This may be why ತಲೆಮಾರು is sometimes a marker of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ, and sometimes not: which diacritic of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ is salient depends on whether ಜನರು are scaling ಜನಾಂಗೀಯ boundaries up or down, and whether they are scaling them up or down depends generally on the political situation.

Ethno-ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ conflict
ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ in specific countries
ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ and ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರ
Conceptual history of ಜನಾಂಗೀಯತೆ