CRT Ain't for Everybody: The Current Status and Dilemma of Critical Race Theory in Social Studies Research

• In Event: 66.038 - Renewed Risks of Race Talk: Discussing Race in K–12 Classrooms, Teacher Education Courses, and Research

Abstract

Brokered into education in the mid-1990s, critical race theory (CRT) in education (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) has found utility as a theoretical and analytic framework. Albeit, CRT’s omnipresence as as a theoretical framework for the examination of racism in education should be perceived with skepticism. Ladson-Billings (1998) cautioned that CRT would become the “darling of the radical left” (p. 22), misappropriated with very little understanding of its legal origins or its power to speak against institutional racism. Such is the case with social studies education, whose attention to matters of race and racism as a profession is scant (Brown & Brown, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 2003; Marshall, Manfra, & Simmons, 2016; Tyson, 2003; Woodson, 2016) despite a growing presence of CRT research. When used for the sake of use, CRT, like other critical theories of race risk losing their criticality (Leonardo, 2013). That is, CRT only serves as rhetoric, thus losing its currency to truly critique and ultimately work towards the eradication of racial apparatuses in education (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Leonardo, 2014).

In an effort to reclaim its criticality, the purpose of this study is to retreat to the origins of CRT in education which inherently engaged conceptions of citizenship (Ladson-Billings, 1998, 2013; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). This systematic review of CRT in social studies education research juxtaposes the current canon of research with the original tenets of CRT. To that end, I ask the following research questions:

1. Based on a systematic review of the literature, how is CRT manifest in social studies education research?
2. In what ways does social studies research which directly engages with CRT adhere to the criticality of CRT as suggested in foundational research?

To frame and analyze the research, I use the original tenets of CRT in education. To be clear, CRT began to take on an alternative version of itself via various iterations of CRT which emerged proceeding Ladson-Billings (1998) and Ladson-Billings and Tate’s (1995) original iteration of CRT in education (ie: Solorzano & Yosso, 2002). These iterations became intertwined with the “quest for social justice”, immediately reframing CRT as another catch-all paradigm. Therefore, the tenets that guide this study are as follows (Ladson-Billings, 2013, p. 37):

1. Belief that racism is normal or ordinary, not aberrant.
2. Interest convergence or material determinism.
3. Race as a social construction.
4. Intersectionality and anti-essentialism.
5. Voice or counter-narrative.

Using the keywords that included “critical race theory" and “social studies education”, I examined educational databases such as ERIC, EbscoHost, JSTOR, and Google Scholar. Relevant book chapters were also included in the analysis. In total 167 scholarly manuscripts were analyzed. Preliminary findings indicate that CRT research lends towards conceptual analysis with very few empirical analyses. Furthermore, CRT research in social studies education tends to be misappropriated, prioritizing the experiences of white students, educators, and researchers rather than the epistemologies and experiential knowledge of communities of color. Returning to the original intentions of CRT, I conclude that we heed Ladson-Billings (1998) initial warnings to use CRT with caution, as it is not for everyone.

Authors

• Christopher L. Busey, University of Florida

• Tianna Dowie-Chin, University of Florida