Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Edited by
Diane S. Pollard
and
Olga M. Welch
Foreword by Christine E. Sleeter
Published by
State University of New York Press, Albany
2006 State University of New York
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America
No part of this book may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever
without written permission. No part of this book may be stored in a retrieval
system or transmitted in any form or by any means including electronic,
electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or
otherwise without the prior permission in writing of the publisher.
For information, address State University of New York Press,
194 Washington Avenue, Suite 305, Albany, NY 12210-2384
Production by Judith Block
Marketing by Michael Campochiaro
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
From center to margins : the importance of self-definition in research /
edited by Diane S. Pollard and Olga M. Welch ; foreword by
Christine E. Sleeter
p. cm.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0791467716 (hardcover : alk. paper)ISBN 0791467724
(pbk. : alk. paper)
1. African American womenEducation (Higher). 2. African American
college teachersUnited States. 3. Minority womenEducation
(Higher)United States. 4. Discrimination in higher educationUnited
States. 5. Marginality, SocialUnited States. I. Pollard, Diane. II.
Welch, Olga M.
LC2781.F76 2006
370.72dc22
2005018668
ISBN13 9780791467718 (hardcover: alk. paper)
ISBN13 9780791467725 (pbk.: alk. paper)
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents
Foreword
CHRISTINE E. SLEETER
vii
21
49
61
87
103
119
vi
Contents
123
Contributors
135
Index
139
Foreword
CHRISTINE E. SLEETER
The authors of the essays in this volume were asked to address two
questions in preparation for a panel at the Annual Meeting of the
American Educational Research Association (AERA). Their responses led
to this thought-provoking book: From Center to Margins: The Importance of
Self-Definition in Research. The questions were:
How have you come to know what you know about research?
What are some of the factors, issues, and concerns that have
guided you as a researcher?
The authors responses to these questions consider a multiplicity of issues
concerning power, privilege, knowledge, and identity in academe. The
papers prompted such a rich discussion at AERA that the editors were
encouraged to publish them. I will not recap the main themes of the chapters of this powerful book because they are stated clearly and eloquently in
the chapters themselves.
Instead, I comment on the significance of this book for people like
me: a White scholar who, having taken advantage of privileges accorded by
her race and social class background, finds herself part of the Center of
Educational Research. As one who has supported equity and social justice
issues for decades, admitting to be at the Center is not comfortable. Why
should I read this book? What significance does it have for people like me?
I illustrate its significance with a story. Recently one of my classes
had an opportunity to visit a museum of folk art from around the world
that was designed for use in schools. As the course instructor, using my
power to shape the curriculum, I decided to include this visit in the course
syllabus because the museum appeared to me to be a useful resource for
teachers. During the class session following the visit, we discussed our
vii
viii
Foreword
experience there. Some of the students comments focused on the usefulness of teachers having access to such a collection, and the value of learning
geography through its continent-by-continent organization. Other students offered more cautious comments, and some were quite critical. An
African American woman class member, for example, expressed deep concern that, through its emphasis on folk art objects grouped by continent,
the collection inadvertently reinforced a stereotypic view of Africa as primitive. Two Arab class members pointed out that, by lacking art from the
Middle East, the museum missed an opportunity to address ignorance that
people in the United States have about Arab peoples.
I and other class members could have chosen to ignore voices of criticism, and emphasize what is useful and good about the art collection.
After all, as instructor, I had chosen to visit the museum because it offers
varied resources for teachers. Or, we could have listened politely but
bracketed the criticisms, for example, to considerations about teaching
African art when African American students are present. In this way, we
could have maintained the usefulness theme, adding some buts as qualifiers. Instead, after listening to the various viewpoints, we decided to collaborate on writing a letter of constructive feedback to the organization
that houses the collection in order to suggest how to make it more inclusive, sensitive, and nuanced. Voices from the margins had thrown the collection into sharp relief and highlighted limitations that were not obvious
when it was viewed from the center. Through dialog, our discussion had
shifted from how to use the collection, to who gets to decide what is presented in schools, in what way, in what instructional context, and how we
might collectively address concerns that initially we did not all see. As
course instructor, I had to decide to listen, allow my own agenda to shift,
and facilitate engagement across perspectives that were not only different,
but initially in conflict.
As a White researcher, I occupy a similar place to the one I hold as
course instructor: I have power and authority to shape which perspectives
count as legitimate, to support some perspectives and ignore or marginalize others, and to position my work in a way that will ensure my continued
power and authority. The authors of this volume ask for something more
inclusive: honest dialog, engagement, willingness to listen, and willingness
to collaborate on interrupting the competition for power that permeates
academic life. For White researchers, who find this request threatening, it
is important to realize that the authors are not asking us to disappear or
stop working. Indeed, when Whites engage in White flight, we end up
recreating the same old patterns of hierarchy, exclusion, and power some-
Foreword
ix
where else. Instead, the authors of this book are asking us to work with,
rather than on or without, colleagues who bring life experiences that
broaden the range of ideas on the table, ways of investigating and evaluating those ideas, and actions we might take as a result. We resist doing so to
the detriment of all of us.
For example, one cannot talk about schooling today without discussing the achievement gap. Very often, those who are trying to figure
out how to close it are baffled about what to do, and somewhat frantic to
find solutions. I have talked with many educators who persistently seek
solutions from the same sources that created problems of inequity in the
first place. As Noguera and Akom (2000) point out, More often than not,
explanations for the achievement gap focus on deficiencies among parents
and students. Dysfunctional families, lazy and unmotivated students, and
the culture of poverty in inner-city neighborhoods are all frequently cited
as causes of the gap.
There are alternatives which the authors of this book implore us to
consider. Recently I had an opportunity to visit a New Zealand school
reform project, Te Kotahitanga (Bishop, et al, 2004), that is premised on
the idea that the people who know best how to address the achievement
gap are students and families who have been least well-served by schools.
By conducting interviews with Maori students and their parents, the
Maori-led project team constructed an action plan to reform classroom
teaching for everyone, with a primary emphasis on improving Maori student achievement using insights from Maori epistemology. As it turns out,
while Maori students are the primary beneficiaries, all students are benefiting from the better teaching. Further, the answers are not external to the
process of dialog and engagement, but rather this process of engagement is
the answer.
In, From Center to Margins, Pollard, Welch, and the other contributors invite dialog and engagement, particularly around the structures,
processes, and belief systems that maintain unequal power relations in
academe and educational research. Ultimately, answers to pressing problems about how to improve schools and build more equitable and intellectually vigorous educational institutions, reside in dialogue.
References
Bishop, R., Berryman, M., Tiakiwai, S., & Richardson, C. (2004) Te Kotahintanga.
Maori Educational Research Institute (MERI) School of Education,
University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand. Retrieved April 3, 2005 at
http://www.minedu.govt.nz/index.
Foreword
Introduction
Women Researchers of Color:
Have We Come a Long Way?
OLGA M. WELCH AND DIANE S. POLLARD
Introduction
Introduction
References
Allen, B. J. (1995, November) Twice blessed, doubly oppressed: Women of color
in academe. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
Essed, Philomena. (1996). Diversity: Gender, color, and culture. Amherst, MA:
University of Massachusetts Press.
hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston: South End
Press.
Houston, M. (1991, April). Follow us into our world: Feminist scholarship on the
communication of women of color. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Southern Speech Communication Association. Tampa, FL.
Ropers-Huilman, B., & Costner, S. (1998, April). Participation and progress:
Improving the climate for women of color in college. Paper presented at the
Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality, Journal of Higher Education, 73, 1, 7493.
Winkler, K. J. (1986). Scholars reproached for ignoring Women of Color in U.S.
History, Chronicle of Higher Education, 32, 67.8.10.
Chapter 1
groups, but the credibility and intentions of those possessing the power to
define them. In addition, the dialogue can be used as a foundation for all
researchers who are seriously attempting to understand cultural diversity
and work for equitable educational structures in a pluralistic society.
In this chapter, I review and assess literature by and on women of
color who are researchers in education and closely related disciplines. This
review includes perspectives on women of color as they regard the center
as well as their views from the margins of academe. Prior to the 1970s,
women of color were hardly recognized as educational researchers. One
reason is that the research of these women was not accessible unless it fit
criteria defined by the Center. In addition, the small numbers of women of
color in academe made it difficult for them to create critical mass.
As a result, the roles and activities of women of color who are educational researchers in academe have often been overlooked. Discussions
about women researchers tend to assume a homogeneity that does not
exist; as a result work about women has generally meant work about and by
White women. Similarly, discussions about minority researchers have
tended to overlook gender (as well as cultural) distinctions within that
group. As a result of these two trends, women of color, as a distinct group
of educational researchers, have often been erased from both formal and
informal discussions. Fortunately, these very women do not often acquiesce quietly to this situation. Women of color continue to conduct and
produce research findings despite attempts by those in the mainstream to
ignore or marginalize them. Researchers such as Faustine Jones-Wilson,
Betty Morrison, Beatrice Medicine, Alice Chiang, Cecelia Burciaga,
Gwendolyn Baker, and many others laid the groundwork that contemporary women of color have been able to build upon as they enter and
progress through academe. As succeeding generations of women of color
became researchers in higher education, several trends began to emerge in
the literature. One trend is the body of research produced by women of
color that reflects centrist thinking. Another trend indicates a body of literature about women of color written, often but not always, by White
women. A considerable amount of this literature describes the plight of
women of color in academe. At other times, this work chastises White
women for their tendency to ignore and marginalize women of color.
Finally, there is a more recent body of literature by women of color that
reflects their own standpoint and critiques the attempts by researchers in
the mainstream to categorize and judge their contributions.
In this chapter, selected literature by and about women of color is
reviewed and critiqued. This review includes articles about women of
color written by them as well as by White authors. I have focused on literature that concerns the role and status of women of color as researchers
rather than on the actual research produced by them. The rationale for this
focus is that the literature on role and status provides a more accurate perspective on the issue of marginalization and the contested debates about
whether women of color need to move toward the dominant center of educational research or take researchers to the margins within which they
exist; thus demonstrating the reality and validity of life in these spaces.
With respect to these debates, I have organized the research and
writing about women of color as educational researchers into four general
themes. Each theme is described and analyzed in terms of its contribution
to the issue of contested spaces in academic research. It should be noted
that these themes are not ordered chronologically. One can find evidence
of all of them interspersed in writings by and about women of color
researchers over the past 30 or so years.
10
A number of other researchers have produced work aimed at countering the invisibility of African American women in academe. For example, Tobin (1980) surveyed doctoral level African American women who
were employed by historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
in the early 1970s. Tobins work emphasized the career development of
these women and the obstacles they faced in their attempts to meet professional and personal commitments. Taking a slightly different tack, Smith
(1982) wrote specifically about the accomplishments of African American
women in academe. Limiting her sample to those who had been successful, Smith interviewed 12 women who had achieved administrative positions in higher education. Although Smiths focus was on understanding
what steps these women had taken to achieve their goals (to be administrators) the author noted that many of them had been productive researchers
as well.
All three of these writers specifically named African American
women, thus increasing their visibility in higher education. Furthermore,
they were intent on noting that African American women made constructive contributions to their institutions and fields as teachers, administrators, and scholars. However, even in this most basic of endeavors;calling
attention to the existence of this group of womenthe authors also
revealed tensions between center and margins. All of these articles demonstrated that African American women scholars were marginalized, even in
the HBCUs. Questions were implied regarding their value; resources were
not available for teaching and research. Despite their marginalization,
some of these women were categorized as successful. However, success
seemed to be defined in terms of their ability to move toward the center,
not so much as researchers, but as valuable contributors to their institutions in teaching and administration.
This perception of invisibility is not limited to African American
women. It has been experienced by other women of color relatively frequently also (Thomas & Hollenshead, 2002, Turner, 2002).
Even when named, rendering women of color invisible can take several forms in academe. In some cases this can be a fairly passive process in
which their work is made inaccessible. The research of women of color
has, on occasion, been deemed unworthy of publication or presentation in
professional venues controlled by those at the center. Some of these
women counter this by disseminating their work in publications and settings more hospitable to their concerns and interests. However, in some
cases, these venues are devalued and relegated to the margins. Another
process that makes women researchers of color invisible involves disre-
11
specting them and their work by subtly, or sometimes not so subtly, pressuring them to eschew research on and in their communities in favor of
more mainstream topics (Thomas & Hollenshead, 2002).
There is, however, a more venomous method of making these
women invisible and this involves not recognizing their work while simultaneously appropriating it. In my own experience, formal interviews and
informal conversations with women researchers of color, I have learned of
situations where research ideas that were generated by these women have
been used by men or White women as if they had originated with the latter
groups. In other words, the work of women of color has been cited without
acknowledgement of its sources.
While these efforts are ongoing, there is increasing evidence that
many women of color simply refused to accept invisibility. As the contributors to this volume attest, many women of color bravely proclaim their
visibility and pursue their research, undaunted.
12
the status of women of color in California, argues that even though the
numbers of doctoral level African American and Hispanic women students
have increased, relatively few plan careers in higher education because of
perceived barriers. Similarly Montez (n.d.) notes small numbers of
Asian/Pacific women in educational research. Chu (1980) states that
Asian/Pacific American women also contend with the model minority
myth that assumes Asian American success, especially in higher education.
All of these authors call for greater efforts to recruit and retain women of
color in academe.
Several writings by women of color describe their experiences in
academe, focusing on challenges and obstacles to their progress. All of the
writings cited here concern women of color faculty at predominantly
White colleges and universities. Common threads across these writings
involve contending with the related issues of marginalization and isolation
(Aguirre, 2000; Chu, 1980; Kulis & Miller, 1988; Ortiz, 1983; Williams,
1985). These issues were operationalized in a variety of ways: women of
color were expected to work only with students of color; were excluded
from important committee assignments; were excluded from networks
that might have aided their career advancement; and were denied opportunities to participate in decision making within their academic communities. As Ortiz (1983) describes, women of color are often on the periphery
of their departments, schools, and institutions.
Although these writers describe similar experiences, there are some
variations in their analyses. At the broadest level, these experiences are
seen as the result of double jeopardy, a combination of racism and sexism
(Williams, 1985). Others point to a lack of role models, mentors, and professional contacts (Chu, 1980). Still others argue that institutions of higher
education replicate the patterns of racial/ethnic and sexual inequity of the
larger society, thus supporting processes that work against women
researchers of color. These include devaluing their research (Hayes, 1990);
lack of support when contending with racist students (Vargas, 1999); and
questioning of their academic integrity and merit early in their careers
(Allen, 1996; Heward, 1995).
The literature illustrating this theme suggests a few steps beyond
theme one. Here, women of color are more proactive in defining their status in academe and identifying and analyzing the forces working against
them. However, the recognition and analysis of marginality did not deter
these women from carrying out their research. On the contrary, in addition to investigating, the forces that create and maintain marginalization,
many of these women position their own research perspectives within the
13
margins rather than from the center. For example, many of these women
focus on issues of concern to their communities. This, in turn, furthered
their marginalization.
14
15
Instead, these women write that their experiences in the margins are rich,
and provide significant grounding for their roles as researchers.
Furthermore, some of these women argue, those closer to and even in the
center could benefit greatly by opening themselves to the wisdom in the
margins. Hurtado (1996) writes that it is a mistake to assume that women
of color are not active contributors to knowledge because they are often
not found in the dominant literature. She argues that theorizing by feminists of color (p. 37) has always happened in the margins. Furthermore,
such efforts focus not only on the nature of oppression but also on ways to
deconstruct the structures of oppression (p. 38).
Gutierrez & Nagata (1996) provide rich examples of such theorizing
in their research on intraethnic diversity. While research conducted from
the center tends to focus on interethnic differencesmost often with an
orientation that presents whites as superior to most groups of colorthese
researchers alternative perspective studied variations in identity, acculturation and world views within Mexican American and Japanese American
communities, respectively. Immersed in their communities, these
researchers are able to understand the particularistic roles gender played in
each. In their writings, they clearly define themselves as part of their communities rather than detached observers.
The decision to conduct research in our own communities in ways
that deviate from the centers conceptualizations is often met with skepticism. Much of my own work on academic achievement in African
American children focuses on variations within this particular cultural
group (Pollard, 1993, 2002). When presenting this work to audiences
unfamiliar with the margins, I am invariably asked why I have not included
a control (read White) group of children in my studies. In a similar vein,
the coeditor of this volume spent many years investigating the development of a scholar identity (Pollard & Welch, 2003, p. 377) in educationally disadvantaged youth. In carrying out this work, Welch and Hodges
(1997) reconceptualized perspectives on marginalized youth and challenged popular notions about academic disengagement in these students.
Frequently, their efforts were viewed with puzzlement or criticism from
individuals in the center. In resisting these attempts to define our research
in their terms, we have attempted to educate colleagues about the value of
our marginalized perspectives.
Several researchers have adapted Hardings (1991) ideas of feminist
standpoint epistemology as a foundation for supporting their own work as
well as critiquing efforts from the center to define, conduct, analyze, and
control research on communities of color. Valdez (2001) writes that
16
17
about research? each tells a unique story. These stories have the power to
enrich both the margins and the center.
References
Aguirre, A., Jr. et.al (2000). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace:
Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Allen, B. A. (1996). Staying within the academy. In K. F. Wyche & F. J. Crosby
(Eds.), Womens ethnicities: Journeys through psychology (pp. 926). Boulder,
CO: Westview Press.
Allen, B. J. (1995, November). Twice blessed, double oppressed: Women of color
in academe. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Speech
Communication Association, San Antonio, TX.
Association of American Colleges (n.d.) Minority Women and higher education
No. 1 Washington, DC: Project on the Status and Education of Women.
Chu, L. (1980). Asian American women in educational research. Integrated
Education, 18 (56), 5560.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness and the politics of
empowerment. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Gregory, S. T. (2002). Black faculty women in the academy: History, status, future.
Journal of Negro Education, 70 (3), 124138.
Guinier, L. (1998). Female gentlemen. In D. C. Dance (Ed.), Honey hush: An
anthology of African American womens humor (p. 551). New York: W. W.
Norton.
Gutierrez, G., & Nagaka, D. K. (1996). Intraethnic and interethnic diversity:
Researching the Japanese American and Mexican American communities. In
K. F. Wyche & F. J. Crosby (Eds.), Womens ethnicities: Journeys through psychology (pp.167181). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge: Thinking from womens lives.
Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Hayes, M. E. (1990, March). Minority women in higher education: Status and
challenges. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Comparative and
International Education Society, Anaheim, CA.
Heward, C. et al. (1995). What is behind Saturns rings? Methodological problems
in the investigation of gender and race in the academic profession. British
Educational Research Journal 21 (2), 14963.
Horsford, P. L. (Ed.). (1977). Minority women in research in education: A report of the
Dallas conference on expanding the role of minority women in education research.
18
Houston, M. (1991, April). Follow us into our world: Feminist scholarship on the
communication of women of color. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Southern Speech Communication Association, Tampa, FL.
Hurtado, A. (1996). The color of privilege: Three blasphemies on race and feminism. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Kulis, S., & Miller, K. A. (1988). Are minority women sociologists in double jeopardy? American Sociologist, 19 (4), 323339.
Mainstreaming Minority Womens Project (1988). National Council for Research
on Women. New York: Sara Delano Roosevelt Memorial House. 4749 E.
65th Street, 10021. Minority women and Higher Education. No. 1.
ED098852.
Montez, J. M. (n.d.). Asian/Pacific American women in higher education administration: Doubly bound, doubly scarce. Issues in Policy, No. 9. Pullman, WA:
College of Education, Washington State University. (ED430423).
Ortiz, F. I. (1983, April). Restraining and liberating perceptions regarding minority womens institutional participation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Resarch Association. Montreal, Canada.
Pollard, D. S. (1993). Gender, achievement and African American students perceptions of their school experiences. Educational psychologist, 28 (4), 342356.
Pollard, D. S. (2002). Who will socialize African American students in contemporary public schools? In W. A. Allen, M. B. Spence, & C. OConner (Eds.).
African American education: Race, community, inequality and achievement. A
tribute to Edgar G. Epps (pp. 321). Oxford, England: JAI.
Pollard, D. S., & Welch, O. M. (2003). One size does not fit all. In C. C. Yeakey, &
R. D. Henderson (Eds.). Surmounting all odds: Education, opportunity and society in the new millennium (pp.369388). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publishing.
Robinson, O. T. (1978). Contributions of Black American academic women to American
higher education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University,
Detroit, MI. University Microfilms International, 1982 Thesis (Ph.D.)
Wayne State University, 1978.
Smith, C. H. (1982) Black female achievers in academe. Journal of Negro Education,
51 (3), 318341.
Thomas, G. D., & Hollenshead, C. (2002). Resisting from the margins: The coping strategies of black women and other women of color faculty members at
a research university. Journal of Negro Education, 70 (3), 166175.
19
Tobin, M. (1980). The black female Ph.D.: Education and career development.
Washington, DC: University Press of America.
Turner, C. S. V. (2002). Women of color in academe: Living with multiple marginality. Journal of Higher Education, 73 (1), 7493.
Valdez, J. (2001). Standpoint epistemology and women of color. In D. L. Hoeveler
& J. D. Boles, (Eds.). Women of color: Defining the issues, hearing the voices
(pp.6979). Westport, CT: Greenwood.
Vargas, L. (1999). When the other is the teacher. Implications of teacher diversity in higher education. Urban Review, 31 (4), 359383.
Welch, O. M., & Hodges, C. (1997). Standing outside on the inside. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Wilkerson, M. B. (1983). Lifting as we climb: Networks for minority women. New
Directions for Higher Education, 45 (12), 1, 5966.
Williams, S. S. (1985, April). Surviving double jeopardy in academe: Minority
female administrators at predominantly white universities. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the Association for Women Deans, Administrators
and Counselors, Milwaukee, WI.
Zambrana, R. E. (1994). Toward understanding the educational trajectory and
socialization of Latina women. In L. Stone, (Ed.). The education feminist
reader (pp.135145). New York: Routledge.
Chapter 2
22
Institute, 2004). I posit that it is time for the academy to make the intellectual space for Indigenous scholars who, instead of reifying the status quo,
are engaged in decolonizing research for self-determination and Native
sovereignty. Such Native researchers may, as other scholars, utilize their
research to inform not only their scholarship, but their teaching practices
as well. Making intellectual space offers the academy the opportunity to
pull back its heavy curtains on the broader landscape of epistemologies,
adding vibrancy to the intellectual enterprise and the quest for knowledge.
The purpose of this chapter is to respond to the original questions
asked. It is also to offer a different way of understanding research, and its
implications for not only those involved, but for academe as well. It is an
opportunity to glimpse through the obscured windows, onto the epistemological landscape upon which the hallowed ivory tower of academe does
figuratively, and literally sitthe landscape of Indian Country.
How Have You Come to Know What You Know About Research?
The invasion of North America by European peoples has been portrayed in history and literature as a benign movement directed by
God, a movement of moral courage and physical endurance, a victory for all humanity. As the face of Europe (as well as Asia and
Africa) changes at the close of the twentieth century, this portrayal of
colonialism and its impact on the unfortunate Indians who possessed
the continent for thousands of years before the birth of America,
seems to go unchallenged either in politics or letters by most mainstream thinkers. It arrives in academia unscathed, to be spoonfed to
future generations.
Cook-Lynn, 1996, p. 29
23
resources, and our health. Western research has filtered into every aspect
of our personal lives as Native peoples. No element of our lives [or deaths]
goes untouched, whether its about our right to claim our dead from museums, to how we may educate our children.
Informal and, later, formal research has drawn upon Western colonizing epistemologies. Historically, these forms of research have bolstered
or enhanced theories of perceived superiority over Indigenous Peoples.
Such research has influenced the policies that legalize land thefts, perpetuate the rape of our natural resources, and successfully manage to recast history, wherein Native peoples have simply been the speed bumps on the
road to progress (e.g., Churchill, 1999; Cook-Lynn, 2001; Deloria, 1998;
Deloria & Wildcat, 2001; Fixico, 1998; Gedicks, 1993; LaDuke, 1999;
Macedo & Bartolome, 1999; Mihesua, 1998a; Rains, 2003).
My first personal awareness of the power of Western colonial
research occurred in third grade, when, grounded in long discussions with
my Choctaw/Cherokee father about the history of our Native Nations in
the Southeast and Oklahoma, I lost my first argument of protest with my
teacher, Mrs. Hortense Hawkins. She insisted that research indicated that
all Indians were really from Asia. As evidence, she kept citing the Bering
Strait theory as fact. Meanwhile, at home, my father discussed the improbabilities of the Bering Strait theory3 (See Deloria, 1997, chapter 4 for further explanation on this theory).
In public school, my exposure to Native people as the object of
White research continued. What I learned then, but hadnt the language
to express, was how research was and is often used. I received clear messages about this; it cut across my body; slashed my identity, worked to
destroy in subtle ways, the power of Indigenous knowledge and my sense
of self. I witnessed how research and theories were used to erase, marginalize, objectify, and ignore Native Peoples and our histories and relationships with the lands. I felt the power of the Western colonizing knowledge
production enterprise, as I was the only one, the only American Indian in
most of the schools I attended. Surrounded by non-Indians, who often felt
glorified, while I felt vilified, made me keenly aware of its force. Given the
messages, I felt a sense of betrayal by the educational process my parents
put so much hopes in, for the betterment of my future.
It wasnt until graduate school and beyond, that I acquired the language and confidence to articulate how the system of narrowly constructed
Western knowledge production, grounded in domination and subordination, became institutionalized in the matter of a few hundred years. As
Little Bear (2000) notes (regarding the power of colonialism), . . . it tries
24
25
knowledge not used by scholars steeped in mainstream positivist ideology (p. ix).
26
27
28
29
His point, which is still valid today, holds that even in nature, not everything is the same. Thinking in terms of researchers, and pretenure fit, is it
necessary for eagles to be crows? The assimilationist practices to secure
adherence to the Western paradigms and epistemology, may determine an
untenured scholar fit, but in the process may restrict the opportunity to
expand what constitutes knowledge and research.
30
From the margins, however, I see the possibility of having more than
one research interest. For example, because of experiences with prejudice,
racism, and the power of White privilege throughout my lifetime, these
issues are an important research focus for me. In addition, my early, unsuccessful arguments of protest regarding accurate Indian history and Indian
[mis]representations, have forged a lifelong passion of researching these
topics. Grounded in my location as Other, combined with my Indigenous
epistemological framework, I do not see these distinct research interests as
incompatible or problematic. Still, I have been strongly encouraged to
pick one and focus more narrowly if you want to get tenure and, what
is often unspoken but inferred: preferably, not on the former of the two
research interests.
The expectation of narrowing ones research has been compounded
by pressure to focus my research preferably in an already validated area.
For example, I have been asked with some frequency: Cant you just do a
comparison of some sort between White students and Indian students?
Setting aside, momentarily, the privileging of Whiteness in such a case,
being asked to do comparative research would completely alter my
research agenda and the nature of my inquiries. This expected change
would recast my research designs, the methods I would need to implement, and the nature of the questions that my research might answer. It
would mean that in order to maintain the fit, I would need to do research
(in this case, comparative research) that would reinforce the dominance of
Western epistemologies, while demonstrating that I had sufficiently
acquiesced to the assimilationist model. In turn, this would demonstrate
that I had obediently followed the Western construction of what constitutes an appropriate research topic.
Besides the apparent need to completely change my research interests
and foci, such blind obedience leaves intact the privileging of Whiteness as
a standard of measure this type of comparative research embodies. It leaves
unexamined the ways in which White/Indian comparison, by its very
nature, embodies the dominant/subordinate paradigm. The implication is
that a research study designed to inquire about some aspect of Indian student life, for example, would not be as valid, or as reliable a study, as that of
a comparative design. This implication is not one that a White researcher
would have to consider in designing a study on some aspect of White student life. That researcher would not be pressured to do a comparison with a
non-White group, in order to validate their research.
Too, there is another issue this narrowly validated research expectation raises. I am a Native American focused on Native American
31
32
33
34
35
36
Self-determination in Research
Indigenous communities have struggled since colonization to exercise what is viewed as a fundamental right: to represent ourselves.
Indigenous peoples have been, in many ways, oppressed by theory
[and research]. Any consideration of the ways our origins have been
examined, our histories recounted, our arts analyzed, our cultures
dissected, measured, torn apart and distorted back to us will suggest
that theories have not looked ethically at us. (L. Smith, 1999, p. 38)
For me, this discussion raises the issue of self-determination in
research. The call for self-determination is prominent in both Native
intellectual, and grassroots, circles (e.g., Battiste & Youngblood Henderson, 2000; Cook-Lynn, 2001; Deloria & Wildcat, 2001; Lomawaima,
2000; Mihesua, 1998a; Parker, 2003; Swisher, 1998; Swisher & Tippeconnic, III, 1999a; Waters, 2004). The clash of worldviews and paradigms
permeate every element of contact between the Colonizers and the
Indigenous Peoples on this continent. In order for the balance of power to
be complete, however, it was also necessary for the Colonizers to delegitimize knowledge, Native science, and the metaphysics and epistemologies5
that frame them (e.g., Battiste, 2000; Battiste & Youngblood Henderson,
2000; Blaut, 1993; Cajete, 2000; Cook-Lynn, 2001; Deloria & Wildcat,
2001). As Deloria (1997) explains:
Any group that wishes to be regarded as the authority in a human
society must not simply banish or discredit the view of their rivals,
they must become the sole source of truth for that society and defend
their status and power to interpret against all comers . . . it is even
permissible to tell lies in order to maintain status, since the most fatal
counterattack against entrenched authority will not be directed
against their facts but against their status (p. 26).
In this way, the Colonizers were able to maintain a stranglehold on
what constituted knowledge and legitimate worldviews.
Self-determination is the struggle to reclaim the balance of power
that has been eroded over the last 500 years between Native Peoples and
37
these same Colonizers. More and more, Native Nations are exercising
their right to self-determination in the area of research, despite Western
colonization. This self-determination includes resistance to Colonizer
theories of research and scholarship that, in combination, work to erase
indigenous voice, accuracy, and agency. This erasure continues to be a
necessary part of preserving dominancecognitively, politically, and culturally. It leaves unquestioned the constructed nature of the research and
the political and cultural positionality of the researcher. Yet, research is
not neutral. Senior Native scholars like Deloria (1997), Swisher (1998),
and Parker (2003) have questioned whether outsiders, who may have limited exposure to the Native communities they research, can really understand the cultures, languages, economics, and positionality of Other. In
this light, self-determination takes on a different significance. At the
research level, self-determination is not simply about empowering
Indigenous scholars with choices of research foci, rather, self-determination in this context brings a different way of thinking about research practices and the epistemology that frames them. It means the:
. . . authority to ask new and different questions based on histories
and experiences as indigenous people. It is more than different ways
of knowing; it is knowing that what we think is grounded in principles of sovereignty and self-determination, and that it has credibility . . . it takes American Indians and Alaska Natives to understand the
depth of meaning incorporated in Indian education to ask appropriate questions and find appropriate answers (Swisher, 1998, pp.
193194).
In short, self-determination in research demands a rethinking of the
nature of research and the role of the researcher, with implications for
academe.
NATURE OF RESEARCH
Self-determination in research brings with it a different conceptualization of the purpose of research. Certainly, the views from within (e.g.,
Rains, 1995;1998a; Swisher, 1998) are different from the outside looking
in, and thereby affect the nature of research on a general level. But beyond
the shift in viewpoint, self-determination in the context of inquiry, offers
the opportunity to . . . develop theoretical understandings and practices
that arise out of our own Indigenous knowledge. . . . Theory will enable us
38
39
ROLE OF RESEARCHER
Self-determination in research requires a different kind of role for
the researcher. To gain entry into a tribe, a prospective researcher
. . . must first ask [permission from the tribe], and then listen. . . . If the
researcher does more talking than listening in the ensuing dialog, something is wrong (Lomawaima, 2000, p.15). It is, however, erroneous to
assume that simply listening will earn automatic access to a community.
Brayboy (2000) attests to the tensions and challenges of positionality when
an Indigenous researcher (often with a Western, colonial education),
enters a Native community to conduct research.
The academic demands of a quick turnaround with results coupled
with the numbers of researchers some Native communities have encountered, left many Native People with the view that research, with a capital
R, is a revolving door. In such Native communities, researchers of one
kind or another have come and gone in rapid fire succession. Some Native
communities have been inundated with quick turn around researchers for
one hundred years or more, with little or no benefit, and having been
exploited. Native researchers may encounter this perspective.
The Native researcher may be skeptically viewed as an ivory tower
intellectual, disconnected from Indigenous communities and concerns, a
mere functionary for the colonization of our peoples (G. Smith, 2000, p.
40
41
construction of the tenure system dismisses anyone who does not assimilate into the dogmatic publish or perish paradigm. As a result, to obtain
tenure Indigenous scholars, who bring a different epistemic standpoint, a
self-determination research focus, and a commitment to Indigenous
knowledge, have to become White and forego the research and scholarship that brought them to the research institution in the first place. As
Blaut (1993) reminds us:
Because of its power to reward, punish, and control, this [process]
succeeds in convincing most scholars that its interests are the interests of everyone. These interests are social, economic, and political
agendas, and it is a simple transformation to insert the word ought
and turn them into values. Viewed statically, these interests are
always clear, and the values derived from them cohere into the dominant value system that more or less mirrors these interests. Hence,
we have at all times a kind of environment of values, surrounding and
influencing the ongoing validation process in scholarship (p. 39).
In rigidly holding fast to this particular worldview, academe has invalidated scholarship and research that does not uphold this limited construction of what counts as legitimate. The academic rewards system advocates
speed, repetition, elite journals, and fast turnarounds, but at what cost? Is
faster research and rapid turnaround scholarship to publication necessarily
the intent of the mission statements? Is this the system that produces
expanding knowledge and understanding? Or is this the system that perpetuates the status quo?
At the very least, the system is due for a tune-up (e.g., Boyer, 1990;
Caplan, 1994; Ford-Slack, Rains, Dunlap, & Collay, 1994). We stand on
the cusp of a new millennium, and tuning up the rewards system at the
beginning of a new millenium might set a positive foundation for the
future. As Boyer (1990) stated:
It is this issuewhat it means to be a scholar-that is the central
theme. . . . The time has come, we believe, to step back and reflect on
the variety of functions academics are expected to perform. Its time
to ask how priorities of the professoriate relate to the faculty reward
system, as well as to the missions of Americas higher learning institutions. Such an inquiry into the work of faculty is essential if students are to be well served, [and] if the creativity of all faculty is to be
fully tapped. (emphasis original; p. 2)
42
43
epistemologies. For despite claims to the contrary, the current reward system is subjective. So, it would seem paradoxical to claim that academe cannot change because to do so would mean it would have to relinquish
equality. Fifty years after the Brown case, faculty of color in academe, in
general, are still at the back of the Ivory Towers school bus.
Changing the tenure process, and faculty reward system, would
make intellectual space possible for Native scholars such as myself.
Standing on the margins of Center, such an enterprise could make the circly bigger and more authentically inclusive. It could breathe new life into
the leaning ivory tower (Padilla & Chavez Chavez, 1995).
Notes
1. For better or worse, given Columbuss navigational error, treaties
between the European governmental bodies and later, the United States, and
respective independent, sovereign Native Nations were written using Indians
and American Indians. Therefore, there is validity in using the terms Indian
and American Indian despite political correctness arguments to the contrary.
However, by using American Indian alone, it excludes Alaska Natives or First
Nations of Canada and other indigenous peoples. Therefore, for this chapter I will
use primarily Native, Native Peoples, Native Nations and Indigenous to reflect the
original inhabitants of the lands. While less comfortable with the term, Western
(see endnote), I will use this term and non-Indian, and occasionally, white to refer
to people of European immigrant descent. It is important to note that I only represent myself in these views.
2. The use of this term Western has been appropriated by European/White Americans to represent their paradigms, behaviors and ways of life. A
more accurate description might be Newtonian rationality. Western leaves the
Native Nations, who have occupied this land mass west of Britain for over 10,000
years, little choice but to consider our paradigms, behaviors and ways of life as
non-Western, all the while sharing the same land mass as those who claim to be
western. This is an irony, given that standing on these shores, Europe is east of
here and Asia is west. So, from a Non-western (read Indigenous) point of view,
European/White American ways of knowing are actually eastern since the intellectual traditions are derived from Europe, not here.
3. Despite the fact that my father never had the luxury of going beyond the
eighth grade, he was an intelligent man, who used his intellect and common sense,
coupled with his tribal history as springboards to reading and learning more his
entire life. However, he lost his mother when he was 5, and his father when he was
14. Times were hard in Oklahoma in the 1930s for many Indians. So, from 1932 to
1942, he lived with various elders and family members who shared various aspects
of our history to him over the years he was growing up. Television, videos and dvds
were a long way off into the future at that point, and so the telling of this history
44
along with memories and stoires, occupied some of the evening hours. The Bering
Straits theory played no role in this history.
4. While entire books have been written on the subject of Indigenous
Knowledge and Indigenous Epistemology (see for example, Battiste &
Youngblood Henderson, 2000; Cajete, 200; Deloria, 1997; Waters, 2004) briefly
put, Western epistemology is about abstraction, whereas, Indigenous epistemology does not divorce human beings from the equation of understanding. Waters
(2004), in discussing the work of Burkhart, states that what distinguishes Indian
knowing from Western knowing is the difference between the Western belief that
philosophy holds knowledge, and the belief that literature and religion hold human
expression. Indian philosophy fuses science and knowing with literature and religion. . . . [Western epistemology says] I think therefore I am [whereas Native epistemology says] We are therefore I am. An understanding of all that I and others
see and experience is accounted for and passed down through generations in the art
of story and ceremony: (p. xviii). Burkhart (2004) draws upon the metaphor of a
song, explaining that a person can learn a song without learning the musical notation. A Western world view would perceive that learning the notes (abstraction)
would be akin to knowing the song. An Indigenous worldview would perceive
that the song could be learned without ever seeing/reading a note. In one
case[Western] one understands the notes, in the other case, one understands the
song. Not better, not worse, but different ways of coming to understanding.
Land, and our relationship to it, and all that it entails, along with the metaphysics
and elements of nature, all are pieces of an Indigenous epistemology. While I am
oversimplifying here, I do so, more to give a sense of the difference, rather than to
offer a detailed explanation, which others have done more articulately and with
more detail.
5. Each Native Nation has its own epistemology and metaphysics, yet there
are some common threads that may be helpful to the non-Indian as a means of
being able to distinguish the differences between Western and American Indian
worldviews. The purpose here is not to debate or elaborate on the plurality of
Native worldviews.
References
Aguirre, A., Jr. (1995). A Chicano farmworker in academe. In R. V. Padilla & R.
Chavez Chavez (Eds.), The leaning ivory tower: Latino professors in American
universities (pp. 1728). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Battiste, M. (Ed.) (2000). Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision. Vancouver, Canada:
University of British Columbia Press.
Battiste, M., & Youngblood Henderson, J. (2000). Protecting Indigenous knowledge
and heritage: A global challenge. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada: Purich
Publishing.
Benham, M. K. P., & Stein, W. J. (Eds.). (2003). The renaissance of American Indian
higher education: Capturing the dream. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
45
Blaut, J. M. (1993). The colonizers model of the world: Geographical diffusionism and
Eurocentric history. New York: Guilford.
Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: Priorities of the professorate. The
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Brayboy, B. M. (2000, JulyAugust.). The Indian and the researcher: Tales from
the field [Special issue] International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, 13(4), 415426.
Burkhart, B. Y. (2004). What coyote and Thales can teach us: An outline of
American Indian epistemology. In A. Waters (Ed.), American Indian thought:
Philosophical essays (pp. 1526). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Caplan, P. J. (1994). Lifting a ton of feathers: A womans guide to surviving in the academic world. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Cajete, G. (2000). Native science: Natural laws of interdependence. Santa Fe, NM:
Clear Light Publishers.
Churchill, W. (1997). A little matter of genocide: Holocaust and denial in the Americas
1492 to the present. San Francisco: City Lights Books.
Churchill, W. (1999). The crucible of American Indian identity: Native tradition
versus colonial imposition in postconquest North America. In D.
Champagne (Ed.), Contemporary Native American cultural issues (pp. 3967).
Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
Cocker, M. (1998). Rivers of blood, rivers of gold: Europes conquest of Indigenous peoples.
New York: Grove.
Cook-Lynn, E. (1996). Why I cant read Wallace Stegner and other essays: A tribal
voice. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Cook-Lynn, E. (2001). Anti-Indianism in modern America: A voice from Tatekeyas
earth. Urbanna: University of Illinois Press.
Deloria, V., Jr., (1997). Red earth, white lies: Native Americans and the myth of scientific fact. Golden, CO: Fulcrum.
Deloria, V., Jr. (1998). Comfortable fictions and the struggle for turf: An essay
review of The Invented Indian: Cultural Fictions and Government
Policies. In D. A. Mihesuah (Ed.), Natives and academics: Researching and
writing about American Indians (pp. 6583). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
Deloria, V., Jr. & Wildcat, D. R. (2001). Power and place: Indian education in
America. Golden, CO: American Indian Graduate Center and Fulcrum
Resources.
Fixico, D. L. (1998). Ethics and responsibilities in writing about American Indian
history. In D. A. Mihesuah (Ed.), Natives and academics: Researching and writing about American Indians (pp. 8499). Lincoln: University of Nebraska
Press.
46
Ford-Slack, P. J., Rains, F. V., Dunlap, D., & Collay, M. (1994, April). Can we
rebuild the AERA house using the same old tools? The Academic Vampire
Chronicles III. A readers theatre on life in academia. An experimental presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Frierson, H. T. (1990, March). The situation of Black educational researchers:
Continuation of a crisis. Educational Researcher, 19(2), 1217.
Gedicks, A. (1993). The new resource wars: Native and environmental struggles against
multinational corporations. Boston: South End Press.
Harrison, F. V. (1993). Writing against the grain: Cultural politics of difference in
the work of Alice Walker. Critique of Anthropology, 13(4), 401427.
Hunt Jackson, H. (1880/1993). A century of dishonor: A sketch of the United States governments dealings with some of the Indian tribes. New York: Indian Head
Books.
Hurtado, A. (1996). The color of privilege: Three blasphemies on race and feminism. Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
LaDuke, W. (1999). All our relations: Native struggles for land and life. Cambridge,
MA: South End Press.
Little Bear, L. (2000). Jagged worldviews colliding. In M. Battiste (Ed.). Reclaiming
Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 7785). Vancouver, Canada: University of
British Columbia Press.
Lomawaima, K. T. (2000, Spring). Tribal Sovereigns: Reframing research in
American Indian education. Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 121.
Macedo, D., & Bartolome, L. I. (1999). Dancing with bigotry: Beyond the politics of tolerance. New York: Palgrave Publishers.
Malin, M. (1994). What is a good teacher? Anglo and Aboriginal Australian views.
Peabody Journal of Education, 69(2), 94114.
Mihesuah, D. A. (Ed.). (1998a). Natives and academics: Researching and writing about
American Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Mihesuah, D. A. (1998b). Introduction. In D. A. Mihesual (Ed.), Natives and academics: Researching and writing about American Indians (pp. 122). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Introduction: Cartographies of struggle-Third world
women and the politics of feminism. In C. T. Mohanty & L. Torres (Eds.),
Third world women and the politics of feminism (pp. 147). Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Nason, J. D. (1996). Tribal models for controlling research. Tribal College, 8(2),
1720.
47
Nerburn, K., & Mengelkoch, L. (1991). Native American wisdom. San Rafael, CA:
New World Library.
Notah Verney, M. (2004). On authenticity. In A. Waters (Ed.), American Indian
thought: Philosophical essays (pp.133139). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Padilla, A. M. (1994). Ethnic minority scholars, research, and mentoring: Current
and future issues. Educational Researcher, 23(4), 2427.
Padilla, R. V., & Chavez Chavez, R. (1995). The leaning ivory tower: Latino professors
in American universities. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Parker, A. (2003, February). Should Native American scholars support the development
of advanced studies in Native American self-determination as a unifying theory for
the discipline of Native American Studies? Unpublished discussion paper.
Fourth Annual American Indian Studies Consortium, Arizona State
University. Tempe, AZ.
Rains, F. V. (1995). Views from within: Women faculty of color in a research university.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.
Rains, F. V. (1998b). Is the benign really harmless?: Deconstructing some benign
manifestations of operationalized white privilege. In J. Kincheloe (Ed.),
White reign: Learning and deploying whiteness in America. New York: St.
Martins Press.
Rains, F. V. (2003). To greet the dawn with open eyes: American Indians, white privilege and the power of residual guild in the social studies. In G. Ladson-Billings
(Ed.), Critical race theory perspectives on the social studies: The profession, policies and
the curriculum (pp.199227). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Reyes, M. de la L., & Halcon, J. J. (1991). Practices of the academy: Barriers to access
for Chicano academics. In P. G. Altback & K. Lomoley (Eds) The racial crisis in
American higher education. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Rock Ethics Institute. (2004). Ethics and epistemologies of ignorance conference:
Conference Goals. The Penn State University, University Park, PA.
Retrieved (April 22, 2004) from http://www.rockethics.psu.edu/eei/conference_goals.html
Roman, L. G. (1993). White is a color! White defensiveness, postmodernism and
anti-racist pedagogy. In C. McCarthy and W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race, identity
and representation in education (pp.7188). New York: Routledge.
Smith, G. H. (2000). Protecting and respecting Indigenous knowledge. In M.
Battiste (Ed), Reclaiming Indigenous voice and vision (pp. 209224). Vancouver,
B.C. Canada.
Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous peoples. New
York: Zed Books.
Stannard, D. E. (1992). American holocaust: The conquest of the new world. New York:
Oxford University Press.
48
Swisher, K. G. (1998). Why Indian people should be the ones to write about Indian
education. In D. A. Mihesuah (Ed.). Natives and academics: Researching and writing
about American Indians (pp.190200). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Swisher, K. G., & Tippeconnic, J. W., III. (1999a), Next steps: Research and practice
to advance Indian education. Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural
Education and Small Schools.
Swisher, K. G., & Tippeconnic, J. W., III. (1999b). Research to support improved
practice in Indian education. In K. G. Swisher & J. W. Tippeconnic, III
(Eds.), Next steps: Research and practice to advance Indian education (pp.
295307). Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and
Small Schools.
Waters, A. (Ed.). (2004). American Indian thought: Philosophical essays. Malden, MA:
Blackwell Publishers.
Chapter 3
50
51
almost conceded that I was in the thralls of some illness when Mrs. Baily
stepped in and saved me. Out of the blue, she said that I was a good listener
and that I was nosey just like her. I believe after noting the dejected look on
my faceI knew that nosey was not good from what people said about
hershe declared me to be curious. Curious was ok with me. I could live
peaceably with that. Heck, I could even be proud of that.
My experience with my best friend in all the world was the beginning
of consolidation, a way of knowing my world and approaching intriguing
people I encounter. Where does this put me with regard to constructing
myself as a scholar, researcher, and theorist? There were many precursive
iterations of me along these lines. I channeled my curiosity in different
directions. I read anything and everything I could take out of the Lancaster
Free Public Library. I was expelled from the library for hiding and listening to peoples conversations in the ladies room. I suspect that I was viewed
as a juvenile delinquent by the librarians. They found me out during one of
my investigations of what women do in the bathroom and why the place
remained so neat. This was dramatically different from the times my
friends and I used the facility. It turns out that adults had not figured out
ways to squirt water from the faucets at each other. At some point I did
leave the more undercover aspects of my listening behind for the overt
activities of a nurses aid. I began working as an aid during grade school
and continued on into high school. During the latter part of my tenure, as
such, I lost my innocence. Information about people was a type of currency. The more one knew and knew exclusively, the more popular she
could become.
One day, as I stood in the lunch line, one of the cafeteria ladies said to
me, Barbara, you are a very nice girl. You dont gossip. Ive never heard
you say a mean thing about anybody. She set a standard for me with her
comment, and I believed I fell short of it. I was moved by the positive
impression the woman had of me. But I also knew that she was wrong
about me from that day on. It seemed that wherever there was gossip and
mean things being saidI was there to hear them. By my very presence, it
seemed that I was duplicitous. Listening and expressing an interest in the
story looked a lot like collecting gossip and being nosey.
The desire to experience other peoples lives through their life stories became transformed by a motivation external to my own. My motivation was curiosity, however, as I continued to work in hospital settings,
first as a nurses aid, then a ward clerk, and finally as a nurse, the motivation for collecting such stories was born of a higher purpose: to help, to
nurse, to heal and make whole. The stories were tied to an ethic of caring
52
53
54
On Research. . . .
I came to the university with my doctorate in administration, planning, and social policy from Harvard University. Upon graduation, I
worked briefly in postsecondary management or administration. However,
my background has been as a clinician following undergraduate training in
sociology and graduate work in science and social work at the University of
Wisconsin at Madison. My background is significant for several reasons.
Prior to my graduate studies at Harvard, I worked as a clinical social
worker for community mental health and mental retardation direct service
agencies. While I was employed by a state health department as a district
social service director, I also supervised field placements for graduate students majoring in social work and public administration. My own work at
the time covered mental health, public health, and community organizing
around implementation of public health policies and services.
My interest and professional development shifted from direct service
to organizational and policy issues during my doctoral studies. Upon moving into an academic career I have followed my interest in areas of organizational change including innovation design and implementation,
institutionalization, and federal and state policy implementation. I initially
concerned myself with structure and process in organizational change and
leadership, spending several years exploring these and related dynamics.
An example of this can be found in an article I wrote with my colleague
55
56
57
pated. From this work I produced The Life Experiences of Women and
their Leadership Practice, an article published in the Journal of
International Studies in Educational Administration. Following this, I produced Women in power: Pathways to leadership in education published by
Teachers College Press. Maxine Greene, a philosopher, author of The
Dialectic of Freedom, and a scholar whom I greatly admire, wrote the forward to this book. In her own work, she urges individuals to press on with
their identity work that she refers to, as the project and this has been a
source of inspiration to me. She, along with Kay Towns, a dear friend of
mine whose council I will miss, were both role models and mentors albeit
in quite different ways. Kays steady and steadfast guidance supported me
through many difficult times as I struggled to construct myself as an academic. Maxines writings were and continue to be a source of inspiration. I
believe the chapter I had published in the book Tenure in the Sacred
Groves: Issues and Strategies for Women and Minority Faculty titled The
Caged Bird Sings: On Being Different and the Role of Advocacy
responds even more directly to Maxine Greenes stance on becoming self.
It also serves as a much needed catharsis following my first experience
with tenure and promotion.
Over the course of my explorations, I have been able to crystallize a
human interactionist perspective on organizational dynamics including
culture, change, and human resource management that integrate a clinical
perspective as well. The influence of this can be found in my writing on
leadership, leadership and organizational identity, the individuals experience in coping with rapid-cycle restructuring in organizations, and the
transitional cultures that emerge during those changes. I have advanced
theoretical perspectives on these issues in The Influence of the Leader
Persona on Organizational Identity published in The Journal of Leadership
Studies and in articles currently in process, under review, or in press.
In addition to continuing to explore ways of understanding the way
people experience and react to organizational change, develop and become
leaders, I have been concerned with reforms within the public school systems. I have spent several years collecting background data related to the
intentions of those who frame reforms with regard to the sweeping overhaul
of public schools, I have been listening to the perspectives of teachers as they
bring the concerns they have with the reforms into my seminars where discussions develop on the ways in which the changes and new demands influence self-perception and raise issues of efficacy and mastery. Those teachers
raise issues of object relations or their relationship to others as well. They are
aware that the teacher/student interactions and relationships are subject to
58
59
chosocial reality along with the deliberateness that is involved in constructing African American identity. As I stated earlier, Maxine Greene
(1988), within the context of the philosophy of education, refers to identity
work as a project in which people deliberately, voluntarily, and sometimes
forcibly define who they are. I decided to convey these through multiple
storylines: historical documentary that involved designing a framework
with temporal references and varying contexts, and employing oral tradition, including the use of poetry and metaphor as the voice of an elder juxtaposed to that of a child. The latter represents the process of informing
the companion character and audience about the speaker and his relationship to them as other.
In addition to addressing identity construction, I also hoped to
achieve a type of social advocacy. The book has been widely celebrated and
accepted for its contribution to the areas of social and cultural studies. It is
used in multicultural education and won the Teachers Choice Award. It
was displayed in the Education Department of the Museum of African
American History in Detroit, and Museum of Art in Chicago, because of
its unusual artwork and combination of historical content and poetic-narrative style.
My work and interests, described here, continue through a number
of projects. These include women in leadership, and leadership and cognition. I hope to continue to develop perspectives on human interaction, to
address identity construction issues, leadership and, perhaps, do more on
social advocacy.
60
References
Erikson, E. (1982). The life cycle completed. New York: W. W. Norton.
Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problem and process in human development.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Josselson, R. (1990). Finding herself: Pathways to identity development in women. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Josselson, R. (1992). The space between us: Exploring the dimensions of human relationships. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lahey, L., Souvaine, E., Kegan, R., Goodman, R., & Felix, S. (n.d.). A guide to the
subject-object interview: Its administration and interpretation. Cambridge:
Subject-Object Research Group.
Marcia, J. E., Waterman, A. S., Matteson, D. R., Archer, S. L., & Orlofsky, J. L. (1993).
Ego identity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Chapter 4
62
what are now described as children at risk, young people then described
when we were coming up as disadvantaged, culturally deprived, and
even problem students.
I was fortunate that I had a family who, although unable to help me
with homework, would make sure that it got done; a family who used
Education, Sonia, education! as a mantra. But they kept on speaking
Spanish (even when my sister and I switched to English), they did not buy
books, and they never read us bedtime stories. My parents, just like all parents, were brimming with skills and talents: they were becoming bilingual,
they told us many stories and riddles and tongue twisters and jokes. When
my father, 20 years after coming to this country, bought a bodega, a small
Caribbean grocery store, I was awed by the sight of him adding up a column of figures in seconds, without a calculator or even a pencil. My
mother embroidered beautiful and intricate patterns on handkerchiefs,
blouses, and tablecloths, a trade practiced by many poor women in Puerto
Rico, to stock the shelves of Lord and Taylor and Saks Fifth Avenue in
New York. These skills, however, were never called on by my teachers; my
parents were thought of as culturally deprived and disadvantaged, another
segment of the urban poor with no discernible competencies.
Sometime in my early adolescence, we bought a small house in a
lower middle class neighborhood and I was able to attend a good junior
high and an excellent high school. I did not particularly like that high
schoolit was too competitive and impersonal and I felt invisible there
but in retrospect I realize that my sister and I got the education we needed
to prepare us for college, a dream beyond the wildest imagination of my
parents, most of my cousins, and the friends from our previous neighborhood. My new address made a profound difference in the education that I
was able to get. I eventually dropped the aint and the mines and hid
the fact that I spoke Spanish.
I begin with my own story, not because I believe autobiography is
sacrosanct, or that it holds the answer to all educational problems. My
story is not unique and I do not want to single myself our as an exception
in the way that Richard Rodriguez ended up doing, intentionally or not, in
his painful autobiography Hunger of Memory (1982). I use my story because
it undersores the fact that young people of all backgrounds can learn. They
need not be compelled, as Richard Rodriguez was, to abandon their family
and home language for the benefits of an education and a higher status in
society. In many ways, I am like any of the millions of young people in our
classrooms and schools who come to school eager (although perhaps not,
in the current jargon, ready) to learn, but who end up as the waste prod-
63
ucts of an educational system that does not understand the gifts they bring
to their education. They are the reason that I am concerned about language, literacy, and culture, and the implications that new ways of thinking
about them have for children.
Language, literacy, and culture have not always been linked either
conceptually or programmatically. But this is changing, as numerous
schools and colleges of education around the country are beginning to
reflect a growing awareness of their intersections, and of the promise they
hold for rethinking teaching and learning. My own reconceptualized program at the University of Massachusetts, now called Language, Literacy,
and Culture, mirrors this trend. I believe the tendency to link these issues
is giving us a richer picture of learning, especially for students whose identitiesparticularly those related to language, race, ethnicity, and immigrant
statushave traditionally had a low status in our society. One result of this
reconceptualization is that more education programs reflect and promote a
sociocultural perspective in language and literacy, that is a perspective
firmly rooted in an anthropological understanding of culture; a view of
learning as socially constructed and mutually negotiated; an understanding
of how students from diverse segments of societydue to differential
access, and cultural and linguistic differencesexperience schooling; and a
commitment to social justice. I know that multiple and conflicting ideas
exist about these theoretical perspectives, but I believe some basic tenets of
sociocultural theory can serve as a platform for discussion. I will explore a
number of these tenets, illustrating them with examples from my research
and using the stories and experiences of young people in U.S. schools.
The language of sociocultural theory includes terms such as discourse, hegemony, power, social practice, identity, hybridity, and even the very
work, literacy. Today, these terms have become commonplace, but if we
were to do a review of the literature of 20 years ago or less, we would be
hard pressed to find them, at least as currently used. What does this
mean? How has our awareness and internalization of these terms and
everything they imply changed how we look at teaching and learning? Let
us look at literacy. It is generally accepted that certain family and home
conditions promote literacy, including an abundant supply of books they
read, and other such conditions (Snow, Barnes, Chandler, Goodman, &
Hemphill, 1991). I have no doubt that this is true in many cases, and I
have made certain that my husband and I did these things with our own
children. I am sure we made their lives easier as a result. But what of the
children for whom these conditions are not present, but who nevertheless
grow up literate (Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988)? Should children be
64
doomed to educational failure because their parents did not live in the
right neighborhood, were not privileged enough to be formally educated,
or did not take their children to museums or attend plays? Should they be
disqualified from leaning because they did not have books at home?
65
connected and overlapping. I separate them here for matters of convenience, not because I see them as fundamentally independent concepts.
AGENCY
In many classrooms and schools, learning continues to be thought of
as transmission rather than as agency, or mutual discovery by students and
teachers. At the crudest level, learning is thought to be the reproduction of
socially sanctioned knowledge, or what Michael Apple (1993) has called
official knowledge. These are dominant attitudes and behaviors that
society deems basic to functioning. The most extreme manifestation of
this notion of learning is what Paulo Freire (1970) called banking education, that is, the simple depositing of knowledge into students who are
thought to be empty receptacles. In an elegant rejection of the banking
concept of education, Freire instead defined the act of study as constructed
by active agents. According to Freire (1985), To study is not to consume
ideas, but to create and re-create them (p. 4).
Although teachers and theorists alike repudiate learning as the
reproduction of socially sanctioned knowledge, it continues to exist in
many schools and classrooms. It is the very foundation of such ideas as
teacher-proof curriculum, the need to cover the material in a given
subject, and the endless list of skills and competencies that every student
should know (Hirsch, 1987). This contradiction was evident even near
the beginning of the twentieth century when John Dewey (1916) asked:
Why is it, in spite of the fact that teaching by pouring in, learning by
a passive absorption, are universally condemned, that they are still so
entrenched in practice? That education is not an affair of telling
and being told, but an active and constructive process, is a principle
almost as generally violated in practice as conceded in theory (p. 38).
Why does this continue to happen? One reason is probably the
doubt among the public that teachers and students have the ability to construct meaningful and important knowledge. Likewise, in low income
schools with students from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds,
very little agency exists on the part of either students or teachers. In such
schools, teachers learn that their primary responsibility is to teach the
basics because students are thought to have neither the innate ability nor
the experiential background of more privileged students. In the case of students for whom English is a second language, the assumption that they
must master English before they can think and reason may prevail.
66
Let me share some examples of agency, or lack of it, from the words
of students of diverse backgrounds whom a number of colleagues (Paula
Elliott, Haydee Font, Maya Gillingham, Beatriz McConnie Zapater, Mac
Lee Morante, Carol Shea, Diane Sweet, and Carlie Tartakov) and I interviewed for my first book (Nieto, 1992, 2000). We found that students
views largely echoed those of educational researchers who have found
that teaching methods in most classrooms, especially those in secondary
schools and even more so in secondary schools attended by poor students
of all backgrounds, vary little from traditional chalk and talk methods;
that textbooks are the dominant teaching materials used; that routine and
rote learning are generally favored over creativity and critical thinking;
and that teacher-centered transmission models still prevail (Cummins,
1994; Goodlad, 1984). Students in my study (Nieto, 1992, 2000) had
more to say about pedagogy than about anything else, and they were especially critical of teachers who provided only passive learning environments for students.
Linda Howard, who was just graduating as the valedictorian of her
class in an urban high school, is a case in point. Although now at the top of
her class Linda, had failed seventh and eighth grades twice, for a variety of
reasons both academic and medical. She had this to say about pedagogy:
Because I know there were plenty of classes where I lost complete
interest. But those were all because the teachers just Open the
books to this page. They never made up problems out of their head.
Everything came out of the book. You didnt ask questions. If you
asked them questions, then the answer was in the book. And if you
asked the question and the answer wasnt in the book, then you
shouldnt have asked that question! (pp. 5556)
Rich Miller, a young man who planned to attend pharmacy school after
graduation, described a normal teacher as one who gets up, gives you a
lecture, or theres teachers that just pass out the work, you do the work,
pass it in, get a grade, goodbye! (p. 66)
The students were especially critical of teachers who relied on textbooks and blackboards. Avi Abramson, a young man who had attended
Jewish day schools and was now in a public high school, had some difficulty
adjusting to the differences in pedagogy. He believed that some teachers
did better because they taught from the point of view of the students:
They dont just come out and say, All right, do this, blah, blah,
bla . . . theyre not so one-tone voice (p. 116). Yolanda Piedra, a Mexican
67
student, said that her English teacher just does the things and sits down
(p. 221). Another student mentioned that some teachers just teach the
stuff. Here, write a couple of things on the board, see, thats how you do
it. Go ahead, page 23 (p.166).
These students did not just criticize, however; they also gave examples of teachers who promoted active learning. Hoang Vinh, in his junior
year of high school, spoke with feeling about teachers who allowed him to
speak Vietnamese with other students in class. He also loved working with
groups, contrary to conventional wisdom about Asian students preference
for individual work (demonstrating the dangers of generalizing about fixed
cultural traits). Vinh particularly appreciated the teacher who asked students to discuss important issues, rather than focus only on learning what
he called the words meaning (p.143) by writing and memorizing lists of
words. Students also offered thoughtful suggestions to teachers to make
their classrooms more engaging places. One student recommended that
teachers involve more students actively: More like making the whole class
be involved, not making only the two smartest people up here to do the
work for the whole class (p. 125).
Teaching becomes much more complex, when learning is based on
the idea that all students have the ability to think and reason.
Sociocultural and sociopolitical theories emphasize that learning is not
simply a question of transmitting knowledge, but rather of working with
students so that they can reflect, theorize, and create knowledge. Given
this notion of agency, banking education (Freire, 1970) makes little
sense. Instead, the focus on reflective questions invites students to consider different options, to question taken-for-granted truths, and to delve
more deeply into problems.
EXPERIENCE
That learning needs to build on experience is a taken-for-granted
maxim, based on the idea that it is an innately human endeavor accessible
to all people. But somehow, this principle is often ignored when it comes
to young people who have not had the kinds of experiences that are
thought to prepare them for academic success, particularly those students
who have not been raised with the culture of power (Delpit, 1988), or
who have not explicitly learned the rules of the game for academic success.
The experiences of these studentsusually young people of culturally and
linguistically diverse backgrounds and those raised in povertytend to be
quite different from the experiences of more economically and socially
68
69
gifted teacher, Mary also knew that being nice is not enough, an idea she
elaborated on in a journal she kept for a class she took with me:
Every child needs to feel welcome, to feel comfortable. School is a
foreign land to most kids (where else in the world would you spend
time circling answers and filling in the blanks?), but the more distant
a childs culture and language are from the culture and language of
school, the more at risk that child is. A warm, friendly, helpful
teacher is nice, but it isnt enough. We have plenty of warm friendly
teachers who tell the kids nicely to forget their Spanish and ask
mommy and daddy to speak to them in English at home; who give
them easier tasks so they wont feel badly when the work becomes
difficult; who never learn about what life is like at home or what they
eat or what music they like or what stories they have been told or
what their history is. Instead, we smile and give them a hug and tell
them to eat our food and listen to our stories and dance to our music.
We teach them to read with our words and wonder why its so hard
for them. We ask them quietly and well tell them whats important
and what they must know to get ready for the next grade. And we
never ask them who they are and where they want to go. (pp. 8586)
A case in point is Hoang Vinh, the Vietnamese student I mentioned
previously. Vinh was literate in Vietnamese and he made certain that his
younger siblings spoke it exclusively at home and they all write to their parents in Vietnam weekly. He was a good student, but he was struggling to
learn English, something that his teachers did not always understand. He
told how some teachers described his native language as funny, and even
laughed at it. But as he explained, [To keep reading and writing
Vietnamese] is very important. . . . So, I like to learn English but I like to
learn my language too (Nieto, 1992, 2000, p. 178). Even more fundamental
for Vinh was that teachers try to understand their students experiences and
culture. He explained: [My teachers] understand some things, just not all
Vietnamese culture. Like they just understand some things outside. . . . But
they cannot understand something inside our hearts (p. 178). Vinhs words
are a good reminder that when students skills and knowledge are dismissed
as inappropriate for the school setting, schools lose a golden opportunity to
build on their students lives in the service of their learning.
IDENTITY/HYBRIDITY
How students benefit from schooling is influenced by many things
including the particular individual personalities of students and the values
70
of the cultural context in which they have been raised. Traditional theories, however, privilege individual differences above all other circumstances. As a result, it is primarily through tests and other measures of
students individual abilities that their intelligence is determined.
Sociocultural theory goes beyond this limited perspective to include other
issues such as students cultural identities. But culture should not be
thought of as unproblematic. Mary Kalantzis, Bill Cope & Diana Slade
(1989) remind us that:
. . . we are not simply bearers of cultures, languages, and histories,
with a duty to reproduce them. We are the products of linguistic-cultural circumstances, actors with a capacity to resynthesize what we
have been socialized into and to solve new and emerging problems of
existence. We are not duty-bound to conserve ancestral characteristics which are not structurally useful. We are both socially determined and creators of human features (p. 18).
Culture is complex and intricate; it cannot be reduced to holidays, foods,
or dances, although these are, of course, elements of culture. Everyone has
a culture because all people participate in the world through social and
political relationships informed by history as well as by race, ethnicity, language, social class, sexual orientation, gender, and other circumstances
related to identity and experience.
If culture is thought of in a sentimental way, then it becomes little
more than a yearning for a past that never existed, or an idealized, sanitized
version of what exists in reality. The result may be an unadulterated, essentialized culture on a pedestal that bears little resemblance to the messy
and contradictory culture of real life. The problem of viewing some
aspects of culture as indispensable attributes that must be shared by all
people within a particular group springs from a romanticized and uncritical understanding of culture.
Let me share an example of this. Last year, I received an email message with the subject heading You Know Youre Puerto Rican When. . . .
The message was meant to be humorous and it included a long list of experiences and characteristics that presumably describe what it means to be
Puerto Rican in the United States (for example, being chased by your
mother with a chancleta (slipper) in hand; always having a dinner that consists of rice and beans and some kind of meat; having a grandmother who
thinks Vicks Vapor Rub is the miracle cure for everything). I laughed at
many of these things (and I shared a good number of these experiences
71
when I was growing up in New York City), but it was also sobering to read
the list because it felt like a litmus test for puertoriqueidad (Puerto
Ricanness). If you could prove that you had these particular experiences,
you could claim to be authentic. By putting them to paper, the author
was making it clear that these experiences defined the very essence of being
Puerto Rican.
Reading the list made me reflect on my own daughters, born and
raised in the United States by highly educated middle class parents. My
daughters would likely not pass the Puerto Rican litmus test; their dinner
was just as likely to consist of take-out Chinese or pizza as rice and beans;
they barely knew what Vicks Vapor Rub was; and I do not remember ever
chasing them, chancleta in hand. But both of them identify as Puerto Rican,
and they speak Spanish to varying degrees and enjoy rice and beans as
much as the next Puerto Rican. But they also eat salmon and frog legs and
pizza and Thai food. The email message I received made it seem as if there
was only one way to be Puerto Rican. The result of this kind of thinking is
that we are left with just two alternatives: either complete adherence to one
definition of identity, or total and unequivocal assimilation. We are, in the
words of Anthony Appiah (1994) replacing one kind of tyranny with
another (p.163).
My daughters identities are complicated. They live in a highly
diverse society in terms of race, ethnicity, social class, and other differences, and they enjoy privileges they have received as a result of their parents social class. The point of this story is to emphasize that culture does
not exist in a vacuum, but rather is situated in particular historical, social,
political, and economic conditions, another major tenet of sociocultural
theory. That is, culture needs to be understood as dynamic; multifaceted;
embedded in context; influenced by social, economic and political factors; created
and socially constructed; learned; and dialectical (Nieto, 1999). Steven Arvizus
(1994) wonderful description of culture as a verb rather than a noun captures the essence of culture beautifully. That is, culture is dynamic, active,
and changing, always on the move. Even within their native contexts, cultures are always changing as a result of political, social, and other influences in the environment. When people with different backgrounds come
in contact with one another, such change is to be expected even more.
Let me once again use the example of Linda Howard, one of the
young women we interviewed for Affirming Diversity (Nieto, 1992, 2000).
The issue of identity was a complicated one for her. Being biracial, she
identified as Black American and White American, and she said:
72
73
Puerto Rican food and Puerto Rican music to her was just the old fashioned and boring music her parents listened to. But in her everyday interactions with parents and siblings, and in the answers she gave to my
interview questions, she reflected deep aspects of Puerto Rican culture;
respect for elders; a profound kinship with and devotion to family; and a
desire to uphold important traditions such as staying with family rather
than going out with friends on important holidays. Just as there is no such
thing as a pure race, there is likewise no pure culture. That is, cultures
influence one another, and even minority cultures and those with less status have an impact on majority cultures, sometimes in dramatic ways.
Power is deeply implicated in notions of culture and language
(Fairclough, 1989). Indeed, what are often presented as cultural and linguistic differences are, above all, differences in power. Put another way, cultural
conflict is sometimes little more than political conflict. Let me give you
another example concerning the link between culture and context based on
an experience I had that took me by surprise even as a young adult.
Rice is a primary Puerto Rican staple. There is a saying in Spanish
that demonstrates how common it is: Puertorriqueos somos como el arroz
blanco: estamos por todas partes (Puerto Ricans are like white rice: we are
everywhere), an adage that says as much about rice as it does about the
diaspora of Puerto Rican people, almost half of whom live outside the
island. As a rule, Puerto Ricans eat short grain rice, but I have always preferred long grain rice. Some Puerto Ricans have made me feel practically
like a cultural traitor when I admitted it. I remember my surprise when a
fellow academic, a renowned Puerto Rican historian, explained the real
reason behind the preference for short grain rice. This preference did not
grow out of the blue, nor is that rice innately better. On the contrary, the
predilection for short grain rice was influenced by the historical context of
Puerto Ricans as a colonized people.
Near the beginning of the twentieth century, when Puerto Rico was
taken over by the United States (as spoils of the Spanish-American War),
there was a surplus of short grain rice in the United States. Colonies have
frequently been the destination for unwanted or surplus goods, so Puerto
Rico became the dumping ground for short grain rice, which had lower
status than long grain rice in the United States. After this, of course, the
preference for short grain rice became part of the culture. As is true of all
cultural values, however, this particular taste was influenced by history,
economics, and power. This example was a good lesson to me that culture
is not something inherent, but often arbitrary and negotiated.
74
Hybridity complicates the idea of cultural identity. It means that culture is always heterogeneous and complex; it also implies that assimilation
or cultural preservation are not the only alternatives. Ariel Dorfmans
(1998) autobiography, Heading South, Looking North: A Bilingual Journey,
eloquently described the turmoil he experienced as a child in developing
his identity, first in New York City, and later in Chile:
I instinctively chose to refuse the multiple complex in-between person I would someday become, this man who is shared by two equal
languages and who has come to believe that to tolerate differences
and indeed embody them personally and collectively might be our
only salvation as a species. (p. 42)
As an adult, he reflected on the demand to be culturally pure that he
experienced in the United States as a graduate student:
Sitting at my typewriter in Berkeley, California that day, precariously
balanced between Spanish and English, for the first time perhaps fully
aware of how extraordinarily bicultural I was, I did not have the maturityor the emotional or ideological space, probably not even the
vocabularyto answer that I was a hybrid, part Yankee, part Chilean,
a pinch of Jew, a mestizo in search of a center, I was unable to look
directly in the face of the divergent mystery of who I was, the abyss of
being bilingual and binational, at a time when everything demanded
that we be unequivocal and immaculate. (p. 22)
The notion of hybridity and/or culture, as implicated with power and
privilege, complicates culturally responsive pedagogy. Rather than simply
an incorporation of the cultural practices of students families in the curriculum, or a replication of stereotypical ideas about learning styles, culturally responsive pedagogy, in the broadest sense, is a political project.
According to Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994), it is about questioning (and
preparing students to question) the structural inequality, the racism, and
the injustice that exist in society (p.128). Culturally responsive pedagogy
is not simply about instilling pride in ones identity or boosting selfesteem. It is also about context and positionality.
CONTEXT/SITUATEDNESS/POSITIONALITY
When culture is thought of as context free, we fragment peoples
lives. In the words of Frederick Erickson (1990), as we freeze them out-
75
side time, outside a world of struggle in concrete history (p. 34). Context
is also about situatedness and positionality, reminding us that culture includes
the social markers that differentiate a group from others. It is once again
the recognition that questions of power are at the very heart of learning.
This view of culture also implies that differences in ethnicity, language,
social class, and gender need not, in and of themselves, be barriers to learning. Instead, it is how these differences are viewed in society that can make
the differences in whether and to what extent young people learn.
Judith Solskens (1993) definition of literacy, as the negotiation of
ones orientation toward written language and thus ones position within
multiple relations of power and status (p. 6) brings up a number of questions that have traditionally been neglected in discussions of reading and
writing, questions such as: How do students learn to use language in a way
that both acknowledges the context in which they find themselves, and
challenges the rules of that context? And how do young people learn to
negotiate the chasm that exists between their home languages and culture
and those of school?
Let me share with you another example from Linda Howard. What
helped Linda go from a struggling student in junior high to valedictorian
of her class several years later? There are probably many answers to this
question, but one ingredient that made a tremendous difference was Mr.
Benson, her favorite teacher in high school. He too was biracial, and Linda
talked about some of the things she had learned from Mr. Benson about
positionality and context:
Ive enjoyed all my English teachers at Jefferson. But Mr. Benson,
my English Honors teacher, he just threw me for a whirl! Cause Mr.
Benson, he says, I can go into Harvard and converse with those people, and I can go out in the street and rap with yall. Its that type of
thing, I love it. I try and be like that myself. I have my street talk. I get
out in the street and I say aint this and aint that and your
momma or whas up? But I get somewhere where I know the people arent familiar with that language or arent accepting that language, and I will talk properly. . . . I walk into a place and I listen to
how people are talking and it just automatically comes to me. (p. 56)
Lindas statement is an example of the tremendous intelligence
needed by young people whose discourses (Gee, 1990) are not endorsed by
schools, and who need to negotiate these differences on their own. Lindas
words are also a graphic illustration of James Baldwins characterization of
76
77
COMMUNITY
How we define and describe community is of central significance in
sociocultural theory. Lev Vygotskys (1978) research in the first decades of
the twentieth century was a catalyst for the viewpoint that learning is above
all a social practice. Vygotsky suggested that development and learning are
firmly rooted inand influenced bysociety and culture. Accepting this
notion means that it is no longer possible to separate learning from the
context in which it takes place, nor from an understanding of how cultures
and society influence and are influenced by learning.
Vygotsky, and others who have advanced the sociocultural foundation of cognition (Cole & Griffin, 1983; Scribner & Cole, 1981), have provided us with a framework for understanding how schools either
encourage or discourage the development of learning communities.
78
Because schools organize themselves in specific ways, they are more or less
comfortable and inviting for students of particular backgrounds. Most
schools closely reflect the traditional image of the intelligent, academically
prepared young person, and consequently, these are the young people who
tend to feel most comfortable in school settings. But institutional environments are never neutral; they are always based on particular views of
human development, of what is worth knowing, and of what it means to be
educated. When young people enter schools, they are entering institutions
that have already made some fundamental decisions about such matters. In
the process, some of these children may be left out through no fault of
their own. The ability to create community, so important in sociocultural
theory, is lost.
Maria Botelho, a doctoral student of mine and a former early childhood teacher and librarian, remembers very clearly what it was like to
begin school as a young immigrant student in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
After viewing a short video on bilingual education in one of my classes, she
felt almost as if she had stepped back in time. The video highlights a number of students, one of them Carly, a young Portuguese student in a bilingual class in Cambridge. Maria reflected on her reactions to the video in
the journal she kept for my class:
I viewed the video Quality Bilingual Education twice. I wept both
times. The Portuguese-speaking girl, Carla, attended kindergarten
in a school that is less that a block from where my parents live in
Cambridge; it was too close to home, so to speak. Like Carla, I
entered the Cambridge Public Schools speaking only Portuguese.
Unlike Carla, I was placed in a mainstream first-grade class. I still
remember my teacher bringing over a piece of paper with some writing on it (a worksheet) and crayons. I fell asleep. There I learned quietly about her world and my world was left with my coat, outside the
classroom door. (Nieto, 1999, p. 110)
Sociocultural theories are a radical departure from conventional
viewpoints that posit learning as largely unaffected by context. Traditional
viewpoints often consider that children such as Maria (who do not speak
English) have low intelligence. As a result, these children are automatically
barred from entering a community of learners. A Vygotskian perspective
provides a more hopeful framework for thinking about learning, because if
learning can be influenced by social mediation, then conditions that help
most students learn can be created in schools. These conditions can result
79
The best thing about bridges is that they do not need to be burned once
they are used; on the contrary, they become more valuable with use
because they help visitors from both sides become adjusted to different
contexts. However, that is a far cry from how diverse languages and cultures tend to be viewed in schools. Conventional wisdom tells us that, if
native languages and cultures are used at all, they should be discarded or
burned once one learns the important language and culture. This is definitely a one-way street with no turning back.
The metaphor of the bridge also suggests a different stance: you can
have two homes, and the bridge can help you cross the difficult and conflict-laden spaces between them. Teachers, who take seriously their
responsibility for working with students of diverse backgrounds, become
bridges, or what Diaz, Flores, Cousin & Soo Hoo (1992) have called sociocultural mediators. That is, they accept and validate the cultural symbols
80
used by all their students, and not just those from majority backgrounds. In
sociocultural theory, learning and achievement are not merely cognitive
processes, but complex issues that need to be understood in the development of community.
Three of my colleagues provide a hopeful example of using students
experiences and identities as a basis for creating community. Jo-Anne
Wilson Kennan, a teacher-researcher (working with Judith Solsken and
Jerri Willett, professors at the University of Massachusetts), developed a
collaborative action research project in a school in Springfield,
Massachusetts, with a very diverse student body. The projectbased on
the premise that parents and other family members of children from
widely diverse backgrounds have a lot to offer schools to enhance their
childrens learningwas distinct from others in which parents are simply
invited to both speak about their culture and share food. Their research
focuses on demonstrating how parents can promote student learning by
transforming the curriculum. But engaging in this kind of project is not
always easy. Kennan, Solsken, and Willett (1993), point out that collaborating with families required that we confront our own fears of difference
and open our classrooms to discussion of topics that may raise tensions
among the values of different individuals, groups, and institutions: (p. 64).
Through inspiring stories based on in-depth analysis of the families visits.
They describe how they attempted to build reciprocal relationships with
parents, and concluded:
Both the extent and the quality of participation by the parents belies
the common perception that low-income and minority parents are
unable or unwilling to collaborate with the school. Even more
important, our study documents the wide range of knowledge, skills,
and teaching capabilities that parents are already sharing with their
children at home and that are available to enrich the education of
their own and other children in school. (p. 64)
The important work of Moll & Gonzalez (1997) and their colleagues is
another well-known example of research that builds on family knowledge.
Conclusion
No theory provides all the answers. The persistent problems of education are not just about teaching and learning, but are about a societys
ideology. Sociocultural theories give us different insights into these prob-
81
82
References
Appiah, A. (1994). Identity, authenticity, survival: Multicultural societies and social
reproduction. In A. Gutman (Ed.), Multiculturalism (pp.149163). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
83
Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of official knowledge: Does a national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record, 95, 222241.
Arvizu, S. F. (1994). Building bridges for the future: Anthropological contributions
to diversity and classroom practice. In R. A. DeVillar, C. J. Faltis, & J.
Cummins (Eds.), Cultural diversity in schools: From rhetoric to reality (pp.
7597). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Bourdieu, P. (1985). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of
theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241248). Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Cole, M., & Griffin, P. (1983). A socio-historical approach to re-mediation.
Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 5(4),
6974).
Corson, D. (1993). Langiage, minority education and gender: Linking social justice and
power. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.
Cummins, J. (1994). Knowledge, power and identity in teaching English as a second language. In F. Genesee (Ed.), Educating second language children: The
whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 3558). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating
other peoples children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280298.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.
Diaz, E., Flores, B., Cousin, P. T., & Soo Hoo, S. (1992, April) Teacher as sociocultural mediator. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco.
Dorfman, A. (1998). Heading south, looking north: A bilingual journey. New York:
Penguin.
Erickson, F. (1990). Culture, politics, and educational practice. Educational
Foundations, 4(2), 2145.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. New York: Longman.
Fine, M. (1991). Framing dropouts: Notes on the politics of an urban high school. Albany:
State University of New York Press.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Seabury.
Freire, P. (1985). The politics of education: Culture, power and liberation. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.
Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: Letters to those who dare to teach.
Boulder, CO: Westview.
84
Gee, J. P. (1990). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideologies in discourse. Bristol, PA:
Falmer.
Giroux, H. (1992). Educational leadership and the crisis of democratic government, Educational Researcher, 21(4), 411.
Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Greene, M. (1994). Epistemology and educational research: The influence of
recent approaches to knowledge. In L. Darling-Hammond (Ed.), Review of
research in education, 20 (pp. 423464). Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Hirsch, E. D. (1987). Cultural literacy, What every American needs to know. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Jervis, K. (1996). How come there are no brothers on that list?: Hearing the hard
questions all children ask. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 546576.
Kalantzis, M., Cope, B., & Slade, D. (1989). Minority languages. London: Falmer.
Kohl, H. (1994). I wont learn from you and other thoughts on creative maladjustment.
New York: Free Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Locust, C. (1988). Wounding the spirit: Discrimination and traditional American
Indian Belief sytems. Harvard Educational Review, 3, 315330.
Mercado, C. I. (1998). When young people from marginalized communities enter
the world of ethnographic research: Scribing, planning, reflecting and sharing. In A. Egan-Robertson & D. Bloome (Eds.), Students as researchers of culture and language in their own communities (pp. 6992). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
McDermott, R. P. (1977). Social relations as contexts for learning in school.
Harvard Educational Review, 47, 198213.
McIntrye, A. (1997). Constructing an image of a white teacher. Teachers College
Press, 98, 653681.
Moll, L., & Gonzalez, N. (1997). Teachers as social scientists: Learning about culture from household research. In P. M. Hall (Ed.), Race, ethnicity and multiculturalism Vol.1 (pp. 89114). New York: Garland.
Nelson-Barber, S., & Estrin, E. T. (1995). Bringing Native American perspectives
to mathematics and science teaching. Theory into Practice, 34, 174185.
Nieto, S. (1992, 2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural
education. New York: Longman.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities.
New York: Teachers College Press.
85
Chapter 5
88
89
90
escape some folks. Even more surprising, some White women who write
on the issue of White Privilege see their role as being smarter and more
able to make decisions than myself. These folks will continue to question
me about an issue, though I believe they are not listening to the context of
my comments. I feel they are responding to my physical exterior and
relate to me as if I have a lower social status. This is even harder for me to
understand because I have great respect for their scholarship, however
walking the talk of equality is difficult for all of us. These examples
demonstrate how marginality is created by many unconscious forces
within a community.
I was an elementary grade teacher and I believe in the importance of
teaching the whole child. When trusting relationships are formed as the
basis for learning, children have confidence these teachers will do all they
can to ensure student success. In this way, children are motivated to try
because they know that their efforts will be affirmed and their abilities will
be encouraged. Throughout my life, there have been many who have
influenced my beliefs: students, teachers, scholars, family members, and
friends. Like most folks, my cultural background is extremely diverse and
yet, my values center on social justice, compassion, and community. These
forces have shaped my belief system and have led me to study the issues I
have chosen in my career. I think my own experiences as a women, a
Japanese American, a mother, and a teacher have led me towards the
importance of choosing a philosophical worldview that affirms and reflects
my multidimensional identity.
91
92
93
94
act, and educators must be politically active, I also think the work we do
must be grounded in educational theories. I am not a Diane Ravitch or
Chester Finn (who do not believe in Multicultural Education). I am an
educator who believes the field can make a difference, but I am frustrated
by the lack of leadership, rigor, and clarity in the discipline. Few of the
leaders in Multicultural Education have written clearly about their philosophical orientation. Several exceptions are Carl Grant, Christine Sleeter,
Geneva Gay, and Sonia Nieto.
Understanding the philosophical orientation of educational scholars
is vital. Identification of a scholars philosophy indicates the value system
and filters an educator uses in viewing issues or the foundation of their
decisions. Grant and Sleeter (1999) have presented social reconstructionism as a key philosophy. Gay (2000) has written extensively about progressive education and John Dewey, in particular. Nieto (2000) has chosen
critical theory as her philosophical framework and extends the beliefs of
scholars such as Paulo Freire. These philosophical orientations demonstrate that some scholars in the field have chosen social change, aimed at
providing educational equity, as a major goal. They are dedicated to moving schools toward reforms that center on providing equity in education.
Though there are many other scholars who write in the field, they have not
clearly identified the theories that form their belief system.
My philosophical framework is grounded in the work of John Dewey,
Lev Vygotsky, Vanessa Siddle Walker, Geneva Gay, Luis Moll, and Nel
Noddings. Since the ethic of care as developed by Noddings is foundational
to the framework, it is called caring-centered multicultural education
(Pang, 2005). I believe it is critical to have a strong philosophical orientation that includes educational principles and educational psychological theories, because they address the learning process. The principles and
theories of these researchers form an integrated and holistic orientation
towards education that emphasizes the importance of critical thinking
skills, culture, and the creation of a community of learners. However, as an
outsider within the field, my theoretical orientation has been marginalized.
This leads to another omission found in the field. Few multicultural
educators identify an educational psychological orientation. This is a glaring oversight, especially when multicultural educators call for reform in
instructional practice. What are the underlying theories that guide their
instruction? Educational psychological theories are critical to effective
instruction. These theories can provide educators with important directions for choosing curricular as well as instructional strategies. For example, some theorists believe that it is vital for teachers to construct
95
curriculum that builds upon what students already know and have a deep
grasp of because that provides a steady foundation for new knowledge
(Moll, 1990).
96
professional development. The field would benefit from more studies that
contribute to enlarging its research base.
97
equity are complex issues and involve more than the school context. For
example, Noguera (2003) discusses social complexities that students and
parents from urban schools face every day. The lack of adequate employment, health care, and housing are huge obstacles in the lives of many students. He believes the No Child Left Behind Initiative left behind
thousands of students in urban schools. Noguera writes:
The extreme disparities in wealth that pervade U.S. society are
largely responsible for the plight of young people and the state of
education in urban areas. However, the dearth of good schools is also
the inevitable by-product of a system that is almost completely unaccountable to those it serves. Public education is one of the few enterprises where the quality of service provided has no bearing
whatsoever on the ability of the system to function. Even when there
is little evidence that schools are able to fulfill their basic mission
educating childrenthe system continues to chug along and all
employees get paid (some quite well). This is why I believe that the
high-stakes exams adopted in states such as Massachusetts and
California are fundamentally flawed and morally irresponsible. The
exams are used to hold students accountable for their achievement
even though the authorities who have imposed the exams know that
they cannot guarantee the quality of the education students receive.
(2003, p.15)
These examples demonstrate how the examination of issues using data
from multiple disciplines can help teachers develop a more comprehensive
understanding of complex social problems such as affirmative action.
In the previous section, I provided recommendations that I believe
will strengthen the knowledge base in the field of Multicultural Education.
In the next section, I turn to teaching and, in particular, to the importance
of caring in Multicultural Education. This section describes Raymond, the
oldest student in my 35 years of teaching, who taught me a great deal about
successful teaching. By creating a bond of trust, Raymond allowed me the
opportunity to see into his life and understand, partially, essential values
that helped define him. This story demonstrates that it is through reciprocal trusting relationships between students and teachers that quality teaching is created in the classroom.
Raymonds Story
Last summer I taught an introductory class in Multicultural Education
at a large public university. This is a working students university, serving
98
99
the knowledge his children brought to school He was beginning to see the
impact of culturally relevant teaching. He also enjoyed being among the
2035 year olds planning to enter the teacher certification program. Two
of these students asked if he would help them with their math homework
and Ray tutored them after class for several days.
Another student, a young woman about 25-years-old was quiet and
reserved, often sitting by herself. One day she asked to make a presentation
about her health issues. Through her lesson she described her depression
and its impact on her life. After the presentation, Ray thanked her. He had
thought she did not want to talk but learned she was shy and found it difficult to rise out of her shell and reach out to others because of her illness.
Ray showed flexibility and openness that was not readily obvious.
During the last week of class, Ray did not attend on Monday or
Tuesday. This was unusual because he had not missed any sessions.
Someone asked if anyone had heard from him. No one knew what had
happened to him. On Tuesday, I called Ray at home. He had been in the
hospital over the weekend after his son found him unconscious at home.
However, he was feeling better and assured me he would be on class on
Thursday. However, on Thursday he wasnt in class. I called him again and
he explained he had to go back to the hospital for tests. I let him know that
students asked how he was. I said should I tell them you send your best
regards? Immediately he said No, I want you to tell them that I love each
one of them. Ray never came back to class. The doctors told him he had
stomach cancer. He died two weeks later.
Ray reminded me of the importance of the relationships we
develop in the classroom. Yes, sometimes he was a bit prickly, but
inside, he was ethical, open-minded, and caring. He was an extremely
complex person who was willing to reflect on some of his values. He
seemed so set in his ways, yet he was also open to new ideas. At the
beginning, he did not believe in Multicultural Education. Later, as the
class progressed, Ray began to understand the importance of knowing
more about the cultural diversity of children in the classroom. I
observed him work with several middle school Latino students in a
remedial class. Ray was extremely positive, asked questions about the
students and built a career unit on police officers because they were
interested in this profession. He had them read important selections
about police officers and gave them information about how to get
admitted to the police academy. The students asked questions and
were engaged in the lesson. Raymond was excellent with children.
He believed in the ability of each of his mentees and built trusting
100
relationships with them. Though age was somewhat of an obstacle, initially, Ray used humor to work effectively with them.
Summary
A scholar of color must decide what path to take. Should she break
out of the egg? If she does, she must be prepared for a journey where folks
will continually question her motives, her research methods, and her
beliefs. When she aligns herself with individuals from the mainstream,
there may be talk of being an assimilationist, a sell out, a banana, oreo,
apple, or coconut. When she builds coalitions with people of color, others
will say she is segregating herself. Knowing that there will always be criticism, one must choose an ethical and educational philosophy that serves to
anchor her so that students are at the heart of her work. In this way, she
does not feel she is working from the margins because the choices she
makes arise out of her integrity to the community.
My research in education is grounded within a multidimensional
identity. As a Japanese American female, mother, and elementary school
teacher, I created a value system that is based on these subcultures.
Though I often feel marginalized within academia, I am able to move forward in my work because of the strong cultural foundation that I have chosen. These various communities have assisted me in choosing research that
I believe will lead to more compassionate and effective schools. There are
always costs to those who risk. However, I believe these risks have led to
my learning that resistance is a good place to be. As Janice Mirikitani wrote
in her poem, Who is Singing this Song, the way to live ones life:
. . . We are required legacies of grandparents, parents
our enslaved and servant ancestors, our heroes and sheroes,
our fighters for freedom, to be
now the storm of hands
that wave in protest against apartheid, racism, classism, sexism,
war, hate, crime, violence and indifference to the poor
. . . Who is singing this song?
I am.
You are.
Our music is beautiful. (Mirikitani, 2001, pp. xxxivxxxc)
References
Banks, J. A. (2002). An introduction to multicultural education ( 3rd ed.) Boston: Allyn
& Bacon.
101
DAndrade, R. (1987). Folk models of the mind. In D. Holland & N. Quinn (Eds.),
Cultural models in language and thought. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Freire, P. (1972). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. (1999). Turning on learning. New York: Wiley.
Hahn, C. (1996). Research on issues-centered social studies. In R. W. Evans & D.
Saxe (Eds.), Handbook on teaching social issues (pp. 2541).Washington, DC:
National Council for Social Studies.
Mathison, S. (2001). Assessment in social studies: Moving toward authenticity. In
E. W. Ross (Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities (Rev. ed, pp. 217234). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mirikitani, J. (2001). Who is singing this song? In V. Nam (Ed.), Yell Oh Girls! (pp.
xxxixxxv). New York; Quill Publishers.
Moll, L. (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of
sociohistorical psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Monteith, M. J., Voils, C., & Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2001). Taking a look underground: Detecting, interpreting, and reacting to implicit racial biases. Social
cognition, 19(4), 395417.
Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural education. New York: Longman.
Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral development.
Berkeley; University of California Press.
Noguera, P. (2003). City schools and the American dream. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Nofke, S. (2000). Identity, community and democracy in the new social order. In
D. W. Hursh & E. W. Ross (Eds.), Democratic social education: Social studies for
change (pp. 7383). New York: Flamer.
Pang, V. O. (2005). Multicultural education: A caring-centered, reflective approach (2nd
ed.). Boston; McGraw Hill.
Pang, V. O. (1991). Test anxiety and math achievement: Their relationship to
parental values in Asian American and White American middle school students. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 24, 110.
Pang, V. O., & Park, S. D. (2003). Examination of the self-regulation mechanism:
Prejudice reduction in pre-service teachers. Action in Teacher Education.
Pang, V. O., Mizokawa, D., Morishima, J., & Olstad, R. (1985). Self-concepts of
Japanese-American children. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, 16, 99108.
102
Pang, V. O., & Cheng, L. L. (1998). Struggling to be heard: The unmet needs of Asian
Pacific American children. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rosen, J. (2003, June 1). How I learned to love quotas. The New York Times
Magazine, 5355.
Ross, E. W. (2001). The struggle for the social studies curriculum. In E. W. Ross
(Ed.), The social studies curriculum: Purposes, problems and possibilities (Rev. ed.,
pp. 1941). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Stanley, W. B., & Nelson, J. L. (1994). The foundations of social education in historical context. In R. Martusewica & W. Reynolds, (Eds.), Inside/out:
Contemporary critical perspectives in education (pp. 266284). New York: St.
Martins Press.
Vinson, K. (1998). The traditions revisited: Instructional approach and high school
social studies teachers. Theory and Research in Social Education, 26, 5082.
Welch, O. M. (2006). Making the familiar strange: Inclusion, exclusion, and erasure: Summarizing the philosophies of women researchers of color in D.
Pollard and O. M. Welch (eds.) From center to margins: The importance of selfdefiinition in research, Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chapter 6
he disparities between the achievement of African American students and their White and Asian peers have perplexed researchers, educators, and policymakers for decades. Most explanations
center on socioeconomic, sociopathological, and cultural explanations for
what is generally called the BlackWhite achievement gap. Recently,
researchers have begun to examine another explanation for the lack of
achievement among African American students: the quality of their teachers.
However, the research on teacher quality variables has not included
the perspectives of African American teachers. Perhaps this exclusion is
related to the fact that African American teachers see things differently
than researchers (Foster, 1997; Mitchell, 1999; Siddle Walker, 1996;
Stanford, 1998). For more than 20 years I have been a boundary crosser
between the world of researchers and the world of African American
teachers. My experience in working in both of these very different domains
is that African American teachers seldom reference or validate researchers
perspectives that attempt to explain African American students low
achievement. Instead teachers look introspectively at how their ethnic
identity, classroom practices, and their beliefs are related to the achievement of their African American studentsa complex examination indeed
1. Reprinted from Educating Teachers for Diversity: Seeing with the Cultural Eye.
Teachers College Press with permission of the author and Teachers College
Press.
103
104
105
(2)
(3)
Researchers Perspectives
Williams Sanders, formerly a statistician at the University of
Tennessee, reported findings on the significant impact of teachers on student achievement, particularly for African American students. He concluded that a single ineffective teacher may retard a childs progress for at
least four years (cited in Wenglinsky, 2000). There are other researchers,
such as Darling-Hammond (1999) who have isolated the teacher quality
variable as the focus of their research, citing data that specifically show
how unqualified teachers hinder the achievement of low income children
of color.
In high poverty schools, teachers are twice as likely to be teaching
out of field than in low poverty schools (U.S. Department of Education,
1999). In the state of California, for example, students in low income
socioeconomic status schools are ten times as likely to be taught by
uncertified teachers as students in high socioeconomic status schools
(Haycock, 2000).
Perhaps the National Commission on Teaching and Americas
Future (NCTAF) best exemplifies this focus. NCTAFs recommendation,
A competent teacher for every child, has become the mantra for policymakers who have mandated teacher competency tests and more rigorous
standards for admission to teacher education programs and teacher licensure (Darling-Hammond, 1997a). Proponents of this line of thinking cite
106
the results of the Massachusetts certification tests, where 60% of the 1,800
candidates failed, as support for their position. John Silber of the
Massachusetts State Board of Education proclaimed that any bright tenth
grader could pass such an essay test (Laitsch, 1998).
The push for a highly qualified teaching force is a reasonable and
worthwhile objective. However, similar to the analysis of student deficits,
there are criticisms of researchers who narrowly examine teacher quality
variables. The prestigious National Research Council (NRC) issued a
report in which members of the council concluded: there is little evidence
about the extent to which widely used tests distinguished between those
who are minimally competent and those who are not (Bradley, 2000, p.1).
In addition to concerns regarding measurement and methodological
issues, members of the NRC are concerned about the high failure rate of
teacher candidates of color. On the Massachusetts teacher certification
test, for example, only 5% of those who took the Communications and
Literacy Skills test were people of color. Of the 5% who took the test, only
46% passed compared to 70% of White test takers. This dismal rate promoted Kiang (1998/1999), a professor of teacher education and Asian
American Studies to write:
By constructing a test based on a sequence of isolated, decontextualized questions that have no relationship to each other, the underlying
epistemology embedded in the test design has a Western-cultural
bias, even if individual questions include or represent multicultural
content. Articulating and assessing a knowledge base required examining not only what one knows, but also how one knows. (p. 23)
On a poignant note, Kiang adds that he has come to understand why
African American teachers in the past have often referred to the National
Teachers Examination (NTE) as The Negro Teacher Eliminator.
Ingersolls work (1999) on out-of-field teaching in secondary schools
suggests that there is serious misunderstanding on this issue. He documents that out-of-field teaching is related to the lack of fit between
teachers fields of preparation and their teaching assignment, as well as the
shortage of teachers. (More than 2 million teachers will be needed over the
next ten years). Ingersoll concludes that the problem of unqualified teachers is as much related to the mismanagement of schools and the poor treatment of teachers as semi-skilled workers as it is to the charge that teachers
are incompetent or intellectually inferior.
107
108
109
because teachers see their classrooms and conduct their practice through
their cultural lens and researchers through their assumed intellectual and
objective lens.
Researchers inability to see African American teachers perspectives
is related to:
Scant attention to the ways in which knowing is inherently culture-bound and perspectival (Lather, 1991, p. 2)
Nave beliefs that researchers do not seek research conclusions
that fit their prejudices (Myrdal, 1969, p. 43); and
Adherence to claims that objectivity is independent of the race,
color, creed, occupation, nationality, religion, moral preference,
and political predispositions of the investigator.
110
111
changing the place or setting for research from the university to the school
is not considered a serious proposal by many researchers, especially if a
school is ethnically and culturally diverse, urban and poor.
Yet, this change is exactly what I advocate. There should be more
authentic collaborative efforts among teachers of color and their culturally
diverse students and researchers than currently exists. Importantly, such
alliances should identify ways to improve the research process from problem conception to data interpretation. Working relationships should be
established in which the roles of subject and investigator are indistinct and
protean. Researchers who employ this strategy do not simply impose
meaning through their own obstructed cultural lens, but meaning is negotiated through a reciprocal process of discussion and mutual respect.
Murrell (1998) refers to this stance as assuming, the humility of a good
anthropologist (p. 31).
Changing the place where research is conducted is the first step, but
we should also examine the curriculum used in programs of educational
research. Hence, alternative Third Eye vision also includes:
2. Changing how we train researchers. How do we revise the doctoral
research curriculum to help students use their third eye to understand that
African American teachers and their students do not wish to be simply
objects or subjects of research. Rather, they want to be actively involved in
studying their own lives and classrooms. Residents in urban communities
of color are demanding that their children, schools, and communities not
become convenient locations where researchers collect data without any
prior experiences, training, or knowledge of the school or community
that is, collecting research data as if picking up orders at the drive-in window of a fast food restaurant.
Additionally, many researchers overestimate their levels of knowledge and familiarity with communities of color based on cursory and
superficial experiences. However, their blind spot precludes them from
seeing the subtleties of culture and critical webs of significance (Geertz,
1973). Researchers often forget that they are research tools as well as
processors of inquiry data. As such, researchers should reflect and engage
in perspective-taking to unearth hidden assumptions about themselves as
cultural beings. It is inadequate to hire a devoted graduate student
researcher who shares the ethnicity of the cultural other. Furthermore,
scholars should be cognizant that attending to bias is not mere adherence
to methodological or technical rigor reducible to terms such as Differential
112
113
114
cannot get a real sense of what the classes are all about. If researchers
do not understand teachers conceptions of (and goals for) learning
communities, their understandings of their classrooms, will be
equally impoverished. (p.173)
Seeing with the third eye will produce research questions that are
jointly constructed by researcher, teachers, teacher educators, school
administrators, and parents who employ new and improved methodologies, collect data in different places, and establish and maintain collegial
research relationships. I recommend a more complex, multivariable, and
interdisciplinary rubric to explore nuances of context as suggested by
Bronfenbrenner (1976) whose inclusive ecological approach to research is
instructive. His model for research includes microsystem, mesosystem
(relationships), and macrosystem variables (economic, legal, political).
Bronfenbrenners macrosystemic variables are most pertinent to the
fourth and last change that I suggest, which is to recognize that race influences everyones daily livesincluding educational researchers. Appreciating the salience of race in academic inquiries may be accomplished by:
4. Changing how we see the influence of race in our work. In Parting the
Waters, Branch wrote that Almost as color defines vision itself, race
shapes the cultural eyewhat we do and do not notice, the reach of empathy, and the alignment of response (1988, p. xi). Branchs quote reminds
us of the power and significance of race in shaping the cultural eye.
However, many researchers remain both blind and mute when it comes to
issues of race. Researchers refusal to see out of the cultural eye and their
inability to talk about race is indeed ironic because research professors
earn their living by making astute observationsthat is, seeing what others
do not see and sharing their observations with the uninformed.
How may researchers help to close the achievement gap between
Black and White students when they do not acknowledge the role of race
in their own lives and in the lives of the students they study? The blind spot
in our national vision reveals more about ourselves as researchers than it
does those African American students who cannot ever seem to catch up
with their White counterparts. Yankelovich (quoted in Johnson &
Viadero, 2000, p. 21) boldly asserts that our society may not be seriously
ready to assault the achievement gap problem because if Black students
perform as well or outperform Whites, the myth of Black intellectual inferiority is destroyed.
115
I hope the transformative vision of the third eye will allow us to see
that the great divide between the achievement scores and performance of
Black and White students is merely a mirror that reflects the great divide
between Blacks and Whites in American society. As researchers, we should
deconstruct the binary between the self and other (Kumashiro, 2000, p.
35). Deconstruction of the binary begins by situating ones work in broad
conversations about race and racism and accepting African American
teacher explanations of the Black-White achievement gap as legitimate
and important arguments.
References
Ayers, W. (1993) To teach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Banks, J. A. (1996) The African American roots of multicultural education. In J. A.
Banks (Ed) Multicultural education, transformative knowledge and action:
Historical and contemporary perspectives. (pp. 3045) New York: Teachers contemporary College Press.
Bradley, A. (2000, March 15) National research panel tepid over tests for licensing
teachers. Education Week, 19 (27), pp. 1,6.
Branch, T. (1988) Parting the waters: America in the King years, 1954-63. New York:
Simon & Schuster. A
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1976) The experimental ecology of education, Educational
Researcher, 5, 5-15.
Cooper, P. M. (2002) Does race matter? A comparison of effective Black and
White teachers of African American students. In J. J. Irvine (Ed.) In Search of
wholeness: Aftican American teachers and their culturally specific classroom practices (pp. 47-63). New York: Palgrave.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1 997a) Doing what matters most: Investing in teacher quality.
New York: National Commission on Teaching and Americas Future.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999) State teaching policies and student achievement (Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy Report No.2) Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Dyson, M. E. (1996) Between God and gangsta rap: Bearing witness to Black culture.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Erickson, F. (1985) Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C.
Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 119-16 1). New York:
Macmillan.
Foster, M. (1997) Black teachers on teaching. New York: New Press.
Gadsden, V. L. & Irvine,, J. J. (1994, March). Private lives in public conversations: The
ethics of research across cultural communities. Paper presented at the annual
116
Gay, G. (2000) Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research and practice. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Geertz, C. (1973) The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Hankins, K. H. (1998) Cacophony to symphony: Memoirs in teacher research,
Harvard Educational Review, 68, 1, 8095.
Haycock, K. (2000) Honor in the boxcar: Equalizing teacher quality, Thinking
K-16, 4 (1)5112.
Ingersoll, R. M. (1999) The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools, Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26-37.
Irvine, J. J. (2002) In search of wholeness: African American teachers and their African
culturally specific classroom practices. New York: Palgrave.
Johnson, R. C. & Viadero, D. (2000, March 15) Unmet promise: Raising minority
achievement, Education Week, 19(27), pp. 1, 18-23.
Kiang, P. (1998/1999 winter) Trivial pursuits, Rethinking Schools, 13, (2) 23.
Kohl, H. The discipline of hope. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Kumashiro, K. K. (2000) Toward a theory of anti-oppressive education, Review of
Educational Research, 70 (1), 25-53.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995) The dreamkeepers. San Francisco. Jossey-Bass.
Laitsch, D. (1998, August 31) The Massachusetts teacher tests: What happened?
American Associationfor Colleges of Teacher Education Briefs, 19(11), 1-3.
Lather, P. (199 1) Getting smart. New York: Routledge, Chapman & Hall.
Leonard, G. (1984, April) The school reform hoax, Esquire Magazine, 4756.
Lieberman A. (1995) Practices that support teacher development, Phi Delta
Kappan, 76,591-596.
Lipman, P. (1998) Race, class and power in school restructuring. Albany: State
University of New York Press. ,
Mitchell, A. (1999) African American teachers: Unique roles and universal lessons,
Education and Urban Society, 31, (1)5 104122.
Murrell, P. C. (1998) Like stone soup: The role of the professional development school in
the renewal of uban schools. Washington, DC: American Association of
Colleges for Teacher Education.
Myrdal, G. (1969) Objectivity and social research. New York: Pantheon Books.
Rickford, A. (1999) I can fly. Lanham MD: University Press of America.
Sartwell, C. (1998) Act like you know. Aftican American autobiography and White identity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
117
Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999) The core, the canon and the development of research
skills. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman(Eds) Issues in educational research:
Problems and possibilities (pp. 166-202). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shulman, L. (1987) Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform,
Harvard Educational Review, 57, 122.
Siddle Walker, V. (1996) Their highest potential: An Aftican American school community in the segregated South. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Siddle Walker, V. (1999) Culture and commitment: Challenges for the future
training of educational researchers. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman
(Eds) Issues in educational research (pp. 224244). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stanford, G. (1998) African American teachers knowledge teaching: Understanding the influence of remembered teachers, Urban Review, 30, 229-243.
U. S. Department of Education (1999) A talented, dedicated and well-prepared teacher
in every classroom. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Wenglinsky, H. (2000) How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into the discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Chapter 7
120
ground. In losing touch with the ground of our knowing, and our sense of
what it is to be alive, we may too easily be seduced into compliance with a
reality presumed to be objectively existent, and constructed by those in
power, a reality beyond the grasp of feeling, intuition, empathy, imagination, and even wonder. It is to be understood rationally; analyzed and
synthesized logically; known by means of symbol systems; penetrated and
made significant in human practice by technologies. Those who are
excluded, and stigmatized by their exclusion, are kept (often without realizing it) from breaking the codes that hold the secrets to fundamental
knowledgeor what is considered such.
Those thrust to the margins (or the boundaries) of what is called the
great conversation or the carrier of Western tradition over time, are condemned to silence, in spite of the many voices said to be heard in the conversation. Unheard, unheeded, however, have been the voices of countless
women, like the voices raised in cultures considered undeveloped, even
primitive. And today, those trying to be listened to at the so-called Center
are likely to cause a certain unease in those identifying themselves with
ideas conceived to be universal utterances of a voice from nowhere. Not
only does an unfamiliar diversity of opinion threaten their certainties, a
specter of postmodern relativism begins to haunt them whatever their fundamentalism. They feel a wind from the margins that does not merely
chill. It is likely to cause severe irritation among those who define and justify their lives by belief in the absolute and the unquestionably true. And,
more often than not, they regard those outside the boundaries of their
belief system as not only different, but inferior. In time, of course, this
applies to those who are conceived as lesser beings because of their gender,
color, class, or nationality.
Admitting my own privilege, I have to say a few works about how my
own self-definition as student, teacher, writer, and researcher was affected
by my particular experiences with marginality. I am Jewish but the child of
stubbornly secular people who sent me to an Episcopalian school in order
to assimilate. Not only were all the girls Christian; most rode in horse
shows, looked forward to debuts, were sure of acceptance at the best
womens colleges. I learned this mostly by hearsay, since even my best
friend could not invite me to her home because my grandma doesnt like
Jews. And the sympathetic principal told me it was too bad I was Jewish or
she could have got me a scholarship to Mt. Holyoke. I never forgave myself
for whispering, Im sorry. Yes, I knew vaguely about college quotas; and
I had seen a sign on a Cape Cod house saying No Jews or dogs allowed.
But I was somehow sure there was a place for me in the great conversation,
121
perhaps because of the books I read, the number of Jewish novelists there
were (male novelists, of course), the notion that even a girl like me, from
Brooklyn, could cross the bridge to the city, to opportunity. I guess I
thought (having done well at Barnard, the college with the largest quota of
Jews) that I could somehow pass as a scholar, a researcher, an intellectual. I
continued to be marginalized as a woman, as a qualitative researcher, as an
existentialist when proper philosophers were analytic and language
philosophers and literary critics were formalists. I think being marginalized helped in my self-definition. I believe, after all, that we create ourselves by choice and action, and that we (like Ellisons narrator) have to
achieve our own visibility. So repeatedly choosing myself as a humanities,
aesthetics, existentialist person (usually in reaction against dominant orientations), I survived. I still often feel like an imposter, not rigorous
enough, not really part of the majority; and I keep being (as I have said too
often) what I am not yet.
Chapter 8
124
In this summary chapter, I examine the central theme of the text that
the Margins are viable sites for conducting, analyzing, and interpreting
research questions in a variety of disciplines. To underscore that point, I
provide an overview of each researchers perspective. Finally, in the latter
half of the chapter, I offer suggestions for promoting a climate of engagement within the general research community that recognizes and appreciates the valuable roles that women researchers of color can play in
dialogues on epistemology and ontology designed to advance equity in
education.
125
acquire the strategic role of the relatively objective inquirer (p. 32). Merten
provides the following quote by Simmel on this role of stranger:
He (the stranger) is freer, practically and theoretically. He surveys
conditions with less prejudice; his criteria for them are more general
and more objective ideals; he is not tied down in his action by habit,
piety, and precedent. . . . It is the stranger, too, who finds what is
familiar to the group significantly unfamiliar and so is prompted to
raise questions for inquiry less apt to be raised at all by Insiders.
(Simmel, 1950 as cited in Merten, 1972. pp. 3233)
Thus, as both Outsiders Within and Women of Color, the contributors to this volume have crafted their own self-definitions and self-valuations as researchers. In speaking about this process for Black women, Hill
Collins (1986) suggests:
The insistence on Black female self-definition reframes the entire
dialogue from one of determining the technical accuracy of an
image, to one stressing the power dynamics underlying the very
process of definition itself. When Black women define themselves,
they clearly reject the taken-for-granted assumption that those in
positions granting them the authority to describe and analyze reality
are entitled to do so.
The related theme of Black female self-valuation pushes the
entire process one step further. While Black female self-definition
speaks to the power dynamics involved in the act of defining images
of self and community, the theme of Black female self-valuation
addresses the actual content of these self definitions. (Hill Collins,
1986, pp. 516517)
In a very real sense then, the women of color in this text have used their
positions of marginality as sites of both resistance and reclamation. The
margins have become sites of resistance to definitions of either themselves
or their research by those whose views dominate the Center. Moreover,
the margins also have become sites of reclamation and validation where
these same women have contested the racist and sexist ideologies that have
attempted to treat them as Objects lacking full human subjectivity (Hill
Collins, 1986, p. 518).
Therefore, rather than seeing the margins as providing information
that only gains credibility when it is assimilated into the Center, in this volume, our colleagues argue that the Margins are viable epistemological sites
126
that are essential and necessary to understand, not only the researchers
but also the communities from which they come. Further, as each
researcher has suggested, the margins represent spaces that cannot and
should not be appropriated or contested by a hegemonic Center. Instead,
the books overriding message is that the Margins can furnish an essential
space where interrogation of old disciplinary questions and knowledge
production can occur. Indeed, along with our colleagues, we suggest that
the creation of this space is essential in order to develop new strategies
and evolve more inclusive and authentic questions that will expand the
understanding of both Margin and Center researchers of each others
worlds and research stances.
127
expediency, and in some cases, redundancy while maintaining the undisturbed superiority of dominant paradigms.
Rains struggles and yet continues to assert the need for an alternate
practice in her research, one that stresses self-determination, alternative
ways of presenting ones research ideas (i.e., opening up the definitions of
premier or elite publication venues to include those that deal with the
particular issues confronting individual communities of color), and a wider
and different conceptualization of the purpose of research. She argues that
such a conceptualization would revere and seek rather than revile and represent the views from within the communities of color being
researchedviews that are often different from those possessed by the
outsider researcher who is looking in, but whose views of those communities may affect the nature of research on a general level.
Raines notes: Self determination in research means that research is
not about taking in an individualistic, career-driven way. Instead, it is
about respectful reciprocity that honors the commitment and needs of the
tribe or community, while framing the research in ways that honor
Indigenous epistemologies , metaphysics, and knowledge: (p. 56 ). Rains
contends that this self-determination will, in turn, change the role of the
researcher and his/her relationship with the communities in which and
with whom the research is conducted. Indeed, she adds that the very reciprocity of the relationship holds the promise of producing a grounded theory that makes use of Indigenous Knowledge and Indigenous epistemic
frameworks opening a new and potentially more collaborative and authentic intellectual space. For Rains, self-determination is the heart of her discourse from the margins.
128
her inquiry on individuals rather than instrumentation, situating her scholarship in the theoretical frameworks of Erikson (1982); Kegan, (1982); and
Josselson (1990, 1992) as cited in Curry, this volume. Hearing people into
voice for this researcher, means a fidelity to ensuring authenticity in the
presentation of the experiences of others. To do so, she is committed to
advancing an agenda of social advocacy. She makes no apologies for that
commitment, believing that foregrounding the experiences of women
administrators, teachers, and other clinicians, requires her to become an
agent of transformation in research. Curry speaks from several sites in the
margins and in much the same way as researchers like bell hooks and
Cornel West, intentionally challenges the dominant discourses of the
Center on leadership, identity development, hierarchical formal structures
for decision-making, and a focus on instrumentation over people in discussions of organizational culture. She is clear that she wishes to be a catalyst
for dialogue between the Center and the Margins but not at the expense of
harming those professionals in administration, teaching and social work
that she considers to be her research colleagues and collaborators.
129
that from the Center become confluent, meeting and complimenting each
other. Nieto believes this process can result in a new and more authentic
form of border crossing, one that privileges no process of knowledge
construction or form of knowledge over another.
130
assure an authentic representation of the communities issues and questions, in the selection of research methodologies, data collection and
analysis, and, above all, in the interpretation and dissemination of findings.
In calling for this new, inclusive paradigm, she centers the issue of achievement squarely within the larger and intractable problem of race and
racism in America. (p. 105) Therefore, for Jordan Irvine, deconstruction
of the self and other binary systems involves situating the work of the
researcher in broad conversations about race and racism. (p. 115)
Recognition of this binary system, in turn, compels researchers to
face the difference in status and power that exists between themselves and
their informants, differences that can and do effect who really has control
over whether or not the research findings result in positive effects and
enhanced opportunities for the participant communities. Thus, for
Jordan Irvine, epistemology and ontology coalesce around the issues of
collaboration and ownership by all of the stakeholders in the research
process. She warns that without the authentic collaboration and ownership
particularly of the research questions that can emerge from a perspective
built on seeing with the Third Eye, finding solutions to the achievement
gap between Black and White children will remain an elusive goal.
131
132
133
Through the contributions of our colleagues, we highlight the crucial role of self-determination in the research of women of color. In presenting discussions of their individual epistemologies, we intentionally
focus on how these alternative perspectives can and have enriched research
discourse in each contributors discipline and/or field. Having said this, we
are emphatic that we do not view these perspectives or our conclusions as
a unilateral and unassailable cookbook perspective, Our contributors
themselves, eschew such a simplistic and reductionist portrayal of their
work. Instead, we all conclude by stating that this volume should be
viewed, not as the definitive dialogue on the multiple epistemologies of
women researchers of color, but rather as the beginning of what we hope
will be an ongoing conversation about an ever evolving and changing phenomenonresearch epistemologies and their ontological antecedent.
We believe the importance of developing such an authentic dialogue
on epistemology and ontology between Center and Margin is eloquently
captured in the following poem, Marginalized by Renard Harris (2002)
with which we conclude this chapter.
I dont like being in the margin.
It is like the corner of a room.
Im caged,
My freedom is fenced with barbed wire,
I wake with ideas
But go to sleep with rejections.
I shout for dreams
And I am hushed by reality,
A reality that controls my choices,
Choices measured by someone elses vision.
What they cannot see
Cannot be my choice.
I choose to have a voice,
I choose to be heard!
But I am in the margin.
No one listens
Harris, 2002, Academic Exchange, used by permission of the author.
References
Apetheker, B. (1989). Tapestries of life: Womens work, womens consciousness and the
meaning of daily experience. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
134
Contributors
136
Contributors
137
138
Index
Aboriginal:
teachers, 28
academic disengagement, 15
acculturation, 15
achievement gap, ix, 114, 129
Black-White, 1035, 108, 115
ACSQ, 56
affirmative action, 27, 89, 96, 97, 98
Africa, viii, 22
African American, 9, 58, 92
children, 15, 108, 129; colleges and
universities, 12: community, 104;
culture, 110; discourse, 76; feminist,
131; identity, 5859; perspectives,
129; researcher, 4; scholars, 58;
school achievement, 110; students,
viii, 103, 105, 10812; teachers,
10313, 115; underachievement,
104; women, 7, 10, 12, 16
Affirming Diversity, 71
African art, viii
agency/coconstructed learning, 64,
6567, 82
American:
American Indian history, 31;
American Indian scholars, 31; culture and society, 58; higher education, 34; history, 31; Indians, 31, 37,
42, 47, 48; mythology, 89
American Educational Research
Association (AERA), vii, 3, 21
antibiased, see bias
Arab, viii
ASCW, 56
Asia, 22, 23, 47
Asian: philosophy, 110
Asian American, 12, 89, 93
Asian students, 67
Asian/Pacific
American, 88, 89, 93; American
women, 12; women, 12
assimilation, 21, 25, 26, 27, 71, 74
assimilate, 120; model, 25, 28, 30
assimilationist, 100
assimilationist practices, 29, 126
Australia, 28
The Autobiography of Malcolm X, 98
banking education, 65, 67
Barnard, 121
belief systems, ix, 90, 94, 109, 120
Bering Strait theory, 23, 47
bias, 82, 95, 11112
antibiased, 91; racial, 95; teacher,
95; Western-cultural, 106
bilingual, 62, 76
children, 77; education, 7677, 78;
programs, 7677; teachers, 76
bilingualism, 76
blind review, 33, 35, 42
blind spot, 111
border crossing, 129
Britain, 47
The Caged Bird Sings: On Being
Different and the Role of
Advocacy, 57
139
140
Index
Index
epistemology, cont.
Feminist standpoint, 1516; indigenous, 24, 35, 39, 42, 127; western,
24, 30, 31, 47; western colonizing
epistemologies, 23, 33, 35, 4243
equality, 81
inequality, 92
equity, vii, 2, 5, 92, 94, 95, 97, 124
philosophy, 92
ethnicity, 3, 7, 61, 63, 68, 70, 71, 75,
109, 130
ethnocentric research, 16
Euro-American, 29
Europe, 47, 68
European, 22
American, 93
existentialist, 121
experience, 64, 6769, 82, 128
exploitative research, 16
Feminist(ism), 23, 16, 24, 59, 81
African American, 131; Black, 124,
132; of color, 15
First Nation, 4, 47
Franklin and Marshall College in
Lancaster, 52
From Center to Margins: The
Importance of Self-Definition in
Research, 34
fundamentalism, 120
gender, 3, 4, 7, 8, 15, 27, 70, 75, 120,
130
Great Spirit, 28
Haiti, 68
Harvard: 54, 75
Graduate School of Education, 52
Heading South, Looking North: A Bilingual Journey, 74
hegemonic, 5, 126
epistemological, 131; hegemony,
63, 132
Hispanic, 12
Historically Black Colleges and
Universities (HCBUs), 10, 58
homogeneity, 8, 72
141
humanistic philosophy, 59
Hunger of Memory, 62
hybridity, 63
identity, 15, 28, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 63,
68, 70, 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 80, 93, 109
adult, 55, 56; African American,
5859; construction, 59; cultural,
32, 68, 70, 74, 82; development, 59,
128; ego-identity, 56; multidimensional, 90, 100; racial, 28, 109
identity/hybridity, 64, 6974, 82, 128
ideological, 25
ideology, 25, 27
ideology-free zone, 77
immigrant, 61, 71
European, 47; immigrant status, 63
imperialism, 131
Implicit Association Test (IAT), 95
Indian, 22, 23, 27, 28, 32, 47, 92
American, 23, 25, 31, 32, 37, 42;
American Indian history, 31;
American Indian scholars, 31; country, 22; education, 31, 37; history,
30, 31; misrepresentations, 30; students, 30; self-determination, 42
indigenous: 48
academic publications, 25; communities, 36, 39; epistemologies, 24,
35, 39, 42, 47, 127; indigenous epistemological framework, 30, 127;
knowledge, 21, 23, 24, 33, 37, 39,
40, 41, 47, 127; people, 23, 36, 47;
research, 25; researcher, 24, 39, 42;
scholars, 22, 37, 38, 4041;
students, 40
inequity, ix, 14
racial/ethnic, 12; sexual, 12; social,
96
The Influence of the Leader Persona
on Organizational Identity, 57
informed social criticism, 90, 91
Insider/Outsider, 129
institutionalization, 24, 29
interdisciplinary knowledge, 96
interethnic differences, 15
intraethnic diversity, 15
invisibility, 10, 11, 126
ivory tower, 22, 43
142
Index
Japanese, 25
American, 15, 89, 90, 92, 93, 100,
129; community, 88, culture, 89;
Japanese American children, 129;
Japanese American students, 93
Jew, 74, 12021
Jewish, 12021
Journal of American Indian Education, 35
Journal of International Studies in
Educational Administration, 57
Journal of Latinos and Education, 35
The Journal of Leadership Studies, 57
Journal of Negro Education, 35
Keepers of Traditions and Languages,
40
language, 62, 63, 65, 68, 69, 70, 73, 75,
76, 79, 82, 119, 121, 128
Language, Literacy, and Culture, 63
Latina, 4, 72
Latinos, 89, 98, 99
leadership, 5457, 59
leadership processes, 56
Lewis and Clark, 22
Licensed Clinical Social Worker
(LCSW), 56
The Life Experiences of Women and
their Leadership Practice, 57
literacy, 61, 63, 75, 128
literary criticism, 81
literary critics, 121
macrosystem, 114
Mainstreaming Minority Womens
Study Program, 13
Maori, ix
Massachusetts, 68, 97 , 106
Boston, 81; Cambridge, 78; Certification Test, 106; Springfield, 80
Massachusetts State Board of
Education, 106
mental cultural model, 91
mental health, 54
mental illness, 50
Mexican, 66
American, 15
mesosystem, 114
Mestizo, 74
methodologies, 22, 33, 35, 42, 130
applied, 60; methodological, 34;
qualitative, 54, 60; quantitative, 54,
60; science-based, 60
Michelangelos Pieta, 1
microsystem, 114
Middle East, viii
minorities, 9
Minority women and higher
education, 11
Minority women in research in education:
A report of the Dallas conference on
expanding the role of minority women
in educational research, 13
model minority, 12, 89
Moderate Secularism: Constructing a
Language of Possibility for Religion
in Public Education, 55
monocultural, 130
monolithic, 7
Montreal, 21
Canada, 1
Mt. Holyoke, 120
Multicultural Education, 87, 89, 9091,
92, 9394, 9596, 97, 98, 99, 129
Museum of Art in Chicago, 59
National Academy, 93
National Commission on Teaching
Americas Future (NCTAF), 105
National Council for Research on
Women, 13
National Research Council, 106
National Teachers Examination
(NTE), 106
nationality, 120
native, 28
Alaska, 37, 47; Americans, 27, 30;
children, 27; communities, 31, 33,
37, 39, 40, 42; cultural integrity, 27;
education, 40; language, 61;
Nations, 21, 22, 23, 27, 33, 37, 38,
39, 47, 48; Native American
research, 31; people, 22, 23, 33, 36,
38, 39; research, 32; researcher, 22,
Index
26, 33, 39, 126; scholars, 21, 25, 31,
37, 40, 42, 43; science, 36;
Sovereign Native Nations, 22; sovereignty, 22, 38, 40, 42; tribes, 40;
youth, 42
Negro Teacher Eliminator, 106
neo-Piagetian, 56
New England, 72
New York City, 68, 71, 74
Brooklyn, 121
New Zealand, ix
Newtonian rationality, 29, 47
No Child Left Behind Initiative, 97
North America, 22
North Carolina, 68
official knowledge, 65
Oklahoma, 23, 47
ontological, 1, 123, 126, 133
ontology, 124, 129, 130, 133
organizational change, 55, 56
Other, 2, 4, 24, 30
epistemologies, 35
particularistic roles, 15
Parting the Waters, 114
pedagogy, 66, 110
culturally responsive pedagogy, 74
personality development, 50
personality traits, 81
pluralistic society, 8
pluralism, 130
polyvocal ventriloquism, 32
Portuguese, 78
postmodernism, 81
postmodern, 120
postructuralism, 81
power, vii, 8, 63, 73, 74, 75, 76, 81, 110,
112, 114
prejudice, 30, 81, 95, 125
The Prime of Miss Jean Brody, 54
problem students, 62
progressive education, 94
psychosocial meaning systems, 59
psychological phenomena, 81
public health, 54
Puerto Rico(Rican), 61, 62, 68, 70, 71,
7273
culture, 128
143
144
Index
EDUCATION