What’s the Problem? Discourse, Refusal, and the Possibility of Research on Our Own Terms

• In Event: Imaginative Sociology: Disrupting Epistemic Apartheid to Transform Education and Society

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to explore the possibilities that emerge when sociological research of education policy on so-called controversial topics refuses to respond to rightwing criticism and attack, and instead critically engages and frames issues on our own terms. Presently, the framing around issues such as racism, segregation, and gender identity is often plagued by the arguments of far-right pundits. Scholars of these topics are left with two choices: to engage with this rhetoric in order to refute it, or to follow an alternative research agenda. By using qualitative methodologies such as framing (Goffman, 1974) and discourse analysis (Ball, 1993; Fairclough, 2013; Gee, 2002) to explore the ideologies behind critique and explore alternative approaches, we can resist what Eve Tuck calls damage-centered research (Tuck, 2009), scholars have the opportunity to create and engage with alternative discourses and frames for these issues, allowing for a more holistic analysis.

This presentation utilizes critical discourse analysis as a form of critical policy analysis for exploring sociological questions about education policy. Taken together as both theory and method, CDA serves as a rigorous, empirical approach to the analysis of meaning making. According to Jorgenson & Phillips (2002), discourse is a “particular way of talking about and understanding the world (or an aspect of the world)” (p. 1). When using a policy-as-discourse approach, policy is not just what governments or other decision making authorities do, but also what these legislative bodies refuse to do or ignore. Policy as discourse considers how an issue is formed, discussed, and what possible solutions exist to address a given issue. Policy as discourse also interrogates how ideologies are built into language (Henze & Arriaza, 2006; Taylor, 1997). Discourse enables an object or reality to come into being (and subsequently, how some phenomena become a problem) (Foucault, 1982). In this sense, discourse and power are linked, as are politics and the institutional production of discourse. By thinking of policy as discourse, one can make sense of how a policy problem that was largely invisible just a decade ago has become such a volatile and urgent issue in the United States.

This paper draws examples from the author’s original research, a critical policy analysis (Ball, 1993; Diem et al., 2019; Young & Diem, 2018) of the implementation of “progressive” inclusive education policies for trans and gender-expansive students in order to understand what policies actually do in schools. For example, rather than engaging with critique about whether trans high schoolers should be allowed to participate in athletics, this study instead interviewed athletes and their teammates to understand their lived experiences. This reveals a gap between the problem produced by the media and the reality experienced by young athletes.

While it is crucial to document the effects of harmful policy and the resistance efforts, instead understanding the ideologies embedded in critique as well as possibilities for alternative futures allow researchers to avoid engaging in damage-centered research and instead make space to dream and create more just futures through knowledge production.

Author

• Anna Kushner, Teachers College, Columbia University