{"title":"Racially-just epistemologies and methodologies that disrupt whiteness (part II)","authors":"S. Rizvi","doi":"10.1080/1743727X.2022.2117519","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In part two of this special issue, we continue to explore Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ (2014) clarion call to embrace ‘ecologies of knowledges’ as educational researchers. Santos (2014) reminds us that as educational researchers who are committed to social justice, we cannot draw boundaries between ‘inquiries into ways of knowing’ from ‘inquiries into ways of intervening in the world with the purpose of attenuating or eliminating the oppression, domination, and discrimination caused by global capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy’ (p. 238). For Santos, epistemologies which stem from the Global South are born out of struggle against oppressive systems, and hence it is little wonder that Eurocentric critical theorists do not recognize or comprehend the practices, ways of knowing, and values that stem from the Global South. Critics of pursuing racial justice within educational research may argue that such epistemologies, methodologies, methods and reflections are not only deeply political and ill-placed in a field such as educational research, but that they also fall short of conventional standards of rigour and validity. However, issues of legitimacy are neither new nor specific to racially-just epistemologies and methodologies. As Evans-Winters (2019) suggests, ‘our “truths” must be validated from within, with less concern for how outsiders legitimate (or receive and perceive) our assertions’ (p. 23). Moreover, national organizations such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA) have not only acknowledged the legitimacy of theories such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) within educational research, but also issued a memorandum in 2009 to honour the contribution of CRT as ‘humanities-oriented research’ (Matias 2021, p. 4). Scholars such as Cheryl Matias and Venus Evans-Winters and others engaging in racially-just epistemologies and methodologies have also challenged this imposed gatekeeping and exclusion by traditional empiricists (not to be confused with empirical), which not only undermine methods such as counter stories but also continue to reinforce deficit narratives of marginalized communities. The papers in this special issue confront this history of gatekeeping as well as revealing the cost of adopting theories, methodologies, methods and positionalities that are ‘consistently swimming against the current’ (Ladson-Billings 1998, p. 28), so that they may expose racism within education and educational research and propose radical solutions. These papers are consciously political because historically, educational research has problematized many minoritized communities to construct the dominant political discourse. They also speak to the dangers of co-optation and the intellectual erasure of scholars of colour from within educational research, when mainstream scholars are eager to utilize racially-just methods without careful reflection.","PeriodicalId":51655,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Research & Method in Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2022.2117519","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4
Abstract
In part two of this special issue, we continue to explore Boaventura de Sousa Santos’ (2014) clarion call to embrace ‘ecologies of knowledges’ as educational researchers. Santos (2014) reminds us that as educational researchers who are committed to social justice, we cannot draw boundaries between ‘inquiries into ways of knowing’ from ‘inquiries into ways of intervening in the world with the purpose of attenuating or eliminating the oppression, domination, and discrimination caused by global capitalism, colonialism and patriarchy’ (p. 238). For Santos, epistemologies which stem from the Global South are born out of struggle against oppressive systems, and hence it is little wonder that Eurocentric critical theorists do not recognize or comprehend the practices, ways of knowing, and values that stem from the Global South. Critics of pursuing racial justice within educational research may argue that such epistemologies, methodologies, methods and reflections are not only deeply political and ill-placed in a field such as educational research, but that they also fall short of conventional standards of rigour and validity. However, issues of legitimacy are neither new nor specific to racially-just epistemologies and methodologies. As Evans-Winters (2019) suggests, ‘our “truths” must be validated from within, with less concern for how outsiders legitimate (or receive and perceive) our assertions’ (p. 23). Moreover, national organizations such as the American Educational Research Association (AERA) have not only acknowledged the legitimacy of theories such as Critical Race Theory (CRT) within educational research, but also issued a memorandum in 2009 to honour the contribution of CRT as ‘humanities-oriented research’ (Matias 2021, p. 4). Scholars such as Cheryl Matias and Venus Evans-Winters and others engaging in racially-just epistemologies and methodologies have also challenged this imposed gatekeeping and exclusion by traditional empiricists (not to be confused with empirical), which not only undermine methods such as counter stories but also continue to reinforce deficit narratives of marginalized communities. The papers in this special issue confront this history of gatekeeping as well as revealing the cost of adopting theories, methodologies, methods and positionalities that are ‘consistently swimming against the current’ (Ladson-Billings 1998, p. 28), so that they may expose racism within education and educational research and propose radical solutions. These papers are consciously political because historically, educational research has problematized many minoritized communities to construct the dominant political discourse. They also speak to the dangers of co-optation and the intellectual erasure of scholars of colour from within educational research, when mainstream scholars are eager to utilize racially-just methods without careful reflection.
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Research & Method in Education is an interdisciplinary, peer-reviewed journal that draws contributions from a wide community of international researchers. Contributions are expected to develop and further international discourse in educational research with a particular focus on method and methodological issues. The journal welcomes papers engaging with methods from within a qualitative or quantitative framework, or from frameworks which cut across and or challenge this duality. Papers should not solely focus on the practice of education; there must be a contribution to methodology. International Journal of Research & Method in Education is committed to publishing scholarly research that discusses conceptual, theoretical and methodological issues, provides evidence, support for or informed critique of unusual or new methodologies within educational research and provides innovative, new perspectives and examinations of key research findings. The journal’s enthusiasm to foster debate is also recognised in a keenness to include engaged, thought-provoking response papers to previously published articles. The journal is also interested in papers that discuss issues in the teaching of research methods for educational researchers. Contributors to International Journal of Research & Method in Education should take care to communicate their findings or arguments in a succinct, accessible manner to an international readership of researchers, policy-makers and practitioners from a range of disciplines including but not limited to philosophy, sociology, economics, psychology, and history of education. The Co-Editors welcome suggested topics for future Special Issues. Initial ideas should be discussed by email with the Co-Editors before a formal proposal is submitted for consideration.