批判种族理论的标签力:来自全国调查实验的证据

IF 3.3 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Andrew Myers, Crista Urena Hernandez
{"title":"批判种族理论的标签力:来自全国调查实验的证据","authors":"Andrew Myers, Crista Urena Hernandez","doi":"10.1177/00380407251327971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Discussions about educational content on race and racism have captured widespread public and political attention, with much of this debate falling under the umbrella of critical race theory (CRT). Despite this attention, we currently do not know whether it is the content in these lessons or the CRT label that is influencing opinion on this issue. Are critics of CRT reacting to the content that CRT encapsulates? Or does the phrase “CRT” trigger partisan beliefs that are unrelated or only weakly tied to the central claims CRT advances? We use original data from two experiments in national surveys (N = 1,983) to answer these questions. In the first experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to one of three vignette conditions that described a local high school board’s decision to ban a lesson by either (1) describing the content of the lesson, (2) labeling the lesson as CRT, or (3) both describing and labeling the lesson. In the second experiment, a subset of respondents was assigned to conditions where the school board approved the lesson rather than banning it. Results indicate that labeling a lesson as CRT leads to opposition—either agreeing with its ban or disagreeing with its approval—regardless of whether a description of the lesson is included. Subgroup analyses are suggestive of the idea that although baseline levels of support varied, this label impacts individuals across a wide array of sociodemographic and political groups.","PeriodicalId":51398,"journal":{"name":"Sociology of Education","volume":"254 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Labeling Power of Critical Race Theory: Evidence from a National Survey Experiment\",\"authors\":\"Andrew Myers, Crista Urena Hernandez\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00380407251327971\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Discussions about educational content on race and racism have captured widespread public and political attention, with much of this debate falling under the umbrella of critical race theory (CRT). Despite this attention, we currently do not know whether it is the content in these lessons or the CRT label that is influencing opinion on this issue. Are critics of CRT reacting to the content that CRT encapsulates? Or does the phrase “CRT” trigger partisan beliefs that are unrelated or only weakly tied to the central claims CRT advances? We use original data from two experiments in national surveys (N = 1,983) to answer these questions. In the first experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to one of three vignette conditions that described a local high school board’s decision to ban a lesson by either (1) describing the content of the lesson, (2) labeling the lesson as CRT, or (3) both describing and labeling the lesson. In the second experiment, a subset of respondents was assigned to conditions where the school board approved the lesson rather than banning it. Results indicate that labeling a lesson as CRT leads to opposition—either agreeing with its ban or disagreeing with its approval—regardless of whether a description of the lesson is included. Subgroup analyses are suggestive of the idea that although baseline levels of support varied, this label impacts individuals across a wide array of sociodemographic and political groups.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51398,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Sociology of Education\",\"volume\":\"254 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Sociology of Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407251327971\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"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":"Sociology of Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00380407251327971","RegionNum":1,"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

关于种族和种族主义教育内容的讨论已经引起了广泛的公众和政治关注,其中许多辩论都属于批判种族理论(CRT)的范畴。尽管如此,我们目前还不知道是这些课程的内容还是CRT标签影响了人们对这个问题的看法。CRT的批评者是在对CRT封装的内容作出反应吗?还是“CRT”一词引发了与CRT提出的核心主张无关或仅微弱相关的党派信仰?我们使用来自全国调查(N = 1983)的两个实验的原始数据来回答这些问题。在第一个实验中,受访者被随机分配到三个小插图条件中的一个,这些小插图条件描述了当地高中董事会决定禁止一节课,其中:(1)描述课程的内容,(2)将课程标记为CRT,或(3)同时描述和标记课程。在第二个实验中,一部分受访者被分配到学校董事会批准而不是禁止这门课的情况下。结果表明,将一节课标记为CRT会导致反对——要么同意禁止,要么不同意批准——无论是否包括对这节课的描述。亚组分析表明,尽管基线支持水平各不相同,但这一标签影响了广泛的社会人口统计学和政治群体中的个人。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Labeling Power of Critical Race Theory: Evidence from a National Survey Experiment
Discussions about educational content on race and racism have captured widespread public and political attention, with much of this debate falling under the umbrella of critical race theory (CRT). Despite this attention, we currently do not know whether it is the content in these lessons or the CRT label that is influencing opinion on this issue. Are critics of CRT reacting to the content that CRT encapsulates? Or does the phrase “CRT” trigger partisan beliefs that are unrelated or only weakly tied to the central claims CRT advances? We use original data from two experiments in national surveys (N = 1,983) to answer these questions. In the first experiment, respondents were randomly assigned to one of three vignette conditions that described a local high school board’s decision to ban a lesson by either (1) describing the content of the lesson, (2) labeling the lesson as CRT, or (3) both describing and labeling the lesson. In the second experiment, a subset of respondents was assigned to conditions where the school board approved the lesson rather than banning it. Results indicate that labeling a lesson as CRT leads to opposition—either agreeing with its ban or disagreeing with its approval—regardless of whether a description of the lesson is included. Subgroup analyses are suggestive of the idea that although baseline levels of support varied, this label impacts individuals across a wide array of sociodemographic and political groups.
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
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.10%
发文量
15
期刊介绍: Sociology of Education (SOE) provides a forum for studies in the sociology of education and human social development. SOE publishes research that examines how social institutions and individuals’ experiences within these institutions affect educational processes and social development. Such research may span various levels of analysis, ranging from the individual to the structure of relations among social and educational institutions. In an increasingly complex society, important educational issues arise throughout the life cycle.
×
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