Introduction
In this essay I will critique the research study by Greg Vass (2016), ‘Everyday race-making pedagogies in the classroom’. The author explores the way teachers pedagogically racialise students in classrooms through everyday interactions. I start off with a summary of my understanding of the article and move on to unpacking the methodology. I will focus on critiquing and evaluating the research methods used such autoethnography, the themes of insider and outsider conundrums, participant observation, subjectivity and reflexivity within research and whether they have all been addressed coherently. I also look at the ethical considerations in the context of high-school Aboriginal learners and whether it is these methods are effective for a study into culture. I aim to initiate a consistent discussion about the various discourses of Aboriginality shown within the data produced by Vass, which displays Indigenous learners negotiating and interpreting when to be agentic and resilient in the context of the whitewashed Australian classrooms.
To summarise, Vass (2016) begins on research to build upon the understanding of attainment gaps between Indigenous and non-Indigenous learners. He shows an interest in teachers and their personal pedagogical stance in the classroom and how it has a role in contributing to ‘race-making’ (Knowles, 2003), within the cultural interface of discourses of Aboriginality. This research examines how these imbalances in educational achievement can start from within the school structures, specifically classrooms that impact the experiences of Indigenous and non-Indigenous students. The focus of the research is framed by the critical race theory and it aims to critically reveal how racialised attitudes bring about a prevalent presence around the engagement and positioning of Indigenous learners.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The educational research takes places in the same school where Vass (2016) was previously an experienced teacher, ‘Greenfield State High School (GSHS)’. From his own personal experience, he felt as though there was not enough being done in order to cater to the needs of the Indigenous students in the classroom field. He was able to research Indigenous learners in his previous school, where he gained access due to his teacher credibility, which he goes on to describe as an ‘insider study’ (Vass, 2016, pg. 373). He was able to get a balanced sample of male and female volunteers who had a variety of teaching experiences between them. He takes a critical race insider autoethnographic approach to this research, and the data of the observations are recorded in ‘Chronicles’ which detail separate events over the course of the study. The chronicles show representations of ‘Aboriginality’ as external factors which are unrelated to schooling and how the Indigenous learners indirectly ‘position’ and negotiate themselves within the school structure. Following on from each chronicle is are discussions about Aboriginality and sense of self and also leans towards the manner in which teachers also can also be involved in interrupting the reiterative power of Whiteness. Vass (2016) shows particular interest in the activities of student ‘Joey’, whom he had previous contact with as a teacher. The activities and attitudes of Joey and other students in different situations were observed and analysed in terms of the links with the reproduction and/or interruption of Whiteness.
Methods
Autoethnography is an approach to research that attempts to describe and analyse an individual’s personal perspective (auto) of their daily life events (graphy) from a cultural interface (Ellis, 2004). It is important to note that critical race insider autoethnography is slightly different to ethnography, where the former is concerned with various methods of in-depth research and takes into account a researcher’s subjectivity on the topic. The focus of Vass’ (2016) research was derived from his own challenges as a high school teacher to effectively engage with his Indigenous learners and their background- from this standpoint it felt right for the author to approach this subject matter from a critical race insider autoethnography perspective (Mendez, 2013; Atkinson, 1992). He showcases his data in ‘Chronicles’ which include emotions, as well as providing a voice for the ‘other’- in this case, a focus on Joey and a few Aboriginal students. The use of autoethnography helps to re-contextualise and give insight to readers about human experience in the racial categories of pedagogy that occur in the interactions within the mundane classroom field (Silverman, D. 2007).
The designation of the words ‘critical race’ to autoethnography are very crucial to the context of Vass’ (2016) research of race-making pedagogies within the classroom, as it exhibits focus upon the way in which power plays a role in an individual’s experience and also the structural focus that assisted in creating these experiences. On the topic of the second chronicle, Joey’s interaction with his white classmate Milly who had called upon the ‘tools of racism’ (Picower 2009) to resist being viewed negatively in a debate when she deemed a comedy show to showcase ‘funny racism’ (Vass 2016). The use autoethnography has shown itself to be an obvious choice for the task of theorising the way in which the Aboriginal identity and culture has been constructed and the delineation of its social positioning within the classroom. The use of critical race insider autoethnography can be viewed as effective since it attempts to deconstruct the system that has built the power structure.
In chronicle three, Vass was intrigued about the image that had appeared on Joey’s screen and as he was questioning him, the reluctance displayed by Joey to expand on his thoughts shows a way in which autoethnography here, can bring about several difficultuies. Although Vass mentions that ‘for a moment in time, the reiterative power of Whiteness was interrupted’ (Vass 2016), this does not represent the inductive method of enquiry (Bryman, 2004) characterised by the use of thick descriptions of culture (Geertz 1973). The purpose of thick descriptions is to give readers a contextual insight of the culture and an understanding of the human experiences faced by others at an individual level. (Denzin & Lincoln, 2008). Perhaps, autoethnography can be called into question here as there may not be enough rapport between the researcher and student being observed to ask more probing questions. There are also the insider/outsider complexities and as well as a hierarchy that can be called into question. These factors have to be taken into account when considering why Joey chose not to share his reasoning as opposed to the researcher solely interpreting his actions.
Participant observation was also used as a method of enquiry along with autoethnography, where the researcher takes it upon themselves to get involved and ‘inquire from the inside’ (Evered and Louis, 2001). Vass (2016) became a member of the classroom setting where he gathered his data. This was an insider study as the author accessed his research field through his previous networks, following on from his credibility as a previous high-school teacher. He notes that there was a new gatekeeper of the school, where he received good ‘word-of-mouth’ from current teachers, meaning that Vass was able to delve into a researcher’s role and observe Aboriginal learners. The majority of researchers opt into selecting an individual or a small focus group to interview and observe. In doing so, it may seem that selecting a specific research question depicts that they prefer to ‘manufacture’ their data rather than to ‘find it in the field’. In the second chronicle, Milly asks Vass if he watched a show that aired, at first, he gives a blunt answer but once the student probed more, he went on to state that he did not deem it as correct to joke about racism. This encounter between the researcher and Milly can show how she views Vass as an insider as she can openly talk about topics like ‘funny racism’ (Vass 2016, pg 379). Reid and Santoro (2006) argue that Whiteness is the benchmark upon which positions that are seen as less powerful are measured as the ‘Other’. and this is what draws Milly to open this narrative as she sees similarities between herself and the white researcher. However, once Joey gets involved and contests the racism, Milly gets defensive and shifts the subject to his grammar. The notion of ‘othering’ can be give an insight of the ‘naturalness of Whiteness’, and the use of a critical insider participant study allow us to see that race in this classroom field is inherently relational; where Aboriginality is viewed socially and it is reproduced through social interactions in which Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples ‘negotiate a place in relation to each other’ (Langton, 1993, p. 31; Knowles, 2003). Where the researcher had space to engage more critically with participants (students and teacher), Vass (2016) stayed silent in this case as well as the teacher of the classroom. This displays the way in which race is downplayed as well as showing how ‘epistemological racism’ is shown in this research practice as Whiteness is reinforced through hierarchies (Scheurich and Young, 1997). Overall, the use of participant observation is convincing as it meets what the aim of Vass’ (2016) research to understand the complexities of discursive race-making pedagogies in classrooms. The convenience of the insider identity was more practical (Perryman, 2011) as it outweighs the limitations of being an outsider
Qualitative research involves reflexivity, this is potentiated when placed within a theoretical framework that guides reflection, praxis and autoethnography. This formalises a reflexive attitude into a research method. Therefore, in order to assure improvement of rigour in autoethnography, reflexivity makes way a for generation of critical consciousness for researchers. The nature of reflexivity is manifested in this research by Vass (2016) as the participants also had a say as well as the researcher, which embraces ‘the polyphony of voices’ (Mruck & Mey 1998, p.303) instead of the researcher imposing their voice in the research process. In chronicle three, although the researcher tried to understand the reason behind why Joey would not expand on the choice of image he had on his screen- the researcher decided not to tamper too much with this data and later interpreted it as inner subjectivities that the participant had as it represented it as the ‘interruption of Whiteness’ (Vass, 2016, pg. 385). In this instance the interpretation was carried out by the subject who spoke from a differing position (Rosaldo, 1993), showing how research participants can also lead the researcher to be reflexive in their work. This type of reflexivity leads to the evaluation of the researcher’s identity within the context of the field and the perceptions of their informants with regard to the researcher.
For Vass (2016) to be reflexive in a manner that aligns with the values of qualitative work, he must consider his subjectivities to carry out this research and the value it would bring to the field. In Vass’ case, as a White male researching Indigenous learners and the discursive racialised practices in the classroom; already there is a difference of backgrounds that he must take into account. As mentioned by Chang (2008), researchers should methodically use their personal experiences to unpack the larger cultural context rather than focusing on themselves as a different entity from others. As this research was framed by the critical race theory, the analytical methods of reflexivity were not as present as it could have been. Perhaps, if he were to clearly contribute the fact that his position as a teacher and race may have been factors that gave him prerogative to carry out this research, it would guide a reader’s understanding of the nature of the researcher’s data, as the results are largely determined by his social identity as seen by his subjects (Cicourel, 1964). This argument is also furthered by Moreton-Robinson (2004) who talks upon the Whiteness in regard to Australia and how it is actually a ‘regime of power’, so it is up to the researcher to address how their own race may have affected their findings therefore Vass (2016) should have shown more self-awareness and acknowledgement.
As qualitative research tends to focus heavily primarily on the experiences of a variety of human activities, the relationship between the researcher and participants takes a different turn, as Vass 2016) had returned to his previous school as a researcher. The main ethical concern of ‘harm’ is examined by Vass (2016), as he shows awareness that there could be potential dangers affecting his participants. This is shown when he employs strategies such as pseudonyms for the names of individuals and places. As a researcher, he takes a stance to minimise harm for participants so that their privacy is preserved (Hammersely, 2013). The main reason of anonymising participants is simply down to the aspect that he is observing high school learners, in which there are already many speculations about whether it is right to observe a culture from the outside, so sensitive subjects in this matter it is vital that participants should be protected, and the framework of ethical guidelines are considered.
Informed consent is a fundamental part of ethics, and it is important that the researcher states their aims and how they will be used. There is no mention of parental consent in this research piece, especially with topics such as race and positioning of Aboriginal students. This raises ethical concerns as many researchers believe that research must always be completed with people rather than on them (Woodhead and Faulkner, 2000; Henderson, 2009). A parent/carer should have also had prior knowledge about initial aims and also about data collection and how their child is viewed.
Participants may be displeased that they were represented in a manner that only describes their opinions and characteristics based on a few instances. This may raise questions about whether the participant would want to be viewed in this way and if they would consent if they were aware. The participant may have a notion within him to represent his background, but the data does not show this at all instances. As this is a participant observation, the researcher almost manufactures their data as they know what types of behaviours to look out for in the field. Thorne (1980) notes that researchers tend to produce ‘partial truths’ in the sense that they would not explain their research all the way through as this may affect the authenticity of their data. This means explaining to the participants like the teacher who may speak on the racism, rather than keeping silent in order to view them in a good light to make them look like they are driving towards social change starting from the classroom. This brings about the uncertainty of autonomy, the research shows respect for participants to contribute and to make their own decisions, however the researcher is looking out for certain attitudes.
Conclusion
To conclude, this research study by Vass (2016) is a valuable form of data as there is now a detailed analysis of the complexities of racial hierarchies in the classroom (Burgess, 2012) which informs the everyday practices of Australian schools. The study shows the emphasis of the relationship of power against the cultural interface and how it can affect positioning of Indigenous learners in whitewashed settings, such the classroom. The combination of autoethnography and participant observation has helped to gain an insight about how teachers are also involved in interruption of the reiterative power of Whiteness. The dramatic description in his chronicles, insider/outsider statuses and processes of representation are all distinctive markers of autoethnographic work which Vass (2016) presents with clarity. This data in the form of chronicles and autoethnography will further allow for a deeper contribution of understanding about positioning as it outlines the ‘impenetrable whiteness of schooling’ (Reid et al. 2004). Overall, the research carried out by Vass (2016) shows acknowledgement of the ways in which Whiteness can be responsible for the representation for Indigenous people. However, it would have been more valuable if the author was able to be use more reflexive practices in his work and consider his own position as a White researcher as it will provide authentic insight.
Stuck on your essay?
