Ethnography and multicultural/intercultural education: uncovering the unforseen complexities, practices and unintended outcomes

Multiculturalism as a theoretical concept and multicultural education as practice have a decades-long history that began as ethnic revitalisation movements characterised by immense ethnic, racial, cultural, social-class and linguistic diversity. These beginning movements that developed in many Western nation-states around the world in the 1960s and 1970s, focused on an approach to school reform aimed at actualising educational equality, improving school achievement, and promoting democracy and a social justice agenda through various educational paradigmatic responses. These responses range from ‘ethnic additive’ to ‘linguistic’, ‘structural’ and ‘antiracist’ (see Banks 2011). Though these goals have at times in the past (and in the present) been overtly and tacitly fuelled by ideologies supporting assimilationist outcomes, multiculturalism and multicultural education have increasingly moved toward a more holistic view framed by a global component.

Interculturalism shares similarities with multiculturalism that some argue do not warrant sufficient distinction from multiculturalism (Kymlicka 2012; Meer and Modood 2012) while others suggest that there are particular emphases that are not necessarily prominent in multiculturalism such as an ‘emphasis on the importance of dialogue and communication among groups’ (Levey 2012, 218). Other research focuses on fostering productive and positive interactions between majority and minority ethnic and cultural groups by developing intercultural competencies (Barett et al. 2014). Although there are numerous debates about the differences and similarities between interculturalism and multiculturalism, Kymlicka (2012, 215) contends that it is worth engaging with how interculturalism is currently being used by governments. This is particularly salient in Europe, as it is used as a ‘compelling political narrative that can potentially sustain a flagging commitment to diversity’ in the face of a ‘backlash’ against multiculturalism (Vertovec and Wessendorf 2010), even if it is not always made clear in what ways interculturalism can do this compared to multiculturalism. In the context of education, a similar lack of consensus exists around distinctions between multicultural and intercultural education. Coulby (2006, 247) argues that critiques levied at multicultural education such as not ‘directly address[ing] issues of racism … and offer[ing] only a tokenistic understanding of non-dominant knowledge,’ denigrating cultural difference to the study of samosas, saris and steel bands (Mullard 1980) are not sufficiently addressed with a shift toward intercultural education. Based on a theoretical analysis of intercultural education, Coulby (2006, 254) concludes that what is needed is ‘an insistence that the complexity of the social context be explored and clarified as a precursor to meaningful research’ and that a ‘more complex conceptualisation’ is needed when analysing intercultural education in practice. Therefore, while setting these debates of distinction aside, what is evident from the literature is that both intercultural and multicultural education in schools require ongoing reflection to critically engage with racial, ethnic and cultural difference in ways that are transformative and progressive rather than reifying static notions of difference that do not adequately engage with systems of structural inequity such as racism (Walton, Priest, and Paradies 2013; Zirkel 2008).

This Special Issue seeks to challenge assumptions and reinvigorate discussions about multiculturalism and interculturalism in educational practice and policy. Specifically, the Special Issue explores new conceptualisations of multicultural and intercultural education that stem from transformative and critical stances (Banks and Banks 2004). Transformative multicultural and intercultural education seeks to replace the single-factor paradigm – focusing on one major variable to explain diverse-minority students’ performances in and out of school – with a multi-factor, holistic paradigm that conceptualises school as a social system that requires transforming the total school environment in order to implement a multicultural education (Banks 2011). Single factor (paradigmatic) approaches, such as utilising multicultural teaching materials can be rendered ineffectual in the hands of a teacher with a negative and deficit philosophy toward ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse students. Without a holistic, multifactor systems approach, attempts to reform multicultural-intercultural education are often unsuccessful and potentially harmful. However, the salience of such a holistic approach to creating and implementing effectual educational practices cannot be done without a reflexive and critical stance.

According to May (2011, 42):

There is an obvious and ongoing tension that needs to be addressed more adequately in multicultural education theory and practice between, on the one hand recognizing the significance of ethnicity and culture for (some) individuals and group identities, while on the other hand, avoiding essentializing them.

Thus, taking a critical approach can both bring to the foreground sociological understandings of identity, while juxtaposing these alongside a critical analysis of the structural inequalities and power differentials that minority groups encounter and experience.

Yet, over the past 20 years of multicultural and intercultural education, programmes have tended to focus on cultural knowledge acquisition and ‘getting along’ while neglecting to address structural power inequalities regarding cultural diversity, race and racism. Despite good intentions, these programmes can have negative impacts on students and reinforce prejudices if student and teacher capacities and capabilities are not supported with critical frameworks to understand topics about cultural diversity and racism (Dutro et al. 2008; Hollingworth 2009). Moreover, a key issue underlying multicultural and intercultural programmes is that these programmes are often based on ‘migrating models’ whereby ‘multiculturalist discourses start migrating from one context to another … and [are] supposedly neutralised in their power to shape educational “solutions” in the new context’ (Dietz and Cortés 2016, 497). For example, a multiculturalism programme or approach to multicultural education is developed in one context, which is then implemented as an intervention in a new context without adequate consideration of the local context. These programmes also tend to be short-term with a narrow focus on achieving particular outcomes such as students and teachers’ multicultural skills and attitudes rather than as part of a more holistic understanding of the social, historical and culturally specific context in which the programme is enacted and experienced.

Contributions to the Special Issue

In this context, it is timely to turn to new scholarship that draws on rich ethnographic research to critically interrogate the ways in which cultural diversity initiatives and programmes are implemented in practice and how these are experienced by those involved. The papers in this Special Issue contribute to empirical and theoretical research on questions of diversity in relation to race, culture, multilingualism, gender and sexuality from the micro-level perspectives of students and teachers within school, community and university localities and in relation to broader policy issues in multicultural and intercultural education.

Papers by Taha and Walton contribute to theorisations of race in the context of multicultural and intercultural education, an issue that is not always ethnographically analysed. Drawing on complexity theory, Walton analyses the processes through which Australian children understand the complexities of racial and cultural difference in the context of their participation in intercultural school partnerships. She also discusses a need to examine how race and culture are made sense of as a pedagogical process grounded in children's conceptualisations, which has implications for the potential for educational programmes such as intercultural school partnerships have for a more transformative approach to difference. In the context of a Spanish secondary school, Taha explores conflicting articulations of race, racism and civility among students and teachers. Through an ethnographic analysis of the tensions exhibited in classroom discussions over time and by utilising the concept of ethnographic ‘rich points’ or points of misunderstanding, Taha argues for a need to locally ground multicultural education rather than imposing external frameworks onto different educational contexts in order to support social-justice oriented learning.

Other papers demonstrate the importance and value of using an ethnographic approach to examine multicultural and intercultural education in classroom practice. In their ethnographic case study of multicultural education in Australian schools, Watkins and Noble discuss how and why the persistence of cultural essentialism in the form of what they call ‘lazy multiculturalism’ continues despite engaging in professional learning that aims to foster a more critical and transformative approach. Deery investigates the implementation of an oral history project, which is part of a primary school history unit designed to enhance students’ understandings of the multicultural diversity of Australia. Utilising an ethnographic action research approach, she analyses the students’ participation in the unit while interweaving a discussion of how using this approach allowed for a more in-depth and nuanced analysis of how multicultural education was practically implemented in the classroom.

Two papers explore linguistic diversity and the relationship between mono- and multilingual educational policies and practices, both of which contribute to understanding the tensions within multicultural and intercultural discourse. Drawing from their ethnographic case study of a regular public primary school, Dlugaj and Furstenau investigate how the inclusion of migration-related multilingualism can transform language teaching and learning in schools and classrooms. Focusing on the linguistic practices at the micro-level of the classroom, they describe the social practices and ‘language orders’ illustrating how the inclusion of a migrant-related multilingualism that values and acknowledges the children's languages can create a comprehensive linguistic education that recognises and builds on students’ multilingual identities. Payet and Dashayes add to the discussion through an examination of how teachers at a local school in a disadvantaged multicultural context comprehend the cultural and linguistic diversity of students and their parents. Drawing from their ethnographic research in elementary schools with large numbers of immigrant families in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, they explore the complexities of and tensions between public and private discourses. These tensions emerge in teachers’ interactions with parents and students such that while the teachers publicly encourage maintenance of the native language in the family setting they privately view bi- and multilingualism as detrimental to learning the majority language, and contributing to poor performance in school. Thus, contradictions between these public and private discourses tend to produce an unstable, reversible and ambiguous approach to ethnic diversity that oscillates between recognition and assimilation.

Dennis, Uttamchandani, Biery and Blauvelt present an example of multicultural education that challenges assumptions of an adult–youth binary prevalent in most multicultural education efforts and draws attention to the value of minoritised youth experience as valid knowledge in the service of social justice. In their article, the authors tell the story of a youth-led, community based group of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, Intersex, Asexual and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQIA+) who became multicultural educators involved in designing and implementing competency trainings focused on producing more affirming, inclusive, and equitable schools for LGBTQIA+ identifying students. Their ethnographic example reveals important insights related to the adult/youth binary in multicultural education: social justice and equity involve self-advocacy and assume a framework of reciprocity; and multicultural education intended to benefit a new generation of children and youth must be engaged with and led by children and youth.

Finally, drawing on their on-going ethnography with a research community of Indigenous Ph.D. candidates doing participatory action research related to linguistic and cultural revitalisation efforts in schools, Siekmann and Parker Webster explore the tensions that exist in the recognition of the importance of ethnicity and culture for individual and group identities without essentilisation. Building on the concept of critical multiculturalism, they propose a theoretical and methodological framework that combines the concept of multiple, situated positionalities and Activity Systems Theory and analysis; and explain how this framework can inform ethnographic research and promote a critical intercultural stance that is based in the questioning of hierarchical power structures through dialogue aimed toward equity and social justice.

Acknowledgements

The idea for this Special Issue emerged in 2017 from papers presented at the inaugural Oceania Ethnography and Education Conference held at Deakin University in Melbourne, Australia. Later that year, the two guest editors met at the Oxford Ethnography and Education Conference. Based on their mutual research interests in multicultural and intercultural education and with encouragement and support from Bob Jeffrey and Martin Forsey, they proposed this Special Issue. The guest editors would like to thank all of the contributors representing a multinational and multidisciplinary group of ethnographers engaged with empirical, theoretical and methodological considerations and complexities of multicultural and intercultural education practice and policy in formal and informal learning environments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

ORCID

Jessica Walton http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3876-2994

Joan Parker Webster http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2824-9284