Working towards social justice in education requires students’ voices to be heard and understood. This is especially the case for students from marginalized populations. Prior research has shown the value and importance of students’ voices for school retention, academic success, school inclusivity, and student buy-in. However, more research is needed on how adults understand and interpret students’ voices and implement their understandings in school practice and policy.
Purpose/Objective
This paper uncovers the danger of misinterpreting students’ voices due to assumptions about concepts such as success and social justice. I explore this issue by interpreting first-generation Quechua (indigenous) students’ voices about success in the Peruvian Andes through four different paradigms concerned with social change, social reproduction, and social justice. The discussion places into dialogue feminist theory, critical theory, postcolonial theory, and development theory in order to highlight the implications of each interpretive framework for responsive education policy. I show how interpretations based on each theory offer divergent school policy options, the danger of a single theory for interpreting student voice.
Participants
The coresearchers for this paper are 14 young women from Quechua communities who are the first in their families to attend secondary school. Working with them are a woman from a Quechua community, a woman from Central Europe, and a man from the United States.
Research Design
A collaborative ethnographic case study utilizing student voice methods. The students developed the theme and topic for research during a student-led seminar. Based on the students’ questions, the adults helped facilitate the creation of an interview protocol with the students. The group answered the questions on the protocol and used the protocol to interview the students’ parents. We held three total focus group discussions to develop the protocol, discuss findings, and interrogate ideas of success.
Conclusions/Recommendations
The results highlight the vastly different interpretations and policy implications of students’ voices based on each theory—highlighting how social justice is a complex concept that requires discussion across theoretical orientations. The findings also show points of overall congruence, and cross-theory trends. Recommendations are for educational leaders and researchers (teachers, parents, administrators) to refect and think about empirical information from multiple theoretical frameworks in order to become more aware of the influence of one's own assumptions in educational decision-making.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanJ. (2006). Unfinished states: Historical perspectives on the Andes. In DrakeP., & HershbergE. (Eds.), State and society in conflict: Comparative perspectives on Andean crisis. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Doi https://www.upress.pitt.edu/htmlSourceFiles/pdfs/9780822959229exr.pdf
2.
AggerB. (1991). Critical theory, poststructuralism, postmodernism: Their sociological relevance. Annual Review of Sociology, 17(1), 105—131.
3.
AmbroseS., BridgesM. W., LovettM. C., DiPietroM., NormanM. (2010). How learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Brion-MeiselsG. (2014). The challenge of holistic student support: Investigating urban adolescents' constructions of support in the context of school. Harvard Educational Review, 84(3), 314—340, 427–428.
11.
BrodioE. M., & ManningK. (2002). Philosophical foundations and current theoretical perspectives in qualitative research. Journal of College Student Development, 43(4), 434—445.
12.
CEPAL. (2014). Los pueblos indígenas en América Latina. Avances en el último decenio y retos pendientes para la garantía de sus derechos. New York: Comision Economica para America Latina y el Caribe, United Nations.
13.
Cerron-PalominoR. M. (1989). Language policy in Peru: A historical overview. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 77, 11—33.
14.
ChristensenP. H. (2004). Children's participation in ethnographic research: Issues of power and representation. Children & Society, 18(2), 165—176.
15.
CortinaR. (Ed.). (2014). The education of indigenous citizens in Latin America (Vol. 95). Bristol, England: Multilingual Matters.
16.
CreswellJ. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
DarderA., & MirónL. F. (2006). Critical pedagogy in a time of uncertainty: A call to action. Cultural Studies Critical Methodologies, 6(1), 5—20.
18.
DelpitL. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: The New Press.
19.
DemerathP. (2002). Perspective-taking in the practice-research gap: Using ethnography to help schools see themselves. In LevinsonB., CadeS., PadawerA., & ElvirA. P. (Eds.), Ethnography and education policy across the Americas (pp. 143—154). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
20.
DenzinN. K. (1997). Interpretive ethnography. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
DeweyJ. (1938). Experience and education. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
22.
DoucetA., & MauthnerN. (2006). Feminist methodologies and epistemology. In BryantC. D., & PeckD. L. (Eds.), Handbook of 21st century sociology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
DuckworthA. L., PetersonC., MatthewsM. D., & KellyD. R. (2007). Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1087—1101.
24.
FanonF. (1970). Black skin, white masks. Boulder, CO: Paladin.
25.
FreireP. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum.
GallagherK. (Ed.). (2008). The methodological dilemma: Creative, critical and collaborative approaches to qualitative research. London, England: Routledge.
29.
HeifetzR. A., & LinskyM. (2002). Leadership on the line. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
30.
Hesse-BiberS. (2012). Feminist approaches to triangulation uncovering subjugated knowledge and fostering social change in mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 6(2), 137—146.
31.
HeynemanS. P. (2003). The history and problems in the making of education policy at the World Bank 1960–2000. International Journal of Educational Development, 23(3), 315—337.
32.
HolmesK., & CrossleyM. (2004). Whose knowledge, whose values? The contribution of local knowledge to education policy processes: a case study of research development initiatives in the small state of Saint Lucia. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 34(2), 197—214.
33.
hooksb. (2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center. London: Pluto Press.
34.
IbarraH. (2013). Gamonalismo y dominación en los Andes. Íconos-Revista de Ciencias Sociales, 14, 137—147.
35.
LassiterL. E. (2005). The Chicago guide to collaborative ethnography. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
36.
LassiterL. E. (2008). Moving past public anthropology and doing collaborative research. Napa Bulletin, 29(1), 70—86
37.
LeTendreG. K. (2006). Lessons still to learn. American Journal of Education, 112(3), 447—455.
38.
LevinsonB. A. (2011). Beyond critique: Exploring critical social theories and education. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers.
39.
LevitanJ. (2015). More than access: Overcoming barriers to girls' secondary education in the Peruvian Andes. In Baily, & Stacki (Eds.), Educating Adolescent Girls Around the Globe: Challenges and Opportunities. London: Routledge Research.
40.
LevitanJ., & PostD. (2016). Indigenous Student Learning Outcomes and Education Policies in Peru and Ecuador. In Indigenous Education Policy, Equity, and Intercultural Understanding in Latin America (pp. 27–49). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
41.
MartinA. J., MansourM., AndersonM., GibsonR., LiemG. A. D., & SudmalisD. (2013). The role of arts participation in students' academic and nonacademic outcomes: A longitudinal study of school, home, and community factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 709—727.
42.
McCarthyC., GiardinaM. D., HarewoodS. J., & ParkJ.-K. (2003). Contesting culture: Identity and curriculum dilemmas in the age of globalization, postcolonialism, and multiplicity, Harvard Educational Review, 73(3), 449—465
43.
MerriamS. B. (2014). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
44.
MeyerJ. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1—20.
45.
MitchellR. C., & MooreS. A. (2012). Politics, participation & power relations: Transdisciplinary approaches to critical citizenship in the classroom and community. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
46.
MitraD. (2007). Student voice in school reform: From listening to leadership. In ThiessenD., & Cook-SatherA. (Eds.), International handbook of student experience in elementary and secondary school (pp. 727—744). Amsterdam: Springer Netherlands.
47.
MitraD. (2009). Student voice and student roles in education policy reform. In PlankD., SykesG., & SchneiderB. (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy research. London, England: Routledge.
48.
MitraD. L. (2006). Student voice from the inside and outside: The positioning of challengers. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 9(4), 315—328.
49.
MohantyC. T. (2003). “under western eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs, 28(2), 499—535.
50.
MooreS. (2014). Indigenismo peruano, la raza, y los peruanos asiáticos, 1900-1930. A Contracorriente, 11(3), 195—217.
51.
MorrisM. W., LeungK., AmesD., & LickelB. (1999). Views from inside and outside: Integrating emic and etic insights about culture and justice judgment. Academy of Management Review, 24(4), 781—796.
52.
NiehausK., RudasillK. M., & AdelsonJ. L. (2012). Self-efficacy, intrinsic motivation, and academic outcomes among Latino middle school students participating in an after-school program. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 34(1), 118—136.
53.
OsborneJ. W., & JonesB. D. (2011). Identification with academics and motivation to achieve in school: How the structure of the self influences academic outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 131—158.
54.
PasqueP. A. (2013). (Re)membering and (re)living: A methodological exploration of postmodern and constructivist feminist approaches to interview women leaders in higher education. NASPA Journal About Women in Higher Education, 6(1), 99—126.
RostowW. W. (1959). The stages of economic growth. The Economic History Review, 12(1), 1—16.
62.
SaidE. (1979). Orientalism. New York, NY: Vintage.
63.
ShahidulS., & KarimA. (2015). Factors contributing to school dropout among the girls: A review of literature. European Journal of Research and Refection in Educational Science, 3(2).
64.
SpivakG. (2006) Can the subaltern speak? In AshcroftB., GriffithsG., & TiffinH. (Eds.), The post-colonial studies reader (2nd ed., pp. 28—37). London, England: Routledge.
65.
SpradleyJ. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Inc.
66.
SpradleyJ. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
67.
SpringJ. (2008). Research on globalization and education. Review of Educational Research, 78(2), 330—363.
68.
StavansI. (2011). José Vasconcelos: The prophet of race. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
69.
StringerE. T. (2013). Action research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
70.
StromquistN. P. (2001). What poverty does to girls' education: The intersection of class, gender and policy in Latin America. Compare, 31(1).
71.
SylvesterC. (1999). Development studies and postcolonial studies: Disparate tales of the “Third World.” Third World Quarterly, 20(4), 703—721.
72.
TracyS. J. (2010). Qualitative quality: Eight “big-tent” criteria for excellent qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 16(10), 837—851.
73.
Unesco (2012). World atlas of gender equality of education. Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.
