1 Introduction

It should be nearly impossible to study any social or demographic process without at least thinking about race and space (even if they are not central pieces of the analysis). They are that fundamental. Yet, both are often treated as separate and independent specialty areas rather than as foundational pieces of social/demographic research.

This special issue begins to address this limitation by bringing scholars focusing on critical conceptualizations of race (i.e., perspectives that move beyond the minimum of including a “race variable”) and those employing cutting-edge spatial methods (i.e., perspectives that move beyond including a “place variable”) in closer conversation. The goal is to demystify what it means to think critically about race/ethnicity and space/place while inspiring broader engagement with the insights that we gain from these perspectives (for a similar call to action see the commentary in this journal by Curtis, 2021). It is my hope that through reading the articles in this special issue you will be inspired, as I am, to think more deeply about what we mean by race/ethnicity and space/place and how they should enter into your research.

In the remainder of my introduction I provide an overview of the six articles that comprise this special issue while offering some thoughts on the themes that draw them all together.

Segregation research is a key area where race/ethnicity and space/place often intersect—and perhaps should do so more often—but the approaches taken in previous research have not always met the standards of critical perspectives on race and ethnicity or space and place. For example, segregation research is inherently about place, but is not necessarily spatial in the sense that the relative position of people, places, and/or objects may not be considered (see especially Logan, 2012). Moreover, the ways that we talk about race in segregation research—when it is referenced at all—has a way of reinforcing the dominant (White-centric) perspective on inequality. There are three explicitly “segregation” articles in this special issue that help push scholarship on race/ethnicity and space/place by addressing these limitations (Roberto and Korver-Glenn; Gabriel, Leibbrand, Hess, and Crowder; Anderson and Galaskiewicz). Critically, the contributions they make are broadly applicable, and should be of interest to anyone looking to expand how they treat race/ethnicity and space/place in their own research.

Roberto and Korver-Glenn provide a prime example of the benefits of combining critical approaches to thinking about race and space. They use an innovative approach to measuring segregation that incorporates physical barriers while also providing evidence on how spatial segregation—particularly in combination with these physical barriers—reinforces the social boundaries associated with race. Moreover, their use of sophisticated quantitative analysis is enhanced by detailed, ethnographic case studies of several neighborhoods in Houston, TX. Roberto and Korver-Glenn remind us to consider features of place when defining spatial connections (also see e.g., Xu et al., 2006); and that the social consequences of what we understand to be racial/ethnic divisions are constituted and even amplified by our local geographies.

Gabriel et al. aim to study the consequences and informal perpetuation of Black-White residential segregation through exposure to segregation during adolescence. They rely on pieces of a traditional segregation framework—e.g., the Dissimilarity Index (D), and a focus on residential mobility—but they extend dominant approaches by questioning our focus on (Black) disadvantage and adding a temporal component. This research is a welcomed addition to the literature suggesting greater attention to White advantage when explaining the perpetuation of Black-White inequality (see e.g., Howell, 2019a, 2019b; Reece, 2020). But perhaps more importantly, Gabriel et al. offer a stepping-stone for questioning the White-centric nature of a wider range of methodological and analytical practices commonly used in the study of demographic processes (for a similar call to adjust our approach to studying segregation centered on spatial considerations see the commentary in this journal by Wong, 2021). The broader impact of their research will be to initiate a closer examination of how demographers conduct research, and the need to think more thoroughly about how race enters into those practices.

Anderson and Galaskiewicz offer yet another perspective on segregation research that shows how residential racial segregation and the spatial arrangement of other components of the city combine to affect racial inequality. Specifically, they consider the economic consequences of segregation for neighborhoods of different racial/ethnic compositions. Their results point to the need for greater engagement with spatial connections (e.g., how public transportation links neighborhoods to jobs) in the literature on racial inequality; and simultaneously emphasizes the ways in which race/ethnicity affects the design of spatial elements of our cities. Here we learn that space is structured by public transportation routes and race/ethnicity.

Two articles—Carney; and Turner and Binkovitz—are linked by their attention to place and the implications for research on race/ethnicity and racism. They specifically move us to think about the history of place and how that is relevant for understanding racialized experiences. A literature near and dear to my academic heart—a body of work focusing on the legacy of slavery and related historical racist institutions (e.g., Aaronson et al., 2021; Acharya et al., 2016; Asher forthcoming; Bratter & O’Connell, 2017; McVeigh et al., 2014; Curtis & O’Connell, 2017; Gabriel & Tolnay, 2017; O’Connell, 2012, 2020; Reece, 2020; Reece & O’Connell, 2016)—makes a similar contribution regarding the importance of history in shaping place. However, the authors in this special issue help us see the value of this insight in a broader context (also see Molotch et al., 2000).

Carney brings qualitative evidence to bear on questions about the lived experience of being a Haitian woman living in Boston (USA) and how that compares to experiences in Montreal (CAN). Despite some key similarities in the Haitian diaspora, the history of the city and how it intersects with the integration of Haitians has a noticeable impact on the lives of these women. Critically, whereas the Haitian women living in Boston describe a primarily racialized experience in response to their physical appearance; it is the ethnicity or immigrant status of similar Haitian women that receives the most attention in interactions with (White) people in Montreal. There is a wider body of research that engages with the experiences of immigrants in different cultural contexts (e.g., Clergé, 2019; Kusow, 2006; Roth 2012; Vargas-Ramos 2014). However, Carney speaks to a broader audience by focusing on the theoretical implications for scholars across all substantive areas. Her work is critical for unpacking the meaning of the demographic categories we routinely use in our research. Race/ethnicity cannot be properly understood without considering place (also see Pickett et al., 2019).

Turner and Binkovitz are also concerned with place, but focus on the structural co-existence of histories that supported lynching and the establishment of Confederate monuments in public spaces. The construction of Confederate monuments is a complex process connected to a variety of factors (see especially O’Connell forthcoming). However, as the authors argue, the positive link they identify between lynching and Confederate monuments suggests Confederate monuments are part of a larger system of oppression used to support White supremacy. Moreover, their use of spatial regression analysis shows that this relationship is net of spatial processes, including those tied to spatial diffusion. Confederate monuments—a prominent feature of many places throughout the US South (and even some places in the non-South and outside the United States) promise to be an important piece of conversations regarding race and inequality for the foreseeable future with the help of the foundation laid here by Turner and Binkovitz.

Finally, Lee offers the only analysis examining the spatial demography associated with Asian American populations. She extends the existing literature by examining the residential patterns for three distinct Asian American groups—Chinese, Filipino, and Vietnamese—across both “new” and “established” destinations. One of her primary contributions is the disaggregation of the focal demographic and geographic categories, which proves crucial for future theoretical developments regarding the outcomes for Asian Americans living across these different contexts. And despite the clear demographic focus, Lee draws important connections to the literature on racial/ethnic boundaries. Moreover, the appearance of this article in a special issue dedicated to race and space is valuable for reminding demographers and race scholars alike that race is not synonymous with “Black” (and “White”).

The articles of this special issue highlight the challenges and rewards of combining insights from the mostly siloed subfields of race/ethnicity and space/place. They push segregation research to consider how innovations regarding how we think about race and space defy long-standing traditions; they demonstrate what can be gained by thinking about how race and place intertwine; and they remind us of the complexities of race (and place). There is no one way to incorporate race and/or space—each article has its own unique set of contributions to pushing the boundaries of existing research—but some consideration of both is necessary to any social/demographic puzzle. My hope is to see more changes in how we conduct demographic research in light of the insights drawn out through this collection of original research articles.

I close this introduction with my own thoughts on the next steps for a more consistent and critical engagement with race/ethnicity and space/place across all areas of social and demographic research.

The methodological and conceptual innovations developed in the articles in this special issue are valuable for enhancing current approaches used across the social sciences. However, further advancements that more fully integrate the kind of critical perspectives that exist in the subfields of race/ethnicity and space/place will require a more fundamental restructuring of social and demographic research. We need to ask different questions of our data, rather than continuing to pursue the same safe arguments. And we need to be comfortable using new/different methodological approaches, especially when they challenge the status quo. This kind of shift requires commitment to a new critical engagement that takes race and space seriously, and it has to occur across the board—among authors, reviewers, editors, and teachers. We should expect a drawn-out transition period as new norms regarding training and what constitutes acceptable research practices are hashed out, but the move will be worth it in terms of the quality of the demographic information and policy suggestions that are produced.

Race and space cannot be an afterthought. They need to become part of our new foundation. The research in this special issue is a critical step in that new transition.