Research In Multicultural Education

From The Margins To The Mainstream

Carl A. Grant

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2005
• eBook ISBN: 9781135388720
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

A work specifically written to encourage research into multicultural education and to help researchers work through some of the inherent problems that face schools with mulicultural students.

Part 1

The Marginalization of Multicultural Discourse

Chapter 1
Research and Multicultural Education: Barriers, Needs, and Boundaries
Carl A.Grant and Susan Millar

It is slowly becoming standard for schools in the USA to take explicitly into account the ascribed characteristics (race, class, gender, and disability) of their students and the human diversity in society. The nomenclature for these aspects of education may change—as it has over the last thirty or more years—but the attention focused on student diversity in the schools and classrooms will continue to increase. This attention is a function of: the increasing number of students of color entering schools, many of whom have a primary language other than English; the demands of women who seek to have their history, culture, ideology and pedagogy fully accepted, appreciated and affirmed in every aspect of the policies and practices of the educational system; the accelerated movement of the United States population into a ‘have’ and ‘have not’ society; and the national fear that the USA is losing its technological and economic eminence to other countries.

During the late 1980s, education that deals with human diversity most commonly is referred to as ‘multicultural education’. Other terms used synonymously in the past and the present for multicultural education have included, ‘pluralism’ or ‘pluralistic’, ‘multiethnic’, ‘cross cultural’, ‘bi-cultural’, and ‘human relations’. Recently, multicultural education as an ideology and concept expressed through policies and practices has begun to make some small inroads into almost every aspect of schooling. It has also become more popularly accepted (at least with lip service attention) and thereby received a noticeable increase in status over the last ten years. However, scholarly research about multicultural education has not kept abreast of attempts to actualize the various ideas that school personnel hold about multicultural education. Teacher education (pre-service and in-service) has perhaps received the most research attention. However, Grant and Secada (1990) were able to locate only twenty-three research studies in the pre-service and in-service area of teacher education. There are a variety of reasons why research that takes into account multiculturalism is proceeding at a snail’s pace. This chapter presents some of the more salient reasons, discusses the kinds of research about multicultural education that need to occur, and concludes by suggesting a set of boundaries on multicultural research.

Barriers to Multicultural Education

There are several reasons why research on multicultural education as well as educational research that takes multiculturalism into account have not kept pace with the discussion and debate.

1. The demographic characteristics of higher education faculties are not conducive to the development of research on multicultural education. In education, 93 per cent of the professors are white, and of this number, 70 per cent are male. In addition, the average age for full professors is 53, associate professors, 47, and assistant professors, 42. Given this profile, it is reasonable to assume that the great majority of education faculty have had little exposure to multiculturalism during their formative years of professional development. Examination of the bibliographies of their publications and of the syllabuses for their courses (Grant and Koskela, 1986) indicate that their working knowledge of multicultural education is very limited.
   This demographic picture is not likely to change quickly. The percentage of persons of color receiving doctorates is half of their representation in the general population. The number of African Americans receiving PhDs has declined since 1976 (McKenna, 1989, p. 11).
2. The meaning of multicultural education has been, and very often still is, presented in an unclear manner. Authors usually do not clearly define what they mean by the term (Banks, 1977; Grant and Sleeter, 1985; Sleeter and Grant, 1988). As a result, some educators/authors include under the rubric of multicultural education only work related in some way to students of color or to some aspect of human diversity (Grant and Sleeter, 1985; Grant, Sleeter and Anderson, 1986). This lack of definition allows critics to either ignore multicultural education or view it as an idea without meaning and structure.
3. Monies to support multicultural research have been extraordinarily limited. Occasionally, isolated projects with multicultural education in the title receive funding. For example, Zeichner and Grant received $30,000 per year over three years from the Department of Education to prepare pre-service students to teach effectively diverse students in multicultural settings. However, such studies are the exception in educational funding. Also, of the research studies on multicultural pre-service and inservice programs that Grant and Secada reviewed (1990), only a few were supported with additional institutional, state, or federal funds. It is important here to point out that although federal monies regularly support the Bureau for Equal Educational Opportunity and Bilingual Centers, the contractual purposes of these Bureaus and Centers are to provide training and technical assistance to schools and parents. For example, the mission of the Upper Great Lakes Multifunctional Re source Center—one of the sixteen regional resource centers funded by the US Department of Education—is to ‘provide training and technical assistance to educators and parents in the education of students who have a limited proficiency in English (LEP)’ (Secada, 1989). The Centers and the Bureaus are not budgeted to conduct general research. Furthermore, research on the effectiveness of their training and technical assistance activities is not considered primary to the scope of their mission.
4. Academic ethnocentrism and elitism act to limit multicultural education research. Academic ethnocentrism has been discussed recently in a number of educational publications. For example, in an issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education (1988) scholars of color point out that, for a variety of reasons, their work frequently is not accepted as solid scholarship. In particular, they note that the standards used to judge work in the social sciences, including education, are not sufficiently independent of the personal interests of the reviewers. In other words, the criteria used for evaluation are ‘moving targets’ rather than a standard understood by all ahead of time. It is significant, these scholars of color argue, that these moving targets are artifacts of the perspectives of white males.
   Another form of academic ethnocentrism is expressed when reviewers hold that the work of scholars of color is only or mainly for people of color, and therefore not considered relevant for the majority of education scholars. Linda Grant (1988) has argued that patterns of ‘ghettoization’ exist in journal publication. She points out that articles on students of color in schools most often appear in journals that have a smaller specialized readership than mainstream journals. Staples (1984) earlier made a similar observation when referring to the general written scholarship of African-Americans. He concluded, ‘…few established white journals will publish the works of black scholars, work that generally challenges the prevailing white view of the racial situation. Most are forced to publish in black-oriented periodicals’ (p.).
   To avoid this ghettoization in journal publication, many scholars of color ‘play the game’, that is, abandon their desires to work from an ethnic perspective and instead work from a mainstream/traditional perspective. This point becomes doubly compounded because of the small number of scholars of color. Presently, even an informal review of conference papers and of published articles and books would point out that almost all of the research being conducted on educational problems and issues, including issues pertaining to people of color, is being conducted by white researchers.
   Academic elitism is sometimes experienced by white scholars who have an interest in multicultural research. This occurs when their colleagues—both white and of color—ridicule their interest in this line of research, and suggest it should be left to people of color. As one white scholar told me, some of his white colleagues question why he works in this area and advise him that research on this topic is, ‘their [people of color’s] problem’. Academic elitism in the form of patriarchy also is present when women (of color and white) who employ feminist ideologies and methodologies experience barriers to their research programs (Harding, 1987; Hartsock, 1987; Raymond, 1985).
   At the 1986 American Educational Research Association conference, the Sig for Examining the Application of Gender, Race, and Social Class in Educational Theory and Research was formed in part to ameliorate this academic elitism and ethnocentrism. The Sig is encouraging mainstream researchers to study the interactions between and among the actors in schools in terms of race, class, and gender issues.
5. The ghettoization of academic conference participants who are advocates of multicultural education acts to inhibit research in this area. At conferences or meetings, it frequently happens that only a few or no white males participate in or attend sessions that have ‘multicultural’, ‘gender’, or ‘minority’ in the title unless the work is ‘done on’ people of color. In other words, when researchers of color are presenting their research, relatively few white male researchers attend. However, when the session involves a white researcher discussing, for example, ‘blacks’, a good-sized audience of all colors attends. This ghettoization, although not documented, has become so commonplace that presenters and audience participants openly comment on it.
6. Formal and informal socialization about research methodology and academic expectations rarely entails multicultural education. It is well known that this kind of socialization often takes place in advanced level seminars. These seminars provide force not only for learning about research methodology and procedures. Popkewitz (1984) argues that,
   
   [A]s people are trained to participate in a research community, the learning involves more than the content or the field. Learning the exemplars of a field of inquiry is also to learn how to see, think about and act towards the world. An individual is taught the appropriate expectations, demands, and consistent attitudes and emotions that are involved in doing science. (p.)
   Courses at either the undergraduate or graduate level (let alone at the advanced seminar level) in multicultural education are rarely available at colleges or universities.¹ The absence of seminars and other forums for analysis and debate about multicultural education undercuts conceptual development in this area and discourages young scholars from becoming involved in this field.
7. A lack of leadership by scholars of color is another reason multicultural education research hasn’t flourished. It could be argued, based upon civil rights history, that until scholars of color assume prominent leadership positions in determining research directions, educational programs for students of color and all female students will be flawed and progress will be slow.

There are, no doubt, additional reasons why multicultural education research has not flourished. These, as well as the reasons discussed above, act as resistance, or barriers to change (Zaltman and Duncan, 1977) and are probably impeding the development of research on multicultural education in institutions. An understanding of these resistances will, according to Rubin et al. (1974), give valuable insights into the nature of the university, ‘who it is’, and what it considers valuable research.

What Multicultural Research Needs to Take Place

Multicultural research must be carried out on all areas of schooling, including school routines and interactions, teaching and learning practices, and the effects of educational policy and practices. A few illustrations of prominent research themes will help to make this clear.

Research on Teaching

The Third Edition of the Handbook of Research on Teaching (1986) has identified five major areas presently receiving research attention: Part I: Theory and Method of Research on Teaching; Part II: Research on Teaching and Teachers; Part III: The Social and Instructional Context of Teaching; Part IV: Adapting Teaching to Differences Among Learners; and Part V: Research on the Teaching of Subjects and Grade Levels. These five parts are divided into thirty-five chapters, each of which includes a bibliography listing the research studies reviewed. It seems logical, given the great student diversity in the nation’s schools and the civic mission of schooling, that a careful study of teaching must take into account multiculturalism. For example, in Part II, Chapter 11, ‘Students’ Thought Processes’, Whittrock, the Handbook editor, explains that ‘…research on students’ thought processes examines how teaching and teachers influence what students think, believe, feel, say, or do that affects their achievement’ (p. 297). He further explains how teachers influence student achievement: ‘…the distinctive characteristic of the research on students’ thought processes is the idea that teaching affects achievement through students’ processes. That is, teaching influences student thinking. Student thinking mediates learning and achievement’ (p. 297). In reviewing the research in this area, his discussion includes: teacher expectations, student behavior, student self-concept, students’ perception of schools, teachers, and teachers’ behavior. It would be reasonable to conclude that these are important areas to study. It is also reasonable to conclude that research that takes into account multiculturalism is vital to these areas of study. For example, the educational literature is replete with accounts of students of color self-concepts’ being detrimentally affected by school policies and practices (Beane and Lipka, 1987; Combs and Snygg, 1959; Kvaraceus, et al., 1965; Rosenfeld, 1971). In fact, the issue that school segregation led to low self-esteem among blacks was a major argument offered by the social scientists who testified in Brown v. Board of Education. The literature is also replete with reports of how teachers’ behavior has negatively affected low income students, students of color and female students (Gouldner, 1978; Rist, 1970; Grant and Sleeter, 1986a&b; Payne, 1984). Research that includes multiculturalism would make certain that students’ ascribed characteristics (race, class and gender) are analyzed within the context of the above mentioned research areas, or it would address this omission if this were the case. Yet, such research studies were not included in this piece.

It can be concluded that the Handbook would be of greater benefit to educators if multiculturalism had been included in more of the chapters.

Teacher-student Interaction

Very closely related to teachers and teaching is the research on ‘interactions’ between teachers and students. For example, differences in interactions between teachers and students attributable to race/ethnicity and gender have been observed to account for differences in student performance (Brophy and Good, 1984; Fennema and Peterson, 1986; Reyes, 1981). Also, research on expectancy ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Introduction
• Part 1: The Marginalization of Multicultural Discourse
• Part 2: Conducting Multicultural Education Research
• Part 3: The Social Impacts of Multiculturalism In Education
• Notes On the Contributors