Trabajo de Fin de Grado 5.5.1.1.1 Datos Básicos del Nivel 3

DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH METHODS

The choice of methodology and paradigm are, of course, driven by the research questions. In this chapter I will outline my framework and methodology, but I will also discuss my role as the researcher in this study, including briefly discussing my

motivation to pursue this study.

Choice of Paradigm

Within this study, I seek to investigate whiteness and white space in a specific higher educational context. For the questions that I’ve outlined, the constructivist paradigm is the most appropriate to situate this research. Specifically, constructivist inquiry utilizes interpretative epistemologies that will provide the depth of understanding necessary to understand the socially constructed reality described by each of the

institutional administrators.

The ontology (what is real) of the naturalistic/constructivist paradigm relies on the fact that there are many different realities which exist, rather than one single

objective reality (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005; Guba, 1990; Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this way reality is socially constructed based on interactions and experiences that create an individual understanding of the world. Berger & Luckmann (1967) have described the social construction of reality as a construct, which is based on how people or groups interact with each other over time. These groups and people form models regarding how other people and groups interact in a social space. When these

models become habitualized, groups and people are then treated according to this contrived model (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). These models for a particular group can then be utilized by several people or groups, creating an institutionalized behavior (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). When these contrived models become so institutionalized that they are actually part of the fabric of a society, the reality for that group or person is socially constructed (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). The treatment of groups or

individuals is therefore based in part on the socially constructed nature of reality. This argument for the socially constructed nature of reality means that a single, objective reality is impossible, meaning that an investigator must pursue multiple realities and truths. “Truth then emerges not as one objective view but rather as the composite picture of how people think about the institution and each other. Truth comprises the perspectives of administrators, line-level staff, professional workers, outsiders,

volunteers, maintenance staff, residents and family,” (as cited in Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 80). The frame of reference for individuals (or institutions) then becomes the basis for their social constructions of reality.

Additionally, there are factors that must be considered in order to truly

understand the lived experiences of others in a constructivist inquiry. Lincoln and Guba described the role of values in an inquiry by stating “values cannot be separated from the core of an inquiry by the simple expedient of claiming objectivity, because findings are literally created by the inquiry process” (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. xiii). Again, the nature of reality is not only socially constructed by individuals, but it is further created and refined through the inquiry process itself. In the present study, it is important to

recognize that the different social constructions of reality affect the ways that individuals see and describe experience policies, practices, and programs within the institution, which is the foundation for this study. Based on the literature above, race (and specifically whiteness), plays a critical role in the social reality for people of color as well as white people. Importantly, the data will illuminate realities which are emergent in this inquiry, meaning that I as the researcher am uncertain about the breadth, depth, and extent for many of the socially constructed realities exist for the individual

institutional administrators. Uncovering the wide range of lived realities and multiple constructions of reality held by leaders will be the thrust of this study, data best understood in the naturalist/constructivist paradigm.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) have described five axioms which undergird this paradigm and demonstrate why this paradigm is most appropriate given the nature of information which is sought. First, the naturalist paradigm recognizes that there is not only one reality, but rather there are multiple, socially constructed realities which must be considered (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Second, within naturalistic inquiry, the

relationship between the researcher and the subject (knower and known) is recognized as indistinguishable (Guba, 1990; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). That is, due to the nature of the interaction between the knower and the known, it is impossible for these actors to fail to influence each other and their constructions of reality.

Third, naturalistic inquiry does not seek to create generalized truth statements that describe reality, but rather naturalistic inquiry seeks to detail idiographic truth statements which are time and context specific (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). In this way, the

naturalistic inquirer recognizes that the nature of knowing is bound with the individual knower (in their reality) and therefore cannot be generalized as a nomothetic truth (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Again, the goal for this type of research is not to uncover universal or generalizable truths; rather the goal is to describe the individual lived realities for people within a social context. Fourth, naturalistic inquiry recognizes that reality is “in a state of mutual simultaneous shaping,” thereby making it impossible for the naturalist to identify linear causes and effects for interactions (Lincoln & Guba, 1985, p. 38). In this way, determining causation is not an end (or possibility) for the naturalist. Such a conception of reality recognizes the many social, interpersonal, and intrapersonal variables affect one’s understanding. Fifth, unlike the conventional paradigm which utilizes a values-neutral approach, the naturalist recognizes that the inquiry is “values-bound,” meaning that inquirers cannot separate themselves from the values laden activities necessary for an inquiry such as the choice and framing of a problem, the choice of paradigm with which to investigate the problem, the choice of substantive theory to guide the inquiry, and the choice of context in which to investigate (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

Interpretivism is a way of knowing that can be understood within the naturalistic tradition that is germane to this particular investigation of whiteness. Schwandt (2001) has described interpretivism as a way to understand social interaction and further understand the meanings that underlie the social interaction. Schwandt (2001) further described the four ways in which interpretivism can be best understood. First, empathic identification involves understanding the “motives, behaviors, desires, thoughts, etc” of

the actor (p.192). Second, phenomenological sociology seeks to understand how the everyday world (social reality) is comprised in daily life and interaction (Schwandt, 2001). Third, language games refer to the way that words and conversation are used differently in different cultures to convey covert and overt messages (Schwandt, 2001). Fourth, the intersection in philosophy between interpretivism and philosophical

hermeneutics: “philosophical hermeneutics argues that understanding is not, in the first instance, a procedure – or rule-governed undertaking; rather, it is a very condition of being human. Understanding is interpretation” (Schwandt, 2001, p. 194). The goal is to “understand what is involved in the process of understanding itself” (p.196). In this way, interpretivism provides a vehicle for gaining new understandings of different realities, while philosophical hermeneutics enhances understanding by integrating the new constructions of reality into extant understandings and theories. As a result, understanding is expanded and enriched. Given the ways in which whiteness is experienced, understood, and expressed by administrators (of color and white), interpretivism will have tremendous utility in seeking individual understanding.

Theoretical Framework

The most appropriate framework to undergird this research is Critical Race Theory. A Critical Race Theory (CRT) approach is defined by Solorzano and Yosso as a “theoretically grounded” construct that recognizes race and racism throughout the research process; confronts traditional research paradigms to explain the experiences of people of color; proposes a liberation of race, gender and class by focusing on these marginalized groups experience of research; and uses of an interdisciplinary approach

(2002, p. 24). Along with this definition of a CRT approach, the tenets that are

associated with CRT must also be identified, to create a more complete understanding of what critical research involves. First, CRT assumes that racism is a normal part of society and is present in the everyday lives of people of color in the US (Calmore, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Lopez, 2003; Solorzano, Ceja & Yosso, 2000). Second, CRT insists that white people have been the primary

beneficiaries of much of the legislation that was alleged to help people of color,

including Civil Rights Legislation (Calmore, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson- Billings, 1998; Solorzano, Ceja & Yosso, 2000). Third, CRT recognizes that race is in actuality a social construction, which means that there is no objective reality standard that can be applied to race. In this way, race is neither biologically determined, nor is it fixed or constant (Calmore, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Lopez, 2003). Fourth, CRT utilizes the voices of people of color as data: the lived experience of people of color provides powerful testimony and a unique epistemological opportunity (Calmore, 1995; Delgado & Stefancic, 2001; Ladson-Billings, 1998). Further, voice allows for understanding of the multiple constructed realities that only a qualitative inquiry can truly fulfill (Ladson-Billings, 1998; Lopez, 2003). Fifth, CRT offers a critique of the legal liberalism paradigm, which argues the legal channels are the best opportunity for advancing a progressive racial agenda (Ladson-Billings, 1998). CRT posits that to correct the injustices of racism there will need to be broad changes, and since the legal structures are not only slow moving but inherently racist, the legal liberalism approach offers very little to advance this cause (Ladson-Billings, 1998;

Moore, 2008; Solorzano, Ceja & Yosso, 2000). This brief definition and explanation of the tenets of Critical Race Theory provide a foundation and analytical lens through which data can be best understood. Utilizing Critical Race Theory is a commitment not to be taken lightly, as this theoretical position has been established by giving voice to the lived experience of people of color. As the researcher, it is my responsibility to practice this tradition genuinely, so as to honor all of the people of color who have sacrificed everything in order to expose the intensely racist interactions and social structures that characterize the American experience.

Method

In order to capture the best data possible, from the best sources, utilizing the best methods, two sources of data were examined. First, in order to understand how

whiteness is practiced on campus, it is necessary to investigate polices, practices, decisions, structures, and rituals at the institution. An analysis of institutional documents, news stories, campus artifacts, and campus narratives provides an

understanding of the context within which people at State Research University (SRU) exist was necessary for enabling an thick description of the context. This context is invaluable because it illuminates factors that are otherwise very difficult to measure or document, such as the institutional culture, and how that culture is woven into part of the very fabric of the institution (that is, what makes SRU operate). As Morgan described, “organizational structure, rules, policies, goals, missions, job descriptions, and

standardized operating procedures perform a similar interpretive function, for they act as primary points of reference for the way people think about and make sense of the

contexts in which they work” (2006, p.139, emphasis added). Consistent with the interpretivist tradition, these contextual realities inform as much about the environment as the people who exist within the environment.

Second, I utilized a series of semi-structured interviews with institutional

decision makers. To best understand the institutional context for race it was necessary to interview both administrators of color and white administrators. In this way, the white space can be more clearly identified and accurately depicted by examining the white space at SRU from different perspectives.

One of the important tasks in this study was establishing a sense of trust with my participants. While this is true of virtually any study, trust may have been even more important in this study. State Research University is an institution where race is not only relevant, but the institution has an enduring legacy of racism that is consistent with many southern institutions (as will be described later). As a white male, I look exactly like many of the people who have created so many hurtful and hostile circumstances for so many people of color. Further, because of the legacy of (justified) mistrust by people of color at SRU, it is quite likely that a person of color would not share their experiences with racism with people that are not deeply trusted confidants. Given these

circumstances, the administrators of color that I chose to interview were selected based not only on their position within the organization (seeking different functional areas, different leadership/supervisory roles), but I only interviewed people that I had the opportunity to build trust with, prior to the interview. I believe this strategy allowed for a genuine sharing of experiences that might not otherwise be possible for an unknown

white interviewer asking administrators of color about their experiences with racism, particularly at SRU.

The first group that I interviewed and analyzed was composed of administrators of color, as this helped to inform conversations with white administrators. Due to the nature of these interviews, different interview protocols were utilized depending on the race of the person interviewed. In these interviews, I utilized a semi-structured interview protocol that began with five questions:

Questions for administrators of color: 1. What is your racial classification?

2. What has your experience been like as an administrator of color at this institution?

3. How does whiteness show up in everyday activity?

4. How does whiteness show up in institutional decision making?

5. Are there policies, procedures, programs, or other structures that favor or protect whiteness?

As expected, further refinement of these questions was necessary in order to really get into some of the issues. For example, many of the administrators of color are not necessarily familiar with the language and terms of Sociology and so classifying something as whiteness proved to be a difficult exercise. I found that it was helpful to provide a short definition of what whiteness to help them understand what I am specifically asking about.

Further, after meeting with one of my committee members (Dr. Bonner), I added a short case study for participants to read and react to. This was a useful exercise for some participants, particularly since my question number four (about whiteness in

institutional decision making was so vague and broad). So, my case study sought to ask participants to reflect on the role of their race in making decisions (university or unit decisions). The first case study I utilized documented a case of a student from

Sugarland, TX who did not get into the University of Texas and who alleged the reason was because of her race. I asked participants to reflect on the concept of victimization, particularly on the basis of race. I utilized this story at a time before it became simply known as the “Fisher case,” but as the case became larger and more discussed in the media it was clearly complicated by many narratives floating around, so I had to abandon that case. The second one I utilized was a brief write up about Justice Sonia Sotomayor who, during her confirmation hearing, had to field many questions about her identity (her race specifically) and how that impacts her ability to make decisions. Participants were then asked to consider how their race affects their decision making. Again, I realized after having participants respond to this prompt that they were unable to localize this question to themselves, perhaps because I invoked a national-level political story which in the minds of many participants was an opportunity for participants to launch into a discussion that did not answer the question. Finally, I decided to simply add a question that asked participants directly, “Does your race impact the decisions you make, and if so, how?” The direct approach seemed to work much better in terms of getting administrators to focus on the question.

As it turned out my question number five (that deals with programs and policies that protect whiteness) was also a difficult one for many participants to respond. I think for many people it can be difficult to see individual or local decisions as part of a

broader discourse. This is particularly true of the administrators of color who have only sparse exposure to other administrators of color to discuss issues and problems that they must navigate. Since there are few opportunities to discuss their experience, there is little opportunity to recognize the systemic nature of their problem. Instead many saw their individual instances with oppressive structures and programs as individual racist projects. Instead, asking questions about the climate of their unit seemed to better uncover these racist projects because this was now space to discuss their individual experiences. Pushing a little further, I found that asking questions about who is ultimately responsible for the climate of their unit or the university (a question that I borrowed from the white administrator question protocol) helped participants think about the nature of oppression and how there is always, ultimately someone who must account for the experiences of all of the people within the university.

Interviews with white administrators similarly required trust since I was asking about issues that most white people are uncomfortable talking about: their race and possible unearned privileges associated with being white. However, since the white administrators were often times people I did not know, there was much more time necessary building trust before I could begin to ask questions about their race.

Further complicating interviews with white administrators was the fact that for many of them the topic of their race and whiteness is something with which they have little experience, and something that may seem ethereal. As Feagin described (2006) the white racial frame creates a reality through which white people view the world; as a

result many white people struggle to understand their meritocratic understanding of the world is far from reality for many people of color.

Also important is the idea that people typically describe themselves in what they perceive as a positive light. This is particularly true of white people in their discussions of race, where they will likely describe themselves as committed to equality, or at least as someone who holds no discriminatory views. This framing will be nonetheless telling, since as Doane and Bonilla-Silva (2003) observed, white people tend to use language to hide racist or discriminatory views, utilizing the colorblind rhetoric. In this way, white people may expose their lack of understanding of race issues and provide a valuable insight about their framing for race issues. Knowing this, in my interviews with white administrators it was important to create a safe space for white administrators engage and explore their understanding of race and whiteness. To ensure that I was able to create a safe space I field tested my trust building dialogue and the questions with white allies to ensure that I would be perceived in a non-threatening way and enable an authentic discussion of race.

My semi-structured protocol began with the following questions: Questions for white administrators:

1. What is your racial classification?

2. What does it mean to you to be [white or whatever identity they choose] in American society? At this university?

3. Talk about your perception of the racial climate at this university. 4. How does your race impact your decision-making?