"Bossy," "Boy," and "Urban": Troubling Coded Language in Mathematics Education Research

• In Event: 18.049 - Advancing Methods for Studying Social Identities in Mathematics Education: New Possibilities and Perspectives

Abstract

Language is an ever-changing, context-dependent phenomenon that shifts over time, place, person, and interpretation (Bakhtin, 1986; Goodwin & Heritage, 1990). This paper argues that the employment of language is consequential for identity-related processes. Language laden with subtext—what we refer to as coded language—is a multimodal type of discourse that can appear harmless, but wields power by recruiting people into harmful subject positions (Foucault, 1975). Coded language is significant because although it does not explicitly invoke social markers (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender, sexuality), coded language (especially its repeated use) can potentially do harm by covertly denigrating social groups or distorting their realities.
In this paper, we analyze two spaces within mathematics education research where coded language figures prominently: 1) coded language in social interactions situated in learning settings (e.g., mathematics classrooms), which poses an analytical challenge for empirical researchers; and 2) coded language in published or reviewed manuscripts, which poses a challenge for writers and reviewers of published research. We analyze six words and phrases that are used prominently across these two spaces, and which we argue function as coded language in mathematics education: “boy,” “you,” “bossy,” “urban,” “Title 1,” and “English Language Learner (ELL).” In terms of theoretical perspective, we draw on research from sociolinguistics: Hill’s (2009) explication of how linguistic ideologies influence our interpretations of language and Ochs’s (1992) notion of indexicality, which explains how coded language invokes societal narratives about social identities without explicitly referencing them. The following questions guide our analysis: What might empirical researchers consider as they grapple with coded language in their data and/or in the work they publish? How might researchers describe their participants and research contexts so as to address concerns with coded language?
The objective of this paper is to advance the field’s awareness, understanding, and practice by detailing a robust theorization of coded language and its functions. We provide illustrations of how to identify and analyze coded language and alternatives that could be considered. We conclude by posing guiding questions for researchers engaged in empirical research and the manuscript review and production process to consider, as a way of provoking more conscientious approaches to coded language.

Authors

• Niral Shah, University of Washington

• Missy D. Cosby, Michigan State University

• Sandra M. Crespo, Michigan State University

• Imani Masters Goffney, University of Maryland - College Park

• Victoria M. Hand, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Crystal A. Kalinec Craig, The University of Texas - San Antonio

• Marcy B. Wood, The University of Arizona