Toward justice in the social & political act of research

What is constitutive of “evidence” or “research” in one setting may be representative of a highly bounded perspective and methodology. Predominant approaches to research in the academy and for policy action largely reflect and reinforce status quo power dynamics. Whole knowledge domains, ways of knowing, and knowledge producers are ignored or are represented from an “outsider’s” purview. Critical race theory (e.g. Dunbar, 2008), critical indigenist pedagogy (e.g. Denzin & Lincoln, 2008, p. 1-20), participatory action research (e.g. Bautista, Bertrand, Morrell, Scorza, & Matthews, 2013), and a framework based upon community cultural wealth (Liou, Antrop-González, & Cooper, 2009) offer methodologies for “alternative” approaches to research. These are distinct not only in what is explored, but who defines the scope, leads the investigation, and shares findings (as well as, how these agents generate the study scope, structure the investigation, and present and distribute study outcomes). To strive broadly toward a more equitable (representative of individual stories, collective narratives, and languages that may reveal pertinent histories and angles) and accessible research program, strong arguments are made for the active engagement of underprivileged or nondominant groups in constructing research agendas, methods, and generating and disseminating new knowledges, particularly as relevant to their own positioning.

The dominant paradigm in research is rooted in privileged Western, neoliberal ideological frameworks, which value the essentializable and universalizable. Data collection is expected to be tidy, even “objective,” which contributes to the distance between the researcher, largely an “outsider,” and the researched / the “object” of study. Expertise is similarly narrowly defined, even when researchers demonstrate the “best of intentions” attempting to expose or better understand a problem or context of groups of under-privileged, indigenous, peoples of color, and/or peoples characterized by other forms of “difference.” Methods and discourse are predicated upon the neoliberal imperial agenda, which values that which can be commodified and conceptualized in terms of the marketplace, competition, individualism, and exclusivity (illustrated by the “silo” metaphor in academia). Even the “English language is positioned as an ideological commodity in a neo-liberal state – English fosters competition, reduces risk, provides insurance and produces entrepreneurial subjects” (Thomas, Risri Aletheiani, Carlson, Ewbank, 2014, p. 243).

The active engagement of the marginalized or groups representing “difference” from the mainstream socio-cultural context in research, not only enriches the agenda and associated outcomes, the process can act to transform participants in ways that resist their own point of underprivilege or periphery. This can have the vital effect of challenging the sociopolitical regime that enables the quietude of groups who face injustices – even from the perspective of the dominant culture’s own expectations of itself. Learning (an integral aspect of research) may be perceived as a transformative, even radical act; Wenger (2000) provides a social definition of learning demonstrative of its impact beyond the edification of the individual: Learning “is an interplay between social competence and personal experience. It is a dynamic, two-way relationship between people and the social learning system in which they participate. It combines personal transformation with the evolution of social structures” (Wenger, 2000, p. 227).

Individuals motivated by an issue may form or become part of “communities of practice,” an opportunity for collaborative, critical exploration, wherein the participants are active agents of localized change and knowledge production. Participants can develop a critical consciousness about their positionality and the various networks (particularly of informational capital [Liou, Antrop-González, & Cooper, 2009]) that may be available to support them and their agendas. As “insiders,” researchers may have better access to their context, including to human subjects who may feel more trusting or less-threatened or curious of the researcher (e.g. observer or interviewer) (Bautista, Bertrand, Morrell, Scorza, & Matthews, 2013).

“What does it really matter?” if we get the data we need to make adequate decisions and to generally understand the problem context, one might say. Students of the Council for Youth Research endeavored to “find out to what degree California students receive an ‘adequate’ education and whether it meets their academic needs,” a commitment of the state to its constituents. The team “concluded that education for students in urban areas was inadequate” (Bautista, Bertrand, Morrell, Scorza, & Matthews, 2013, p. 8 & 11), presumably in part because of a disconnect (a “boundary” [Wenger, 2000]) in knowledge and action (from the local level to the legislative level). Equity of process and product (expression and dissemination) is significant not only for research’s sake, but because it is the products of research, which may have yielded from a practice undergone with the blinders or biases resultant from the limited researcher perspective, that inform policy making (Thomas, Risri Aletheiani, Carlson, Ewbank, 2014). Pushing back against the dominant neoliberal norms governing research agendas and practices, includes developing communities of practice with diverse stakeholders (e.g. student and school adults, academicians and indigenous shamans), and utilizing, even foregrounding, culturally relevant artifacts and practices such as storytelling and performance (Cajete, 2008; Dunbar, 2008), presenting and sharing findings in languages and ways meaningful to all stakeholders, e.g. documentaries and multimedia presentations (Bautista, Bertrand, Morrell, Scorza, & Matthews, 2013, p. 8 & 11). The impact of a more inclusive, representative, critical research program that centralizes points of difference (e.g. race, gender, class) may well be policies more reflective of the needs of nondominant groups.

Bautista, Mark A.; Bertrand, Melanie; Morrell, Ernest; Scorza, D., & Matthews, C. (2013). Participatory action research and city youth: Methodological insights from the Council of Youth Research. Teachers College Record. Retrieved May 30, 2014, from http://www.tcrecord.org.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/library/content.asp?contentid=17142

Cajete, G. (2008). Seven orientations for the development of indigenous science education. In L. T. Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln, Yvonna S.; Smith (Ed.), Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies (pp. 487–496). Sage Publications.

Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln, Y. S. (2008). Introduction: Critical methodologies and indigenous inquiry. In L. T. Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln, Yvonna S.; Smith (Ed.), Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies (pp. 1–20). Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book227933

Dunbar, C. J. (2008). Critical race theory and Methodology. In L. T. Denzin, Norman K.; Lincoln, Yvonna S.; Smith (Ed.), Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies (pp. 85–99). Sage Publications. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/booksProdDesc.nav?prodId=Book227933

Liou, D. D., Antrop-González, R., & Cooper, R. (2009). Unveiling the promise of community cultural wealth to sustaining Latina/o students’ college-going information networks. Educational Studies, 45(6), 534–555. doi:10.1080/00131940903311347

Thomas, M. H., Risri Aletheiani, D., Carlson, D. L., & Ewbank, A. D. (2014). “Keeping up the good fight”: the said and unsaid in Flores v. Arizona. Policy Futures in Education, 12(2), 242. doi:10.2304/pfie.2014.12.2.242

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7(2), 225–246. doi:10.1177/135050840072002