Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41717452›Full record

ArticleSociology of race and ethnicity (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)2025

"You're supposed to say White": Epistemic Ambiguity and Ethnoracial Classification.

Hye Jee Kim, Aliya Saperstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sociology of race and ethnicity (Thousand Oaks, Calif.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hye Jee KimStanford University.
Aliya SapersteinStanford University.

Funding

Understanding How Personal Networks ChangeR01AG041955 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI FISCHER, CLAUDE S. · 2013 to 2017
$3.6M
NIA NIH HHS R01 AG041955
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative analyses of inequality typically take ethnoracial classification for granted without considering how such data comes to be. We argue that criteria for categorization is often unclear, creating ambiguity about who has the authority to determine an individual's race or ethnicity in the U.S. context. Using more than 300 survey interview transcripts from the UC Berkeley Social Networks Study (UCNets), we explore how respondents and survey interviewers negotiate both epistemic ambiguity and "White" identity. We identify multiple strategies of discursive distancing from a straightforward "White" response and trace how respondents and interviewers pass responsibility for classification, deferring to each other and appealing to external authorities, before answers are recorded. We also demonstrate this combination of distancing and epistemic ambiguity can result in respondents with qualitatively similar responses receiving diverging race/ethnicity codes. We conclude with recommendations about how to navigate epistemic ambiguity for users and producers of ethnoracial data.

Indexed as

identityinteractionracial categorizationsurvey methodswhiteness

Identifiers

PMID41717452
PMCPMC12915993

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.