Research Question
Dr. Wendy Roth has conducted a study to learn about the variety in conceptualization of race between four populations: Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and Dominican and Puerto Rican migrants in New York. In particular, Roth is interested in the matter of how “transnational connections” are upheld when living as a Latino or Hispanic migrant in the United States in addition to understanding the perception of race in The Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico for those who are living in these countries and have never lived or spent a substantial amount of time outside of these borders. Roth has provided a clear research question: “how does immigration affect the way people think about race and classify themselves and others?” (p. 4).
Argument
This study argues that racial categorization differs amongst various cultures around the world. Roth shares three points in which she sought to learn more in-depth. She believes there are various ways of classifying race within cultures, exposure to new culture (i.e. immigration) can cause a shift or additional view on race categorization, and immigration itself forms a greater understanding of race whether individuals live in the new society or not. Overall, the way in which an individual views race and its organization heavily influences the way in which they view the world, interact with others, self-identify, and understand privilege.
Design & Methodology
For this comparative study, two qualitative methods were used to conduct this research. First, qualitative interviews were used to gain responses from 120 first-generation Dominican and Puerto Rican migrants in New York and in their home country (Santo Domingo, The Dominican Republic and San Juan, Puerto Rico). These in-person interviews were conducted in Spanish by a research assistant from the ethnic group of the respondent in the setting of the respondent’s home, office, or public space. In these sessions, respondents were asked to describe their approach to racial classification from a set of portraits of individuals from these two Latino countries through open-ended questions. Forced-choice questions were asked to test the understanding of various racial schemas. In addition to this, participant observation was performed for two and a half years in these locations. Migrants were operationalized as “old enough to have formed ideas about race in their home society before they migrated, yet who had spent sufficient time in the United States for those ideas to be influenced” (p. 30) through years lived in their home country (~14) and years lived in the U.S. (7+).
Statistically, this sample is not representative of these populations since there was a use of quota sampling to meet the operationalization of a “migrant” in this study. Respondents were gathered via referrals, flyers, cold calling, connecting with professional organizations, and more. Therefore, there was an active attempt to have a variable distribution of respondents (sex, occupation, age, skin colour, etc.) as it was assumed that this would assist in understanding the process of racial acculturation. With the aid of past studies and the UMI Dissertation Services, questions for the interview guide was created. To ensure proper English-Spanish translation, a Puerto Rican research assistant supported with this task as well as gained feedback from respondents early in the process of this study. Questions ranged from asking how respondents racially self-identify and identify others.
Main Findings
To understand how these individuals self-identify and recognize their social networks in terms of race, Roth has found three closed-ended and open-ended forms of racial classification schemas amongst the three populations studied. These include, a continuum racial schema, a nationality racial schema, and a U.S. racial schema. For those living in The Dominican Republic and Puerto Rico, the continuum model is shown to be the most prevalent. This approach to racial categorization offers a spectrum of labels from black (negro) to white (blanco) from a visual standpoint, but ultimately deciphers race based on “phenotype and social factors” (p. 19). The second mode of classification, the nationality racial schema, views ethnicity and nationality as an interchangeable term to racially categorize an individual. While Puerto Ricans shown evidence of using this schema, Dominicans showed a tendency to use a form of this, a panethnic nationality schema, in which panethnic terms such as “Latino” or “Hispanic” are used to classify individuals who are visually ambiguous in terms of race. Lastly, migrants in the U.S. used an American racial schema where race is seen as a dichotomy where even the slightest evidence of darker skin puts an individual in the “black” category. The book discusses a form of this schema called Hispanicized U.S. schema where individuals who resemble “Hispanic” features are put into its own category.
With a closer look into the data, there was a few more detailed findings of schemas across these sample groups. Migrants from both countries showed a variation in racial classification depending on class and education level. Those who were of lower class used a nationality racial schema and those who were of middle-class used a Hispanicised U.S. schema. The book states that respondents believe that the influence of higher education created a tendency to judge race based on physical and biological attributes rather than cultural attributes. Another noteworthy finding from this study was the function of the U.S. racial schema in Dominicans’ and Puerto Ricans’ home countries. Puerto Rican individuals were much more likely to use this schema due to the historical influences of political colonialism in this country. Since Puerto Rico and the U.S. has a much stronger political tie, there are influences of American norms from comparative institutions (i.e. higher education). Dominicans reported awareness of this schema, but did not use it in their daily lives because “they have not constructed the same symbolic boundaries toward Americans” (p. 182). Therefore, socio-economic status and political standing influences the way in which these individuals conceptualize race.
Ultimately, the process in which individuals comprehend and decipher race is based on many factors. Like the basis of structural functionalism, many institutions such as education, family, politics, and the economy, shape the way in which we view the world and identify the people around us. There was a major emphasis on the influence of social networks in this study.
Reflection
Multiple qualitative research methods (interviews and observations) have been used, but I wonder about the exact process of how Dr. Roth has analyzed this data concurrently. Comparing direct responses with visual observations is difficult to analyze because there is a loss of uniformity in the data and an inaccuracy in schemas since there is room for error in classifying race with a stranger (researcher) versus with their community. I also wonder about the use of photographs when asking about how respondents classify each portrait’s race. As respondents have commonly stated, figuring out race goes beyond appearance. Would showing pictures allow the researcher to fully understand how the respondents classify race? This means that this study is only appropriate for understanding the U.S. racial schema and parts of the continuum racial schema. I also question the use of internally stratifying occupation in this study. In comparison to other studies I’ve read, I believe there is a more direct relationship between education level and beliefs of identity (i.e. race). In general, I question the accuracy of this study since the interviews were conducted in Spanish. I believe there is a room for error since there is a chance that understanding the conceptualization of race amongst these samples could be lost in translation.