Ohio forged, globally minded
The Ohio State University
We are Ohio State, a dynamic community where opportunity thrives. Through our far-reaching network of diverse resources and perspectives, we foster the incisive thinking, spirit of collaboration, and depth of character you need to transform yourself and your world.  
Help | BuckeyeLink | Map | Find People | Webmail
open close

Bibliographical Guide to Structural Racialization, Implicit Bias, and Systems Thinking

Bibliographical Guide to Structural Racialization, Implicit Bias, and Systems Thinking
2011Implicit BiasOpportunity Communities

Download or View The Full Report

Structural Racialization

Alexander, Michelle. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: New Press, 2010.

Bertrand, Marianne and Sendhil Mullainathan. “Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.” American Economic Review 94 (2004):991-1013.

Abstract by author: We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African-American- or White-sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African-American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market.

Conley, Dalton. Being Black, Living in the Red: Race, Wealth, and Social Policy in America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.

Guinier, Lani and Gerald Torres. The Miner’s Canary: Enlisting Race, Resisting Power, Transforming Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002.

Kaufman, Robert. “Assessing Alternative Perspectives on Race and Sex Employment Segregation.” American Sociological Review 67 (2002): 547-72.

Abstract by author: Four major explanations for employment segregation–skill deficits, worker preferences, economic and organizational structure, and stereotyping/queuing–are assessed using a diverse and overlapping set of predictors: general skills and training, product market structure, race- and sex-typed tasks and conditions, desirable employment and growth rates, and links to other labor market actors. A two-stage measurement and analytic strategy controls for relevant worker-level factors. Data from the 1990 census PUMs are analyzed to measure the employment segregation of black women, black men, and white women in relation to white men across 1,917 labor market positions, net of human capital, family structure, geographic residence and labor supply. Archival data provide measures of variables characterizing labor market positions. Stereotyping and queuing explanations are broadly consistent with nearly all results, while a worker preference approach applies to somewhat fewer predictors and is largely but not wholly compatible with their effects. A skill deficits explanation applies to, and is supported by, a narrow set of findings, while the economic and organizational structure explanations are restricted in their relevance and receive limited support.