On the one hand, we need research WITH communities as opposed to ON communities
On the other hand, we need research ON researchers as opposed to WITH researchers.
They both decenter hegemonic modes of knowledge production in ways that are essential for imagining new futures.
On the other hand, we need research ON researchers as opposed to WITH researchers.
They both decenter hegemonic modes of knowledge production in ways that are essential for imagining new futures.
The first I associate with qualitative methods such as PAR, feminist ethnography and/or critical race counternarratives. The second with genealogical methods connected to various traditions including poststructuralism, postcolonialism and/or critical race studies.
We need both.
We need both.
The first without the second positions researchers as benevolent advocates in ways that fail to grapple with the colonial legacy of academia.
The second without the first positions researchers as the primary agents of knowledge production and erases local forms of resistance.
The second without the first positions researchers as the primary agents of knowledge production and erases local forms of resistance.
While critical qualitative methods are still marginalized in education research, genealogical methods are even more marginalized. I think this is because education researchers like to think of themselves as good people and a genealogical lens troubles that stance.
As somebody who does genealogical work in education I can say that it doesn't always make you friends. But identifying ideologies as only existing "out there" and framing the solution to inequity "giving voice" to communities "in here" is a colonial logic that must be challenged.
This is why I am excited to be teaching a course entitled “Genealogies of Race and Language in Education Research” this fall.
