A critical duoethnography of language and race

• In Event: Protesting through and with language

Proposal

Problem
Educators across the globe are grappling with how to respond to some of the questions set forth in the call for submissions for the CIES 2024 annual conference. “What pedagogies might our education institutions and sets of classrooms embrace that enable the development of capacities to act?” “How might we [decolonize] these resources under conditions of coloniality?” “How do wider socio-economic and political circumstances . . . limit our capacity to protest?” Lofland (2017) explains that protest is “collective action aimed at achieving significant social or personal change opposed to central institutions” (p. 24). Eisinger (1973) adds that “protest harnesses aggressive impulses by controlling and, to some extent, masking them, while violence gives free reign to these impulses” (p. 14).

This paper presents a duoethnography of two educators from strikingly different backgrounds and their efforts to protest against oppressive systems at different institutions of education. One of the researchers, Alicia (pseudonym), is a Black woman teaching English at a large Christian k12 school in the Southeastern United States. Her students come from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds. The other researcher, Scott (pseudonym) is a White man teaching English at a small liberal arts college in the Southeastern United States, a Predominantly Black Institution (PBI), that also comprises students from various cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
In this paper, they engage in a dialogue, recounting the ways in which they balance their epistemologies and identities, both rooted firmly in the tenants of social justice and decoloniality, with the politics, demands, and duties of their respective administrators. Sawyer and Norris (2012) explain that “in duoethnography the research questions are often initially liminal and ill-defined; they emerge from the stories, coming to frame them” (p. 34). Nevertheless, both researchers were interested in understanding the following:
1. How do our identities affect our respective attempts to decolonize our curriculum and praxis?
2. How do our settings promote or prohibit our capacity to protest?

Conceptual Framework
Both Alicia and Scott recognize the value of providing students with rigorous education that while problematizing taken-for-granted curriculum and pedagogy. They both espouse the tenants of culturally and linguistically responsive and sustaining pedagogy (Cummins, 2001; Esteban-Guitart & Moll, 2014; Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Lucas, 2010) and critical pedagogy (Fairclough, 2013; Freire, 1970). Alicia’s area of pedagogy focuses on language and literature in secondary education. Her teaching and research have been informed by multicultural education and Sims Bishop’s (1990) work on culling literature that creates “windows, mirrors, and sliding doors” for her students. Scott teaches English composition and English for Academic Purposes in higher education. His research and teaching have been informed by Baker Bell’s (2020) work on linguistic justice in classrooms with speakers of Black English and work on decolonizing tertiary education (Jansen, 2017; Mbembe, 2016; Ndlovu-Gatsheni, 2013; Ramose, 1998).

Method
The researchers were both members of the same cohort in a Master of Education program in the mid 2000s. Upon graduation, their continued friendship opened the door to discussions about language, race, spirituality, identity, pedagogy, and power. The researchers both went on to pursue their terminal degrees; both have researched the intersection of language, power, and education. Eventually, the researchers conducted evocative critical autoethnographies in their respective settings. This methodology allowed the researchers to portray the dramatic unfolding of personal thoughts and reflections as they relate to power within a wider culture (Ellis & Bochner, 2000; Poulos, 2021). After their respective research write-ups, the researchers conducted a duoethnography, or what Norris and Sawyer (2012) refer to as “collaborative field testing” (p. 12). Ellis argues that “duoethnography is, in essence, intersecting autoethnographies” (p. 120). Breault (2016) adds that “in reporting the duoethnographic process to the reader, the voices of each researcher are made explicit throughout the narrative. It is important that the stories of each participant rest in juxtaposition to the other” (p. 778).

Findings
The researchers found similarities and differences in their reflections and experiences. They challenged each other to consider times in which assimilation was necessary and pragmatic and times when it meant “selling out” for only short-term gains. Alicia recounts that the “assimilation [she] had forced upon [herself] did not reflect [her] authentic colored self. Thus, [her] reflections often allowed [her] to seek truth in [her] experiences.” In essence, the resultant difficulties of enacting a pedagogy of social justice challenged her very identity. Scott, on the other hand, explains that “the complicated power dynamics left him flying under the radar when possible, vocalizing dissent when necessary, and struggling to balance his responsibilities to the administration as an untenured professor with his firm commitment to decolonizing curriculum.” While both educator researchers are working in politically conservative parts of the country that are currently debating issues of curriculum reform, book bans, and critical theories, Alicia admitted that the religious nature of her institution added greater demands and complexity. Both researchers noted their lack of agency and inability to decolonize the curriculum in a way that breaks systemic oppression. While Scott noted his privilege in race and gender, he still felt a lack of power given his position as an untenured faculty member in a politically conservative state. While he had no direct confrontations, his administrators were implicit and explicit in communicating that he was for him to teach through deficit framing, helping students to attain proficiency in Standard Academic English (SAE) and to be more “professional” in their writing. Alicia, on the other hand, noted that her very identity was challenged on all sides. She had heated discussions with coworkers, administrators, and parents about curricular choices.

Conclusion
Breault (2016) explains that “the praxis-oriented theory–practice conversation inherent in duoethnographies means that they are of potential interest to both academics and practitioners” (p. 779). This dialogic nature of this duoethnography offers other educators across the globe insight into the struggles faced by educators struggling with the seemingly illusory task of placating administrators and parents in their pedagogical choices while concomitantly enacting social justice and decoloniality. They leave the reader with the task of protesting systems of oppression.

Authors

• John M Knipe, Converse University

• Shawnteria D Mack, Florida International University