Abstract
The increasing population of culturally and linguistically diverse students in the United States necessitates the use of culturally responsive practices for equitable and inclusive educational systems. This duoethnographic study explores how social justice, equity, and inclusion principles are embedded within our research and teaching in higher education programs for leadership and teacher education. Findings focus on addressing inequities through social justice praxis and the implications emphasise leading, teaching, and learning through creativity, justice, and inclusion.
Introduction
In the United States, the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is charged with the collection and analysis of education related statistical data. According to NCES longitudinal data, there has been a shift in student demographics in schools indicating an upward trajectory in the increase of racially diverse children, while their data also show a consistent educator demographics. In 2017–2018 there were
These data and their trajectory underscore the importance that attention is needed in schooling of children who are racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse. Using culturally sustaining pedagogies (CSP) (Paris, 2012), culturally responsive teaching (CRT) strategies (Gay, 2010b; Ladson-Billings, 2014), and culturally relevant learning environments (Gay, 2010a), provide the supportive and caring space for students to flourish. These theoretical frameworks allow for the representation and understanding of cultures within the content and context of schooling. Furthermore, not only is it necessary to prepare educators and leaders to use culturally relevant practices but it is also imperative that social justice-perspectives undergird efforts. This involves creativity in problem solving, advocacy, and activism to ensure diverse populations of students are provided with the resources, skills, and knowledge they need to increase their academic achievement and social trajectories. Further, Freire’s (2000) conception of praxis is the reflection and action specific to transforming oppressive structures such as schooling environments that impede learning for marginalized students. The preparation of educators and leaders in higher education programs using the foundation of social justice praxis provides a space to uncover deficit assumptions and learn techniques and strategies that value all pupils.
Ladson-Billings (2005) explained that as the public-school population in the U.S. becomes more diverse there is a growing divide in the cultural mismatch between students and teachers. Moreover, “A drop in white student enrolment has further exacerbated the cultural and experiential mismatch between teachers and their students” (Aydin et al., 2017: 78). So, educators need skills and strategies to maintain learning communities that address this mismatch (Brown-Jeffy and Cooper, 2011) through respecting and valuing students from cultural backgrounds that are different from their own. The emphasis on culturally sustaining pedagogies, culturally responsive practices, and the need for social justice advocacy is imperative moving forward in this increasingly diverse public educational space. Through this inquiry, we explored the following research questions: 1. In what ways do we aim to address inequities and become change agents through social justice praxis? 2. What are the challenges of doing this type of work?
What follows is first an abridged explanation of the extant literature on cultural diversity in educational institutions, identities and biases, safe and brave spaces in teaching, importance of social justice praxis, and the need for creativity for justice and inclusion within diverse schooling environments. Then, the methodological approach, duoethnography is explained. The findings and analysis are presented and substantiated through research, and we conclude with implications for research and practice.
Cultural diversity
There are cultural and racial differences between educators and students that may limit learning opportunities (Aydin et al., 2017; Ford, 2006). The demographic mismatch between teachers and the growing diverse student population warrants intentional focus on preparation for practice and leadership in schooling systems. As the racial/ethnic student population increases, the educator workforce in the United States remains homogenous as predominantly White (i.e., 79% of teachers and 78% of school principals) (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2020). The importance of leading schools that are becoming more pluralistic can be underscored by the focus on understanding the intersections of factors such as socioeconomic status, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, languages, immigration status, and ability (Theoharis and Scanlan, 2015). Implementation of school-wide processes and strategies are needed that promote equity, excellence, and inclusion. Educators need tools that explore creativity in development and enaction of pedagogy, instruction, and practices that are culturally affirming and relevant to improving educational outcomes for all students, especially those traditionally marginalized in schooling systems.
Culturally relevant teaching (Ladson-Billings, 2005), culturally responsive education (Gay, 2010a), and culturally sustaining pedagogy (Paris, 2012) are essential. Culturally relevant teaching focuses on the design of curriculum and instruction that values and connects students’ cultural identities within the learning environment of the classroom and school (Ladson-Billings, 2005). Culturally responsive education indicates that students’ engagement is meaningful and learning increases when pedagogical practices connect to their cultural experiences (Gay, 2010b). Culturally sustaining pedagogies, described by Paris (2012), perpetuate, foster, and sustain the linguistic, literate, and cultural pluralism of democratic schooling. These frameworks are culturally affirming.
Identities and biases
Researchers reported that teachers’ implicit racial attitudes, expectations, and biases affect their students’ outcomes (Chin et al., 2020; Jacoby-Sneghor et al., 2016), and pre-service teachers’ implicit bias do the same (Batchelor et al., 2019; Glock and Karbach, 2015). A recent study explored the associations between aggregate bias and student outcomes and found that bias among teachers showed larger Black/White disparities in test scores and suspensions (Chin et al., 2020). In another study, findings suggested that underperformance in academic subjects by minorities may be impacted by the effect of implicit racial biases on educators’ pedagogical efficacy (Jacoby-Sneghor et al., 2016). Similarly, Gullo and Beachum (2020) reported that school administrators hold pro-White implicit bias.
Thus, it is worthwhile to conduct research on educator identities, pre-service teacher identities, and teacher educator identities (Izadinia, 2014) as well as administrators to understand how this impacts their decision making, pedagogy, and instruction. Identities shape leadership practice which contributes to educational equity, authentic multiculturalism, intercultural relations, innovation, and student empowerment (Theohars and Scanlan, 2015). The experiences and perceptions of educators and leaders influence school policies and practices, and it is necessary to understand these factors with the increasing culturally diverse student population in the U.S. Equally important is to create experiences in their preparation to engage with diversity-related topics and issues.
Safe spaces & brave spaces
Learning in classrooms at the primary, secondary, and tertiary levels happen in differing contexts, modalities, and for varied purposes. To address social justice issues, inequities, and inclusion challenges in schools, discussions about the historical, socio-political, cultural, and economic aspects that shape the marginalization of particular populations are needed. Using the classroom space to address these topics, that may be difficult for some, may lead to practical and transformational changes in schooling systems.
According to Arao and Clemens (2013), a safe space can be defined as “a learning environment that allows students to engage with one another over controversial issues with honesty, sensitivity, and respect” (p. 135). Many would argue that a safe space is meant to be a place of comfort for those involved. Keep in mind that a safe space for some may not actually be a safe space for all (Verduzco-Baker, 2018). Perhaps, the notion of brave spaces can be used which allow for critical thinking and deeper reflection about the injustices and inequities that are inherent in schooling, as well as our own complicity within these educational structures.
Within a brave space, participants acknowledge and prepare to be uncomfortable at times so the use of ground rules to navigate discomfort while productively challenging one other is crucial (Arao and Clemens, 2013). This creates an inclusive and affirming space for critical conversations to take place. Specifically, the aim is “...revising our language from the concept of safety and emphasizing the importance of bravery instead, to help students better understand—and rise to—the challenges of genuine dialogue on diversity and social justice issues” (Arao and Clemens, 2013: 136).
When thinking about how to adapt this approach for educators, it is important to consider how to integrate first person accounts of experiences (Verduzco-Baker, 2018). Educators, including those in higher education contexts, should model how to be brave by participating in the critical conversations with students. Being open and willing to challenge own discomfort (Verduzco-Baker, 2018) may provide an important demonstration for students that critical reflection is ongoing and necessary.
Importance of social justice praxis
Social justice has been studied in educational research in teacher education (Cochran-Smith, 1999), educational leadership (Bogotch, 2002), higher education and critical pedagogy (McArthur, 2010), disability (Smith, 2008), LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum (Snapp et al., 2015), racial and cultural justice (Au, 2009), and immigration policy and praxis (Arar et al., 2019). Social justice orientations to research, teaching, and practice takes on a critical examination of the systems of power that oppress some and privileges others within institutions, policies, societal structures, and then engage in deliberate efforts of activism through social action for social change (Hackman, 2005). Freire (2000) describes praxis as reflection and action on the world to transform it; reflection is essential to action. Appropriately interconnected is criticality, described by Muhammad (2020) as, the capacity to read, write and think in the context of understanding the role of power, privilege, and oppression. Criticality is also related to seeing, naming, and interrogating the world to not only make sense of injustice, but also work toward social transformation (p. 12).
Entrenched in social justice praxis is criticality which is vital when addressing equity and inclusion issues.
Schools need to create meaningful spaces of belonging and learning through critical thinking, creativity in problem solving, and inclusive practice. School leaders can develop asset-based schoolwide communities through culturally responsive school leadership practices (Khalifa et al., 2016). The leader that establishes strong trusting relationships greatly impacts teacher satisfaction and performance (Gomez-Leal et al., 2021). Research indicates that teachers require training to address the needs of culturally diverse students for educational reform (Coady et al., 2015; Cochran-Smith and Villegas, 2015; Gay, 2010a) so teacher preparation can develop educators who are authentic, caring, open-minded, and critically conscious (Plust et al., 2021). Creativity can lead to innovative approaches to addressing the diverse schooling needs of students.
Creativity for justice and inclusion
Creativity is an elusive and multifaceted concept (Kleiman, 2008). Recently, a dynamic definition has been put forth that emphasizes creativity as an ongoing act (Walia, 2019). It is a generative and flexible process that does not rely on one primary perspective to understand the dynamics of creativity. Walia (2019) stated, Creativity is an act arising out of a perception of the environment that acknowledges a certain disequilibrium, resulting in productive activity that challenges patterned thought processes and norms, and gives rise to something new in the form of a physical object or even a mental or an emotional construct (p. 243).
Creativity is essential to problem engagement and problem solving in the 21st century and the pedagogical practices of university-level educators (Kleiman, 2008), especially when colleges of education are charged in the preparation of teachers and leaders for an ever-increasing population of culturally and linguistically diverse students (U.S. Department of Education, NCES, 2020). Studying the significance of creative pedagogy to enable and advance disadvantaged learners’ capacity to exercise agency, Hempel-Jorgensen (2015), discuss socially just pedagogies, critical and productive pedagogies, and Possibility Thinking. Furthermore, Capous-Desyllas & Morgaine (2017) argue for creating social change through creativity, that begins with researchers doing anti-oppressive research that requires critical self-reflection, self-awareness, and a willingness to examine how and why we do the research that we do.
Moreover, Milner’s (2007) framework guides researchers in a process of racial and cultural consciousness while conducting educational research applicable to this study. Drawing from social justice perspectives, critical pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2005; Ladson-Billings, 2021 and praxis (Freire, 2000), we situate ourselves in this framework within the following components, (1) Researching the self, (2) Researching the self in relation to others, (3) Engaged reflection and representation, and (4) Shifting from self to system. We practiced self-inquiry, introspection, and collective deliberation in this duoethnography.
Duoethnography as the methodological approach
Duoethnography reconceptualizes narratives of experiences and “multiple dialogues, surfacing subjugated knowledge, engaging in critical collaboration, [and] finding synergy between data collection and analysis” (Sawyer and Norris, 2012: 40). This approach is adaptable and does not have a prescriptive design. Four tenets include (1) it is polyvocal/dialogic in nature, (2) the examination of life history as curriculum, (3) its intent not to profess but rather to learn and change as the result of the conversation, and (4) and the importance of learning from difference (Sawyer and Norris, 2015).
Duoethnography is akin to autoethnography. Ellis et al. (2011) describes autoethnography as a process and product wherein research is understood as political, socially just, and a socially conscious act. This is a personal endeavor that allows an individual to retrospectively, reflectively, and analytically explore experiences and perspectives based upon their relations within a particular culture or cultural identities; and examine their personal experiences within the broader socio-political contexts using the extant research literature. Instead of working individually, duoethnographers create dialogic interactions that unearth critical tensions, insights, and perspectives (Sawyer and Liggett, 2012). It is grounded in social justice and is used to gain critical consciousness of experience through dialogical and collaborative relationships. “Juxtaposing their stories, duoethnographers discover and explore the overlapping gray zones between their perspectives as intertwined intersections” (Sawyer and Norris, 2012: 3).
We conceptualized social justice praxis within our teaching and research practices in higher education. As we constructed our narratives individually and collaboratively, we deconstructed them dialogically (Sawyer and Norris, 2012) which resulted in a nuanced and complex reconstruction of our perspectives and experiences. As social justice, equity, and inclusion principles are embedded within our research and teaching, the utility of duoethnography is suitable for this study. Sawyer and Norris (2012) explained, When framed by principles of social justice, duoethnography is both a reflection of social justice and a method to advance it. The concept of social justice is premised on the recognition of the urgent need to examine power and privilege and improve societal and environmental conditions. It calls for action to remove personal, institutional, national, and transnational structures that impoverish, disenfranchise, enslave, disempower, and humiliate people (p. 7).
We approached this study with a shared interest in understanding and advancing the social justice praxis of our own higher education teaching in undergraduate and graduate education programs. We were PreK-12 educators in one of the largest urban school districts in the U.S. and are now teaching in a large urban research-intensive university. We taught in elementary education, special education, and educational leadership programs within our institution. Each of us have intersecting (Cho et al., 2013) and layered identities that contribute to our understanding, experiences, viewpoints, and actions. We understand that our work in teaching and research “shapes and is shaped by the very mode of our being” (Clarke, 2009: 186). Thus, our historicity impacts our pedagogical preferences and creative endeavours, our foci on social justice, equity and inclusion, and our relationship with research and educational praxis.
Duoethnographers
Researcher 1 is a cisgender assistant professor in educational leadership and policy studies, and previously, taught in the special education graduate and undergraduate programs. I acknowledge the dynamic and shifting nature of identity. As an Indo-Caribbean immigrant woman, I have experienced being othered due to intersectional marginalizing characterizations related to race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, ability, religion, and citizenship. Through critical theoretical frameworks, I explore how leadership, socio-political, and cultural influences shape the experiences and trajectories of marginalized persons in P-20 educational systems.
Researcher 2 is a White cisgender visiting assistant professor of instruction who supervises elementary education interns. As a member of the LGBTQ+ community, I experienced, first-hand, discrimination as it relates to my LGBTQ+ identity and lived through homophobia, bullying, and harassment. My research focuses on teacher preparation for social justice and equitable policies and practices for LGBTQ+ students, and the inclusion, advancement, and dignity of marginalized populations including LGBTQ+ children and LGBTQ+ life.
Data sources
Data entailed a shared reflective journal, written individual self-reflections, and virtual dialogic meetings. We used these data sources to engage in discussions about our practice as educators including challenges that we faced, successes we shared, and questions that we pondered. We collected our data over the course of four months with six virtual recorded meetings that took place during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic. Other data sources were generated from shared and reflexive experiences during our one-hour social justice-oriented presentation at a national conference, an equity-focused webinar we attended led by a prominent scholar, and relevant peer-reviewed research literature. Additionally, we used a shared journal e-space to communicate comments, reflections, and to respond to written discussions. These reflections came in multiple forms. At times, the reflections were typed in paragraphs, and other times visuals and sketches were used. This allowed for a variety of ways to reflect, discuss, and co-construct meanings and understandings of our experiences and teaching practices within our current socio-political and cultural context.
Data analysis
Pushing the boundaries of qualitative data analysis, we selected to not use the traditional transcription approach to identifying themes, instead we opted to explore a novel way of analysis. As we analysed each video, we documented specific times in each video where important ideas were discussed related to the research questions and used live coding. According to Parameswaran et al. (2019), “...live coding can be beneficial in preserving the voice of the participant” (p. 630). This allowed us to see and hear the conversations exactly as they happened, and it was an “empowering process which allowed intent, context, and meaning of the words to be present in the results” (p.630). Using axial coding, we noted the pertinent ideas and time in each video where this occurred. Then, we reviewed the list to categorize into broader themes. Our positionality and subjectivity conditioned us to theme the data in non-traditional ways to garner interpretation that may not have been otherwise possible, without carefully re/watching the video recordings. This allowed us to interact with this form of data differently and generated themes that were specific to using this approach to analysing data. Once we each reviewed the videos, we then reviewed each other’s themes and determined jointly the overarching ones representative of the data collected. As such, themes presented in this article are the result of axial coding within and across all dialogic sessions and other data sources. Therefore, we analyzed the data using a combination of Saldana’s approach to coding in qualitative research (2015) along with methods for live coding from Parameswaran et al. (2019).
Trustworthiness
Our engagement in this study surfaced our perceptions and life experiences that were similar, contradictory, complementary, oppositional, and through the dialogic process, we co-constructed understandings of self and collective consciousness. To garner trustworthiness of this research, we concurred with Sawyer and Liggett (2012): In duoethnography, research becomes trustworthy when researcher reflexivity becomes apparent, when the research is explicitly tied to human life and researcher experience. Instead of “bracketing” themselves out of the method, duoethnographers situate themselves centrally within the meaning of the text they are creating, thus promoting the inquiry goal of researcher/reader self-reflexivity. As an aspect of social justice, reflexivity in this instance is a process of deep researcher reflection and conceptual and behavioral change. A goal in duoethnography is not to “uncover findings,” but rather to promote more complex and inclusive social constructions and re-conceptualizations of experience (p. 630–631).
The following section explicates upon the overarching themes. We articulate and discuss the findings in relation to the socio-political and cultural contexts of situated socially constructed experiences, and within the extant research literature.
Findings & Discussion
There are two predominant themes that emerged. The first, Addressing Inequities through Social Justice Praxis, focuses on understanding intersectionality and constructions of biases to underscore the importance of culturally relevant processes, practices, and strategies for diverse populations. The second, Challenges to Social Justice Praxis, involves generating dialogue regarding the viability of doing this work and identifying existing barriers.
Addressing inequities through social justice praxis
As we introspectively wrote in our individual and collaborative journals, and engaged in dialogical meetings, our intersectional identities were apparent in our perceptions, experiences, and actions in our personal and professional lives. Intersectionality allows for an examination of the overlapping and conflicting dynamics of race, gender, socioeconomic status, nationality, sexuality, and other inequalities (Cho et al., 2013) within power structures. Muhammad (2020) explains that “identity is made up of who we say we are, who others say we are, and the people we desire to be” (p. 12). Our biases are constructed and continue to be constructed through culture, societal expectations, politics, history, and social locations. Duoethnographer 1 discusses about being an immigrant learning to assimilate in the U.S. educational system: (If) you're from the United States you're ingrained… into the way the systems work whether that's a privilege, depending on your perspectives or your experiences and so on, or not. But when you come in from a different place, a different country with different rules, different understandings, or different ways of doing things, I think that also plays a big role too. I had to think about how to adapt and adjust and learn…And, there are times when I know that I was just always struggling with some things and not understanding or not knowing which words to say or, how to pronounce things … it’s I can hear that you have an accent or because you see it in this way because of your perspective…then we know you're different- the other. And so, trying to adjust in certain ways or adapt, has been challenging.
About one out of four public school students in the U.S live in an immigrant household whereby 28% of these students live in poverty; and three-fourths of students who spoke another language not English live in an immigrant-headed household (Camarota et al., 2017). As Duoethnographer 1 described her recounting of assimilation within the U.S. context as an immigrant, it is important to note that Ellis et al. (2011) explained that researchers “retrospectively and selectively write about epiphanies that stem from, or are made possible by, being part of a culture and/or by possessing a particular cultural identity” (p. 276). Direct experience with racial marginalization or social justice conversations helps growth to occur (Batchelor et al., 2019). The use of culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2005, 2014) to centre the experiences and cultures who are traditionally marginalized may foster learning communities that value other ways of knowing, being, and doing. Culturally relevant pedagogy can effectively support the achievement of minoritized students (Dee and Penner, 2017). Additionally, creating brave spaces (Arao and Clemens, 2013) within our classrooms may allow for critical justice-oriented conversations to take place such as struggles with assimilation, which may lead to actionable steps in furthering social reform and advocacy for culturally and linguistically diverse students.
During this study, the Covid-19 pandemic upended our personal and professional lives, Black Lives Matter was at the forefront with the killing of George Floyd among other Black individuals, and the intersectional injustices due to race, socioeconomic status, gender, disability, immigration, and so on were apparent. Within this unprecedented socio-political context, we shared dialogue about biases within our experiences and understandings. First, Duoethnographer 2 shared the importance of being self-reflective in understanding the impact of his whiteness. I thought that that was really powerful and I think it left me kind of thinking and reflecting on the power that I have based on my whiteness and, my responsibility in having that power and what I do with it and it … reiterated the idea of, Okay, I'm in the right place and I'm doing the right thing.
Duoethnographer 1’s returning comment shared about the importance of talking about biases with students, which may lead to open dialogue about enduring issues such as understanding institutionalized and systemic racism and racial biases within the U.S. … through my immigrant woman of colour lens I also have biases… thinking about how this society has also contributed to my way of thinking … So, when you talk about it it's a little different than when I talked about it… I think the interesting part of this work is how we (think about) our own biases and share that with our students. I don’t know how many people do that, but I think it is very important.
Both discussed understanding their biases and its construction, to address inequities through social justice praxis. Doing so allowed for open and critical space of inquiry and collective introspection. Sawyer and Norris (2012) explained, to not be confined by traditional research, duoethnography provides, “a way to investigate dialogically and dialectically juxtaposing cultural landscapes and contrasting perspectives and creating critical texts through the generative nature of dialogue” (p.6). This signifies that this type of approach to research can lead to action that denounces ways of thinking, doing, and being that detrimentally impacts marginalized populations.
We are products of teacher education programs as well as producers within teacher and leadership preparation programs. Daniels and Varghese (2020) explains that “teacher education often invisibilizes, centers, and normalizes Whiteness for preservice teachers” and that Whiteness is presumed to be benign and neutral and scarcely considered when examining educators’ practice (p. 60). This may be problematic as 79% of teachers, and 78% of school principals in the U.S. public education system are White, while the racial demographic of the collective of students of colour is over 50% and their upward trajectory continues in this direction (U.S. Department of Education, NCES Data, 2020). Moreover, Tanner & Welton (2021) explained that Whiteness in educational leadership needs to be addressed by building leadership capacity to undo racialized oppressive educational systems.
Focused efforts on preparation of educators and leaders for an increasing racially and linguistically diverse educational system is important. Research explains that school administrators hold pro-White implicit bias (Gullo and Beachum, 2020). Teachers also hold pro-White implicit and explicit racial bias which contributes to standardized test score achievement inequalities and discipline disparities for students of color (Chin et al., 2020). Further, Glock & Karbach (2015) explained there is implicit negativity toward racial minorities and implicit positivity toward racial majority students for preservice teachers. Linder (2015) explained that preservice teachers denied the evidence of racial bias and did not agree with the results of the study which may be common when attempting to address issues of race and bias in education. Research is needed on implicit bias of preservice teacher preparation students (Batchelor et al., 2019) as well as for principals and school administrators (Gullo and Beachum, 2020).
Challenges to social justice praxis
We discussed the challenges and barriers of social justice praxis in higher education contexts. First, Duoethnographer 2 discusses how he models LGBTQ+ use of pronouns, to challenge heteronormativity in spaces, and normalize inclusive practices for LGBTQ+ people. He talks about disrupting inequities and the power and responsibility he has: I came into this work because of issues I faced both as a student and teacher where my LGBTQ+ identity was not being reflected in the curriculum. When I began supervising teacher candidates, I was in a position where I could do the work that was needed to push LGBTQ+ inclusion forward. I think about how I have added my pronouns to my email signature, to my orientation to new courses at the start of each semester and also during introductions to new groups of people.
Duoethnographer 2 shared his experience with LGBTQ+ curriculum and his motivation to centre his LGBTQ+ identity as a teacher educator. A study about LGBTQ+ inclusive curriculum found that although there were opportunities for critical conversations about systemic oppression, social justice education was lacking (Snapp et al., 2015). Teachers did not step in when LGBTQ+ bullying occurred, and thus inclusive curriculum was not continually reflected in practice.
In duoethnography, the research process furthers researcher engagement in self-reflection and duo-reflection to move forward social change. Within this process researchers “interpret their dialogically created meanings and seek critical tension, insights, and new perspectives” (Sawyer and Norris, 2012: 4). When reflecting on experiences about enacting social justice praxis, we emphasized that discomfort is needed for growth. Duoethnographer 2 talks about being comfortable with being uncomfortable because discomfort brings about change and learning. You need to be challenged to think more deeply and more critically about who you are and who your students are to find ways to meet the needs of that population and so sometimes…it's doing the work on yourself ...you need to be uncomfortable in order to understand, because then we can talk about well what's making you uncomfortable? Is it the fact that it's this idea of your white fragility and the guilt that this conversation is causing you? … “Wow thinking back, I never had any people around me that were different than me? That everybody was very similar, and I never was challenged in my understandings and my perspectives. And I think one of the… positive thing that has come out of all that's going on is at least in my experience is opening conversation. It's making it a little bit more comfortable to be uncomfortable.
For conversations about controversial topics to take place, a learning community that emphasizes valuing varied knowledges, experiences, and perceptions is needed. Brave spaces (Arao and Clemens, 2013) in these environments can then be used to engage in critical conversations. A barrier to social justice praxis that was a shared experience for both of us focused on the need to engage deeply in open conversations about social justice. Reflecting on our national conference presentation on this topic, we discussed that many attendees at our session were not willing to share their experiences or going deeper to determine actionable steps that each could take in doing social justice-oriented work. The resistance that occurred during this conference presentation on the topic of social justice praxis and brave space is described below by Duoethnographer 2. … this older gentleman came up afterwards and said, people are not going to want to think about the word brave space as something to do. And that's again perpetuating this notion of whiteness as creating this understanding that we (as White people) can put parameters, even around the words we use to describe the process that we want to undertake when we're talking about how to address inequities related to social justice issues. And that in itself was exactly the point we're trying to get at.
The attendee was uncomfortable with whiteness as a component of the discussion. This example highlights the need for those engaging in social justice work to be ready and open to doing the work. Duoethnographer 1 went on to explain the experiences by attendees throughout this conference presentation session. They were ready to be more resistant… All they had to do is pick a topic, based upon (information) we already gave them. And, you know, I think that was very deliberate and intentional in many ways (for them) to say, look, I don't even want to start this conversation about how to have this conversation (about brave spaces with a topic of controversy).
We were bewildered that many were not willing to select a topic of controversy within education to start a critical discussion, especially when the majority of attendees worked in colleges of education in the U.S. and were seemingly interested in social justice praxis for equity and inclusion (as stated on our presentation description), or else they would not have attended our session. As we discussed further, we understood that doing social justice work requires introspection, and must be collaborative, deliberative, critically oriented and advocacy-focused to address oppressive systems that marginalize groups. It includes Schostak’s explanation of strategies of radical research (2009) that states, “encouraging participation, enabling the spaces for voice, for debates about what is ‘true’ and for decision and action” (p. 12). Then, this allows for creativity as a necessity of critical thinking, problem-solving and constructive action for social justice praxis in education.
Conclusion
Educational institutions are socially produced spaces (Cudworth, 2015) and knowledge is situated and contextual (Haraway, 1988). How education research is conducted in education, by whom and their critical racial and cultural consciousness (Milner, 2007) is important in duoethnographic research that centres on the researcher. Using duoethnography furthered our commitment and understanding of social justice praxis for leading, teaching, and learning in educational systems. We engaged in researcher self-reflectivity and collective meaning-making within dialogic sessions and discussed the challenges, uncertainties, and possibilities of social justice-oriented work in relation to our intersectional identities (Cho et al., 2013), dialogue within brave spaces (Arao and Clemens, 2013), creating inclusive systems through culturally relevant pedagogy (Ladson-Billings, 2005) and, the necessity of creativity in problem solving (Walia, 2019) for nuanced ways to address inequities in education. Ladson-Billings (2021) asserts the need to use culturally relevant pedagogies to stimulate creative thinking to revision theory and practice to ensure the academic, cultural, social, and civic success for students.
Research is needed on centring the cultural practices of students, as well as research on teachers and principals implicit and explicit racial biases and their impacts on student outcomes and schooling cultures. Moreover, research on the spatial dimension of educational institutions on the re/production of individual identities and social inequalities is warranted (Cudworth, 2015). The challenges associated with leading schools during current times of shifting demographics and socio-political issues (Theoharis and Scanlan, 2015), along with exploring the importance of the cross-cultural dimensions of critical leadership of principals with social justice orientations (Santamaria and Jean-Marie, 2014) can also be studied. Research is also needed on self-interrogations of researchers and practitioners’ views and actions around social justice praxis, and with using creativity to seek out original and innovative ways to generate possible solutions to issues of inequity in education.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
