Methodological interest convergence: research site anonymity’s maintenance of structural racism

Abstract

Anonymity is an unquestioned norm in education research, yet few scholars have theorized how this methodological standard reaffirms structural racism. This practice is critical to question given the presiding mismatch between the rhetoric and practice of racial diversity across educational contexts. Using Derrick Bell’s interest convergence as a critical race framework, I contend institutional review boards (IRBs) embody a converging of interests between educational institutions and research participants (particularly People of Color). As a de facto requirement of IRBs, research site anonymity disrupts readers’ ability to imagine structural racism as a normal and endemic component of American education. As a result, the predilection to default to anonymity without question minimizes racism’s impact and perpetuates cultures of silence deeming racism socially taboo. This conceptual paper concludes with a discussion of limitations and additional methodological points for readers to consider.

Keywords:

• Anonymity
• racism
• interest convergence
• critical race theory
• institutional review boards

Acknowledgments

I thank UC Riverside and the University of California Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellowship for supporting the writing of this manuscript. Comments from the two anonymous reviewers and the editors of the special issue helped to refine this paper’s message. I thank Eddie Comeaux, Lisa Loutzenheiser, Laurence Parker, and Daniel G. Solórzano and his RAC community for their thoughtful feedback on earlier iterations of this manuscript. Special appreciation goes to Teresa L. McCarty, our students, and the UCLA qualitative methods community. This work begins and extends in the classroom—thank you for inspiring its development! Lastly, I express gratitude to Shaun R. Harper, Lori Patton Davis, and Jessica C. Harris for their willingness to ask consequential questions we ‘shouldn’t’ be asking of education research. I am able to question anonymity practices because you all, and many other critical scholars before me, were so daring to question the ‘unquestionable.’ Onwards we push!

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 “Racialized” is similar to “minoritized” in that “Persons are not born into a [racial] minority status. . . they are rendered [racialized] minorities” (Harper, 2012, p. 9). “‘Minoritized’ more accurately conveys the power relations . . . by which certain groups are . . . marginalized within the larger society” (McCarty, 2002, p. xv).

2 Readers may notice inconsistencies in how “Black” and “White” are spelled throughout. In instances when I quote someone else’s use of “Black” and “White,” I quote the words exactly how they appeared in the original text—with or without a capitalized spelling. In instances when I use the words in my own prose, I consistently capitalize both “Black” and “White” to recognize the distinct racialized histories, experiences, and cultures of these respective populations.

3 Borrowing from Harper, (2012), this paper defines racism as: “individual actions (both intentional and unconscious) that engender marginalization and inflict varying degrees of harm on minoritized persons; structures that determine and cyclically remanufacture racial inequity; and institutional norms that sustain White privilege and permit the ongoing subordination of minoritized persons” (p. 10).

4 The Nuremberg trails investigated the wartime atrocities committed by Nazi doctors conducting medical experiments on captives in concentration camps during World War II.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Michael W. Moses

Michael W. Moses II is a UC Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Fellow at UC Riverside’s Graduate School of Education. He received his PhD in Education from UCLA and specializes in critical race studies, racism in higher education, and qualitative methodologies. His scholarship focuses on the experiences of Students of Color and the racialized implications of qualitative methods to better understand the mismatch between the rhetoric and practice of institutional diversity.