Notes on: Hylton, K (2012). Talk the talk, walk
the walk: Defining Critical Race Theory and
research. Race Ethnicity and Education 15
(1): 23 – 41.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2012.638862
Dave Harris
[Often cited for some reason]
This is about CRT methodology. There has been a
growth in both published works and research
projects utilising CRT [some are listed] but the
issue is positioning CRT in terms of
methodological practice, theory and epistemology.
Many people have come to CRT by rejecting
mainstream theory, through struggle and experience
of oppression in the everyday world. However its
ontological position is outlined by its tenets:
'societies fundamentally racially stratified and
unequal, where power processes systematically
disenfranchise racially oppressed people' (1).
Activist scholars remain conscious of crucial
social processes that structure their worlds and
so they consistently look '"to the bottom" for
answers as well as questions'.
They are interested in antiracist social justice
and social transformation activities and apply
these ideas to research and methodologies.
Marginalisation and racialization are central
[Dockery 2000 does a lot of work]. There is a need
to take sides. There are offshoots such as CR
feminism and Critical Whiteness Studies, Whiteness
critiques, Whiteness and Policy Analysis
[including Gillborn], material involving class and
critiques of policy, 'pedagogy in classroom,
counternarratives (Housee 2008)', and the Black
experience of sport and leisure [Burdsey and lots
of his own stuff].
He drew initially from material related to
critical Black studies, but concluded that
traditional approaches were incomplete and
required a perspective more critically focused on
race, relating to his own experience of otherness.
CRT offered a suitable frame and helped him to
become bold enough to challenge the racialised
order.
Academia is also affected by 'naturalised systems
of order' especially epistemological
inconsistencies. CRT offers a challenge, seen in
the precarious nature of those researchers who
specialise in race. It is common to find
epistemologies that reinforce colourblind,
neutral, ahistorical or apolitical points of view
and 'this process is how oppression and inequality
may appear "natural"' (3). Eurocentric
epistemologies fail to acknowledge Black people as
'holders and legitimate sources of knowledge, also
award them a voice or a safe space. Power is
'exercised epistemologically in the dual practices
of naming and evaluating'.
So CRT methodology should break with this passive
reproduction of traditional research and
contribute to 'emergent forms of knowing'. Collins
is cited here. Dunbar (2008) also urges us to
reflect the experiences of Black people without
borrowing from White social science. There should
be methodology to integrate politics and ideas, a
form of critical research, but without complacency
and colourblindness. Neutrality and objectivity
and 'conventional views of validity and
reliability' (4) can reinforce 'racialised
inequalities by tolerating only certain forms of
knowledge… Being apolitical and reinforcing
oppressions' [lots of supporting quotes including
Denzin and Giardina 2007, and Linda Smith on how
indigenous peoples have been silenced].
Voicing, storytelling and counter storytelling
have therefore become popular tools, to present
views 'rarely evidenced in social research'
although there are still weaknesses. Stories are
still socially constructed and are therefore
'limited versions of reality' especially if
'oppressive social arrangements remain
unchallenged'[or misunderstood]. There can be
'spurious "experiences from the margins"'. CRT
methodologies should contest these traditional
approaches. CRT epistemology is necessarily broad
and trans-disciplinary. But it must also show
'coherence of ideas and synchronous principles and
propositions that underpinned methodologies and
resonate with critical race politics' [and if
there is a tension we know which ones are going to
dominate]. Although it is a 'pragmatic framework
and therefore without a pedantic set of methods
for methodologies, there are clearly methodologies
and approaches that can facilitate CRT politics',
but there are still caveats (5) which 'revolve [!]
around knowledge formation and validation, the
nature of "scientific" rigour and what constitutes
suitable topics for disciplinary lenses'.
No one methodology is privileged, dogma must be
challenged, but what is identifiably CRT is 'a
measure of commitment to social justice and social
change' and a recognition that race and racism are
central, a focus on race racism and this
intersection. There is often recognition that
conventional liberal approaches are inadequate
transformation. How does an agenda gets centred in
methodology? There must be some challenge to
negative racialised relations, different
questions, say about crime control or notions of
merit and racial equality and these need to be
explicitly articulated.
In terms of methods and implementation, CRT is
better described 'as practice' given that it
requires a 'lived activism… What's better than a
research methodology to demonstrate how to walk
the walk?'. Methodologies must have the essential
criteria and some desirable ones as well. It must
disrupt racism, centre race, be underpinned by a
social justice agenda and aim to transform
negative social relation but there may be other
elements of a more nuanced nature, say a grasp of
complexity in matters such as policing, education
the arts for community work, 'requiring responses
of relative sophistication' (6).
There are also 'conceptual minefields' which
threaten any attempts to research and transform
negative racialised relations . Gunaratnam (2003)
has a good one: how do we decide how to
'"fix the meanings of racial and ethnic categories
in order to do empirical research?"'. We cannot
ignore raced realities, but we should avoid
essentialism and 'homogenisation
over-generalisation and reductionism', because
this would, apart from anything else, ignore
debates about intersectionality, and the
contributions of class and gender, and the
political goal of eliminating all forms of
subordination. Intersectionality strengthens the
CRT framework to avoid essentialism and reinstate
complexity [again also references I have never
come across before]. We will need new
methodologies, and CRT will be able to contribute
distinctive 'decolonised counter narratives that
question the nature of ideas whilst contributing
to their development', new voices like Maori
struggles for decolonisation in Linda Smith.
As an example of an every day CRT agenda, we might
take the field of sport, popularly seen as
something featuring equality inclusion and
'"melting pot" idealism' (7). Successful Black
people are regularly profiled and facilities are
deemed to be available for all. However there are
contradictions and denying racialised power
relations is common. There is in fact scarce
ethnic monitoring. There is a need for a CRT
agenda, and this would have a considerable
political impact.
His own research into local government support
revealed 'policies and practices that were
colourblind, conceptually confused and
contradictory… Glass ceilings, poor diversity…
Racial processes and formations that reinforced
Whiteness [in policy-making]'. There were Black
practitioners in pressure groups offering counter
stories, and some examples of funding on the basis
of merit, but still much to do.
In the USA, the picture is slightly different and
CRT has a longer history of success. In the UK
there are more recent milestones to establish
regular conferences or research agendas, but CRT
is taking a hold.
What about the use of participatory techniques in
research in the social sciences in particular?
Some techniques have informed the Asian experience
of football [a reference to Burdsey 2004] and
critical ethnographic methods would belong, by
raising awareness of the everyday. Chronicles have
also been popular in CRT, for example in Matsuda,
or Montoya (2002) using 'discursive sub- versions,
identity formation, and healing and
transformation'. Gillborn (2009) has also used
fictional chronicles, apparently in education.
There is also performance ethnography cited by
Denzin to explore colourblindness and White
privilege in classrooms to actively challenge
racism (10). This is part of a general urging to
develop activism as well as qualitative research,
to empower others. Some might use Freirian
dialogue (11).
There seems to be agreement that a key element of
social research is political engagement, social
and cultural criticism to recognise inequality,
tackle oppression more than one front. We must
understand everyday reality, challenge anything
that appears to be value neutral, apolitical,
positivist. Researchers should identify with the
subject. Take sides, actually enter the research
and this is what CRT recommends.
There is no easy answer to define what CRT
methodology is because that would 'reflect a
pedantic essentialism and anathema to critical
race theorists'. It is a question instead of 'the
spirit of CRT… Practical liberatory transformative
elements… Not theoretically abstract more
dogmatically defined, neither is it for armchair
theorists' (12). It is 'grounded in the experience
of our collective realities… [It] should
demonstrate a response to challenging
subordination and oppression… It is informed by
active struggle and in turn informs the struggle'.
'If poorly considered [methodologies, poorly
applied] can also stymie these activities'.
We have to be aware of only talking the talk. We
must agitate for change and defend positions it
can be marginal 'and sometimes plain unpopular' we
have to keep commenting on race, disrupt and
challenge, sometimes contradicting apparent
ethical practice by 'encouraging a more central
positioning in the research process' (13). However
even categories like race and racism can be
'arbitrary and laden with "everyday" ambiguity'
and CRT methodologies must navigate this and be
aware of these ambiguities [how though?].
There is a nice handy diagram of key
considerations for us. Different researchers have
emphasise different aspects of it
§ The ‘spirit’ of
CRT
§ No methods are inherently
CRT though some have more utility than others
§ Social justice focus
§ A challenge to oppression
and subordination
§ Strategic challenge to
racism/Challenge convention
§ Centre the Black
voice/Black experience
§ Research is for, not on,
the subjects in question.
§ Conceptually
strategic/pragmatic/anti--‐essentialist/
§ Intersectionality:
strategic incorporation of class, gender,
sexuality and other oppressive social
categories, however they are less likely to be
foregrounded in the first instance.
§ Counter--‐storytelling
§ Praxis oriented.
§ Activist scholarship
§ Participatory Approach
§ Researcher as part of the
process
§ Challenges the
passive reproduction of established questions
and practices.
[completes the weaselling and backpedalling -- all
very vague and acceptable]
|
|