Weighing in on the data

Thank you for reviewing the book "Party Crashing," by Keli Goff ("Hip-Hop, the Era," June 22). Unfortunately, the review by Saul Austerlitz incorrectly states that the book's thesis is based on interviews with just 12 subjects. To the contrary, Ms. Goff's findings were based on extensive survey research of 400 African-Americans in the age demographic on which her book focuses, conducted in conjunction with the Suffolk University Political Research Center.

This research is cited in every chapter, providing statistical support for her thesis regarding changing party identification in the registration and ideology among younger black Americans.

What separates Ms. Goff from many other contemporary authors is that she understands - and sought out - a statistically valid analysis even though it may have disagreed with her own opinions. In addition, she studied the findings from the respondents in detail, demographic by demographic. I can attest to this, given our many conversations as we analyzed and discussed the data over many months.

David Paleologos
Director, Suffolk University Political Research Center

Saul Austerlitz replies: I think Professor Paleologos is taking my comment a bit too literally. I say that the "growing contingency" consists of Ms. Goff and approximately 12 other insiders because she keeps quoting the same people, again and again. I don't doubt the research, or its extensiveness, but the book itself returns to the same people over and over. I'm sure that she made use of that research, but my point was merely that the opinions quoted - not the statistics cited - appear to come from a very small pool.