Beyond responsiveness to identity badges: future research on culture in disability and implications for Response to Intervention

Abstract

I critique in this article the construct of culture because of its centrality in creating the notion of difference, which has been commonly applied to marginalized populations. I examine critically how the notion of culture has been theorized in educational research as a means to obtain theoretical clarity in research design and reporting, as well as inform future policy and reform efforts. I reframe the idea of culture to transcend the favored focus on background markers and include institutional and social practices to expand the unit of analysis beyond stereotyped groups or individuals. This perspective will enable us to understand how the constructs of learning, ability, and culture get increasingly intertwined with damaging consequences that perpetuate historical injustices. I illustrate the framework with a critique of Response to Intervention (RTI) by outlining the ways in which the idea of culture has been taken up in this research. The proposed standpoint empowers us to rely on a view of culture that honors its dynamic, historical, and dialectical nature.

Keywords:

• construct of culture
• Response to Intervention (RTI)
• disability

Acknowledgments

The author is grateful to the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University and Universidad Rafael Landívar (Guatemala) for the support and hospitality that allowed the ideas presented in this article to be developed and articulated. Earlier versions of this manuscript were presented as the 2011 Educational Review Lecture presented at the University of Birmingham (UK), the 2011 Edward L. Meyen Distinguished Lecture at the University of Kansas, and the 2013 Bowen Fellows Lecture Series at Claremont Graduate University. The author is grateful to Kris Gutierrez, Elizabeth Kozleski, Stan Trent, and the Sociocultural Research Group for their comments and recommendations. The author assumes responsibility for the limitations of the article.

Notes

1. I use the term “non-dominant” instead of the traditional labels “minority” or “students of color.” Following Gutierrez (2008), I use the term “non-dominant” to emphasize the oppressive role of power and power relations in the lives of these individuals. Note, however, that this term does not imply that non-dominant students are passively subjected to oppression; indeed, agency and active participation play key roles in the lives of these individuals.

2. Globalization is defined as “the integration and disintegration of markets, characterized by the post-nationalization of production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services” (Suárez-Orozco et al. 2011, 312).

3. “[L]earners who are acquiring two languages simultaneously or who are developing their primary language as they learn a second language” ( Gutierrez, Zepeda, and Castro 2010, 334)

4. “[T]he extent to which behavior sampled in one setting can be taken as characteristic of an individual’s cognitive processes in a range of other settings” (Cole 1996, 222). This can be the case because “intervention tasks, procedures, or situations [may not be aligned with the study] participants’ routine ways to perform or use the cognitive, linguistic, or social strategies purportedly tapped by the intervention”.