Measurement of Race and Ethnicity in a Changing, Multicultural America

Humes, Karen; Hogan, Howard

doi:10.1007/s12552-009-9011-5

Cited by 50 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although efforts to improve race and ethnicity questions continue (see Compton et al 2012; Humes and Hogan 2015; Prewitt 2013), these are complex and personal social constructs and it is possible that no point-in-time measure of race or ethnicity will be able to meet the goal of “categoriz[ing] individuals into the same groups over a long period of time” (Humes and Hogan 2009:112). Researchers designing questions to measure race and ethnicity should consider the possibility of response change, and multiple measures of race should be incorporated into data collection and analysis whenever possible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category Between 2000 and 2010

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conceptualizing and operationalizing American Indian populations is challenging. Each census for decades has seen the American Indian population increase substantially more than expected, with indirect and qualitative evidence that this is due to changes in individuals' race responses. We apply uniquely suited (but not nationally representative) linked data from the 2000 and 2010 decennial censuses (N= 3.1 million) and the 2006–2010 American Community Survey (N = 188,131) to address three research questions. First, to what extent do American Indian people have different race responses across data sources? We find considerable race response change, especially among multiple-race and/or Hispanic American Indians. Second, how are people who change responses different from or similar to those who do not? We find three sets of American Indians: those who (1) had the same race and Hispanic responses in 2000 and 2010, (2) moved between single-race and multiple-race American Indian responses, and (3) added or dropped the American Indian response, thus joining or leaving the enumerated American Indian population. People in groups (1) and (2) were relatively likely to report a tribe, live in an American Indian area, report American Indian ancestry, and live in the West. Third, how are people who join a group different from or similar to those who leave it? Multivariate models show general similarity between joiners and leavers in group (1) and in group (2). Population turnover is hidden in cross-sectional comparisons; people joining each subpopulation of American Indians are similar in number and characteristics to those who leave it.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category Between 2000 and 2010

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The idea of allowing multiracial individuals to mark more than one race on the census was heavily debated in the 1990s. The census finally allowed race to be recorded as “mark-all” in the year 2000 (Bratter 2007; Gullickson and Morning 2011; Harris and Sim 2002; Humes and Hogan 2009; Perlmann and Waters 2002). One paradoxical outcome was a shift in the political polarity of the debate, with many progressives arguing for the continuance of fixed census categories, which they knew to be historically constructed but which they felt to be scientifically and politically necessary for addressing the accumulated effects of racist exclusions, while conservatives argued for abandonment of the categories (see Patterson 1997).…”

Section: Race History and Racial Fluiditymentioning

confidence: 99%

Race as an Open Field: Exploring Identity beyond Fixed Choices

Croll

Gerteis

2017

Sociology of Race and Ethnicity

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work on shifting racial classifications and the fluidity of racial identities in the United States has questioned the subjective and cultural adequacy of dominant racial and ethnic classifications. The cultural legitimacy of biracial, hybrid, and contextual racial identifications appears to be increasing, and the U.S. census now allows Americans to choose multiple races (Brunsma and Rockquemore 2002; Liebler et al. 2017; Rockquemore and Brunsma 2008). According to Brunsma and Rockquemore (2002:112-13), such changes cast "serious doubt on the validity of races as social identities. .. [since] individuals may no longer view themselves in mutually exclusive ways and, at a deeper level, ... others may not view them as members of distinct racial groups." Are traditional racial categories breaking down? This paper examines how Americans racially identify themselves when they are not constrained by traditional fixed-choice categories. We use data from a nationally representative survey panel that included two sets of racial and ethnic identifiers collected at different times: a standard fixed-choice race question that respondents answered when they entered the panel and another asked at the time of 748425S REXXX10.

show abstract

“…Let us begin by first asking why questions of race and ethnicity are asked. At its most basic level, such questions are asked so as to enable the policy making community to assess racial progress and the impacts of affirmative action policies (Humes & Hogan, 2009;Young, 2000). The categories constructed to ask such questions give us the dimensions of the disaggregation possible within the dataset.…”

Section: Survey Design Issues and How Race And Ethnicity Questions Armentioning

confidence: 99%

The Politics of Data:Uncovering Whiteness in Conventional Social Policy and Social Work Research

Curry-Stevens¹,

Cross-Hemmer²,

Maher³

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implementation of a robust community based participatory research (CBPR) study in Multnomah County, Oregon, has detailed broad and deep racial disparities across 27 institutions and systems. The process of this research has led to the identification of numerous practices that misrepresent and negate the experiences and very identity of communities of color. The research draws from engagement with numerous databases from the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and various administrative databases. The core issues at hand are population undercounts, understudy of the unique characteristics of these communities, inaccuracies in how data are codified and analyzed, and data collection efforts that are infused with white centrism and a colorblindness that renders issues minimized and the experiences of communities of color obscured. Collectively, we analyze this experience to suggest that much conventional policy research while wrapped in a cloak of objectivity is in fact a reproduction of whiteness that renders communities of color invisible, marginalized and misunderstood. The impact of these practices is to extend whiteness into the arena of policy research, and correspondingly extend dynamics of oppression and white centrism. The paper profiles each area of the policy research process that reflects and reinscribes whiteness and concludes with an articulation the reach of such conventional practice and outlines an avenue to reduce the influence of whiteness

show abstract

Measurement of Race and Ethnicity in a Changing, Multicultural America

Cited by 50 publications

References 7 publications

Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category Between 2000 and 2010

Joining, Leaving, and Staying in the American Indian/Alaska Native Race Category Between 2000 and 2010

Race as an Open Field: Exploring Identity beyond Fixed Choices

The Politics of Data:Uncovering Whiteness in Conventional Social Policy and Social Work Research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About