So I scanned the research study on hiring today.
Personally, Id have designed it slightly differently, to track two other dimensions: the effect of names that are obviously ethnic but non-African American (Juan, Ashish, Yuri, Isao and Wei come to mind immediately) as well as names that are fairly obviously white but non-traditional (Rainbow, Sunshine, Redwood).
The fact that the investigators were only looking along the white-African American axis and ignored these other effects leaves their study subject to criticism (which it seems to be receiving in bulk
I almost said in spades, then decided to save myself the hate mail.).
First I should qualify my comments by the fact that I have a hard time with most social science research. Coming from a physical sciences background, I find that many, if not most of the research Ive seen in the social sciences is just bad science, which simply sets out to document the prejudices of the researcher (Bellesiles, anyone?). So I have a knee-jerk reaction
call it a prejudice
when I first read about studies like this.
I tend to see them as interesting anecdotes, and in some ways find it frustrating that pseudo-quantitative research gets standing above meaningful personal anecdote.
Having stood on a chair and ranted for a bit, Ill also defend the study as a useful anecdote.
Ill defend it from two points of view.
The first is my own, as someone who has from time to time been involved in mass market hiring and has seen for himself that certain resumes are shoved to the side for reasons that have little or nothing to do with their content.
The second is that we have to look on the study as reflecting what really happens when we take a pool of African American applicants
LaToyas and Muhammeds
real people
and try and understand what they see in the world.
And the reality is that for a million reasons, they face barriers that others dont.
Some of the barriers are self-imposed.
But some of them arent.
And whether those barriers mean its 50% harder to get an interview or 5% , thats just damn wrong.
Your views on social science are too kind.
However, you then buy the so-called conclusion.
Without, I should point out, any sympathy at all for the Emily(s) who never gets hired.
Even if you had any sympathy for the clearly white who are getting the shaft because their parents named them Emily, the facts ought to make you return to the part about how social science would be only useless if it weren’t so pernicious.
I’m going to do a study of my own. Here’s a partial list of my white name submissions.
1) Whitey McCracker
2) Klanny O’South
3) Burn N. Cross
4) Red Neckerson
5) Good O. Boy
6) Tater
I’ll let you know the results.
🙂