Study on how parents identify their mixed kids
JC
The University of Missouri-Columbia did a study on how parents identify their mixed children. It uses all sorts of determinants: economics, what race the father is, geographic location, etc.
Honestly, I think I went a little wall-eyed halfway through this article. It all sounded like bull to me. OK fine, the researcher did look at 17,219 kindergarteners, but I still think this is a dumb study. I mean, what does it really tell us beyond the fact that parents have opinions on who they want their children to be? And yes, there are trends, but no conclusions were really drawn from this info. It just seemed kind of random to me, and leaves you to make your own assumptions about the results.
I think, sure, it’s interesting to see how parents would identify their own children, but I guess I would want to hear more about the reasons and the rationale behind all of it.
I think I went wall-eyed at this part:
Asian and white girls are more likely to be identified as Asian, but Asian and white girls with Asian fathers are more likely than the Hispanic and white or black and white children to be identified as multiracial. These children that live in the western U.S. are most likely to be characterized as multiracial and less likely to be identified as white. In addition, higher family socioeconomic status is associated with labeling Asian and white children as multiracial.
Show of hands — who else just went wall-eyed with me? 
This study would have been more interesting had the parents been asked other questions about why they classified their children the way they did (is it because the child has more connection to one of her cultures? does she physically resemble one over the other? is the parent trying to make an effort to create more opportunities for the child by identifying her as her “more privileged” ethnicity? is the parent making an effort to instill a sense of pride in one specific cultural identity? or is the parent aware that being “mixed” is a healthy choice for the child?). It seems like having parents answer these questions and seeing the trends would be where we would actually learn something about behaviors around identification. It would also be interesting to see how kids identify themselves in relation to what their parents say. Believe me, they are thinking about identity, even in kindergarten…
Disclaimer: (since I am really complaining about this) Usually I am a fan of research, but I just don’t think this was an important study — or it didn’t do all that it could have done.
And finally, it annoys me that even though the researcher recognizes this fact…
The amount of variation in the racial identification of these very young mixed-race children, given historical treatments of racial classification in the United States is truly astonishing,” Brunsma said. “The cultural contours of race in America are changing.”
…he still chooses to make generalizations. The truth is that there IS a lot of variation. Do we have to classify the way that people classify??? 
And if we must, can I start a Classification Watch on MMW? 
Just kidding. Kind of.
Ben wrote:
“I think, sure, it’s interesting to see how parents would identify their own children, but I guess I would want to hear more about the reasons and the rationale behind all of it.”
You really nailed it there, Jen. I don’t see how any of these data are really that helpful, enlightenining, or relevant, and I’d much rather read a few dozen interviews. Parents of multiracial children could use the reasons and rationale these other parents provide to inform their own discussion and decision on how to identify their child (before s/he can self-identify, of course.) And what a great resource that would be for the ND workshops!
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 7:42 am ¶
Rachel S wrote:
Let me defend the author, he is a friend of mine after all. LOL!! First of all he is a co-author on a book that does what you propose. Here is the book title–”Beyond Black Biracial Identity in America.” In the book they argue that racial identities of people who have a Black parent and a White parent are diverse and complex. They do not interview parents, but they interview (biracial) people themselves. (I really shouldn’t use the term biracial given the findings of the book.)
Second, the write up of the study is terrible. It’s just lists one finding after another, rather summing the key findings. So whoever released this needs to get some writing lessons.
Third, the reason he is generalizing– is because the study is based on a random sample survey. The upside of random sample surveys is that we can make some general statements about groups–hence the terms more likely or less likely. The downside of random sample surveys is that they are almost always geared toward the “dominant population.” In other words, if you are studying interracial families, relationships, or people, they do not have any of the questions you mentioned because the studies are looking at basic demographic characteristics that can fit neatly into survey boxes (The larger data set he is using was probably about health or education). The researcher didn’t gather the data himself; he looked at this random sample survey and tried to do the best he could do. That is a big limitation with sociology, demography, and almost all of the random sample surveys. If we want to know about identity as a process, surveys are completely useless, but if we want to know if biracial people are more likely to identify as biracial they live in the southeast, Midwest, etc, then this is the only type of data that can answer those questions.
Just a few points…..I know it’s much more about methodology, but it is a huge problem that sociologists looking at IR families and people face.
Posted 16 Feb 2006 at 8:43 pm ¶
Kiaria W wrote:
Well i am a mixed child myself (16) and i find that this study is only looking at the whole “MIXED” thing in by the eyes of someone who is not mixed, yes being mixed is what is trendy right now, but i think that when a person falls in love they are not looking for someone to help make childern that are in style. therefore i do not feel that this is not a subject that needs to be studied
Posted 05 Apr 2006 at 1:28 pm ¶
James Landrith wrote:
Yeah, Jen I feel your pain. I wasn’t too fond of the methodology either.
It started to resemble junk science in the worst way once the conclusions began to surface.
Posted 25 Sep 2006 at 2:46 pm ¶