Dei, G. J. S. (2005). Chapter One: Critical Issues
in Anti-racist Research Methodologies: AN
INTRODUCTION. Counterpoints, 252, 1–27.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/42978742
Dave Harris
[Usual stuff discussing the problems and emergence
of antiracist methodologies for the first 10
pages, in the form of questions what is to be done
and so on]
Conceptualising antiracist research:
Antiracist research is operationalised as
'research on racial domination and social
oppression' and has the objective 'providing local
subjects with an opportunity to speak about their
experiences within the broader context of
structural and institutional forces of society'
[call that an objective?] (11). It focuses on
local resistance to oppression and here the
objective is 'to create healthy spaces in which
subjects can collaborate with researchers to
understand the nature of social oppression' it
also 'proceeds with some basic ideas about the
working relations among subjects with a shared
objective for common goal'. Thus it requires a
'new paradigm shift away from colonial research to
a genuine relational approach' it aims to uncover
power relationships in 'knowledge production,
interrogation, validation, and dissemination'. It
involves 'genuine collaboration', and 'working on
a shared collective vision based on mutual trust
and respect and meaningful dialogue among all
partners'. It should not infantilise or patronise
or denigrate subjects. It affirms the knowledge
base of the subjects of study and also them as
subjects that resist oppression. It means 'working
with the idea of multiple and collective origins…
[And]… Collaborative dimensions of knowledge… All
parties involved can make substantive
contributions to research (even if not necessarily
as equal partners)'.
Researchers must develop 'understandings that
personal characteristics influence the success of
research and meaningful partnerships with subjects
of study'. Racial identities [self-assigned?] of
researchers and subjects are important
considerations, so 'antiracist research links the
issue of identity to knowledge production. This
suggests that who we are, our educational and
personal histories and experiences, all shape how
we make sense of our world and interpret social
reality'. We must also have a persistent
commitment 'to working cooperatively' (12). We
have to work with tensions and trade-offs and
negotiate research agendas, evaluation and the
dissemination and use of research information.
Research means locals give researchers the right
to go into their communities and the
responsibility to work collectively to produce
knowledge that speaks to the complexities of the
lived experiences [and then to publish and gain
the credit?]. It is also meaningful if objectives
and processes 'lead to social transformation and
there is genuine power-sharing among the various
stakeholders' (12) [woolly liberal discourse
here].
It is misleading if we ask what antiracism
actually supports. Better to ask what it actually
opposes. There is no intention to 'replace one
flawed system with another' rather to ensure that
'the body politic remains vigilant against any and
all forms of oppression'. Antiracism is 'for
holistic interconnection among all forms of life'
[blimey -- starfish?] since all things are
connected. We must replace hegemony with one that
allows each of us to flourish in ways that we may
not even begin to imagine [although all put in
negative forms we must not replace hegemonic
orders with ones that do not allow us to
flourish].
We must learn from the history and context of
existing research, how research findings have been
misapplied, and the contributions of subjects
ignored, how research information has been used
for academic imperialism and domination, and
knowledge production used in hegemony, how
ethnographic and discursive authority has been
granted to the researcher denying local
intellectual agency and disempowering local
subjects. Antiracism research challenges these
'colonial and imperial relationships' [so local
academic ones then?], and stops it being
parasitic. It obliges researchers to assist
subjects in resisting colonising relationships and
subverting hegemonic ways of knowing [it's all one
struggle] it interrogates positivist accounts of
authentic valid empirical knowledge it asks who is
speaking and for whom. It raises questions about
the contexts of knowledge production and the
sources and uses of research data. [So who is this
article and book speaking for exactly?]
Antiracist research 'assumes [!] that there is
institutional racism in mainstream social science
research' (13). We can see this in the topics of
study, the way concepts and methodologies are
privileged, who is allowed and validates the
research and what and how and how particular
structures allow for the production and
dissemination of certain knowledges [someone
called Smith, 1999 is cited here]. Then there is
the history of institutional racism which governs
[!] the Academy. We need an ethical code [liberal
crap again] for researching race and social
oppression and dealing with local marginalised
communities, one which acknowledges the impact of
racism on our own frameworks and methodologies.
These principles should guide our entire conduct
of research. We need to seek full representation
and the inclusion of varied experiences.
So we should be explicitly committed to promote
antiracist objectives and particularly to
challenge domination and power relationships
through the promotion of social justice, equity
and fairness [liberal again] this means making
minority ties, people's perspectives
[anyone's? representatives?] on the issues of race
social justice and oppression, salient and
central, challenging exploitative relations
especially the tendency of dominant research to
perform, stereotype and label and re-victimise
marginal people. We should also recognise the idea
of interlocking oppressions, differential
privileges, simultaneity of oppressions and
privileges and how our lived experiences are
complex 'imbrications' of 'race, gender, sexuality
and class identities'. We should bring to the fore
power relations that govern social interactions of
researchers and subjects and how research is
differently validated depending on whether it
emerges from dominant or minoritise scholars. We
should make sure the 'epistemic saliency' of
minorititzed bodies is maintained and multiple
perspectives valued. We should also respect the
rights of individuals and groups to withhold or
withdraw information.
We must always be transparent to our subjects
[classical problems here — explain Marxism to them
or Foucault?]. Researchers must be held
responsible by the communities they purport to
study as well as by their disciplines. Relevancy
is key, as defined by those researched not by
researchers and funders of the project [I can see
problems here]. Relevance and responsibility are
linked, meaning that researchers must not place
subjects in any oppressive or dominating
situations or disseminate knowledge that could
cause injury or 'undue harm' to communities and
social groups. These are limits to academic
freedom — 'rights must be matched with appropriate
responsibilities'. [All very 'shouldy' and
idealistic -- no idea how to actually do any of
this]
Affirming an Epistemic Community
'Antiracist research supports the idea of an
epistemic community' [whether one exists or not?]
(14). 'It is generally felt that racism is endemic
in all [!] societies [even epistemic communities?]
' so there is no need to prove or disprove its
existence but instead understand its nature or
extent and consequences and the various ways it
plays out together with other oppressions. The
concept of community explains how both identities
and experiences are shared and collective. He is
aware that critical scholarship often sees this as
essentialist, so we must be careful not to see
community as too static or homogenous.
Nevertheless the term can be 'an enabler or a
mobilising force in the fight for social justice',
and we must be aware that complex processes are at
work through which various ideologies are produced
and sustained, and these are 'linked to material
conditions [weasel]'. So a community can be 'a
vehicle for perpetuating ideologies of race class
gender and sexuality'— we must be sophisticated
enough to pick up these tensions and
contradictions and ambiguities.
Several definitions of community are available —
spatial, affective/relational, and moral
community, for example. Each of these shows the
tension, struggles, ambiguities and
contradictions, 'and yet the integrity of a
collective membership is maintained' (15) [very
naïve]. Communities offer multiple affinities and
allegiances in complex ways and reinforce
processes of inclusion and exclusion. Local
communities often present competing interests,
oppressions and marginalities, but also preserve
local knowledges and make them relevant [so why
not do some empirical research to sort this out?]
The emphasis here seems to be 'to redress multiple
forms of oppression', to see how colonial and
empirical relationships and ideologies interface,
and operate in various linked forms of
exploitation, both locally through intertwined
discourses of race, class and gender, and
globally. We must reject liberal notions of
individuality and 'interrogate the problematic
post-modernist take on the autonomous
differentiated subject' [so little bit of academic
space clearing here as well — all terribly
condensed and elementary]
The pursuit of Antiracist Research: Specific
Methodological Approaches
We must fully and actively involve the subjects at
all stages [jhow can they beinvolved in research
design or funding applications?]. This is more
than collaboration. Locals have to identify the
major issues of interest. We need a team approach
including designing research approaches and
strategies. All must find research to be relevant.
'Specific learning and research objectives'must be
carefully delineated. He takes one of his own
collective examples, based on trying to understand
schooling experiences in Ontario. He drew on his
own experiences as a parent and then as a member
of the local community group. The problem was
disengagement of black youth in schools. He
discussed which questions needed to be researched
and also turned to some of the scholars. He
discussed it with other groups, some in other
cities, and reviewed the literature. He evaluated
the existing explanations and swapped notes with
other academics and researchers. Then he got to
ask a lot of gripping questions like what to do
with competing interests and understandings [and
doesn't say how he got to answer them, only that
this somehow proves his point that is good to show
the different interests].
He might have focused on issues of domination and
participant action research [it is not at all
clear how this came to be the focus if it was
one]. Easier to get back to the general issues
about how jolly nice it is to involve people
helped to develop their own ideas and share ideas
about research design, think up new ideas to
defuse findings and discuss problems with the
community, train local people in research methods
[not colonising them?]. It seems to have got
political as well because he also tried to
'challenge the extent of intellectual aggression
to which racially minority sized communities have
been subjected (18).
It's all very general though referring back to
epistemic communities who can take on colonisers
and expose how race works, including how it works
through dominant methodologies and epistemologies.
Scheurich and Young are
cited here (19) [hardly the stuff of discussion
and community groups, I would have thought].
Then we get on to review the different
contributions in the book. The stress again is on
local community involvement and power-sharing, to
overcome local scepticism of academic research.
Apparently the contributions are practical and
pragmatic, although they seem to go over the same
old issues about Eurocentric knowledge and its
appalling binaries, the key assumptions of
conventional research, how indigenous folk are
other and made invisible. One involves
anticolonial research projects initiated by
aboriginal peoples. Another seems to be deeply
indebted to Scheurich and Young and advocates
comparative study. The final ones look at case
studies in the church and in school/education.
|
|