Elsa Camargo, Delma Ramos, Cathryn B. Bennett, Destiny Z. Talley, Ricardo G. Silva
{"title":"打破学院的非人化规范:在集体空间开展研究的模式","authors":"Elsa Camargo, Delma Ramos, Cathryn B. Bennett, Destiny Z. Talley, Ricardo G. Silva","doi":"10.1007/s10755-024-09717-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Academic research and knowledge production are frequently pervaded by elitism (Torres-Olave et al., 2019), epistemic exclusion (Dotson, 2014; Settles et al., 2020), and racialization (Ray<i>, </i>2019; Thelin, 2019; Wilder, 2013). These discriminatory, exclusionary, and biased systems delegitimize the work of minoritized scholars, stifle innovation, and deter progress toward less violent processes to engage in knowledge production. Literature documenting innovative efforts to advance these commitments is scarce (Creamer, 2004), further underscoring the need and urgency for additional research examining how scholars incorporate and center equitable approaches in knowledge production in the Academy. As such, the central purpose of this qualitative autoethnographic study is to examine our experiences as minoritized scholars who center equity in the U.S. South; a secondary purpose of this work is to document the confluence of place, counterspace creation, and linkages between humanization and scholarly knowledge production. This research revealed our different yet shared negative socialization experiences in the Academy and, centrally, how our research collective diverges from traditionalist and power-imbalanced collaborative research. We foreground how we purposefully elect to humanize our fellow co-researchers, support each other’s learning and growth, and prioritize healing for ourselves as scholars with minoritized identities and transformation of the social inequities that permeate higher education. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model of our research collective as a counterspace (Ong et al., 2018) to de facto scholarly socialization and dehumanization within the Academy.</p>","PeriodicalId":47065,"journal":{"name":"Innovative Higher Education","volume":"152 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disrupting Dehumanizing Norms of the Academy: A Model for Conducting Research in a Collective Space\",\"authors\":\"Elsa Camargo, Delma Ramos, Cathryn B. Bennett, Destiny Z. Talley, Ricardo G. Silva\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10755-024-09717-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Academic research and knowledge production are frequently pervaded by elitism (Torres-Olave et al., 2019), epistemic exclusion (Dotson, 2014; Settles et al., 2020), and racialization (Ray<i>, </i>2019; Thelin, 2019; Wilder, 2013). These discriminatory, exclusionary, and biased systems delegitimize the work of minoritized scholars, stifle innovation, and deter progress toward less violent processes to engage in knowledge production. Literature documenting innovative efforts to advance these commitments is scarce (Creamer, 2004), further underscoring the need and urgency for additional research examining how scholars incorporate and center equitable approaches in knowledge production in the Academy. As such, the central purpose of this qualitative autoethnographic study is to examine our experiences as minoritized scholars who center equity in the U.S. South; a secondary purpose of this work is to document the confluence of place, counterspace creation, and linkages between humanization and scholarly knowledge production. This research revealed our different yet shared negative socialization experiences in the Academy and, centrally, how our research collective diverges from traditionalist and power-imbalanced collaborative research. We foreground how we purposefully elect to humanize our fellow co-researchers, support each other’s learning and growth, and prioritize healing for ourselves as scholars with minoritized identities and transformation of the social inequities that permeate higher education. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model of our research collective as a counterspace (Ong et al., 2018) to de facto scholarly socialization and dehumanization within the Academy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47065,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Innovative Higher Education\",\"volume\":\"152 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Innovative Higher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09717-5\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Innovative Higher Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-024-09717-5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
学术研究和知识生产经常受到精英主义(Torres-Olave et al.这些歧视性、排斥性和带有偏见的制度使少数群体学者的工作失去合法性,扼杀了创新,并阻碍了参与知识生产的暴力进程。记录推进这些承诺的创新努力的文献很少(Creamer,2004 年),这进一步强调了开展更多研究,探讨学者如何在学院知识生产中纳入公平方法并将其置于中心地位的必要性和紧迫性。因此,这项自述式定性研究的主要目的是考察我们作为美国南方以公平为中心的少数族裔学者的经历;这项工作的次要目的是记录地点、反空间创造以及人性化与学术知识生产之间的联系。这项研究揭示了我们在学院中不同但共同的负面社会化经历,最重要的是,我们的研究集体是如何偏离传统主义和权力不平衡的合作研究的。我们强调了我们是如何有目的地选择使我们的合作研究者人性化,支持彼此的学习和成长,并优先考虑治愈我们作为具有少数群体身份的学者的心灵创伤,以及改变高等教育中普遍存在的社会不平等现象。基于我们的研究结果,我们提出了一个概念模型,即我们的研究集体是一个反空间(Ong et al.
Disrupting Dehumanizing Norms of the Academy: A Model for Conducting Research in a Collective Space
Academic research and knowledge production are frequently pervaded by elitism (Torres-Olave et al., 2019), epistemic exclusion (Dotson, 2014; Settles et al., 2020), and racialization (Ray, 2019; Thelin, 2019; Wilder, 2013). These discriminatory, exclusionary, and biased systems delegitimize the work of minoritized scholars, stifle innovation, and deter progress toward less violent processes to engage in knowledge production. Literature documenting innovative efforts to advance these commitments is scarce (Creamer, 2004), further underscoring the need and urgency for additional research examining how scholars incorporate and center equitable approaches in knowledge production in the Academy. As such, the central purpose of this qualitative autoethnographic study is to examine our experiences as minoritized scholars who center equity in the U.S. South; a secondary purpose of this work is to document the confluence of place, counterspace creation, and linkages between humanization and scholarly knowledge production. This research revealed our different yet shared negative socialization experiences in the Academy and, centrally, how our research collective diverges from traditionalist and power-imbalanced collaborative research. We foreground how we purposefully elect to humanize our fellow co-researchers, support each other’s learning and growth, and prioritize healing for ourselves as scholars with minoritized identities and transformation of the social inequities that permeate higher education. Based on our findings, we present a conceptual model of our research collective as a counterspace (Ong et al., 2018) to de facto scholarly socialization and dehumanization within the Academy.
期刊介绍:
Innovative Higher Education is a refereed scholarly journal that strives to package fresh ideas in higher education in a straightforward and readable fashion. The four main purposes of Innovative Higher Education are: (1) to present descriptions and evaluations of current innovations and provocative new ideas with relevance for action beyond the immediate context in higher education; (2) to focus on the effect of such innovations on teaching and students; (3) to be open to diverse forms of scholarship and research methods by maintaining flexibility in the selection of topics deemed appropriate for the journal; and (4) to strike a balance between practice and theory by presenting manuscripts in a readable and scholarly manner to both faculty and administrators in the academic community.