Research method in the postmodern james joseph scheurich, routledge, 2001 scan

Research Method in the Postmodem QUALITATIVE STUDIES SERIES General Editors: Professor lvor F Goodson, Warner Graduate School, University of Rochester, USA and Centre for Applied Research in Education, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK and Professor James J Sheurich, Department of Educational Administration, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78712, USA Life History and Narrative J Amos Hatch and Richard Wisniewski The Compleat Observer? A Field Research Guide to Observation James Sanger Research Method in the Postmodem James J Scheurich QUALITATIVE STUDIES SERIES: Research Method in the Postmodem James Joseph Scheurich ~~ ~~o~!!;n~~~up LONDON AND NEW YORK All rights reserved No part of this puhlication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or othervvise without p ermission in writing ji'Oin the Publisher First published in 1997 by Falmer Press Reprinted 200 I by RoutledgeFalmer Published 2013 by Routledge Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, USA Routledge is an imprint ofthe Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © James J Scheurich, 1997 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data are available on request ISBN 978-0-750-70709- cased ISBN 978-0-750-70645-2 paper ISBN 978-1-315-04325-8 (eiSBN) Jacket design by Caroline Archer Typeset in I0/ 12pt Times by Graphicraft Typesetters Ltd., Hong Kong Every efj(irt has been made to contact copyriKht holders for their permission to reprint material in this hook The publishers would he grateful to hearfi'Om any copyright holder who is not here acknowledged and will undertake to rectify any errors or omissions in future editions of this book Contents Preface Acknowledgments VI vii Introduction Educational Reforms Can Reproduce Societal Inequalities: A Case Study (With Michael Imber) Social Relativism: (Not Quite) A Postmodemist Epistemology 29 A Postmodemist Critique of Research Interviewing 61 The Masks of Validity: A Deconstructive Investigation 80 Policy Archaeology: A New Policy Studies Methodology 94 Toward A White Discourse on White Racism (An Early Attempt at an Archaeological Approach) Coloring Epistemologies: Are Our Research Epistemologies Racially Biased? (An Example of an Archaeological Approach) (With Michelle D Young) An Archaeological Approach to Research, Or It Is Turtles All the Way Down Index 119 132 159 182 v Preface The isolation of different points of emergence does not conform to the successive configurations of an identical meaning; rather, they result from substitutions, displacements, disguised conquests, and systematic reversals If interpretation were the slow exposure of the meaning hidden in an origin, then only metaphysics could interpret the development of humanity But if interpretation is the violent and surreptitious appropriation of a system of rules, which in itself has no essential meaning, in order to impose a direction, to bend it to a new will, to force its participation in a new game, and to subject it to secondary rules, then the development of humanity is a series of interpretations (FoucAULT, M (1977) 'Nietzsche, genealogy, history' in Language, Counter-Memory, Practice [D.F Bouchard, trans.], Ithaca, NY, Cornell University Press, pp 151-2.) vi Acknowledgments I want to acknowledge the loved ones I live with- Patti, Corinna, Jasper, Roo, Sid I want to also acknowledge the loved ones I not live with - Bea and Jim, Tonya, Noah, Nyja, Kelsy, Toshi, Raven, Patti and Mary, Melanie and her large and small puppies, Twizzle, and Begwhin I also want to acknowledge all my friends and colleagues - Larry, Pedro, Claudia, Kofi, Lonnie, Sarah, Charol, Julie, Jay, both Pats, Diane, Gary, Juanita, Michelle, Deborah, Gerardo, Lynn, Annie, Bob, Lisa, Doug, Anne, O.L., and others I am sure I have not remembered when I was composing this The contributions of everyone are beyond number and definition However, most fundamentally, as will hopefully be understood by the end of this book, it is the archaeology that writes all of us and writes this book Somewhat like the unsigned, untitled wall drawings of the ancients or the old oral stories handed down from generation to generation, no autonomous, individual singularity wrote this book, and no other autonomous, individual singularities assisted Both the author and publisher would like to thank the following Chapter 'Educational Reforms Can Reproduce Societal Inequalities: A Case Study', was first published in Educational Administration Quarterly, 21, 3, 1991, pp 297320 Reprinted by permission of Stage Publications Inc Chapter 'Social Relativism: (Not Quite) a Postmodemist Epistemology', was first published in Maxcy, S (Ed) Postmodern School Leadership: Meeting the Crises in Educational Administration, pp 17-46, Praeger, an imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group Inc., Westport, CT Reprinted with permission Chapter 'Interviewing', appeared in International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 8, 3, pp 239-52, 1995 Chapter 'Validity', appeared in International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 9, 1, pp 49-60, 1996 Chapter 'Policy Archaeology', appeared in Journal of Education Policy, 9, 4, pp 297-316, 1994 Chapter 'Toward a White Discourse on White Racism', was first published in Educational Researcher, 22, 8, pp 5-19, 1993 Copyright (1993) by the American Educational Research Association Reproduced by permission of the publisher Chapter 'Coloring Epistemologies: Are our Research Epistemologies Racially Based?', Educational Researcher, 21, 4, 1997 Copyright (1993) by the American Educational Research Association Reproduced by permission of the publisher vii Page Intentionally Left Blank Introduction An 'introduction' typically offers an overview narrative of a work and directs the reader's attention to the key issues, creating a semblance of a coherence that progresses through a story or argument I cannot, however, provide any submission of this sort I can offer, instead, a simulacral story, that is, a story of something that never existed I can also offer several arguments, perhaps even a family resemblance of arguments, though some of them are unruly and contradict each other I could imply, even subtly, that I have gained, risen, improved, grown theoretically and personally I could suggest that I have made sharp, carefully worded, clear arguments, never violating their logical trajectories However, none of these are suitable Instead, I have wavered and mis-stepped; I have gone backward after I have gone forward; I have drifted sideways along a new imaginary, forgetting from where I had once thought I had started I have fabricated personae and unities, and I have sometimes thought I knew something of which I have written However, caveat emptor, all that follows is never that which it is constructed to appear, an apt description, in my opinion, of all writing None of these refusals, though, are meant to suggest I have no ethical, political, or spiritual commitments, as is sometimes imputed to postmodernists Indeed, I would say that I have strong ethical, political, and spiritual commitments and that I primarily try to write out of such commitments, even though I also assume that there is much in my writing that 'I' not control (perhaps very little or none at all), that I contradict myself or that myself is contradicted, that that which I oppose is as much inside as outside, and that my commitments themselves are more constituted by my time and place than by anything called personal choices Nonetheless, given these, what is most disturbing to me- and it is a theme that runs throughout this book - is not just the pervasive assumption, implicit more than explicit, that the West knows best or that the West is the best, but that the Western modernist imperium is constituting our common, everyday assumptions about researchers, research, reality, epistemology, methodology, etc What I am suggesting here is that even though we researchers think or assume we are doing good works or creating useful knowledge or helping people or critiquing the status quo or opposing injustice, we are unknowingly enacting or being enacted by 'deep' civilizational or cultural biases, biases that are damaging to other cultures and to other people who are unable to make us hear them because they not 'speak' in our cultural 'languages' For example, in chapter I will argue that validity, whether defined as truth or as trustworthiness, whether defined by interpretivists or by criticalists, is an enactment of a modernist bias, an exclusionary, damaging bias In chapter I will argue that our range of research epistemologies, from positivism and interpretivism to An Archaeological Approach to Research would argue that for those who are not and never will be masters and for those seeking an archaeology that will support an equitable society, a decentered, interdependent, communal subjectivity may be a necessity; in short, romantic individualism and an equitable society may be an impossible contradiction Further, I would argue, to understand ourselves not as singularities but as mobile, dynamic facets of complex archaeological ecologies or fabrics is a more appropriate, useful perspective for an equitable society in a postmodernist era Of course, from an archaeological perspective, none of this is a choice, and it is arguable as to whether theoretical insight into archaeological changes will have any effect on those changes If my reading of the postmodernist changes in process are useful, substantial changes lie ahead for realist research due to its deeply modernist moorings My prediction is that realist research will not survive postmodernism, not the philosophy but the era The attacks on higher education and, thus, research itself from the right (politically, economically, and theoretically); from identity politics (politically and theoretically), especially through the development and spread of postrealist research epistemologies, like Afrocentrism or critical race theory (though these hybridically incorporate some realism); and from postmodernists (theoretically) are all equally enactments, in my view, of the shift from a fragmenting Enlightenmentbased modernism to a multi-voiced, more relativist, global capitalist postmodernism, though to call it postmodernism is a Euro-American parochialism If intellectual reflectivity or theory is of any value at all, it may be helpful for researchers to realize that faculty accountability discussions, attacks against tenure, the proliferation of multiple paradigms, the resurgence of the right, identity politics, and postmodernism may all be part of larger archaeological changes What does that mean, then, for that mobile metaphor we call research? What it means is that the critiques of realist research, by feminists, by race-based perspectives, by postmodernists, and, even, by the right, are not just critiques to be ignored, resisted, or repressed They are the archaeological future Research and research method in the postmodern is already fragmenting into a multi-voiced, multi-hued, clamorous circus, while the monological conversation of modernism, carried on by a relatively restricted group, is dying, an occurrence Bakhtin and I both would applaud Poetically, the time of the one god, one path is passing, and the time of the multiplicity of goddesses and gods, many paths is returning This means that research is morphing, archaeologically being morphed What it is to be a researcher is not what it was twenty years ago when there was one right way, and it will not be in another twenty years what it is today Those who hold onto the old ways or the current ways, while both will continue to exist to some extent, will be increasingly ignored, as if they spoke Rorty's dead 'languages', by new researchers speaking new languages What I have tried to offer here is a critique of the old language (realism), a description of a possible alternative language, and a frame for understanding the archaeological changes creating this historical moment I have thus, offered a social theory and a methodology, a postmodernist social theory and a postmodernist methodology that accords with a postmodernist era Nonetheless, this theory and its related predictions may be wrong, infused with too much realism, or simply ignored If so, this theory and all of its implications 175 Research Method in the Postmodern will pass silently and invisibly as if it never existed, like most theories However, even if my predictions occur and the theory turns out to be useful, these, too, will pass because they have no special critical purchase, like all theories or methods, that places them outside of history Most fundamentally, however, I, the theory, the critiques, the research methods suggested, and the predictions are enactments of the archaeological fabric It is all intertextual; it is all archaeological, including research and its method, especially in the postmodem Notes Simply saying at the beginning of a research report that one is doing interpretive, phenomeological, criticalist, feminist, or constructivist research does not mean that one is still not enacting a realist perspective Some researchers, for example, will establish their paradigmatic claim by stating that they are focusing on interviewees' interpretations or constructions, but making this claim does not mean that the research is not realist In other words, naming your research by a different label does not mean that you are still not enacting a realist perspective Not being a realist requires a much greater shift in philosophical perspective than this, and this shift is not easy or simple because realism is so endemic to the way researchers 'naturally' think and especially to the way they think about research Tinker toys for those unfamiliar with them are a toy for children The most important pieces are long and short wooden sticks and circular wooden pieces with multiple holes into which the sticks can be inserted Consequently, it is possible to construct a threedimensional structure of almost any shape, however odd In my use of this toy as a metaphor for a culture or archaeology, the circular pieces are the categories or nodes (the names or labels of concepts or things) and the sticks are the meaning linkages connecting all of the nodes Freedom and determinism, that old conundrum of Western thought, is a useless categorical binary Archaeology needs neither There is no individual yearning to be free or resisting determination Both the yearning and the resisting are plays within or productions of a game that assumes individualism as the primary locus That is, the freedom-determinism conflict is a problem created by a particular set of assumptions or rules In addition, the resolution of the freedom-determinism problem by Giddens (for example, 1984) and others is insufficient They argue that individuals make or produce the society, the culture, while the society simultaneously makes or produces the individuals To me, they have partially realized archaeology, but wish, because of the influence the realist game still has on them, to preserve some space for the individual, as if all meaning and joy would die with the demise of the individual (the Zen Buddhists, along with some mystics in other spiritual traditions, argue that true joy or the experience of the oneness is birthed by the demise of the 'I', a conclusion that Foucault, also came to about Zen: 'In Zen, it seems to me that all the techniques connected to spirituality tend to obliterate the individual' [quoted in Eribon, 1991, p 310] ) If all of this sounds like something close to the kind of subjectivity claimed by some feminists or persons of color, that is the point I am making The subjectivity of the autonomous individual, the humanist subject, the one that supposedly lives within but not of history and the one that is, in my view, the basis for what we think commonly a researcher is, is a kind of imperial subjectivity It is a rather arrogant subjectivity that 176 An Archaeological Approach to Research thinks that it is its own master and that it can name, know, and communicate the really real Some philosophers have raised the commensurability/incommensurability issue, and it would certainly apply to archaeologies Here is how this issue would go: if there are many different archaeologies, how can there ever be any communication among them? Fortunately, this is not really that difficult of a problem as it is applied to archaeologies Some archaeologies have more similarities among them than others, for various complex reasons, like the US and France have much in common historically, creating significant overlap upon which communication can be built, though anyone who has translated across French and English knows that there are many incommensurabilities For archaeologies that are more radically different from each other, communication is a greater problem However, two things help First, all archaeologies are sufficiently complex that there are invariably some overlaps that tend to come out in interactions because those interacting are trying to make connections that they can 'see' based on their own archaeologies Second, and more important, is the fact that as two archaeologies interact, they create a hybridic space composed of the results of the interactions; that is, the interactions build bridges, and the longer they interact, the more bridges the members of each archaeology have to use in communication Consequently, it is not necessary to pose an underlying human universality to account for cross-archaeological communication If there is such a universality, it is so deeply mediated by each archaeology such that each archaeology, if it tries to define universality, which all of them not necessarily do, will define that universality according to its own archaeology Therefore, such universalist stories like those of Joseph Campbell (for example, 1968) are Western archaeological-based stories - and, when taken as true, have a flavor of archaeological imperialism to them Hopi stories, understood from within the Hopi archaeology, are very different stories As many Native Americans say in their explanations of what holds the earth up, it is a turtle When asked about what holds the turtle up, they reply that it is turtles all the way down What this means in my archaeology is that it is interpretations or archaeologies all the way down One interesting question that I will not cover in any depth is that of where archaeologies come from and how to they originate I agree with poststructuralists, like Foucault, who argue that there are no origins Archaeologies are coterminous with the existence of human societies, and all human societies evolve from other human societies, though some die out There is also no teleology to any archaeology, though there are certainly tendencies based, especially, on the deepest assumptions, rules, etc For example, if an archaeology is deeply materialistic, it will likely be that it will continue in that direction, though there is no guarantee In addition, the interactions of the innumerable enactments of an archaeology are endlessly generative, particularly the interactions of formations, a concept I will define later Randomness and complexity, in terms of interactions, then play a key role; all of this occurs within the boundaries of the deep rules and assumptions, though even those can change over long periods of time due to the random and complex play of interactions A good example of this is that I recently read in the newspaper that some historians have suggested that the broad support the revolutionists achieved among the colonist in the US was significantly influenced by a series of poor harvests due to bad weather As I remember it, these scholars suggested that the US revolution might not have come to fruition without this bad weather, thus, significantly changing the subsequent history of the US, including possibly its spread across the continent It is like a rich ecological setting, randomness and the complex interactions within and across species of plants and animals, and 177 Research Method in the Postmodern 10 178 changes in physical conditions, like weather changes or movements of tectonic plates or the crash of huge asteroids into the earth, are sufficient to propel that ecology down through the pathway of its history However, origins and teleologies or autonomous intentional subjectivities are not necessary to that propulsion While in discourses on politics, economics, or sociology, it is typically thought that power most fundamentally is vested in politics, wealth, or social influence, it is the naming of reality, the creation of the archaeological category array and the meaning linkages, that is the most powerful Even though no individual consciously creates such arrays, since individuality itself is constituted by archaeologies, the individuals who are members of the dominant formation will receive the greatest benefits of the archaeology For instance, in the US, elite, Anglo, heterosexual males are constituted in a way that most fits the fundamental assumptions, rules, etc of the overall archaeology, and, thus, they become successful more easily, i.e., well in school, go to the best schools where they connect with other members of the elite, get the better jobs, are more apt to start life with ample resources, etc Those constituted by other formations - those of color, women, lower classes, homosexuals - either not try to succeed or are not able to succeed in the terms of the overall archaeology, or, if they choose to try to succeed, must work harder, be better, and become hi-formational Archaeologically, this suggests why upper middleclass children and the schools populated by these children, on average, so well in public schools These children are born into an archaeological positionality that is closely congruent with the dominant formation, the formation whose assumptions, rules, etc constitute the overall archaeology In contrast, children constituted by other formations not fit, archaeologically speaking, the ruling formation and, thus, have a more difficult experience succeeding well in public schools, an institution, like all public institutions, that is primarily constituted by the dominant formation This perspective also explains why the positive valuing and educational use of the culture and language of children from non-dominant formations in public schools is associated with improved school success for those children (see, for example, Au and Kawakami, 1994; Garcia, 1994; Hollins and Spencer, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Trueba, 1991) Individual members of non-dominant formations may be more or less constituted by their own group formations or by the dominant formation For example, a ComancheAmerican or a Mexican-American may, because of individual circumstances, have almost completely converted to the dominant formation It is also possible that a member of the dominant formation may almost completely ally themselves with one of the nondominant formations, through, for instance, living on a Hopi reservation for decades and adopting that way of life While such conversions will probably never equal being raised within a formation, a significant transformation over many years of time is possible I not suggesting that a formation is somehow totally or even significantly separate from the overall archaeology (and, thus, the dominant formation) A particular formation might only exist in the upper portions of an archaeology, thus completely adopting the lower portions of the archaeology, the deep categories, assumptions, rules, etc In addition, the extent to which an archaeology overlaps portions of the overall archaeology may vary among different formations For example, traditional Sioux living on a Sioux reservation may be only minimally constituted by the dominant formation This may initially be difficult to recognize, but it should be remembered that the type of subjectivity we have in the west teaches us to focus strongly on individual differentiation - i.e., seeing differences rather than seeing similarities among individuals In fact, An Archaeological Approach to Research II 12 13 14 15 our type of subjectivity teaches us to believe our differences, especially our 'superior' differences, are what makes us special I would suggest, however, that this is another aspect of our subjectivity that is highly problematic in terms of developing a more equitable and loving society I would argue that the fact that US society is an multi-formational archaeology is, rather than a threat to unity, a source of considerable creativity and is of consistently underestimated value Those who worry about disunity or lack of civility, whether they realize it or not, are worried about the increasing voice or influence of the non-dominant formations and about losing Anglo male heterosexual dominance, which is the only 'unity' or 'civility' the US has historically ever known (What, for instance, would unity of civility mean in a multi-formational archaeology with no formation dominant?) Within archaeological theory, I would suggest that an open, multifarious system, while sloppier and noisier, is superior to a closed, more unified system, in the long run, though probably not the short There are Native American civilizations in which men and women are constituted by different formations, but neither gender is superior to or dominates or excludes the other There have been some complaints about postmodernist subversions of autonomous subjectivity because it is seen as a conspiratorial decentering of the master individual just as women and people of color have begun to appropriate this individuality However, I would suggest something like the opposite The way that subjectivity has been defined within the Western archaeology is in the terms of the dominant formational set - Anglo, male, heterosexual, and elite Because it is a subjectivity that emerges from a formational set that rules the archaeology, it is a set designed for those who rule both people and the natural world, masters of the universe Consequently, I would suggest that a decentercd subjectivity, an archaeologically enacted subjectivity, is actually closer to the kind of subjectivity enacted by many non-dominant formational sets For instance, among African-Americans there has long been a de-emphasis of atomistic individuality and an emphasis on a more group-based individuality There is also some similarity between what I am urging here and the more de-centered self of the Anglo female formational set In addition, I would argue that an autonomous, atomistic individual subjectivity is one of the barriers to the possibility of a more communal society A society that sees all of its members as interwoven enactments of a larger fabric is less apt to mistreat or use some of those members for the benefit of others In fact, I would say that this book in its entirety, like the questioning of the deep rules and assumptions of feminism, race-based perspectives, and queer theory, is an indication that an archaeological shift is underway I say this because any perspective, including this one, is an enactment of the multi-formational archaeology and is not privileged as some sort of critique that is able to rise above its own historical horizon This indication is, however, no guarantee that this particular shift will continue; it may reverse, disappear, or catalyze into something very different History is simply not teleological and certainly not teleological progressive as modernism assumes What I am describing is a researcher doing research within her/his own archaeology, whereas a researcher from one archaeology researching a different archaeology raises some additional issues As I have argued, the subjectivity of the researcher, her or his trained mind, the practices of reason/research, and the real are archaeological enactments When, say, an anthropologist goes to study another culture, she/he is an enactment of one archaeology interacting with the enactments of another archaeology There is, then, no discovery; there is an interaction The anthropologist cannot discover in some intra-archaeological way how that other archaeology works because literally who the 179 Research Method in the Postmodern researcher is, how she thinks, and how she does research are enactments of her own archaeology Further, that which is interacted with are the enactments of a different archaeology If the anthropologist assumes that her/his representation of the other archaeology is real or true, this is archaeological imperialism Researching across archaeologies is interactional, which, when seen this way rather than seen imperially, can be positive or useful because it is generative of new possibilities My suggestion to cross-archaeology researchers, then, is that they think archaeologically, that they think of the outcomes of the 'study' of another culture or society not as discovery but as creative, generative archaeological interactions in which neither archaeology is superior This perspective needs also to be applied to cross-formational research, as when Anglos study Mexican-Americans What such research has produced in the past, often with destructive consequences, is an Anglo formational view of non-dominant formations, which as I have said above is a kind of imperialism In contrast, what ought to occur from an archaeological perspective is that cross-formational research should be seen as producing not a view of one formation from the point of view of another but as producing a creative, generative interaction of two equally important formations References Au, K.H and KAWAKAMI, A.J (1994) 'Cultural congruence in instruction' in HoLLINS, E.R., KING, J.E and HAYMAN, W.C (Eds) Teaching Diverse Populations: Formulating a Knowledge Base, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, pp 5-24 BHABHA, H.K (1985) 'Signs taken for wonders: Questions of ambivalence and authority under a tree outside Delhi, May 1817', Critical Inquiry, 12, pp 144-65 CAMPBELL, J (1968) The Hero with a Thousand Faces (2nd Ed) Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press DERRIDA, J (1981) Positions (A Bass, trans) Chicago, IR, Chicago University Press DERRIDA, J (1990) Glas (J.P Leavey, J and R Rand, trans) Lincoln, NE, University of Nebraska Press ERIBON, D (1991) Michel Foucault (B Wing, trans) Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press GARCIA, E (1994) 'Attributes of effective schools for language minority students' in HoLLINS, E.R., KING, J.E and HAYMAN, W.C (Eds) Teaching Diverse Populations: Formulating a Knowledge Base, Albany, NY, State University of New York Press, pp 93-104 GIDDENS, A (1984) The Constitution of Society, Berkeley, CA, University of California Press HARRIS, C (1993) 'Whiteness as property', Harvard Law Review, 106, 8, pp 1707-91 HOLLINS, E.R and SPENCER, K (1990) 'Restructuring schools for cultural inclusion: Changing the schooling process for African American youngsters', Journal of Education, 172, 2, pp 89-100 JENSEN, R (1995a) 'Men's lives and feminist theory', Race, Gender and Class, 2, 2, pp 16-25 LADSON-BILLINGS, G (1994) The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African American Children, San Francisco, CA, Jossey-Bass LADSON-BILLINGS, G (1995) 'Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy', American Educational Research Journal, 32, 3, pp 465-91 LATHER, P and SMITHIES, C (1995) Troubling Angels: Women Living with HW/AIDS, Columbus, OH, Greyden Press MoRRISON, T (1992) Playing in the Dark: Whiteness and the Literary Imagination, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press 180 An Archaeological Approach to Research L (1995) 'Writing-stories: Co-authoring "The Sea Moster", a writing-story', Qualitative Inquiry, l, 2, pp 189-203 TAKAKI, R (1993) A Different Mirror: A History of Multicultural America, Boston, MA, Little, Brown and Co TANNEN, D (1990) You Just Don't Understand: Women and Men in Conversation, New York, Ballentine TRUEBA, H.T (1991) 'From failure to success: The roles of culture and cultural conflict in the academic achievement of Chicano students' in VALENCIA, R.R (Ed) Chicano School Failure and Success: Research and Policy Agendas for the 1990s, London, Falmer Press, pp 151-63 RICHARDSON, 181 Index academy and racism 119-26, 128, 134, 142, 147 Adler, L 103, 107 administration, educational 8-11, 15-16, 21, 23-5, 43 Afrocentrism 49, 144-5, 175 agency 101, 103-7, 109, 160, 164 Alarcon, N 143 Alcoff, L 39 Allen, M.J 80 ambiguity 62-5, 67, 73-5 Anderson, M.L 142 Anderson, G.L anti-racism 5, 120, 126-7, 134-6, 143-4, 148 Antonio, R.J 34 Anzaldua, G 138, 141, 142 Apple, M 8, 14, 33, 36, 71 archaeology coloring epistemology 132-48 policy studies and 4-5, 94-114 postrnodern perspectives 159-76 white racism and 119-28 Asante, Molefi Kete 144 Austin, Stephen F 139 autonomous subjectivity 160 awards, social 124-6 axiology 137-41, 143 Azibo, D.A.Y 144 Bachelard 42, 43 Bachrach, P 14 Bakhtin, M.M 88, 90, 175 Baldwin, J.A 144 Banks, J.A 132, 135, 136, 138, 139, 140 Banks, W.C 144 Barakan, E 135 Baratz, M.S 14 Barnes, B 33, 45 Barone, T.E 38, 81 182 Barth, R.S 42 Bates, R.J 8, 9, 16, 49, 71 Bell, D 143 Benjamin, J 86 Bereiter, C 132 Berman, A 62 Berman, E 9, 13 Bernstein, B 9, 71 Bernstein, R.J 32, 34, 35, 38, 39, 40, 43, 137 Bhabba, H.K bias feminism 39 power 24 racial 5, 48, 68, 120-1 racial and epistemological research 132-48 researcher 1-2, 29 Biklen, S.K 61, 62, 64, 70 Billingsley, A 137 Bledstein, B.J 125 Bloor, D 33 boards, school 9-11, 17, 19, 21 Boden, D 123 Bogdan, R.C 61, 62, 64, 70 Borges 65 Bourdieu, P 71 Bowles, S 71 Boyd, W.L 103, 107, 108 building development and school reform 22-4 Caesar, Julius 140 Caldwell 135 Campbell, D.T 80, 81, 84 Campbell, R.F 9, 11, 12 Campioni 64 Canguilhem 43 Capper, C 103, 107 Carnoy, M 8, Index Cassirer 42 catalytic validity 83 categorizing 62, 73, 163-70, 172-4 causation 31 chaos/freedom 72 Cheeryholmes, C.H 81, 83 choice 9, 19, 35, 46, 49, 88-9, 98-9, 101-2, 109-10, 122, 168-70, 174-5 Churchill, Winston 140 citizenry 106-7, 111-13 civilizational racism 5, 133-4, 137-41, 146 Cixous 86 Cizek, G.J 132 class policy archaeology 103, 105-8, 113 racism 123-6 school reform and 8, 12, 15, 18-23, 25 scientific realism 46 socialization 168-70 truth and power 35 classism Clegg, S.R 71 Clifford, James 137 coding 61-3, 66, 161-2 coherent realism 30, 44-6 collaboration 88, 90 Collins, Patricia Hill 84, 138, 139, 141, 142, 144 communication 61-5, 67, 72, 74 community racism and 135 school and 9, 11-14, 17-21, 23-5 consciousness 64, 67, 73, 99-100, 102, 120, 160-1, 163, 165 construct validity 81, 84 construction of social problems 97-8, 100-3, 105, 107-8, 110-11 of social solutions 97, 99, 101-3, 109-10, 112 constructivism 4-5, 33, 47, 133, 136, 140, 159 context 35, 39, 44-5, 47, 62, 66, 140-1, 143, 147, 164-5, 172, 174 Cook, T.D 80 Corbett, H.D 12 Combleth, C 95 Cose, E 138, 148 covert racism 132-5, 141 critical race theory 100, 145, 175 critical realism 30, 47-8 critical theory 1-5, 8-10, 14-16, 24, 33, 71-2, 84, 110, 113, 133, 136, 140, 143-4, 159 Crowson, R.L 11, 12, 103, 107, 108 Cuban, L 136 Culbertson, J 29 culturalism 8-9, 12-14, 16, 23-4 culture interviewing and 68 writing archaeology and 162-9 Cummins, J 135 Cunningham, L.L 9, 11, 12 Cunningham, W.G 8, 10, 23 Darling, C.A 137 data collection 62-3 definition 47-8 De Leon, A 139 deconstructionism 33, 39, 80-2, 174 deep structures 101 Delandshere, G 132 Deleuze, G 42 democracy 14, 23-5, 35-6, 96, 98 Denzin 160 Derrida, J 38, 42, 160, 169, 172, 174 Descartes, Rene 42 descriptions of social problems 95 Dewey, John 13, 140 Deyhle, Donna 145 dialogue 88, 90 difference poststructuralism and 100 social 126 validity and 88-90 discrimination, racial 120, 122 discussion of social problems 95 dominance gender 101 interview 4, 67, 70-3 power and 36-7 racial 21, 69, 104-5, 113, 123-4, 135, 137-9, 141-2, 144, 146, 166-71 same/other 85, 87, 89 truth and 35 Donmoyer, R 33, 40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 49 183 Index double consciousness 121, 123, 126 Dryfoos, J.G 103, 107 DuBois, W.E 119, 121, 122 Duke, David 119 education policy archaeology and 99, 102-13 power hierarchy 36 racial bias and 132-3, 135-6, 141, 145-7 relativism 47-9 research 2, 30, 40, 159-60, 172, 175 as social problem 94, 96-7 Eisenhart, M 81 Eisner, E 46, 81 elitism 14, 21-3, 25, 34, 165, 169-70 Ellison, R 132 Ellsworth, E 40, 88, 89, 144 Ellsworth, J 142, 143 emancipation 37, 83-4 empirical definition 47-8 empowerment 69-70, 83, 85 enculturation 168 Enlightenment 35, 37, 42, 175 epistemology archaeology and 94, 105, 107, 110-11 coloring 132-48 culturalism and 13 interviewing and 74 racial realism and 159 research and social relativism and 29-50 validity and 80, 82-5, 88 equality 37, 39, 165, 175 in- 8-10, 12, 15-16, 24, 32, 70-2, 105, 122-3, 126-8, 136-7 essentialization 68-9 evaluation realism and 31-2 of social solutions 95 Evers, C.W 29, 32, 44, 45, 46 exemplars, shared 41-4, 46, 85 expertise, use of 9-11, 13, 23-5 failure, school 95, 102-3, 107, 109 Farran, D 47 Feagin, J.R 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 184 feminism 2, 33, 37-9, 42-3, 47-9, 68, 74, 84, 88-90, 100, 143-4, 171, 175 Feyerabend 32, 36 Firestone, W.A 12 Flaubert, Gustave 140 Flax, J 42, 48 Ford, Henry 140 formations, cultural 167-71, 173 Foster, W 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 34, 49, 71 Foucault, M 2, 4, 29, 33, 34, 35, 42, 43, 46, 65, 82, 84, 86, 87, 88, 94, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 113, 138, 159, 160, 163, 164, 171, 174 foundationalism 37-40, 47, 49 Frankenberg, R 138, 143 Fraser, N 35, 40, 46, 47, 110 Freire, P 69, 71, 83 Freud, S 101 Frierson Jr, H.T 120 functionalism 8-9, 10-16, 23-4, 34 Gage, N.L 132 Garcia, E Gardiner, M 86 Garfinkel 70 Gates, Henry Louis 113 Gee 68 gender administration and 43 policy archaeology 103, 105-8, 113 racism 123-5 relativism 37 school reform 15 scientific realism 46 socialization 168-70 supremacy 10 I generalizations 64 Giddens, A 123 Gilligan 88 Gintis, H 71 Giroux, H 8, 36, 71 goal-setting 18-20 Goffman 70 Goldberg, D.T 138, 139 Gordon, B.M 141, 142, 143, 144, 145-6 Gordon, C 35, 105 Gordon, Edmund W 123, 132, 135, 139, 140, 142, 143, 145 Gould, S.J 136 Index governmentality 103, 105-9 Gramsci, A 71 Greenfield, T.B 32 grid modernism as 138 of social regularities 98-104, 106-7, 109-12, 114 Grosz 64 Guba, E 4, 36, 61, 81, 84, 160 Gutting, G 42, 43 Gwaltney, John 145 Habermas, J 33, 34, 35, 42 Hacker, A 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 Hakon, J.J 120, 133, 135, 141 Hammiller, R.E 103, 107 Hansot, E 11, 12 Haraway, D 38 Harding, S 33, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 46, 84 Harris, C 138, 139, 174 Harris, C.I 104, Ill Hawksworth, M.E 94, 96 health service 94, 102-3, 109-10, 112 Hegel, G.W.F 70 Herrnstein, R.J 135 Heshusius, L 132 Hesse, M 45, 49 hierarchy bureaucratic I I, 36 racial 123-4, 126-7, 133, 138 Hill, R.B 137 Hilliard III, A.G 135, 148 history social 140-4, 146-7 social regularities and 101, 104, 113 hooks, b 87, 119, 123, 142, 143 House, E.R 31, 32, 44 House, K 81 Huberman, A.M 81 Huggins, J 84, 143 humanism 164 Hume, David 31 Hurston, Zora Neale 89 Hutcheon, L 38 Hymes, 65 Imber, Michael 8-25, 143 implementation of social solutions 95 indeterminacy 61, 73-5 individual racism 5, 121, 133-6, 141, 146 individual relativism 39 individualism 122-8, 162, 164-5, 168, 170, 174-5 inperial validity 85-8 institutional racism 5, 132-6, 141-2, 146 interaction, interviewing 66-7, 69, 71, 73-5 interactional overlap 166-7, 169 interpretation 63-7, 73-4, 161, 170, 172 interpretivism 1, 4-5, 13, 33, 94, 133, 140, 159 interrogated validity 83-4 interviewing 3-4, 61-75 Johnson, B 87 Kant, Immanuel 140 Katz, M.B Kelly, M 94, 95, 96, 111 Kerlinger, F.N 47, 80, 84 Kershaw, T 144, 145 Kilmann, R.H Kimbrough, B 12 King, J.E 135 King, W.M 144 Kirst, M.W 9, 102, 103, 107, 109 Kluegel, J.R 121, 122, 133, 134 knowledge distribution 8-10, 14-16, 24 postmodernism and race and 138-40, 142 relativism and 34 Western 85-7, 90 Koppich, J.E 103, 107, 109 Kovel, J 123 Kramer, J.R 122, 123 Krupat, A 146 Kuhn, T.S 32, 33, 41, 42, 43, 47 Ladson-Billings, Gloria 2, 135, 144, 147 Laible, J 143 Lakomski, G 9, 15, 29, 32, 44, 45, 46 language 4, 29-30, 42, 45, 61-3, 65-6, 72, 74, 175 Lather, P 2, 4, 15, 33, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40, 43, 47, 62, 64, 72, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 89, 160, 172 Latour, B 43 185 Index leadership 137 Lee, C.D 135 Leibniz, Gottfried W 42 Lenzo, K 132 Levi-Strauss, C 101, 164 Levin, H.M 8, Levinas 86, 87 Lincoln, Yvonna S 4, 36, 61, 81, 84, 160 linkage, service 94, 102-3, 107, 109-10, 112 Linneaus 135 Littlejohn-Blak:e, S.M 137 Loftin, J.D 138 logical positivism 160 Lomotey, K 135 Lubiano, W 68, 69, 86 Lukes, S 14 Lyotard, J.F 137 McCarthy, C 126, 135, 136, 142 McLaughlin 13 McPherson 69 Mahon, M 98 management, school 10, 15 March, J.G Martin, J 123 Marx, Karl 101, 113 Marxism 15-16, 71-2, 126 Masayesva, Vernon 146 material reality 161, 166, 173 Mawhinney, H.B 103, 107 Maxwell, J.A 80 Maynard-Moody, S 94, 95, 96, 111 meaning 61-7, 70, 72-4, 163-7, 171-2 Mercer, C.D 136 Merquior, J.G 35, 42 methodology case study 16-17 modernism 174-6 policy archaeology 94, 114 policy studies as racial bias 132, 142-3 realism 159-61 validity 81 Metz, M.H Meyer, J.W 8, 13 Miles, M.B 81 Mill, John Stuart 30, 31 186 Miller, F 123, 132 Minh-ha, T.T 29, 42, 48, 85, 87, 90, 139, 141, 143 minorities, racial 8, 12, 18-23, 25, 122, 142 Mishler, E.G 4, 30, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 62, 63, 64, 65, 71, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 modernism 1, 3-5, 63-8, 70, 73, 137-40, 145, 162, 171, 174-5 Molotch, H.L 123 More, Thomas 139 Morrison, Toni 88, 139, 169 Moss, P.A 132 Muddy Waters 166 Murray, C 135 naive realism 30-2, 44, 46 narrative 68-9, 73 neo-realism 3, 30, 133, 140 Nielsen, J.M 37 Nietzsche, Friedrich W 29, 33, 86 Norris, C 38 Nystrand, R.O 9, 11, 12 Oakes, J 8, 9, 12, 15 objectivity 39-40 Ogbu, J.U 122, 123, 133, 134 Olsen, J.P ontology 33, 105, 107, 110, 137-41, 143 opportunity, equality of 19, 24-5 order, social 96-7, 99-100, 102, 105-13 originary validity 80-2 Ortiz, A 136 overt racism 121, 132, 141 Padilla, A.M 145, 147 Paredes, A 135, 142 parents and school reform 17-21, 23 Parker, Laurence 145 participation, community 9-11, 13-14, 17-20, 24-5 Passeron, J.-C 71 Patai, D 75 Patton, M.Q 61 Peters, T.J Petrosky, A.J 132 Index Pettigrew, T.F 123 Phillips, D.C 32, 33, 81 Phillips, Dennis 171 philosophy 2, 5-6, 45, 85, 87, 94, 159-62, 171, 175 Pine, G.J 119, 122, 148 planning and control 10-11 pluralism 13-14, 17, 23-5, 40, 46 policy studies 4, 49 archaeology and 94-114 politics of epistemology 46-50 Polkinghorne, D 29, 30, 43, 81 Popkewitz, T.S Popper, K 29, 32, 171 positionality 5, 33, 39-40, 47, 74, 122-7, 168-9 positivism archaeology and 94-7, 102-3, 110-11, 159-60, 162 epistemological racism 133, 136, 140-1, 147 interviewing 61, 63-5, 67, 70-1, 73 postmodernism and 1, 4-5 social relativism and 29-32, 34-5, 37, 39, 44-7, 49 validity 80-2, 84-5, 87 post realism 161-2, 172, 175 Poster, M 62, 86 postfoundationalism 3, 33, 40-4, 46-7, 49 postpositivism 3, 32, 61, 64-70, 73, 80 :.5, 87, 94-7, 102-3, 110-12, 133, 140 postrealism poststructuralism 2, 4, 33, 35, 38-40, 47, 65, 89, 100-1, 113 133, 140-1, 147, 164 Pounder, D.G 11 power control and 35-7, 46 distribution 8-10, 14-16, 24, 123-4, 126-7 interviewing 61, 69-71, 74 school reform and 9-14, 21-2, 24-5 truth and 34-5, 37 validity and 84-6 pragmatism 40-4 Procacci, G 106 professionalization 103, 105-9 property, race and 104-5, 111, 139, 174 purpose of interviews 61-2, 72-3 of policy studies 97, 102, 110-11 of research 49, 85 qualitative research 61, 84, 132, 162, 171 quantitative research 62, 84, 132, 162, 171 queer theory 171 Quine, W.V.O 45 race policy archaeology 103-4, 106-8, 113 relativism 37 school reform 15, 18-21, 25 scientific realism 46 truth and power 35 validity and 84, 90 race-based epistemology 144-7 race-oriented theory 42, 68, 171, 175 racialization 122-3, 127 racism 3, 5, 109, 167, 169, 174 epistemological 132-7, 141-4, 146, 148 Ransford, H.E 123 rationality 5, 41-2, 44, 46, 160-1, 170-2 Rayfield 68 reality archaeology 159-63, 165, 168, 172-5 definition 47-8 interviewing 61, 63-7, 73-5 postmodernism 2-3, racism 137-9 social relativism 29-33 validity 80-1, 83 Rebolledo, D 142 regularities, social 97-107, 109-12, 114, 163, 169, 174 reliability 81 representation community 18-19, 20-3, 25 policy archaeology 162, 172-3 reproduction, social 8, 16, 104, 107, 113, 125 researcher 170-3, 175 resistance 71-3 resources, distribution 14-16, 24, 123-4, 126-7, 218-10 Reyes, M.L 120, 133, 135, 141 Richardson, Laurel 172 Rizvi, F 133 187 Index Rodriguez, F Rollock, D 123, 132 Rorty, R 30, 175 Roscoe, W 138 Rowan, B 13 Ruddick 88, 89 Russell, Bertrand 31 Ryan, M 63 Said, E.W 138, 139 Salner, M 81 same/other 4, 70, 85-90 Sarason, S.B 9, 12, 13, 17 Sarris, G 141, 142 Saussure, F 62 school district reform 3, 8-25 service 94, 102-3, 109-10, 112 Schumaker, P 14, 24 Schuman, H 122 Schwandt, T.A 160 scientific realism 30-2, 44-6, 48, 160 Scott, W.R self 63, 121-2, 164-5, 171 sexuality 90, 168-70 Shakeshaft, C 43 Shakespeare, W 138 Shockley, W 136 Shuey, A 135 Shujaa, M 135 signification 62 Simpson, OJ 136 Sirotnik, K.A 9, 12, 15 Smith, E.R 121, 122, 133, 134 Smith, J.K 81 Smithies, C 172 social relativism 3, 29-50 social sciences 2, 6, 30, 33-7, 39, 41-3, 48-9, 80-4, 86, 113, 135 {5, 142, 145, 147, 159-61, 172 social services 94, 102-3, 109-10, 112 socialization 19, 106, 112, 122-4, 140, 168-70 societal racism 5, 132-4, 136-7, 141-2, 146 Spinoza, Benedict 42 Spivak, G.C 29, 67, 85, 86, 119, 123 Stanfield II, J.H 42, 105, 122, 123, 132, 188 135, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143 Stanley, J.C 80, 81, 84 Steele, C.H 123 Stevenson, R.B 142, 143 Stone, C.N 14, 24 story-telling 68-9, 72-3 Strauss, A 62, 63, 64 structuralism 65, 101, 113, 164 subjectivity 2-6, 89, 99-101, 110, 159-62, 164-5, 168-75 success, social 124-6 successor validity 82-3 superintendency 11-12, 17, 19, 21-4 supervision 43 systems, social 100 Takaki, Ronald 138, 139, 166 Tannen, D 168 Tatum, B.D 133 Taylor, M.C 85 Taylor, R.L 145 Thomas, Clarence 119 Toulmin 32, 40, 49 transcription 61-3, 66, 70 transgressive validity 89-90 trustworthiness 1, 81-4, 87-8, 160-l, 170, 172 truth 33-40, 46-7, 49-50 Tyack, D 11, 12 Tyler, S 64 universalization 123 Usdan, M.D 9, 11, 12 validity 1, 4, 29-30, 63, 66-7, 73, 80-90, 160-1, 170, 172 Vera, H 135, 136, 137, 138, 139 Villenas, Sofia 145 Warren, C.A.B 62 Waterman, R.H Waugh, D 95 Wax, R.H 62 Weber, Max 11, 140 Webster, Y.O 135, 138 Weick, K.E Weiler, K 36, 71, 123 Index Weinberg, R 142 West, Cornell 119, 127, 138, 139, 141, 142, 143, 145 White, H 101 White, S 111 White, S.K 88, 89 white racism 119-28, 132, 136, 138, 146 supremacy 5, 104-6, 108, 112, 138-9, 141, 166-7, 174 Whiteside, T Willis, C.V 137 Willower, D.J 9, 15 Wittgenstein, L 30, 33, 163 Wolcott, H.F 73, 80 Woolgar, S 43 Yeakey, C.C 9, 14, 15, 16 Yen, M.W 80 Yetman, N.R 123 Young, Michelle D 132-48 Young, Robert 86, 126 Zinn, M.B 62 189 ... poststructuralist research method and the other two being applications of this Research Method in the Postmodern latter methodology); and on my current archaeological thinking about research (the final chapter)... reflects that which the researcher is looking at in the world In addition, the researcher assumes that the language used to represent the world in the linguistic presentation of the research is not... deeply indeterminant, that the subjectivity of the interviewer and interviewee is deeply indeterminate, that the interaction between the two is indeterminate, and that the power between the two cannot