So What “ Should ” We Use? Evaluating the Impact of Five Racial Measures on Markers of Social Inequality
Abstract
In recent years, researchers have increasingly noted the malleability of racial boundaries across time, context, and life course. Although this research has advanced our knowledge of the maintenance and perceptions of racial groups, it has introduced a new question: If we are attempting to best capture the actual variation in racial inequality, how should we operationalize race? Using the 2006 wave of the Portraits of American Life Study, a national-level, in-home survey with extensive race measures and oversamples of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, the authors identify five ways that race can be and to varying degrees is operationalized: census, combined race/ethnic, pentagon, triracial, and skin tone measures. Using the Vuong non-nested model tests, the authors compare the effectiveness of these five measurements in predicting three measures of social inequality: household income, education, and self-rated health. The authors find that overall, Hollinger’s ethnoracial pentagon is best able to capture existing inequality. Thus, for scholars attempting to understand variation in contemporary racial inequality, this research suggests that scholars should use five monoracial categories: White, Black, Hispanic, Native American and Asian.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the US, a five-fold measure of self-identified race explains more variation in measures of inequality in income, housing, and health.
“Howell and Emerson find that a five-fold measure of self-identified race explains more variation in measures of inequality in income, housing, and health in the US [56].”
From Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness (2020) · cites this paper as [56]
Howell and Emerson found that each of five different operationalizations of race told a different story in predicting different measures of social inequality.
“For example, Howell and Emerson compare the effectiveness of five different operationalizations of race in predicting different measures of social inequality. The study found each operationalization told a different story, pointing to the importance of critically evaluating racial categories and measurement schemes, as well as the importance of articulating these decisions in the communication of”
From Towards a critical race methodology in algorithmic fairness (2020) · cites this paper as [56]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 41
- Authors
- Howell, J., & Emerson, M. O.
- Affiliations
- Rice University (US)
- North Park University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Howell, Junia
- Venue
- Sociology of Race and Ethnicity
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2016-06-21
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 14-30
- ISSN
- 2332-6492 (ISSN-L)
- 2332-6506
- OpenAlex
- W2397974162
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 8.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Sociology of Race and Ethnicity (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
- Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
- Keywords
- racial classification, racial inequality, racial boundaries, skin tone, household income, educational attainment, self-rated health
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review