国会猪肉分配中的种族模式:对中学后教育公平和组织变革的影响

IF 3.5 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Heather McCambly, Stephanie Aguilar-Smith
{"title":"国会猪肉分配中的种族模式:对中学后教育公平和组织变革的影响","authors":"Heather McCambly, Stephanie Aguilar-Smith","doi":"10.1177/23328584241245973","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Troubled by the inequities in competitive grantmaking, we use critical quantitative methods to analyze the FY2023 federal academic earmarks as a potential mechanism for racialized change work. Specifically, we ask: To what extent does Congress distribute academic earmarks in ways that reinforce or weaken the racialized stratification of resources across organizations in the field? Accordingly, we identify distribution patterns of academic earmarks, considering the allocation of dollars and types of earmarks (i.e., general capacity-building versus specialized grants) across colleges and universities, between White-serving institutions and minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and among MSIs. Based on our analysis, Congress favored a racially reproductive funding portfolio, driven by smaller and more restrictive allocations, not fewer earmarks. However, the distribution of earmarks among MSIs defied normed expectations, as Congress did not privilege whiter, more prestigious MSIs, signaling the potential of pork-barrel politics for racially reparative work.","PeriodicalId":31132,"journal":{"name":"Aera Open","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Racialized Patterns in the Distribution of Congressional Pork: Implications for Postsecondary Equity and Organizational Transformation\",\"authors\":\"Heather McCambly, Stephanie Aguilar-Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/23328584241245973\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Troubled by the inequities in competitive grantmaking, we use critical quantitative methods to analyze the FY2023 federal academic earmarks as a potential mechanism for racialized change work. Specifically, we ask: To what extent does Congress distribute academic earmarks in ways that reinforce or weaken the racialized stratification of resources across organizations in the field? Accordingly, we identify distribution patterns of academic earmarks, considering the allocation of dollars and types of earmarks (i.e., general capacity-building versus specialized grants) across colleges and universities, between White-serving institutions and minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and among MSIs. Based on our analysis, Congress favored a racially reproductive funding portfolio, driven by smaller and more restrictive allocations, not fewer earmarks. However, the distribution of earmarks among MSIs defied normed expectations, as Congress did not privilege whiter, more prestigious MSIs, signaling the potential of pork-barrel politics for racially reparative work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31132,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Aera Open\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Aera Open\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241245973\",\"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}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aera Open","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584241245973","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

摘要

我们对竞争性拨款中的不平等现象感到不安,因此我们使用关键的定量方法来分析 2023 财年联邦学术专项拨款,将其作为种族化变革工作的潜在机制。具体来说,我们要问:国会分配学术专项资金的方式在多大程度上加强或削弱了该领域各组织资源的种族分层?因此,我们确定了学术专项资金的分配模式,考虑了资金的分配和专项资金的类型(即一般能力建设与专项拨款)在高校之间、在为白人服务的机构与为少数族裔服务的机构(MSIs)之间以及在MSIs之间的分配情况。根据我们的分析,国会倾向于种族繁殖的资金组合,其驱动力是更小和更严格的拨款,而不是更少的专项拨款。然而,指定用途资金在少数族裔服务机构中的分配违背了常规预期,因为国会并没有偏向于白人较多、声望较高的少数族裔服务机构,这表明猪肉桶政治在种族补偿工作中的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Racialized Patterns in the Distribution of Congressional Pork: Implications for Postsecondary Equity and Organizational Transformation
Troubled by the inequities in competitive grantmaking, we use critical quantitative methods to analyze the FY2023 federal academic earmarks as a potential mechanism for racialized change work. Specifically, we ask: To what extent does Congress distribute academic earmarks in ways that reinforce or weaken the racialized stratification of resources across organizations in the field? Accordingly, we identify distribution patterns of academic earmarks, considering the allocation of dollars and types of earmarks (i.e., general capacity-building versus specialized grants) across colleges and universities, between White-serving institutions and minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and among MSIs. Based on our analysis, Congress favored a racially reproductive funding portfolio, driven by smaller and more restrictive allocations, not fewer earmarks. However, the distribution of earmarks among MSIs defied normed expectations, as Congress did not privilege whiter, more prestigious MSIs, signaling the potential of pork-barrel politics for racially reparative work.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Aera Open
Aera Open EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
7.10%
发文量
60
审稿时长
15 weeks
×
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