A Roadmap for Inequality Research: Transparency, Intersectionality, and Multiple Measures of Race

IF 2.8 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Emma Williams-Baron, Aliya Saperstein
{"title":"A Roadmap for Inequality Research: Transparency, Intersectionality, and Multiple Measures of Race","authors":"Emma Williams-Baron, Aliya Saperstein","doi":"10.15195/v13.a32","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most quantitative studies of U.S. inequality rely on single measures of race and do not transparently describe them. However, inconsistencies between measures can yield conclusions that differ both substantively and statistically. We ask: when faced with multiple ways to categorize respondents, how should researchers choose? We conduct intersectional analyses of five inequality outcomes, using the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which offers several measures of self-identification and external classification. Strikingly, we find the survey’s screener race variable, ubiquitous in prior research, is never empirically preferred based on model fit across outcomes spanning the labor market (wages, salary, and unemployment), health (depression), and education (school discipline). Instead, the top-performing measure varies by gender, outcome, and fit statistic. The range of potential researcher decisions and the absence of a clear gold-standard highlights the need for greater transparency and more thoughtful decision-making when researchers operationalize race—whether racial categorization is central to the analysis or included primarily as a control variable. To that end, we offer a roadmap of key considerations inequality researchers can consult when designing their approach.","PeriodicalId":22029,"journal":{"name":"Sociological Science","volume":"30 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sociological Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15195/v13.a32","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most quantitative studies of U.S. inequality rely on single measures of race and do not transparently describe them. However, inconsistencies between measures can yield conclusions that differ both substantively and statistically. We ask: when faced with multiple ways to categorize respondents, how should researchers choose? We conduct intersectional analyses of five inequality outcomes, using the 1979 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, which offers several measures of self-identification and external classification. Strikingly, we find the survey’s screener race variable, ubiquitous in prior research, is never empirically preferred based on model fit across outcomes spanning the labor market (wages, salary, and unemployment), health (depression), and education (school discipline). Instead, the top-performing measure varies by gender, outcome, and fit statistic. The range of potential researcher decisions and the absence of a clear gold-standard highlights the need for greater transparency and more thoughtful decision-making when researchers operationalize race—whether racial categorization is central to the analysis or included primarily as a control variable. To that end, we offer a roadmap of key considerations inequality researchers can consult when designing their approach.
不平等研究的路线图:透明度、交叉性和种族的多重衡量
大多数关于美国不平等的定量研究都依赖于单一的种族衡量标准,并且没有对其进行透明的描述。然而,测量之间的不一致可能产生实质性和统计上不同的结论。我们的问题是:当面对多种对受访者进行分类的方法时,研究人员应该如何选择?我们使用1979年全国青年纵向调查对五种不平等结果进行交叉分析,该调查提供了几种自我认同和外部分类的措施。引人注目的是,我们发现调查中筛选者的种族变量在之前的研究中无处不在,但在劳动力市场(工资、薪水和失业率)、健康(抑郁)和教育(学校纪律)等结果的模型拟合基础上,从未得到经验上的青睐。相反,表现最好的衡量标准因性别、结果和适合统计数据而异。研究人员的潜在决策范围和明确的金标准的缺乏突出表明,当研究人员操作种族时,需要更大的透明度和更周到的决策——无论种族分类是分析的核心还是主要作为控制变量。为此,我们提供了不平等研究人员在设计方法时可以参考的关键考虑因素的路线图。
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
Sociological Science
Sociological Science Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
2.90%
发文量
13
审稿时长
6 weeks
期刊介绍: Sociological Science is an open-access, online, peer-reviewed, international journal for social scientists committed to advancing a general understanding of social processes. Sociological Science welcomes original research and commentary from all subfields of sociology, and does not privilege any particular theoretical or methodological approach.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书