THE RESEARCH AGENDA ON ISSUES SURROUNDING THE DEFINITION OF RACIAL AND

ETHNIC CATEGORIES

Clyde Tucker, Bureau of Labor Statistics and Roderick Harrison, Bureau of the Census

Clyde Tucker, 2 Massachusetts Ave., NE, Rm. 4925, Washington, DC 20212

Key Words: Civil Rights, Reapportionment,

Survey Design

I. Introduction

A. Charge to the Research Working Group

 On June 9, 1994, the Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) published a notice in the Federal

Register announcing the review of OMB Statistical

Policy Directive No. 15, Race and Ethnic Standards

for Federal Statistics and Administrative Reporting. 

In March 1994, an interagency committee was formed

to assist OMB in various phases of the review process

and to evaluate the impact of potential changes on the

Federal agencies that are producers and users of racial

and ethnic data. That committee appointed a Research

Working Group of substantive and methodological

experts to prepare an agenda which would address

research questions about the possible effects on the

standards resulting from changes suggested in the

public comment. This report presents that agenda.

 In developing the research agenda, the Working

Group had the following goals:

• review and evaluate the potential research

issues associated with the suggested changes

identified in the June 1994 Federal Register

notice and in subsequent public comment;

• prioritize those issues;

• draft a research agenda that would address

the issues in the order of their importance;

• identify and monitor research opportunities

that could provide information by 1997 for

the OMB decision concerning changes, if

any, to Directive No. 15; and 

• assist the interagency committee in making

recommendations about these changes.

B. Statement of principles

 In developing the research agenda, the Research

Working Group was guided by a set of principles

derived from those published in the June 1994 Federal

Register notice. The Research Working Group

acknowledges that these principles can be in conflict at

times, and that these conflicts will have to be

addressed in policy recommendations. The principles

which the Research Working Group considered

particularly relevant to its work are:

1. The Directive should allow for selfidentification as much as possible, but also

should minimize respondent burden.

2. The Directive should provide a means for

making reliable, valid, and meaningful

population estimates.

3. The Directive should meet legislative and

program needs.

4. It must be possible to implement the Directive

throughout the Federal statistical system; that

is, in the 2000 census; in surveys collecting

demographic information; and in

administrative records, including those using

observer identification.

C. Overview of the report

 This report discusses the five central research issues

identified by the Research Working Group and the

questions associated with these issues. For purposes of

discussion, the research questions are divided into

those that cut across several central issues, described

as shared, versus those that are unique to a particular

central research issue. Both shared and unique

questions are further subdivided in this discussion as

either conceptual or operational in nature. The shared

questions are of highest priority, because they will

have the greatest impact. These questions often

cannot be answered without, in the process, answering

some of the issue-specific questions. In developing the

research agenda, the Research Working Group gave

equal weight to answering both the conceptual and

operational questions that must be answered before

any changes to Directive 15 can be entertained.

 Section II identifies and provides some background

on the five issues. Sections III and IV deal with the
shared conceptual and operational issues, respectively.

 Section V focuses on the questions that are more

issue-specific in nature. Section VI outlines the

possible research opportunities over the next few years

for answering the questions that have been raised. 

The last section discusses the criteria to be used in

evaluating the results from any research that is

conducted. It should be noted that agency staff and

funding for research and testing are very limited, so it

was necessary to develop plans within those resource

constraints.

II. Central Research Issues

A. Multiracial category

 Research is needed on the possible effects of

including a multiracial response option or category in

data collections asking persons to identify their race

and ethnic origin. This issue has emerged and grown

in importance for some respondents as the U.S.

population has become more racially diverse. Between

the 1980 and 1990 decennial censuses, the rate of

population increase for Blacks (13 percent), American

Indians, Eskimos, and Aleuts (38 percent), and Asian

and Pacific Islanders (108 Percent) all exceeded the

rate of increase for Whites (6 percent).1

 This increase

in diversity has been accompanied by the growth of

interracial marriages and, with that, the increasing

number of interracial children. The number of

interracial marriages involving at least one white

partner in 1960 was approximately 150,000. By 1970,

the number of such marriages had more than doubled

to over 320,000; in 1980 and 1990, the number totaled

about 1.1 million. In addition, in 1970 the number of

children living in families in which one parent was

White and the other was not (Black, American Indian,

Asian or Pacific Islander) was approximately 400,000.

 By the 1980 census, that number had increased to

570,000; and by the 1990 census, to 1.5 million.2

 Directive No. 15 says that persons of mixed racial

and ethnic origins should use the single category

which most closely reflects the individual's recognition

in his or her community. A growing, but still

relatively small, proportion of the racially mixed U.S.

population may not self-identify with a single race. 

Some of these persons feel the current data collection

categories force them to deny one of their parents. For

such persons, this forced identification with a single

broad population group conflicts with the selfidentification principle.

B. Combining questions on race and Hispanic

origin

 There are several reasons to conduct research on the

issue of using a combined race/Hispanic ethnicity

question instead of separate questions on race and

Hispanic ethnicity. Current practice across Federal

agencies treat Hispanic origin as a racial designation

for administrative purposes. Many Federal agencies

have been using the combined format permitted by

Directive No. 15 for the collection and presentation of

racial and ethnic data. As a result historical data

series have been developed based on data from the

combined format. The use of the Hispanic category in

the combined format does not provide information on

the race of those selecting it. As a result, the

combined format makes it impossible to distribute

persons of Hispanic ethnicity by race and, therefore,

reduces the utility of the four racial categories by

excluding from them persons who would otherwise be

included. The two question option allows for this

separation. Thus, the two formats currently permitted

by Directive No. 15 for collecting racial and ethnic

data do not provide comparable data.

 This is a complicated issue because some

respondents see race and ethnicity as overlapping or

interchangeable concepts, while others think ethnicity

encompasses cultural heritage and race does not. 

Cognitive research has shown that some Hispanics,

especially the foreign born, expect to see a single

category for Hispanics. Both the high percentage of

Hispanics selecting "Other race" (over 40 percent) in

the 1990 census and the relatively high nonresponse

rate to the Hispanic origin item in the 1990 census

(about 10 percent) suggest that the questions may not

be operating as intended. 

C. Concepts of race/ethnicity/ancestry

 Research is needed on the possibility of combining

the concepts of race, ethnicity, and ancestry in Federal

data collections. Throughout the course of U.S.

history, information on these concepts has served

diverse and evolving purposes. The concept of

ancestry and procedures for the collection of

information on it have varied substantially. Where the

census and other surveys have selected generic or

specific ancestral categories, these have been based on

changing political and policy needs. Only in recent

years has cognitive research been used to gain a better

understanding of the popular conceptions of these

terms.
 Although Directive No. 15 was formulated to

standardize the collection and presentation of racial

and ethnic information across Federal agencies, it does

not attempt to define and distinguish between the

terms "race" and "ethnicity." The Directive

acknowledges that there is no anthropological or other

scientific bases for its racial and ethnic categories,

which are social and political constructs for

identifying the Nation's principal population groups. 

While Federal agencies have attempted to follow the

Directive's criteria, they have not been entirely

consistent in their use of either generic or specific

terminology.3

 In addition, studies by Bureau of the

Census staff and other researchers indicate diverse and

uncertain understanding among respondents about

distinctions among the terms "race," "ethnicity," and

"ancestry." For example, respondents may use diverse

labels for their ancestry and may provide different

labels to describe their identity depending on the

situation (e.g., on the 2000 census form versus an

administrative record form).

 Since some persons cannot distinguish in their

minds between the concepts of race and ethnicity, one

proposed solution, to be tested through additional

research, is to ask census and other survey respondents

about a single concept; for example, "ethnicity" (or

"race/ethnicity") corresponding to self-perceived

membership in or identification with population

groups defined by cultural heritage, language, physical

appearance, behavior, or other characteristics. In

choosing survey questions and response options, it also

must be recognized that ethnic groups evolve and may

modify their relative socioeconomic position and other

characteristics, including their ethnic group names,

and that individuals may represent their affiliation

with groups differently across settings and may alter

their perceived ethnic membership over time.

 Thus, research also is needed to test the efficacy of

giving respondents an open-ended question (i.e.,

without a fixed set of predetermined response options)

and asking them to write in the terms they believe best

describe their ethnic/racial background. This proposal

recognizes (1) the general awareness that selfidentification is a critical determinant of racial/ethnic

classification; (2) the fact that current Federal

categories have created single aggregations (White,

Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American

Indian or Alaska Native) from heterogeneous and

highly diverse populations; and (3) evidence that one

to two percent of census respondents use their own

terminology when allowed. Unfortunately, an openended question will be costly to code, subject to high

non-response and poor reliability, and difficult to use

in administrative recordkeeping.

D. Terminology

 Additional research is needed on the issue of

replacing or modifying current terminology for some

of the racial and ethnic categories. Specifically,

research should help to inform the decisions on

whether the names of the Black, Hispanic, or

American Indian racial/ethnic categories should be

replaced by or, at least, expanded to include new

terms, such as African American, Latino/Latina, and

Native American.

E. New classifications

 Research is needed on the issue of developing new

racial or ethnic categories for specific population

groups in the United States. Among suggested new

classifications are: Native Hawaiians; Indigenous

Pacific Islanders; Arab/Middle Eastern; European

Ancestry/Origin; and distinct populations, such as

Cape Verdeans and Creoles. Surrounding this issue

are myriad decisions, such as choosing terms

acceptable to nonmembers as well as members of a

group; handling persons of mixed origin; the need for

adhering to the accepted principle of selfidentification; and determining in what context, if any,

additional proof of group membership is needed. Also

involved are questions of the criteria for determining

under served populations and the social concern that

the use of many separate categories might have a

divisive effect. 

III. Shared Conceptual Research Questions

A. Identification of stakeholder positions

 Definitions of racial and ethnic categories impact

the ongoing data collection activities of governmental

agencies at all levels -- Federal, State, and local. The

categories, and any changes in them, also affect the

data needs and/or collection procedures of other

stakeholders, including researchers and civil rights or

multiracial advocacy organizations.

 Efforts are needed to identify all stakeholders; for

example, entities interested in the availability, use, and

appropriate data collection methods for racial and

ethnic data. Research also should help to determine

whether those stakeholders' requirements are best met

through the present classification as set forth in

Directive No. 15, or whether accommodation of all

uses may require separate but related classification

systems for the collection and dissemination of, for
example, general demographic data versus data for

civil rights monitoring and enforcement.

 The uses of racial or ethnic data at all governmental

levels need to be described. Agencies should specify

their data needs and uses. For Federal agencies, the

cost associated with a major change in racial or ethnic

categories needs to be quantified. These costs are both

monetary and programmatic. Similarly, the costs to

other major providers and users of data, such as the

business and academic communities, should also be

considered.

B. The meaning and use of terms

 Relevant literature on the concepts of race,

ethnicity, and ancestry should be reviewed and

evaluated for findings and conclusions upon which

further research can build. Gaps requiring additional

research should be identified. Respondents'

understanding of the concepts used in measuring race,

ethnicity, and ancestry needs to be determined. Do

respondents understand these terms to mean the same

thing? What thought processes are used when

distinguishing among these concepts?

 The terms "race" and "ethnicity" sometimes are

used interchangeably. There is often disagreement

over the meaning and use of these terms among

academics and the public. In some daily and practical

applications, for instance, Hispanic is considered a

"race". Crews and Bindon4

 suggest that race is a

sociological construct that is poorly correlated with

any measurable biological or cultural phenomenon

other than the amount of melanin in an individual's

skin. Ethnicity, they suggest, is a sociocultural

construct that is often, if not always, coextensive with

discernible features of a group of individuals. 

According to Rodriguez, this view of ethnicity is

consistent with the view of race for many Latinos: 

"For many Latinos race is as much a cultural as it is a

physical view of individuals".5

 Crews and Bindon cite

several human biologists who have advocated

vigorously for the use of "ethnic group" instead of

"race" to question hypotheses about the genetic and

cultural constituency of the group.6

 Perhaps more importantly, especially in a selfidentification context, is understanding how

respondents use these terms. Rodriguez observes that,

in Latin America, there is a greater number of racial

terms for "intermediate" categories; in the United

States, on the other hand, the emphasis has been on

constructing terms for "pure" races such as "black"

and "white," and not on terms for identifying biracial

or multiracial persons.7

 Of 52 Hispanics interviewed,

who identified themselves racially as "other" in the

1980 Census, 63.5 percent said they answered "other"

because of cultural background, socialization, national

origin, family roots, or political perspective. Only

11.5 percent said they were "other" because they were

of mixed race.8

 This finding differs from the

statement made by the National Council of La Raza

during their presentation at the Committee on

National Statistics' workshop: "For many Hispanic

subgroups, particularly those from Central and South

America and the Caribbean, choosing one race

category is problematic since they self-identify

principally by subgroup (i.e., ethnicity) and descent

from multiracial origins".9

 Clearly, large-scale studies

will be needed to capture all of this diversity and to

determine how it will affect data collection.

 Although the idea of combining race and Hispanic

origin was proposed by one of the advisory committees

for the 1990 Census, it was rejected as a result of

opposition from the Hispanic community.10 The

format proposed would have made "Hispanic" a race. 

In its comments on the June 1994 Federal Register

notice, the National Council of La Raza said it would

be inclined to support the combination of race and

Hispanic origin questions into a question re-labeled

"race/ethnicity," if testing indicates that such a

question solicits a greater and more accurate response

rate compared to the 1990 census.11

C. Respondent understanding of the task of selfidentification

 Individuals identify their race, ethnicity, or ancestry

in their own way; they do not always select

membership in a single group exclusively since they

often view themselves in terms of a multiplicity of

memberships. While some center their core identity

on race, others base it on language, national origin, or

religion. Because some individuals and groups feel

that certain classification systems force them into

categories in which they do not belong, selfidentification has been adopted as one of the principles

for the classification of race and ethnicity.

 Research is needed to determine the most

appropriate way of eliciting information on

respondents' thought processes when asked questions

about their race and ethnicity. This type of

information will help ensure that any new question

formats will be easily understood. For example, in

deciding whether a multiracial category should be part

of the classification system, it is helpful to know what

thought processes respondents use when provided with

a multiracial response option in a survey or census.
 Research on respondent understanding of the task of

self-identification should yield information on which

identifier, whether race, language, etc., is the most

relevant for the principal population groups in

question. Cognitive research also should help

determine the extent to which persons of mixed racial

heritage will identify in a separate multiracial

category. In addition, research should examine the

duality of race and Hispanic ethnicity perceptions. 

Studies should compare how persons see themselves

versus how they are seen. More information also is

needed on how Hispanics understand or view race. 

Finally, the respondent's perception of burden in the

task of self-identification should be investigated.

D. Effects on current counts and historical trends

 Research should examine the potential effects of any

proposed changes on race reporting and data quality,

including effects on the sizes of the current racial

groups. For example, including Hispanic origin as a

racial category should greatly reduce the number of

Hispanics reporting in the "other" category of the race

item in the decennial census. Changes in Hispanic

counts can be expected if Hispanic were included as a

race, but it is unclear how dramatic those changes

would be. An analytical study showed that the

distribution of socioeconomic status by race changed

slightly when Hispanics were moved from the race

categories; however, the counts for the racial groups

did change. These changes can be fairly dramatic at

the local level, especially in certain parts of the

country.12

 It is equally important to assess the effects of

proposed changes on historical continuity of data

series. The consolidation of race and ethnicity or the

inclusion of a multiracial category would interrupt the

perceived continuity of the categories used to collect

data on race and ethnicity in recent decades. However,

continuity is already imperfect (due to changes in

questions, names of categories, and response options)

and has been compromised by Hispanic nonresponse

to the race question. Research may indicate that

validity might be enhanced at the cost of a continuity

that may be more apparent than real.

E. Effects on current and proposed policies

 Research should consider the effects of any changes

such as the addition of new categories or the

expansion of current categories on existing and

proposed policies. Issues related to using racial and

ethnic data for civil rights monitoring and

enforcement should be identified. In the

administrative records context, some Federal agencies

may be restricted to using the standardized categories.

Other agencies may need to use more specific

subcategories, such as in the case of health agencies

that would prefer more detailed information on race

and ethnicity for purposes of medical research.

 Research on the potential policy impacts of

proposed changes must explore the use of data by

Federal agencies, State and local governments, the

business community, academic institutions, and other

groups in the population. How will government

agencies use data from persons who identify as

"multiracial" or "other race" in the administration of

programs? What is the experience of

academic/educational institutions in the use of these

terms, especially in those states that have enacted laws

mandating these changes to accommodate persons

identifying as "multiracial"? How will

reapportionment be affected if new categories are

added?

IV. Shared Operational Research Questions

A. Impact of changes on data collection procedures

 Changes in racial or ethnic categories and

terminology may necessitate related changes in data

collection procedures such as instructions, question

formats, response options, modes of collection, and

interviewer training. Research should examine

methods of providing specific instructions for

answering questions including a multiracial category,

a combined race/Hispanic ethnicity question, or any

other options under consideration. Also, the effects of

providing instructions and/or explanations for the data

collection as a whole should be explored with a view to

fostering respondents' understanding for why data on

race and ethnicity are collected by the Federal

Government. In addition, research should test openversus close-ended question formats for race. Closeended questions would provide only information on

the categories that would be needed for legislative

requirements; open-ended questions would elicit more

specific racial or ethnic self-identification. Research

should also examine whether there are significant

differences in response to a single question as opposed

to a series of separate questions, and explore the

effects of question order on responses. In addition,

research should test the various options in different

types of data collection modes: telephone or in-person

interview; self report (mail questionnaire); and

administrative records. Changes in procedures will

entail costs in redesigning forms, training data
collectors, and modifying processing systems. Costs

also will be incurred in trying to achieve continuity in

historical series. The magnitude of these costs needs

to be estimated.

B. Differences between collection and

dissemination categories

 The categories used for data collection may be, and

often are, more numerous than those used in

publishing and disseminating data. Research is

needed to ascertain whether accommodation of all

stakeholder interests may require different categories

for the collection and the dissemination of data. As a

case in point, the open-ended question format invites a

large variety of responses so that guidelines must be

developed for aggregating responses into basic

population groupings. Changing response options in

close-ended questions also might lead to differences in

collection and reporting formats. Differences between

collection and dissemination categories usually require

additional editing and also may create a need for

instructions so that respondents will be informed about

how their responses will be aggregated. 

C. Providing as much continuity as possible

 Federal agencies and other data users often need

and value continuity of racial and ethnic data across

time. This is important so that changes and trends in

the social and economic conditions of groups can be

identified and monitored. Methods might therefore

have to be developed to provide for a crosswalk should

any changes be adopted so that historical data series

could be statistically adjusted.

D. Implementation strategy

 If any changes are adopted in the racial and ethnic

categories, an implementation strategy will need to be

developed not only for the Federal agencies, but also at

the state and local governmental levels, and for

business and other private sector organizations. 

Investigations of the various options as they would be

applied at the State and local level will be needed. 

Furthermore, guidelines also will be necessary for

businesses and industries required to collect and report

such data.

E. Cognitive aspects of question design

 As discussed earlier, the Research Working Group

recommends that a series of cognitive interviews be

conducted with individuals who have parents of

different races, as well as with individuals who may

identify with only one race even though they have a

mixed racial heritage. The main objective of this

cognitive research is to examine how individuals view

race and ethnicity and how they might interpret and

respond to a race question that provides a "multiracial,

specify" option. Cognitive research also should

provide guidance on question wording and on what

instructions, if any, should be included for

respondents. In addition, research on how changes in

the categories will affect observer identification will be

needed.

 Focus groups and pretesting questionnaires are two

techniques that should help us devise question

wording to elicit the correct or "accurate" response;

that is, one for which respondents and data users will

infer the same meaning as intended by the agency

conducting the survey or census. This type of

cognitive research also will help determine, where

"wrong" responses are obtained and whether the

problem is one of interpretation or of respondent

preference.

V. Research Questions Specific to Each Issue

A. Multiracial category

 1. Conceptual questions

 a. What is the history of this issue and its 

 implications for changing concepts of race and

 ethnicity?

 b. What determines whether persons of mixed 

 racial heritage identify in a separate multiracial 

 category or a single race category?

 2. Operational questions

 a. Identify and evaluate possible data processing 

 problems such as coding and reallocation of 

 multiracial write-in responses.

 b. Evaluate the use of additional questions which 

 gather more information about those choosing a 

 multiracial category, as compared to a single check

 all that apply" question.

B. Hispanic as a racial designation instead of a

separate ethnic category

 1. Conceptual questions

 a. Examine the duality of race and Hispanic 

 ethnicity perceptions--comparing how persons see

 themselves racially and how they are seen.

 

 b. What are the differences in response to a single

 race/Hispanic ethnicity question and separate
 questions by national origin and generation?

 

 c. To what extent does Hispanic ethnicity take 

 priority over other racial categories in the

 minds of respondents?

 

 2. Operational questions

 a. Examine which sub-groups to include as 

 "Hispanic". For example, should persons from 

 non-Spanish-speaking countries in Latin America

 be included? Should persons from Spanish- 

 speaking countries in the Caribbean be included? 

 What about Spanish Europeans?

 b. What is the impact of (a) a separate Hispanic 

 origin question and (b) its placement on the

 proportion of the population selecting "Other 

 Race" or "multiracial"? Although the impact of 

 question order on the proportion of the population

 selecting "Other Race" has been tested, the 

 combined impact when using a “Multiracial" 

 category was not tested.

 c. In existing surveys and administrative record 

 databases, what percentage of respondents

 have no information on Hispanic ethnicity? What

 percentage of Hispanic respondents have no 

 information on race?

 d. What percentage of administrative record 

 databases already use "Hispanic" as a racial 

 category?

 e. Can the "Other" category be eliminated through

 other changes (e.g., multiracial category, having a

 single question)?

C. Combining concepts of race, ethnicity, and

ancestry and asking open-ended questions

 1. Conceptual questions

 a. Explore what the relevant literature says about 

 the measurement of race, ethnicity, and ancestry.

 b. Determine the most appropriate way of eliciting

 relevant information on respondents' thought

 processes with respect to terminology.

 c. Determine how and to what extent people 

 distinguish among the three terms. 

 

 2. Operational questions

 a. How would we use data collected in an 

 open-ended format?

 b. Should distinct information on more than one 

 term be collected?

 c. How should conflicting information be used?

D. Terminology

 1. Conceptual questions

 a. Consult with stakeholders of relevant groups.

 b. Review the existing literature and public 

 comment on the preferred terms to use, such as 

 Negro, Black, or African American.

 c. Should new or alternative terms include a 

 combined recognition of one's race and ethnicity

 or should they be race and ethnic specific?

 d. Does preference for a particular term differ by 

 age, geography, national origin, or

 socioeconomic status?

 e. To what extent is the meaning of terms

 changing over time? Which respondents are most

 affected by this fluidity?

 

 2. Operational questions

 a. If the current names of the racial and ethnic

 categories be changed, what terms should be 

 substituted and how will these terms be decided?

 b. How might alternative terms for the same race 

 be presented?

 c. Should different terms be used in different 

 subpopulations?

E. New classifications: some conceptual questions

 1. Native Hawaiians, Indigenous Pacific Islanders

 (Guamanians, Tongans, and Samoans), U.S. Virgin

 Islanders, and the term "Native American"13

 Research should be conducted on the definitional

problems that arise in trying to create categories for

indigenous peoples. In choosing terms to use, is the

concern with what terms are preferred by members of

the advocacy/interest groups regardless of how these
terms are received by nonmembers? Or is the concern

to have terms that satisfy both?

 2. Inclusion of Native Hawaiians, Micronesians,

 Samoans, and Guamanians in a "Native American"

 group (which includes American Indians and

 Alaskan Natives)

 Is the requirement for classifying individuals in a

"Native American" group, as opposed to Asian/Pacific

Islander, that they fall in the category of "Original

peoples of acquired American lands?" On the other

hand, are definitions and distinctions needed based on

the different status of the lands; that is, States vs.

commonwealths and territories? How are these

original peoples to be identified? Will classification be

based on birthplace? Ancestry? How will one

distinguish immigrants into those lands from the

"original inhabitants"? Will those who have migrated

out of those lands and their descendants be classified

still as "original peoples"? If the land was acquired

after the United States became a nation, then does the

term "original" American apply more to the people

from those lands than to others who were in the United

States when it became a nation? Is there going to be

proof of belonging comparable to that for American

Indians to participate in certain Federal programs? 

What about persons of mixed origin?

 3. Other groups not yet identified

 What should the guiding premise be for

determining which groups to disaggregate into

separate, stand-alone categories? Is the criterion going

to be predominant groups? What is the population

threshold? Should the criterion for determining

"under served" populations be from an historical point

of view as a result of past practices that existed in the

United States? Or does it mean any group, no matter

how recent, that does not have a socioeconomic status

comparable to that of certain other groups?

VI. Possible Research Opportunities

 In addition to recommending research that should

be conducted to inform OMB decisions and the

Interagency Committee deliberations on the issues, the

Research Working Group also is charged with

identifying opportunities and vehicles for undertaking

that research.

 At this stage, a race question with a multiracial

category and a combined race and Hispanic origin

item has been tested on the May 1995 Supplement to

the Current Population Survey (CPS). The

supplement had four panels, which provided a full

initial test of questions representing these changes in a

Computer Automated Telephone Interview-Computer

Automated Personal Interview (CATI-CAPI) context:

 1. separate race and Hispanic origin questions

without a multiracial category;

 2. separate race and Hispanic origin questions with

a multiracial category;

 3. a combined race and Hispanic origin question

without a multiracial category;

 4. a combined race and Hispanic origin question

with a multiracial category.

 The Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census

Bureau jointly conducted an extensive program of

cognitive research on the draft questionnaire for the

supplement. This research was designed to provide

insights on how respondents in key population groups

would interpret and understand the items on the

questionnaire, and on how the questionnaire might be

revised to meet its objectives better.

 The Census Bureau also has identified a multiracial

category or response option (e.g., multiple responses)

as a high priority for panels on the 1996 National

Content Survey (NCS) or for a 1996 Race and

Ethnicity Targeted Test (RAETT). Such tests would

provide information on the effects of these changes in

a self-report context. The Census Bureau has partially

funded a program of cognitive research and focus

groups to (1) examine OMB issues such as a

combining race and Hispanic Origin and a combined

race, Hispanic origin, and ancestry question, and (2)

help develop question wording for these tests. It

currently is conducting cognitive research on race

questions with a multiracial category or a "check all

that apply" option. The actual content of the 1996

tests and panels will be influenced not only by

funding, but also by consultations with OMB and the

Interagency Committee for the Review of the Racial

and Ethnic Standards, and by results from the May

1995 CPS Supplement and cognitive research and

focus groups.
 The May 1995 CPS Supplement and the 1996

census tests, together with the results from the

cognitive and focus group studies and classroom

experiments, should provide a reasonably strong body

of research on a multiracial response option in

interviewer and self-report survey contexts. In

addition, these vehicles also should provide good

initial coverage of the major terminology issues, as

well as testing Hispanic as a race. The CPS

Supplement, which has a sample of about 60,000

households, asks persons who report as Black or as

Hispanic which term among several they prefer for

their group (e.g., Black, African American, Negro;

Hispanic, Spanish, Latino/a), and should provide

sufficient research on this issue. The Census Bureau's

proposed research program and the 1996 tests may

provide an opportunity to examine terminology issues

for smaller populations (e.g., Alaska Natives) and new

category issues (e.g., Native Hawaiians, Arab

Americans, Cape Verdeans). Although the CPS

Supplement does not gather information on the

conceptual differences between race, ethnicity, and

ancestry, a significant amount of cognitive research

was undertaken in this area during the developmental

stages of the Supplement. The results of this research

indicate that respondents have a difficult time defining

these concepts and distinguishing among them. 

Further research probably should take place in a

laboratory setting.

 The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS)

and the National Center for Education Statistics

(NCES) are conducting research that will provide

information on multiracial category issues in the

context of administrative records. The Office of the

Assistant Secretary of Health (OASH) and NCHS are

undertaking cognitive interviews of multiracial and of

Hispanic women that will explore how they would

furnish information about themselves and on the birth

certificates for their children. In the Spring of 1995,

the NCES and the Office for Civil Rights in the

Department of Education will be conducting a survey

of 1,000 public school principals to obtain information

on: how schools currently collect students' racial and

ethnic data; how administrative records containing

racial and ethnic data are maintained and reported;

what State laws mandate or require of school systems

with respect to collecting data on race and ethnicity;

and current issues in schools regarding racial and

ethnic categories. NCES may conduct a similar survey

of post-secondary institutions in the fall of 1995.

 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) is undertaking a project to evaluate the

accuracy of racial classification on death certificates. 

This study will survey funeral directors, and it should

provide some information about observer identification

of race and ethnicity. 

 A literature search on work related to racial

classification in the health field is being conducted by

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

HHS also is doing an inventory of HHS minority

health databases which will document data collection

problems concerning racial classification using the

current categories.

 To date, however, no research projects or vehicles

have been identified that would study any of the other

issues in administrative records contexts. Except for

the Census Bureau's proposed research program and

the 1996 tests, no research is currently planned on

classification issues relating to new categories, or on

combining questions on race, Hispanic origin, and

ancestry into a single question. The latter is one of the

priorities for the 1996 tests, but available funding may

place constraints on what issues are actually tested. 

 In summary, the Federal agencies have funded or

proposed research on the multiracial category,

combined questions on race and Hispanic origin, and

terminology issues in interview and self-report

contexts relevant to current surveys and the 2000

census. At this point, additional classification issues

relating to new categories and a combined race,

Hispanic origin, and ancestry question will be studied

in the self-report context of the decennial census, but

not in current survey or administrative record

environments. In the administrative records context,

however, little research beyond the multiracial issue

and, perhaps, Hispanic origin is planned. Final

reports on each of the issues will require additional

research on the extant literature; to date, the resources

to accomplish this have been identified only for the

terminology issues.

VII. Evaluation

 As explained in the Federal Register notice,

proposed revisions of Directive 15 "...ultimately

should result in consistent, publicly accepted data on

race and ethnicity that will meet the needs of

government and the public while recognizing the

diversity of the population and respecting the

individual's dignity." The Federal Register notice also
raises issues that will have to be settled by policy

discussion. Toward this end, it is critical to define:

 • the multiple purposes that the classification

system serves;

 • the criteria which categories should meet for these

different purposes; and

 • both the commonalities and contradictions in

these criteria.

 Once this information is provided priorities must be

set that can be used to resolve the inevitable conflicts

which will arise. Some of the criteria used will

necessarily be subjective, but others will be empirically

grounded. Most of the research outlined in this

document deals with the latter; however, some

questions, such as the identification of stakeholder

positions and the assessment of respondent burden,

will inform the subjective decisions. The following

are some of the more objective criteria that the

Research Working Group recommends to be used:

 1. consistency of measurement across time with

respect to various subpopulations;

 2. magnitude of changes to current time series;

 3. ability to collapse categories in a meaningful

manner for policy purposes;

 4. ability to develop implementable reporting

standards for all data providers;

 5. ease of using the measures under different

circumstances;

 6. ease of creating data editing and adjustment

procedures; and

 7. costs associated with changing the categories.

 To facilitate the use of research results to evaluate

alternatives and develop recommendations, the

Research Working Group will monitor the research

projects and oversee the consolidation of results in a

form that will be useful for policymakers.

_________

 1

 Census Questionnaire Content, 1990 CQC-4. 

Race.

 2

 Census Bureau proposal for research on

race/ethnicity prepared for OMB, March 18, 1994.

 3

 R. A. Hahn and D. F. Stroup, "Race and ethnicity

in Public Health Surveillance: Criteria for the

Scientific Use of Social Categories," Public Health

Reports, 1994, 109, 7-15.

 4

 D. E. Crews and J. R. Bindon, "Ethnicity as a

taxonomic tool in biomedical research," Ethnicity and

Disease 1991, 1, 42-49.

 5

 Clara E. Rodriguez, "Race, culture and Latino

'otherness' in the 1980 Census." Social Science

Quarterly 1992, 73 (4), 930-937.

 6

 D. E. Crews and J. R. Bindon.

 7

 Clara E. Rodriguez, "Challenges and emerging

issues: race and ethnic identity among Latinos,"

Committee on National Statistics, National Research

Council, Washington, 1994. These interviews were

conducted with Puerto Ricans and Dominicans in New

York.

 8

 Clara E. Rodriguez, 1992.

 9

 C. Kamasaki, "An Hispanic assessment of the

Federal standard for race and ethnicity." Paper

presented at the Workshop on Race and Ethnicity

Classification: An Assessment of the Federal

Standard for Race and Ethnicity. Committee on

National Statistics, Washington, D.C., February 17,

1994.

 10 Clara E. Rodriguez, Puerto Ricans: Born in the

USA. Boulder, Colorado: Westview, 1991.

 11 Public comment letter from Raul Yzaguirre,

President, National Council of La Raza, September 8,

1994.

 12 J. H. del Pinal, "Social science principles: 

forming race-ethnic categories for policy analysis". 

Paper presented at the Workshop on Race and

Ethnicity Classification: An Assessment of the

Federal Standard for Race and Ethnicity

Classification. Committee on National Statistics,

Washington, D.C., February 18, 1994.

 13 Puerto Ricans occupied their island before it

became a U.S. territory and commonwealth, but they

are not considered indigenous.