What's colour got to do with it? A psychometric assessment of Peggy McIntosh's white privilege

IF 3 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
John Ehrich, Stuart Woodcock
{"title":"What's colour got to do with it? A psychometric assessment of Peggy McIntosh's white privilege","authors":"John Ehrich,&nbsp;Stuart Woodcock","doi":"10.1002/berj.4018","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Peggy McIntosh's (<i>White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women's studies</i>, Working Paper 189, Wellesley Center for Research on Women, 1988) list of 50 racial privileges, which purportedly benefit persons of white skin colour, has had enormous impact on social science research and educational curriculum and pedagogy. Surprisingly, to date, no attempt has been made to empirically explore the validity and reliability of her list of racial privileges. To address this issue, we conducted a psychometric analysis on McIntosh's list of racial privileges with 204 adult Australian university students. Using a combination of factor analyses and Rasch modelling on McIntosh's list of racial privileges we identified a 27-item multidimensional scale consisting of three well-functioning and reliable subscales (i.e. a 15-item Racial Representation, a six-item Social Interaction and a six-item Culture and Politics subscale). Moreover, the derived multi-dimensional white privilege instrument was found to have good criterion validity in that persons’ experiences of racism significantly predicted white privilege (i.e. the more racism experienced the less white privilege experienced and vice versa). Finally, analysis of variance comparisons indicated that persons with white skin colour had significantly more white privilege than persons with black skin colour and Asians, while Asians had more white privilege than persons with black skin colour. Overall, this study presents evidence of a psychometrically valid and reliable 27-item multi-dimensional white privilege instrument and lends empirical support to the theoretical underpinnings of McIntosh's contentions.</p>","PeriodicalId":51410,"journal":{"name":"British Educational Research Journal","volume":"50 5","pages":"2198-2215"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/berj.4018","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Educational Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/berj.4018","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Peggy McIntosh's (White privilege and male privilege: A personal account of coming to see correspondences through work in women's studies, Working Paper 189, Wellesley Center for Research on Women, 1988) list of 50 racial privileges, which purportedly benefit persons of white skin colour, has had enormous impact on social science research and educational curriculum and pedagogy. Surprisingly, to date, no attempt has been made to empirically explore the validity and reliability of her list of racial privileges. To address this issue, we conducted a psychometric analysis on McIntosh's list of racial privileges with 204 adult Australian university students. Using a combination of factor analyses and Rasch modelling on McIntosh's list of racial privileges we identified a 27-item multidimensional scale consisting of three well-functioning and reliable subscales (i.e. a 15-item Racial Representation, a six-item Social Interaction and a six-item Culture and Politics subscale). Moreover, the derived multi-dimensional white privilege instrument was found to have good criterion validity in that persons’ experiences of racism significantly predicted white privilege (i.e. the more racism experienced the less white privilege experienced and vice versa). Finally, analysis of variance comparisons indicated that persons with white skin colour had significantly more white privilege than persons with black skin colour and Asians, while Asians had more white privilege than persons with black skin colour. Overall, this study presents evidence of a psychometrically valid and reliable 27-item multi-dimensional white privilege instrument and lends empirical support to the theoretical underpinnings of McIntosh's contentions.

肤色有什么关系?佩吉-麦金托什的白人特权心理评估
佩吉-麦金托什(Peggy McIntosh)(《白人特权与男性特权:通过妇女研究工作认识到的对应关系》,第 189 号工作文件,韦尔斯利妇女研究中心,1988 年)列出了 50 种种族特权,声称这些特权有利于白人:Peggy McIntosh 的著作(《白人特权与男性特权:通过妇女研究工作发现对应关系的个人记 述》,第 189 号工作文件,韦尔斯利妇女研究中心,1988 年)列出了 50 项种族特权,据称这 些特权有利于白人,对社会科学研究以及教育课程和教学法产生了巨大影响。令人吃惊的是,迄今为止,还没有人试图通过经验来探讨她所列种族特权的有效性和可靠性。为了解决这个问题,我们对麦金托什的种族特权清单进行了心理测量分析,对象是 204 名澳大利亚成年大学生。通过对麦金托什的种族特权清单进行因子分析和 Rasch 建模相结合的方法,我们确定了一个 27 个项目的多维量表,其中包括三个功能完善且可靠的子量表(即 15 个项目的种族代表性、6 个项目的社会互动和 6 个项目的文化与政治子量表)。此外,研究还发现,衍生出的多维度白人特权工具具有良好的标准效度,因为人们的种族主义经历可以显著预测白人特权(即种族主义经历越多,白人特权越少,反之亦然)。最后,方差分析比较表明,肤色为白色的人的白人特权明显多于肤色为黑色的人和亚洲人,而亚洲人的白人特权多于肤色为黑色的人。总之,本研究提供了一个在心理测量学上有效且可靠的 27 个项目的多维度白人特权工具,为麦金托什的理论基础提供了实证支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British Educational Research Journal
British Educational Research Journal EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.70%
发文量
71
期刊介绍: The British Educational Research Journal is an international peer reviewed medium for the publication of articles of interest to researchers in education and has rapidly become a major focal point for the publication of educational research from throughout the world. For further information on the association please visit the British Educational Research Association web site. The journal is interdisciplinary in approach, and includes reports of case studies, experiments and surveys, discussions of conceptual and methodological issues and of underlying assumptions in educational research, accounts of research in progress, and book reviews.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信