Centering the significance of qualitative studies on the sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts of education to inform policy

Research is formalized curiosity. It is poking and prying with a purpose.—Zora Neale Hurston from Dust Tracks on a Road (Hurston, 2004)

The words of Zora Neale Hurston are inspirational for this volume. In addition to being a prolific writer, Hurston was also an anthropologist. She is one among many people of Color who challenged the boundaries and confines of traditional scholarship. For Hurston, research was not an enterprise relegated to the confines of academia. Instead, it was a tool for liberation – for herself and her people. She collected, documented, and analyzed stories, songs, and rituals and became an authority on African American folklore. Her anthropological studies were evidence of Hurston’s commitment to her people and culture. She was intent on illuminating the multi-faceted dimensions of the lives of Black people. Like Hurston, we have been poking and prying with a purpose – to use our research as a means of activism by foregrounding the experiences of those marginalized in education spaces. For both of us, our work centers on systemic inequities that impact students, families, communities, and teachers, particularly of Color. As Black women scholars and former school teachers, we have purposely chosen to investigate and explore questions and phenomena that were present in our own experiences in schools and with the students, parents, and communities with which we served. Such issues are often unknown or relegated to the margins of mainstream discourse. Even in so-called liberal spaces, those willing and ready to advocate are ill-informed or know little about the lives they wish to impact. Thus, the time is ripe for qualitative researchers to center our formalized curiosity in discussions on policy.

With the election of Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States and his selection of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, it is more important than ever for qualitative researchers to use their research for the public good. In unprecedented fashion, we have a Secretary of Education who has never been a student or parent in public schools. The polarization of the current social and political landscape brings to bear the need for innovative and transformative qualitative studies in public education. Instead of academic navel gazing, we must present our research in clear, relevant ways to the public. Because the nature of qualitative research is not to provide generalizable findings, too often it is pushed to the margins of acceptability and evidence for policy considerations. However, dismissing qualitative work as unimportant to policy considerations ignores the advantage of qualitative methodology to tell the stories of how people make meaning of their lives. Such nuanced understandings have the potential to lead to better policy solutions. Qualitative research and policy-making should be natural companions. As policy-makers are tasked with creating solutions to problems and challenges faced by the public, it would then seem plausible for them to know more than the quantitative figures that are often used in policy decisions.

This volume is intended to present high-quality qualitative studies in education specifically highlighting the experiences of marginalized populations as catalysts and credible sources for policy decisions. Moreover, this volume clearly denotes how qualitative studies in education can inform policy when the lived experiences of critical stakeholders are centered versus marginalized. We contend that there are numerous qualitative studies in education that document and theorize the lived experiences of marginalized youth and school practitioners in ways that can inform others who may not understand particular phenomena in the contexts or communities in which these stories are embedded.

Historical and contemporary understandings and implications of education policy

There exists no cut and dry definition of policy, as various scholars have attempted to define policy in myriad ways. The word policy or policy studies emanates from the field of political science, and there exists philosophical conflicts over the nature of society, the meaning of power, and the role of government (Fowler, 2013) in policy execution. Public policy, according to Fowler (2013), is ‘the dynamic and value-laden process through which a political system handles a public problem. It includes a government’s expressed intentions and official enactments, as well as its consistent patterns of activity and inactivity’ (p. 5). As such, public policy is framed in a way to address ‘problems’ which are quite normative to express both an ends and a means to steer the actions and behaviors of individuals in regard to matters over which authority can be exercised (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

In our contemporary political landscape, policy is heavily intertwined with politics. Hereby, politics actually provides the avenue for policy-making opportunities (Shipps, 2011), which are often incredibly partisan. Notwithstanding, the government employs many policy experts/interests to think through problems and develop solutions, in turn greatly impacting the direction of social formations:

policies usually seek to represent their desired or imagined future as being in the public interest, representing public good. As a result they often mask whose interest they actually represent. Thus contestation occurs right from the moment of appearance of an issue on the policy agenda, through initiation of action, to the inevitable trade-offs involved in formulation and implementation. (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010, p. 6)

Policies are initiated and implemented at the highest levels of government such as through a president or governor who communicate ideas and ideals around an issue. These ideas are then supported by legislators’ statues and budgets, as well as judges’ court decisions. The disconnect between policy and its implementation is that often the government officials responsible for creating policy, and more specifically education policy, have often never even worked in schools and thus struggle to conceptualize how education policy affects students (Fowler, 2013). Needless to say, education policies are executed into practice at the grassroots level, by superintendents, principals, and even classroom teachers.

Education policy

Policies are mediated through the specific context in which they are implemented and throughout the process of implementation change happens (Fowler, 2013). As far back as the 1950s, no federal education policy existed and even at the state level, state contribution of funds encapsulated what might be considered any semblance of policy implementation. According to Rizvi and Lingard (2010), government intervention through policy development and implementation became necessary for solving social problems, and was deemed a rationalist approach. This approach which was reflected in policy outcomes from Brown v. Board of Education (1954) to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965) centered the idea that increased government spending through policy could ensure education equality through redistributive measures. However, around the 1980s, this approach lost credence due to its positivist views, and soon after became replaced by critical, feminist, post-structural and post-colonial theories and methodologies that sanctioned the perspectives of the historically marginalized in policy decisions (Rizvi & Lingard, 2010).

The 1980s depicted additional shifts in policy-making as more neoliberal policies which relied on ‘incentives, competition and bottom-line accountability, while standards, high stakes testing, vouchers, charters, and performance bonuses had become synonymous with policy reform’ (Shipps, 2011, p. 261). Moreover, there was a considerable shift from local level policy development such as through parents, locally elected school boards, and community groups to the state and federal level wherein Congress became responsible for policy development, its implementation, measures of accountability and evaluation. Also, during the 1980s, various interests groups emerged to influence education policy decisions:

We have these new politics of education partly because the composition of educational policy communities has been altered by uncommon alliances among political executives, businessmen, ideologically committed intellectuals and foundation officers, all of whom developed or rekindled an interest in education during the 1980s. (Shipps, 2011, p. 260)

It is now within the latter teens of the 21st century that the lines have become audaciously blurred in terms of who has the most leverage in education policy-making. Reforms have even considered these multiple stakeholders as the ‘BLOB’, what the Center for Education Reform (2018) calls ‘the more than 200 groups, associations, federations, alliances, departments, offices, administrations, councils, boards, commissions, panels, organizations, herds, flocks, and conveys, that make up the education industrial complex’ (para 1). Currently, even more so, state and federal education policies abound which are inclusive of monies, mandates and incentives, and programs that focus on changing educational practice (Cohen, Moffitt, & Goldin, 2007).

Education policy research

Floden (2007) outlined three distinct approaches to education policy research which he categorized into economics, organizational studies, and critical. The economics approach focuses on the ‘production of education outcomes and the operation of markets for education personnel and services’ (Floden, 2007, p. 4). Thus, this approach is guided by research questions centered on expenditures, the structure of the education market, teacher salaries, and productivity. A key component of the economics approach is the use of large data sets that use econometric models of analysis. The organizational studies approach draws from political science, sociology, and organizational theory and seeks to answer questions about policy implementation; therefore, mining for execution of policy intent and actual effects on intended stakeholders. Research methods in the organizational studies domain include document analysis, surveys, interviews, and observations which are analyzed through coding and statistical analysis. Education policy research drawn from a critical disposition highlights the ways in which policies and discourses work to legitimate and reproduce inequalities, particularly as education policy is representative of economical and organizational priorities therein. This critical perspective of education policy research asks questions about how inequities are reproduced through school structures and government and teacher practices. A critical lens opposes the very structure of policy and is reinterpreted to illuminate the ways in which education policy maintains power and privilege and often reproduces social/political class hierarchies.

For example, Henig (2007) paints a powerful metaphor of race and education policy. ‘Race for researchers in education policy, is like a flame to a moth. It can loom large, almost obscuring other issues, but the heat it generates can warn some away’ (p. 105). He further contends,

Race has been and remains an important feature of the problems we confront, and attentiveness to how race affects the prospects for policies to be passed, implemented, and sustained is crucial if we are to make headway on the toughest challenges. That means race must be dealt with in a forth-right manner, not sidestepped or sublimated, but also not given protected status as a favored explanation that brooks no challenge or complication. (p.125)

The history of federal litigation and legislation aimed at social justice in education demonstrates a history of managing inequity rather than challenging it (Sleeter, 2010). Although social justice advocates have moved forward important federal legislation and policy, there are clear examples of incidental and incremental change versus fundamental change. Sleeter (2010) points to social class discrimination where there is federally legislated funding and programs (i.e. Head Start) to address poverty in education but no deliberate attention to social class stratification in education or structures that create, perpetuate, and sustain poverty. To this end, we contend that in order for education policy of a critical disposition to center the sociocultural and sociopolitical contexts of education, it must be informed by critical qualitative research.

Critical qualitative research matters for anti-oppressive policy-making

In the introduction to the co-edited volume, Education Research in the Public Interest (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 2006), Gloria Ladson-Billings challenges education scholars to be ever mindful of considering the impact of our research. ‘Ultimately, our work must always ask the larger questions of whose interests are served by our inquiry’ (Ladson-Billings, 2006, p. 12). In other words, we must be thoughtful about the purpose and consequences of our poking and prying. Moreover, we must be thoughtful about the paradigms in which we contextualize and situate ourselves as well as the methodologies we employ. As qualitative researchers we are the primary tool for research. Thus, as Glesne (2016) posits, ‘Every research study, therefore, is informed by philosophical and theoretical assumptions, even though researchers sometimes are not aware of these influences because they are embedded in the researchers’ suppositions about the nature of reality and knowledge’ (p. 5).

In this volume, we put forth the thesis that critical qualitative research can serve the interests of those marginalized and disenfranchised when taken into account for policy-making. We go a step further and suggest that critical qualitative research can actually lead to anti-oppressive policy-making. Taking into account the historical and contemporary institutional inequities that persist in American schools (Williamson, Rhodes, & Dunson, 2007), critical qualitative research is a necessary tool for anti-oppressive policy-making. Research generated within a critical paradigm ‘critiques historical and structural conditions of oppression and seeks transformation of those conditions’ (Glesne, 2016, p. 10). More specifically, researchers operating within a critical paradigm ‘work to situate the experiences and perspectives of the oppressed group in a social, historical context, revealing how conditions serve certain groups and not others’ (Glesne, 2016, p. 11). Likewise, Milner (2008) asserted that critical race theory and interest convergence could be utilized to analyze, conceptualize, and more deeply explain policies and practices.

We concur with Willis and colleagues that ‘our view of critical methodology (the philosophies that underlie research) and methods (the processes and techniques of research) recognizes that inquiry begins with the critical consciousness of the researcher’ (Willis et al., 2008, p. 50). In other words, the genesis of critical qualitative research begins with the positionality of the researcher. Critical qualitative researchers must make a commitment to constantly re-evaluate and better inform their own critical consciousness. In so doing, we better position ourselves to employ culturally sensitive research approaches which then result in studies that positively impact the lives of those centered in our work and ‘have the potential to significantly change their lives and their communities in emancipatory ways’ (Tillman, 2002, p. 9).

Often in our advisement and chairing of dissertation studies, we encourage doctoral students to conclude their studies with implications for practice and further research within the field in which their studies are contextualized. We suggest that all scholars (both seasoned and novice) should consider the policy implications of their research, especially in regards to informing anti-oppressive policy.

An overview of qualitative studies in this volume

The studies in this volume utilize qualitative methodologies (e.g. case study, critical discourse and policy analysis, narrative inquiry and analysis, critical race theory methodology, youth participatory action research (YPAR), and oral history) to illuminate inequitable, oppressive, and racist phenomena impacting students and communities of Color. Collectively, these studies advocate for policy changes and implementation aimed at social justice reform.

Tryphenia Peele-Eady and Michele Foster’s analysis of two major policies (the Ann Arbor Decision and the Oakland Ebonics Resolution) demonstrates how schools have systematically failed to integrate a language policy specific to African American English learners. Despite substantive research on African American Language (AAL), the authors’ work exposes the historical and contemporary negative attitudes and rejection of language created and commonly used by African Americans. Thereby, the maintenance of this anti-blackness stance has legally denied appropriate language instruction for African American students.

Kenzo Sung explores how students understood the structural shift following the dismantling of their school’s bilingual program from a racialized lens. By utilizing theories of raciolinguistic ideologies and anti-blackness, his study explicitly centers the intersections of race, language, and power in the positioning of Black students as compared to ‘legitimate’ non-English speakers. The results point to the ways in which students’ discourse and understandings about language education programs are reflective of the ways in which these programs have created and perpetuated raciolinguistic and anti-blackness perspectives.

Chezare Warren and Joanne Marciano highlight their work on employing YPAR as part of a large-scale urban education reform effort. The authors describe the successes and challenges of working with urban youth as co-researchers to inform policy decision-making. Their study illuminates the salience of including student voice and partnering with youth in creating and implementing policies aimed at improving urban schools. They advocate that the YPAR process itself can be a form of educational justice.

Brittany Garvin-Hudson and Tambra Jackson make a case for expanded investment in culturally relevant science programming in the summer by sharing the experiences and outcomes for African American youth in one program. The authors offer a rich description of a culturally relevant summer science program and demonstrate how summer science enrichment programs support voids in African American students’ opportunities to engage in culturally relevant curriculum during the academic year as well as mitigate the phenomenon of summer learning loss. The implications of their work speak to the critical need to create and support policies that address summer learning opportunities for African American youth.

Samuel Garcia and Miguel Guajardo offer an account of advocacy and activism contextualized within a local Mexican American community as a source of wisdom to shape public conscience, action, and commitment. Drawing upon historical data and oral history, the authors walk through history and use place, race, identity, and courage to inform a new vision for educational equity informed by the elders and their work from years past. Their work suggests that community and civic leaders and organizations are integral and important stakeholders in disrupting education inequity and moving forward a policy agenda grounded in access and opportunity for children of Color.

Frances Contreras, Thandeka Chapman, Gloria Rodriguez, Eddie Comeaux, Eligio Martinez, and Malo Hutson use critical race methodology to investigate college choice decision-making for high achieving African American students. The authors document how particular practices and current campus climates within the University of California system encourage these students to choose institutions outside of the UC system. The implications of their work speak to the need for greater attention, outreach, and support if public institutions of higher learning seek African American representation on their campuses.

Rosa Banda and Alonzo Flowers investigate the perceptions of climate from Latinas pursuing engineering degrees. The authors use a critical consciousness lens to frame their analysis. In so doing, they illuminate the ways in which Latinas majoring in engineering experience a double-bind status of being marginalized through their gender and racial identities. Their work advocates for policies that go beyond addressing the obvious underrepresentation of Latinas in STEM and move toward systemic investments in critical dialogue and accountability regarding racial and gender inequity in STEM fields.

Ayana Allen-Handy and Abiola Farinde-Wu explore systems of support, specifically familial capital, for undocumented Latinx students throughout K-16. Their study provides a historical and contemporary view of policies that have most closely shaped the lived and educational experiences of immigrant and more specifically undocumented students. Their review of the historical and contemporary implications of these policies serves as a prelude to their case study examining the ways in which undocumented Latinx students have leveraged their proximal relationships of support to thrive in an often hostile anti-immigrant context. Their study offers implications and recommendations for various stakeholders in a time wherein the future of DACA resides in flux.

Mary Earick presents a typology of White scholar social justice archetypes. Drawing upon critical Whiteness studies and critical race theory, her work specifically addresses White scholars who perceive that they are equals in moving forward social justice projects without first interrogating their own White racism. The implications of her work speak to the need for specific policies that address the racialized experiences of students and faculty of Color and are aimed to dismantle institutional racism within university settings.

Overall, this special issue supports a salient body of scholarship which centers the marginalized and sanctions critical qualitative studies as a tool by which to inform education policy. We specifically asked the authors in this volume to consider the policy implications of their qualitative research projects. In a polarizing social-political context, partisan policy-making across party and special interest lines are at the helm of contemporary education policy-making, implementation, and evaluation. However, the collective studies in this issue, push back against historically valued and heavily quantitative methods of big data and analysis (Floden, 2007) toward policy decision-making. Rather, re-focuses policy to the local level wherein historically disenfranchised individuals, community assets, and cultural wealth (Yosso, 2005) become hallmarks for policy decisions. In so doing, critical qualitative researchers are positioned to lead policy discussions.

Tambra O. Jackson
Indiana University-Purdue University, New York Street, Indianapolis, IN, USA
[email protected] http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4940-3316
Ayana Allen-Handy
School of Education, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8910-6957