For today's response, let's think critically about methodology and how criteria shape implications of research.
In his conclusion, Evan Rinquist writes that while race is a statistically significant factor in the selection of environmentally hazardous sites, it is nonetheless a small one. He goes on further to say that the small size of its impact means that race should remain only one of many criteria for policy creation. While this is an interesting conclusion that should and probably will be discussed further, let's think about how Rinquist arrived at his conclusion.
Looking at page 230 of the article, the section entitled "The Data Gathering Process," we would like you to think about how the research decisions affect meaning and outcomes.
How did he sort through those studies and how many were discarded? What did he keep? What does that say about his conclusions? How far, and to what can we apply his conclusions? (Hint: is he reporting the results of his analysis of readings, or that of original research on environmental justice?) Reflecting on Alex's comments of the first day about the "holes" she found in literature, how do Rinquist's criteria reflect the general "entry requirements" for evidence in the quantitative or scientific fields?
Good luck, and see you tomorrow!
P.S. If you have a strong statistical background, great! The article will be a much richer experience for you. If not, however, don't worry too much--and *try* not to get too bogged down in the statistical minutiae.
