Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comment on Logan et al.: “The Uptick in Income Segregation”1

Comment on Logan et al.: “The Uptick in Income Segregation”1 To conserve space for the publication of original contributions to scholarship, the comments in this section must be limited to brief critiques; author replies must be concise as well. Comments are expected to address specific substantive errors or flaws in articles published in AJS. They are subject to editorial board approval and peer review. Only succinct and substantive commentary will be considered; longer or less focused papers should be submitted as articles in their own right. AJS does not publish rebuttals to author replies.In “The Uptick in Income Segregation: Real Trend or Random Sampling Variation?” (Logan, Foster, Ke, and Li 2018; hereafter LFKL) show that segregation estimates are biased upward when based on small samples. Reardon, Bischoff, and Owens had noted this methodological concern previously, but prior attempts to correct for it were inadequate ( Reardon and Bischoff 2011, 2016; Bischoff and Reardon 2014; Owens 2016), as LFKL note in their appendix.One consequence of this small-sample bias is that estimated trends in segregation will be biased if the sample sizes on which they are based change over time. Through 2000, income data were collected every 10 years from approximately 17% of Americans via the “long form” in the U.S. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png American Journal of Sociology University of Chicago Press

Comment on Logan et al.: “The Uptick in Income Segregation”1

Download PDF
11 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/university-of-chicago-press/comment-on-logan-et-al-the-uptick-in-income-segregation-1-U3Ok3W6XSt
Publisher
University of Chicago Press
Copyright
© 2022 The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
ISSN
0002-9602
eISSN
1537-5390
DOI
10.1086/719531
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To conserve space for the publication of original contributions to scholarship, the comments in this section must be limited to brief critiques; author replies must be concise as well. Comments are expected to address specific substantive errors or flaws in articles published in AJS. They are subject to editorial board approval and peer review. Only succinct and substantive commentary will be considered; longer or less focused papers should be submitted as articles in their own right. AJS does not publish rebuttals to author replies.In “The Uptick in Income Segregation: Real Trend or Random Sampling Variation?” (Logan, Foster, Ke, and Li 2018; hereafter LFKL) show that segregation estimates are biased upward when based on small samples. Reardon, Bischoff, and Owens had noted this methodological concern previously, but prior attempts to correct for it were inadequate ( Reardon and Bischoff 2011, 2016; Bischoff and Reardon 2014; Owens 2016), as LFKL note in their appendix.One consequence of this small-sample bias is that estimated trends in segregation will be biased if the sample sizes on which they are based change over time. Through 2000, income data were collected every 10 years from approximately 17% of Americans via the “long form” in the U.S.

Journal

American Journal of Sociology – University of Chicago Press

Published: Mar 1, 2022

There are no references for this article.