Vol. 74. No. 3, pp. 309-327.©2008 Council for Exceptional Children.

Exceptional Children

Beyond Research On CulturalMinorities: Challenges andImplications of Research asSituated Cultural Practice

ANGELA E. ARZUBIAGA

ALFREDO J. ARTILES

KATHLEEN A. KING

NANCY HARRIS-MURRIArizona State University

ABSTRACT: This artick examines the cultural nature of research. This is a consequential idea as

research knowledge is expected to inform professional practices for our increasingly multicultural

society. We highlight theoretical and methodological limits ofthe traditional practice of research on

cultural groups and outline research as situated cultural practice. This notion challenges

researchers to widen the analytic spotlight from a focus on certain groups to shed light on two addi-

tional aspects, namely, the sociocultural location ofthe researcher as a cultural being and member

of a scientific field, and the cultural presuppositions in a field's habitual practices. We outline a

model of culture that underlies the idea o/research as situated cultural practice. We illustrate this

notion with quantitative and qualitative research examples and reflect on implications for future

research.

esearchers have conductedstudies on cultural minoritiesas a means to produce knowl-edge that can be used to servethe educational and psycho-

logical needs of our increasingly multicultural so-ciety. Although this is an important strategy toproduce research knowledge that is responsive toheterogeneous populations, it falls short on severalkey theoretical grounds. Thus, this article exam-ines theoretically the cultural nature of research.

We pursue this goal by developing two arguments;namely, we highlight the theoretical and method-ological limits of the traditional practice of re-search on cultural minority groups and outline theidea of research as situated cultural practice. Instead

of devoting efforts to do research on certain mi-nority groups as special cases, we assume humansare cultural beings. The term "minority" is notused to reflect numerical representation. Instead,we use Cibson's (1991) definition of minority todescribe groups that occupy a "subordinate

Exceptional Children 3 0 9

position in a multiethnic society, suffering fromthe disabilities of prejudice and discrimination,and maintaining a separate group identity. Eventhough individual members of the group may im-prove their social status, the group itself remains ina subordinate position in terms of its power toshape the dominant value system of the society orto share fully in its rewards" (p. 358).

The notion of research as situated culturalpractice proposes that what drives research, itspurposes and uses, how meaning is made duringthe implementation of research practices, and theknowledge and representations that are producedare culturally and socially mediated and negoti-ated processes. The idea of research as situatedcultural practice requires that the analytic spot-light be widened from an exclusive focus on cer-tain groups to shed light on two additionalaspects. These are the sociocultural location of theresearcher as an individual and a member of a sci-entific field, and the cultural presuppositions inthe habitual practices of a field (e.g., theoreticalcategories, data collection and analysis tools;Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992; Goodwin, 2002;Latour, 1999; Rosaldo, 1993). We define prac-tices as "actions that are repeated, shared withothers in a social group, and invested with norma-tive expectations and with meanings or signifi-cances that go beyond the immediate goals of theaction" (Miller & Goodnow, 1995, p. 7).

Our analysis is based on the premise that re-search is one of the best tools societies have togenerate knowledge in systematic ways, to informprofessional practice, and ultimately to help moldthe future of our communities (King, 1968). Wemust refine how research is theorized in psychol-ogy and special education as researchers respondto the rapid and ongoing transformation of thesociodemographic profile of the school popula-tion. (Although we present examples from specialeducation and psychology, the literature fromwhich we draw to make our arguments is interdis-ciplinary and has applications for the social sci-ences in general.) Gurrent demographic trendschallenge researchers to produce knowledge basesthat respond to the needs of growing groups ofcultural minority students and to address thelongstanding pattern of unequal outcomes (e.g.,educational performance) across majority and mi-nority groups of students (Lee, 2002).

The bulk of responses to addressing theneeds of growing groups of cultural minoritiesand the pattern of unequal outcomes have beentwofold: to ignore diversity or to make use of it(Gole, 1998). Examples ofthe former include En-glish-only curricula and pedagogical approachesadopted in states like Arizona, Massachusetts, andGalifornia. In contrast, efforts that make use ofdiversity include multicultural approaches andculturally responsive pedagogy (Banks & Banks,2004). Many of these efforts are grounded in re-search on the cultural traits and practices of vari-ous groups that are then infused in psychologicaland educational interventions. In these ap-proaches, groups' cultural and linguistic practicesare used as bridges to enhance the educational ex-periences and performance of these students (Gal-lego, Gole, & LGHG, 2001). However, asexplained in the following, many of these effortshave significant theoretical limitations. Instead ofrelying on traditional research that focuses on thecultures represented in classrooms, we proposethe idea of research as situated cultural practice.

BACKGROUND AND FOUNDATIONS

OF RESEARCH AS SITUATED

CULTURAL PRACTICE

The idea of research as situated cultural practice isgrounded in interdisciplinary scholarship thatuses a more dynamic and complex view of cultureand links it systematically to human develop-ment. We integrate ideas from the sociology ofscience, cultural psychology, and anthropology(among others) to articulate the notion of re-search as a situated cultural practice (Gole, 1996;Engestrom & Middleton, 1998; Goodwin, 2002;Greeno, 1998; Latour, 1999; Rosaldo, 1993). Theassumptions and implications of this idea are atthe basis of a sociocultural paradigm. A centralassumption of sociocultural research on childdevelopment, for example, is the "cultural andhistorical embeddedness of the inquiry itself"(Rogoff & Ghavajay, 1995, p. 871; see also Ro-goff & Angelillo, 2002). Unfortunately, re-searchers in psychology and special educationhave either ignored culture or used definitionswith problematic assumptions.

3 I O Spring 2008

LEGACIES AND RISKS OF

CULTURE-BLIND FIELDS

Researchers in psychology and special educationoften work today in predominately culture-blindfields. Systematic analysis of empirical studiespublished over substantial periods of time in peer-refereed journals in psychology, special education,and school psychology show that researchers haveneglected to ask questions, or to documentand/or analyze data that would shed light on therole of culture in human development and pro-vide alternative explanations for student achieve-ment and behavior other than student deficits,which are often assumed with minority group sta-tus (Donovan & Gross, 2002; Graham, 1992;Santos de Barona, 1993).

Gulture-blindness is an ideology that perme-ates many spheres of social activity, including re-search practices. This ideology assumes thatequity in a democratic society is achieved by ig-noring cultural differences and that culture andcultural differences are inconsequential. Gulture-blindness prevents researchers from focusing ex-plicitly on urgent issues that matter in today'schanging world, such as questions related to theperpetuation of systems of advantage for certaingroups or the racial stratification of societies.

The special education community has alsoneglected the role of culture in human develop-ment. Artiles, Trent, and Kuan (1997) found thatless than 3% of studies published in a 22-year pe-riod in four influential special education peer-re-viewed journals paid attention to even surfacecultural markers, such as student race/ethnicityand social class. Perhaps the most compelling evi-dence of the legacy of culture-blindness in specialeducation research practices is found in the recentNational Academy of Sciences report on minoritystudents in special education (Donovan & Gross,2002). The authors acknowledged, for example,that "analysis for this report of the effect ofrace/ethnicity on special education placement oroutcomes was made more difficult because manyresearch studies did not specify the racial/ethniccomposition of the sample or had too few minor-ity children to measure effects by race/ethnicity"(p. 381).

These findings suggest that culture-blindnesspermeates research practices in these fields. Gul-

ture-blind research has potentially costly conse-quences for a nation that is changing so rapidlyalong cultural lines. Gan we afford to inform pol-icy and practice with research knowledge gener-ated from the perspective of only the mainstreamgroup in society? "[W]hat happens to the scholar-ship when some voices are privileged and someare silenced, or worse, ignored?" (Walker, 2005, p.35). Researchers must acknowledge this silenceand acknowledge the silences that enter inquiryprojects at various points of the research process(e.g., problem/question formulation, sampling,instrumentation, data collection and analysis, re-porting). Although the cited research reviews fo-cused on surface markers of culture (e.g.,ethnicity, language background), it is not onlyimportant to acknowledge the need to transcendthe use of these indices of culture, but also to ac-knowledge the limitations inherent in traditionalviews of culture.

ADDRESSING SCHOOLS' GROWING

DIVERSITY: CONCEPTUAL LIMITS OF

TRADITIONAL VIEWS OF CULTURE

Research that makes use of diversity can begrounded in views of culture that have importanttheoretical limitations with significant method-ological ramifications. For instance, this line ofwork is often based on the assumption that onlycertain groups in our society possess culture.Thus, researchers from the dominant group in so-ciety (i.e.. White and middle class) assume thattheir activities, assumptions, • iues, and practicesare not cultural (Sue, 1999).

Moreover, it is often as>umed that the cul-tures of minority groups are monolithic and static(Artiles, 2003). For example, discursive practicesof African Americans are described as if thesepractices never change and are used in the samefashion by all members of this group. Method-ologically, therefore, it is expected that researchersonly need to recruit members of a target commu-nity because those individuals carry the same cul-tural information as their fellow members.Researchers proceed to document the culturaltraits and practices of samples and subsequentlyderive applications for educational and psycholog-ical models and programs that presumably applyequally to all members of that community. It is

Exceptional Children 31 1

assumed that the patterns of practices docu-mented reflect the essence of these groups and re-main unaltered across time and spaces (see Artiles,2003 and Gole, 1996 for discussions of such prac-tices in research programs).

These assumptions limit the applications ofthis line of research in policy and practice. For in-stance, research on cultural groups might aim toderive psychological and educational interven-tions uniquely suited to the particular characteris-tics of distinct cultural groups of students.Nevertheless, several questions can be raisedabout the assumptions underlying this ap-proach—for example, is it realistic to developgroup-specific models in a society in which in-creasingly more groups are represented, particu-larly in schools? Furthermore, the culturalpractices of disparate groups are differentially val-ued by mainstream society—for example, the nar-rative styles of children from certain linguisticgroups and dialectal variations of English are de-valued in schools (Lee, 2007; Smitherman, 2001).How would differences in group status be re-flected in the design of intervention models? Howwould such equity concerns be addressed? Theseissues have significant implications for inappro-priate referrals to various services such as specialeducation, as well as for assessment practices thatare considered uniformly appropriate for groupsof students defined by labels such as English Lan-guage Learners (ELLs).

In addition, research on cultural minoritygroups is often construed as a special case of re-search, often reduced to the use of distinct sam-pling strategies (e.g., recruit members of groupstraditionally underrepresented in research stud-ies). This assumption is often refiected in the or-ganization of scholarly volumes in which a centralconstruct is covered across various chapters—forexample, learning disabilities interventions orpartnerships with families—and one chapter isdevoted to "diverse groups" (i.e., ethnic minoritygroups). Again, the premise is that disabilities orfamily life are not cultural; culture becomes aconsideration only in relation to certain groups."The difficulty is that with rare exceptions . . .these populations are treated, in one way or an-other, as problems" (Gole, 2000, p. 374). A re-lated assumption is to view culture as anindependent variable in which the traits or prac-

tices of certain groups are assumed to cause be-haviors—for example, membership in a culturalgroup (e.g., ethnic minority) will determine howa student thinks, learns, or relates to others(Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003).

These are limited assumptions about cultureand its role in human development. Researchersneed to enhance the approaches that make use ofdiversity. More specifically, we envision special ed-ucation and psychology research as situated cul-tural practice. This means special education andpsychology research must be based on a view of"human nature that places culture at the center ofits concerns" (Gole, 1998, p. 291). This is a fun-damental idea because culture becomes ubiqui-tous and requires that researchers tackle severalchallenges related to the study of the cultural na-ture of learning and development. For instance,researchers are compelled to investigate questionsthat

(1) do not reify culture in terms of specificbehavioral or attitudinal characteristics; (2)do not isolate cultural particularities fromthe economic, social, political, and historicalcontexts in which they appear and function,but rather take these contexts into account;and (3) recognize cultural adaptation andimprovisation. (Paradise, 2002, p. 230)

An important implication is that researchers inspecial education and psychology need to discon-tinue culture-blind research practices and avoidthe use of a view of culture that is static, neatlybounded across groups, and indexed as a group orindividual trait (e.g., ethnicity). Instead, we sug-gest, a cultural historical model.

BEYOND RESEARCH ON CULTURAL

GROUPS: A SOCIOHISTORICAL VIEW

OF CULTURE

The preceding discussion suggests that researchersneed to account for the dynamic and instrumen-tal nature of culture in research efforts (Erickson,2002). Thus, we outline several central premisesof a cultural historical model, also known as so-ciocultural or sociohistorical (Rogoff, 2003). Thisperspective assumes human development and be-havior are cultural and that the nature of socialinstitutions (e.g., schools, workplaces, families)also has a cultural character (Rogoff). This means

3 1 2 Spring 2008

culture is not just what other people do. A relatedtheoretical premise is that human activity is medi-ated by (material or psychological) cultural arti-facts such as beliefs, values, customs, traditions,tests, literacy practices, and interview protocolsthat embody historical assumptions about theirappropriate or expected uses. Even developmentalskills and strategies traditionally considered uni-versal (such as voluntary attention and attentionmanagement by children and their mothers) aremediated by cultural processes and practices(Ghavajay & Rogoff, 1999). Because human be-ings regularly interact with others and/or with thetools of culture, cultural mediation processesmust be examined historically (i.e., over time) totrace the origins and changes of developmentalprocesses.

This means special education andpsychology research must be based on a

view of "human nature that placesculture at the center of its concerns. "

From this perspective, culture is "an im-mense, distributed, self-regulating system consist-ing of partial solutions to previously encounteredproblems" (Gole, 1998, p. 294). Obviously, notevery member of a cultural community is exposedto or learns all aspects of a culture; indeed, cultureis differentially distributed in patterned ways. Forinstance, researchers have documented howWhite middle and upper-middle class studentswith disabilities possess the cultural capitalneeded to advance their educational careers, in-cluding access to institutions of higher education(McGrath & Kuriloff, 1999). For this reason, cul-tural communities embody patterned ways of en-gaging with the world and within-communitydiversity.

One key component of this model of cultureis an explicit attention to power. Gulture is dis-tributed unevenly across the various members of acommunity, which creates hierarchies in whichaccess to and the possession of certain practices,knowledge, or other artifacts are endowed withgreater or lower values (Arzubiaga, 2007). Thesehierarchies have deep historical roots as they arereproduced (though often challenged) across gen-

erations. This is an important consideration be-cause, in addition to the cultural practices that in-dividuals and groups learn and use to mediatetheir actions, social institutions also embody his-torically grounded cultural practices that regulatepeople's behaviors (e.g., discursive rules for class-room talk or ways of relating to others at churchor at a school). Attention to institutional culturescan help us understand better how inequity is cre-ated and maintained for certain groups in our so-ciety. Examples of issues and contexts on whichthe role of institutional cultures can be studied in-clude the contributions of schools to the dispro-portionate representation of minority students inspecial education, the recent racial (re)segi-egationof schools and its concomitant differential alloca-tion of resources, the persistence of prejudice andstereotyping connected to school racial segrega-tion, and the limited opportunity to learn inschools experienced by immigrant students (Ar-tiles, Trent & Palmer, 2004; Frankenberg, Lee, &Orfield, 2003; O'Gonnor & Fernandez, 2006).

The sociohistorical model of culture outlinedin this section suggests that the analysis of devel-opmental and learning processes must be situatedin people's activities, whether they are located ineveryday routines or experimental simulations.This means researchers pay attention to the socialinteractions of participants. In turn, the analysisof the cultural work people do with each other isinformed by knowledge about what people bringto a given situation (e.g., past cultural practicesthat enable them to use thinking skills, language,knowledge, etc.) and the institutiohal cultures inwhich the interactions take place (McDermott,Goldman, & Varenne, 2006).

This view of culture affords researchers richpossibilities to pose more complex questionsabout development, learning, and instruction aridto understand the cultural communities served ineducational systems. This model allows re-searchers to maintain their traditional concernabout cultural patterning of various communities,but it also compels them to be attentive towithin-group diversity and to an individual's con-struction of identities across contexts and time(i.e., history). This is indeed an important theo-retical premise because it implies that people areactive agents engaged in the production and repro-duction of culture (Holland, Lachicotte, Skinner,

Exceptional Children 3 1 3

& Gain, 1998). It requires researchers to under-stand, not people's cultures, but how people liveculturally (Ingold, as cited in Moll, 1997, p. 194).It also affords the research community to re-imag-ine communities, particularly those historicallymarginalized and construed as culturally de-prived, devoid of resources, and/or culturally stag-nant (Artiles, Klingner, & Tate, 2006).

To summarize the arguments presented thusfar: We must refine how the notion of research istheorized for at least one compelling reason. Thatis, we must produce research that responds to thegrowing diversity of the student population acrossand within multiple contexts. The traditional re-sponse to this challenge has been to conduct re-search on cultural minorities. However, wediscussed how this practice is fraught with theo-retical and methodological limitations. Instead offocusing on culture as the exclusive possession ofcertain groups in society, we propose a view ofculture that defines the human experience; thus,culture is ubiquitous, dynamic, and has historicalroots. The technical work researchers do, there-fore, is seen as situated in complex activity set-tings that are imbued in cultural histories,assumptions, and practices. For example, there aredistinctive core assumptions about the human ex-perience that communities of researchers withindisciplines such as special education, psychology,sociology, anthropology, and linguistics use intheir work. This means culture mediates how re-searchers think, ask questions, collect and inter-pret evidence, and report findings; hence, weneed to understand research as situated culturalpractice.

UNDERSTANDING RESEARCH AS

SITUATED CULTURAL PRACTICE

Professional groups have developed guidelines andcriteria to judge the soundness and rigor of re-search studies and made recommendations for theuse of research techniques and strategies (e.g.,American Educational Research Association,2006; Odom et al., 2005). Most scientists con-ceptualize research as a purely technical enterprise(Latour, 1999). However, there are other dimen-sions of research practices that permeate the tech-nical requirements; specifically, personal, social.

and ideological dimensions. Gonsistent with a cul-tural historical view, we propose that these dimen-sions of research, including the technical, aregrounded in a cultural stratum. We ground ouranalysis in the substantial body of scholarshipproduced in the sociology of science and socialstudies of science (Knorr-Getina, 1999; Latour).This work suggests that actual "scientists' practicediffers from that of its idealized characterizations. . . real scientists in their daily work are anythingbut disinterested and canonically rational" (Erick-son & Gutierrez, 2002, p. 22).

[TJhere are distinctive core assumptionsabout the human experience that

communities of researchers withindisciplines such as special education,

psychology, sociology, anthropology,

and linguistics use in their work.

The technical activities and actions requiredto conduct research rely on the use of data collec-tion and analysis tools, strategies, and proceduresthat are grounded in cultural assumptions, tradi-tions, and values. Research strategies for data col-lection and analysis make visible or ignore aspectsof phenomena under study. For example, re-searchers make a variety of decisions when tran-scribing recorded interviews or interactionsamong participants. Some analysts might decideto transcribe only the content of participants' ver-balizations, whereas others might be interestednot only in what people say but also in how theysay it (e.g., nonverbal communication informa-tion such as pauses, voice intonation, gestures,gaze, etc.).

Another example of the cultural nature of re-search is the use of observational recording formsto code student behaviors during small-group co-operative work. Investigators might be interestedin using codes that reflect behavioral topographyto code on-task versus off-task behaviors. Otherresearchers might be interested in using recordingforms and codes that enable them to measure af-fective responses during joint attention. The pointis that researchers juxtapose recording forms(along with their embedded coding schemes) with

Spring 2008

the observed world, and, throughout this process,researchers engage in theory-building activitiesthat prompt them to include and note certainthings and ignore or discard others. The decisionsabout transcription strategies or recording behav-iors are grounded in assumptions about the phe-nomenon under study and the relevant indices tomeasure it. As Goodwin (2002) explained, "[t]hisis the place where the multifaceted complexity of'nature' is transformed into the phenomenal cate-gories that make up the work environment of ascientific discipline. It is precisely here that natureis transformed into culture" (p. S22).

Theoretical frameworks, research tools (e.g.,observation protocols, behavioral checklists,achievement or language proficiency tests), in-cluding researcher-designed tasks, embody theo-ries of competent performance that might not berelevant or meaningful to a study informant's his-tory of participation in his or her cultural com-munity (Rogoff, 2003). Thus, technical aspects ofresearch contour researchers' and study partici-pants' perceptual fields and mold how a phe-nomenon is defined and studied (Goodwin,2002).

We broaden the traditional exclusive focuson the technical dimension by highlighting thecultural work that is done to carry out the differ-ent aspects of research studies. This cultural workembodies (a) personal (what researchers bring totheir work such as assumptions, values, expecta-tions, repertoires of cultural practices); (b) social(interactions among researchers and between in-vestigators and study participants); and (c) ideo-logical (the values, beliefs, assumptions, andpractices that regulate and mediate the work andlives of researchers and participants in institu-tional settings) dimensions.

Researchers' and participants' interpretiveand analytical processes are mediated by their cul-tural biographies {personal dimension). Paredes(1984) and Rosaldo (1993) have analyzed theways in which well-meaning researchers use as-sumptions, knowledge from past experiences, andpreconceptions about the communities in whichthey work to make decisions during fieldwork.For example, researchers might ascribe particulartraits to entire cultural communities based on in-formants' statements made during interviews;however, it is feasible that a deep understanding

of nuanced cultural expressions such as localhumor could have changed substantially the in-terpretation of the informant's statement. Re-searchers can also mis-represent individuals orcommunities through the use of coding categoriesbased on stereotypical views of communities—forexample, immigrant mothers' reported disciplinepractices can be misinterpreted as authoritarianbecause of the lack of researchers' understandingof the social ecology of a community's social net-works and violence level (Arzubiaga, Geja, & Ar-tiles, 2000).

The social dimension permeates every aspectof the technical implementation of research. Forinstance, researchers working with colleagues todesign a study, or researchers instructing infor-mants on data collection peocedures engage incomplex social practices that entail interpretivework and reasoning processes to achieve sharedunderstandings of project tasks, or reach agree-ments on the meaning and goals of study activi-ties. These social processes (and their concomitantcognitive work) undoubtedly have a culturalbasis.

Time (i.e., history) is also a central factor inthis discussion. Research activities are enacted incomplex social contexts in which time plays a keymediating role. This means that the biographicaltrajectories (that include things like stances to-ward authority, values, preferred communicationstyles) of researchers and study informants medi-ate how they interact with one another. However,their interactions take place in institutional con-texts (e.g., school classroom, testing room, princi-pal's office, school cafeteria). These contexts alsoencode cultural practices built over time that de-fine people's roles, status and hierarchies, rules ofinteractions and communication, and how rou-tines should be enacted {ideological dimension).Institutional cultural practices have histories thatcreate structures of advantage or disadvantage fordifferent participants. For instance, the discursivepractices privileged in classrooms afford advan-tages to middle class students and can have im-portant consequences for students who are notfamiliar or have proficiency with such linguisticpractices (Lee, 2007). In short, multiple mediat-ing forces layer researchers' and study participants'interactions during research project activities(e.g., biographies, institutional practices) that

Exceptional Children 3 1 5

have deep historical meanings and consequences.People's performance in data collection tasks mustbe interpreted as shaped in part by these histori-cally grounded and contextual forces; hence, weemphasize the notion of situated cultural practice.

To conclude, the conduct of research requiresthe coordination of technical, personal, social,and ideological dimensions. This is an importantargument because it poses several critical demandson researchers beyond mastering techniques andmethods. We cannot discuss all the potential im-plications of this far-reaching argument here. Ourgoal is more modest. Rather, we discuss fieldworkissues that make visible research as situated cul-tural practice, and illustrate these fieldwork issueswith examples from quantitative and qualitativestudies.

RESEARCH AS A SITUATED

CULTURAL PRACTICE:

FIELDWORK EXEMPLARS

We discuss fieldwork issues that illustrate researchas situated cultural practice, namely, the composi-tion of the research team and sampling decisions,validity considerations in the design and imple-mentation of data collection procedures, and theroles of researchers during fieldwork. These re-search issues have been debated in various disci-plines such as sociology (Naples, 1996);anthropology (Van Maanen, 1995); cultural psy-chology (Cole, 1996); and education (Marshall &Rossman, 2006), and will illustrate the notion ofresearch as situated cultural practice.

RESEARCH TEAM COMPOSITION AND

SAMPLING PROCEDURES: COMPLICATING

THE IDEA OF "INSIDER "

Guidelines for effective research practices recom-mend the inclusion in research teams of key infor-mants from the communities (e.g., schools,neighborhoods) in which studies take place.These informants play important roles that rangefrom supporting entry to the target communities,to providing crucial information about the his-tory, practices, and needs of their communities.One of the challenges associated with this practiceis the researcher's lack of knowledge or under-standing of the community's cultural practices.

This risk is heightened in projects that entail ashort-term data collection phase.

Key informants, for instance, could share in-formation that is partially understood or even mis-interpreted by researchers because of their lack offamiliarity with the community's language and cul-tural practices. Paredes (1984) revisited several clas-sic anthropological studies with Chicanos(as) andMexican Americans and showed how EuropeanAmerican anthropologists failed to understand nu-ances and subtleties in the use of Spanish and otherlocal cultural practices. Paredes's scholarship, aswell as others, has called attention to various subtle(yet highly consequential) cultural aspects of re-searchers' work (Rosaldo, 1993; Stanfield & Den-nis, 1993). Potentially damaging consequencesinclude researchers' misunderstanding and misrep-resentation of communities' histories, practices,and needs. Examples are listed in Table 1.

Researchers face similar challenges in quanti-tative studies. Eor example, it is likely that re-searchers recruit samples in communities differentfrom their own socioeconomic and educationalbackgrounds, such as academically strugglinglearners or students with learning disabilities(LDs) in high-poverty schools. This is why it is al-ways critical that research teams reflect on the na-ture of their connection to the group beingstudied (Goodnow, 2002). This practice might as-sist researchers to proactively anticipate the infor-mants' perception of what researchers are doingand what they expect from informants. As Good-now explained,

an early lesson in cultural studies is that peo-ple often agree to what researchers ask out ofcourtesy, amusement, expected benefit, or asense of duress. The "ideal" group for thequestions we have in mind may also he un-willing to he involved or unlikely to respondas we hope they will. When we consider ouractions from others' points of view, we learna great deal ahout what people perceive assensible tasks, reasonable questions, appro-priate social behaviors, and the implicit so-cial agreements that are part of any situationthat involves testing, interviewing, or obser-vation, (p. 239, quotation marks in original)

Key informants or community insiders can play adecisive role in research projects in terms of facili-tating access to the target population and in the

Spring 2008

TABLE 1

Cultural Encounters in Research Projects and Their Potential Consequences

Cultural Encounters During Study Activities Reflections on Potential Consequences

Informants' perceptions of what the researcher'smain cultural community thinks of them.

The influence of researchers' affective responsesto informants.

The (often implicit) criteria used to recruit keyinformants.

The history of interracial or interclass contact thatinformants have with the researchers main culturalcommunity.

The history of trust toward mainstream institutionsthat informants might have developed over time.

What do low income Latino students perceive thatEuropean Americans think about them? How do theseperceptions mediate their performance in the study tasks?

How is the casual and informal demeanor of an AfricanAmerican researcher perceived hy immigrant Cambodianstudents?

How do narrow criteria related to social class andsurname produce skewed samples in Latino communities?

How does the history of conflict between NativeAmerican and White groups mediate Native Americanstudents' engagement with research tasks presented by aWhite researcher?

How do Black immigrant Haitian parents living in a statewhere anti-immigrant laws and policies are constantlydiscussed and presented daily on the local news engage ina parent involvement study?

Note. Content was drawn from Boesch, 1996; Goodnow, 2002; Paredes, 1984; and Rosaldo, 1993.

sampling process. Gueron (2001) discussed thesignificant benefits derived from random assign-ment (such as the increased reliability of estimatesof program impact) in her 25 years of experimen-tal research. She also warned, however, about thepolitics of random assignment that is often relatedto, among other factors, relying on communityleaders and key informants for gaining access tosites. If not handled carefully, study participantsmight refuse to participate in the research or in-troduce threats to the fidelity of interventions.

Gueron (2001) discussed several lessonslearned from her experimental work. We usedthese lessons to craft a hypothetical example thatillustrates the cultural work involved in the com-position of research teams and sampling proce-dures. The hypothetical example is anexperimental intervention to increase the readingachievement of ELLs with LDs. The study wouldbe conducted in a high-poverty community witha high proportion of ELLs and African Americanlearners. Many members of this communitywould be undocumented immigrants; as weknow, there are significant challenges related toobtaining informed consents from and designing

data collection procedures that render valid andreliable evidence with this population (Gornelius,1982). This would make sample recruitment anddata collection more difficult and lengthy. In ad-dition, the school staff might be torn about ran-dom assignment, particularly with regard tostudents in the control group ("All these studentsought to receive the intervention!" they mightsay). School staff might also raise sustainabilityquestions ("What will happen after you finishyour study and we stay behind with no resourcesto continue implementing the intervention?").These situations would open a difficult negotia-tion process to obtain informed consent thatcould threaten the implementation of the study;culturally knowledgeable leaders and key infor-mants can play crucial roles in resolving these sit-uations in ethical and professional ways (Gueron,2001). Moreover, school leaders and key infor-mants can be a critical source of support whenstaff training is carried out. School personnel areworking under immense pressure to meet NoChild Left Behind (NGLB) and the Individualswith Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) account-ability and inclusion requirements; key infor-

Exceptional Children 3 1 7

mants and leaders with a deep understanding ofresearch sites and school community histories canlay the groundwork to explain to overextendedschool personnel the purpose and potential bene-fits of the study, as well as the critical importanceof learning the study procedures during the train-ing sessions.

We have presented, thus far, examples of thechallenges and risks associated with working withcommunity insiders. It is also necessary, however,to raise questions about the very notion ofinsiders. The practice of recruiting insiders isbased on the assumption that culture is cohesive;that is, it is assumed that cultural communitiesare homogeneous. The logic behind this practiceis that key informants are knowledgeable abouttheir cultural community—these individuals areinsiders in the target communities. For example,researchers would recruit a Vietnamese personfrom the Vietnamese community in which theywill conduct a study about the experiences ofVietnamese parents of children with mental retar-dation (MR). Researchers would assume such aperson is both knowledgeable about the culture ofthe Vietnamese community and is considered aninsider by her fellow community members, in-cluding the Vietnamese parents of children withMR.

We made such an assumption in our selec-tion of an individual to assist us with our researchin a Latino community. (The project was fundedby Vanderbilt University's Learning Sciences Insti-tute. The Principal Investigators were AngelaArzubiaga, Alfredo J. Artiles, David Bloome, andVictoria Risko. The pilot research from whichthese examples are taken focused on the languagepractices and emergent biliteracy of ELLs whohad recently migrated to a southern state.) In ourattempt to choose a key informant who wasknowledgeable of and involved in the target com-munity, it became evident that the insider statuswas not a fixed position. Rather, the roles of in-sider and outsider are dynamic and socially nego-tiated through everyday practices (Holland et al.,1998). Our research team recruited a Latinawoman whose pseudonym is Alicia. She washighly recommended by the school as a leader ofthe Latina(o) immigrant community in a smallsouthern town. Her daughter attended the schoolin which we were doing our research, and she was

heavily involved in school activities. Field noteand journal evidence suggested that she was con-sidered an insider by Latinas(os) as reflected inthe many roles she played to support these Latinofamilies. For instance, she was a trusted inter-preter for many families wherever she was neededin the community (e.g., hospitals, courts, school).Indeed, Latino(a) parents had confianza (trust) inAlicia.

However, we also learned over time therewere important differences between Alicia and theother Latino families. Alicia's perspectives on cer-tain critical issues were not necessarily alignedwith the views of many members of the Latinoimmigrant community. For instance, manyLatino families supported bilingual educationprograms, whereas Alicia supported English im-mersion programs, which was the school's posi-tion. It became gradually apparent that Alicia wasnot always an insider in the Latino immigrantcommunity. We found out, for instance, that herAnglo married name positioned her as an outsiderin the minds of many Latino families. Further-more, her Anglo stepfather was born in theUnited States, which socialized her to the prac-tices of the dominant culture. She also informedus that while she lived in Mexico, English was thelanguage spoken at home. On the one hand, insome ways, Alicia was comfortable with and iden-tified with the mainstream Anglo culture of theUnited States. On the other hand, she identifiedherself as Latina and was fully conscious of thediscrimination Latinos(as) experienced in thistown; in fact, she related instances in which shefelt discriminated against for being Latina.

After we learned about Alicia's status as bothinsider and outsider in the Latino community,our team decided to create spaces within theresearch project to refiect and question the prob-lematic dichotomy of insider and outsider identi-ties. We expected these reflections and discussionswould inform Riture data collection and analysisefforts and decisions. In addition, we invited Ali-cia to some of the research team and school meet-ings with teachers so that she would have accessto our views on literacy and language instruction.We expected and found that access to our per-spective helped her to better understand the pur-pose of our project.

3 1 8 Spring 2008

To conclude, recruiting individuals who areconsidered insiders in a cultural community is alaudable and consequential strategy to support re-searchers' work in project activities such as entryto sites, sample recruitment, securing informedconsents, and staff training. Nevertheless, thereare significant risks associated with this practice.The examples described make visible the culturalnature of this research strategy because expecta-tions about the appropriateness of a person as aninsider who can also assume an ahistorical positionin a community is illusory. Researchers can inad-vertently essentialize cultural groups when theyassume that all members of a (professional, eth-nic, socioeconomic, linguistic, etc.) communityact and think the same way, when, in reality,"pure" or homogeneous cultures do not exist(Cole, 1998). In fact, the examples suggest thatthe construction of insider/outsider identities isalways a local accomplishment. Alicia's storyteaches us that researchers must strive to under-stand how people assume, but are also given, andco-construct multiple positions (e.g., insider, com-petent, engaged) across contexts, depending on ahost of forces that include local communities'practices and history, as well as a person's bio-graphical trajectory. Researchers face importantchallenges for the composition of research teamsand sampling strategies.

Of ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY AND POWER

IN DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

Attention to ecological validity helps us to under-stand the idea of research as situated culturalpractice. Ecological validity is defined as "the ex-tent to which behavior sampled in one setting canbe taken as characteristic of an individual's cogni-tive processes in a range of other settings" (Cole,1996, p. 222). Individuals' actions in experimen-tal conditions are expected to represent their typi-cal (cognitive, linguistic, social) performanceunder similar conditions across settings. Qualita-tive studies also focus on individuals' performancein the target natural settings with the expectationthat the recorded performance reflects partici-pants' routine ways. Ecological validity, on theother hand, requires that researchers understandthe difference between "sampling the occurrenceof psychological tasks in different environments

and sampling environments within which to engi-neer psychological tasks" (Cole, Hood, & McDer-mott, 1997, pp. 52-53). This is particularlyimportant because study participants may not befamiliar with researcher-designed tasks or proce-dures. Hence, the recorded behaviors might notoffer a valid instance of what the researcherswanted to examine in the first place (Cole, 1996).Unfortunately, interventions in psychology andspecial education are often designed with evi-dence obtained from ecologically invalid studies(Cole, 2000). On a positive note, researchers infields like developmental psychology are becom-ing more attentive to the sampling of everyday ac-tivities/tasks to gauge situational competence andincreasingly acknowledge the key role social inter-actions and interpersonal assistance play in devel-opmental processes (Goodnow, 2002).

Ecologically valid inquiry requires researchersto (a) target situations that are authentic to theperson's routine experiences and (b) work in set-tings that accurately resemble the individual's ev-eryday milieu (Cole, 1996). These requirementsrest on the assumption that there is an alignmentbetween researchers' and participants' understandingsof project goals and data collection activities.Gueron (2001), for example, advised quantitativeresearchers to help project participants under-stand how flexibility can (and cannot) be used inthe study procedures. She explained,

[s]ites that decide to participate sometimescome to vievvf the initial procedures as holywrit. They may nearly kill themselves tryingto follow them without realizing you mightbe able to make a change that will not matterto the research but that will make their livesmuch easier. They probably will have troubledistinguishing between rules central to thestudy and those that can be adjusted at themargins, (p. 39)

Lack of research teams' and participants' under-standing or confusion about the subtle but conse-quential issue of data collection flexibility mightthreaten the integrity of interventions. Again, thisissue depends largely on the participants' defini-tion of the situation (e.g., the study procedures)and its alignment with the researchers' perspective(Cole etal., 1997).

It is important to recognize there are multi-ple opportunities in the process of designing and

Exceptional Children

conducting research findings in which ecologicalvalidity can be violated. Let us examine, for exam-ple, some issues related to intervention studies.Experimental intervention procedures differ fromeveryday life in a number of ways. For instance,researchers and participants rarely know how theintervention tasks, procedures, or situations relateto the participants' routine ways to perform or usethe cognitive, linguistic, or social strategies pur-portedly tapped by the intervention (Lave, 1997).Gersten et al. (2005) recommend checking fi-delity implementation through the observation ofkey features of an intervention, like drawing vi-sual representations of a math problem. It is feasi-ble that researchers obtain a high fidelity index insuch a project, but the fidelity measure would notoffer any insight on whether study participantswere familiar with drawing visual representationsof abstract ideas using school-based math codes,or whether they were talented at representingsuch concepts with narrative or artistic means intheir daily routines. In short, the implementationof the intervention was conducted with high fi-delity, but the intervention practice was not eco-logically valid to gauge the participants' mathproficiency.

Experimental intervention procedures alsodiffer from everyday life in the timing of perfor-mance demands (Lave, 1997). A teacher might al-locate the required instructional time and enforcethe prescribed response latency in an early literacyintervention study that targeted traditional skillbased outcomes (e.g., nonsense word fluency,sound naming, blending, segmenting) that wouldresult in a high fidelity index. Nonetheless, atten-tion to ecological validity would assist us to un-derstand that several participating strugglingreaders could interpret the intervention as mean-ingless and boring, resulting in lack of engage-ment with the tasks or delayed responses that, inturn, would affect the impact of the intervention.

These are important ecological validity issuesresearchers must be mindful of during the imple-mentation of research projects. But even when re-searchers design procedures with ecologicalvalidity in mind, problems can arise. Let us illus-trate this point with an example from our pilotstudy on the emergence of biliteracy. A theoreticalpremise of our project was that reading is situatedwithin readers' sociocultural contexts that, in

turn, implies that reading research should be lo-cated in the realm of literacy and its practice (Lee,2007). This model of literacy compelled us to beconcerned with collecting evidence in partici-pants' everyday contexts, and, therefore, we de-signed data collection tasks with explicit attentionto ecological validity.

In addition to documenting literacy practicesat school across contexts and languages, we aimedto assess family literacy practices at home and inthe community. For this purpose, we gave videocameras to families to record daily literacy activi-ties. To our surprise, the video recordings t:hatfamilies produced depicted staged literacy eventsat home that mirrored traditional school literacypractices. For instance, we saw one of our targetstudents, Silvia (pseudonym), assume the role of apupil while her older sister became the teacherwho guided her to read a passage in English. Thesister spoke in a severe tone and extended com-mands, corrected Silvia's pronunciation, andrarely responded to her gestures. Other tapesshowed several episodes of Silvia sitting in frontof the camera with her books open, occasionallyturning the pages of her notebook or looking atthe camera. We realized that we neglected a cru-cial component of ecological validity, namely, thealignment between participants' definition of thedata collection procedure with the research team'sdefinition (Cole, 1996).

'. We deliberated how best to approach thisunexpected course of events. Researchers toooften may assume that clear and systematicallydelivered instructions ensure that study partici-pants share researchers' definitions of the data col-lection tasks. It is further assumed that whatparticipants do or say in data collection tasks (i.e.,their behaviors), refiect who they are, what theythink, and what they typically do outside of re-search contexts in the domain under scrutiny. Inour project, a blatant deviation from what we ex-pected to obtain made visible the fragility of theseassumptions. We were reminded that, "when wespeak, we afford subject positions to one another"(Holland et al., 1998, p. 26). Our instructions af-forded these families particular subject positionsas imitators of school teachers and pupils. Lan-guage mediated largely how we afforded these po-sitions. Noteworthy is that there is no term for"literacy" in Spanish. One would need to describe

3 2 0 Spring 2008

the idea at some length with some technical lan-guage in order to convey the concept. A literalSpanish translation of the word "literacy" is "read-ing and writing" (lecto-escritura), which obvi-ously does not reflect the complexity of thisconstruct. Framed this way, our directions sum-moned school-like activities and, thus, they af-forded the positions role-played by the families.

A couple of lessons ai'e worth mentioning.First, researchers must rertiember to distinguishbetween the production of an actual event (e.g.,the actual "literacy" evehts caught on video athome) and the meaningfulness of the event for thepeople that produced them (Bloome & Clark,2006). Although these families produced whatthey seemingly thought was a literacy event athome, we would need to gather additional infor-mation about how meaningful the observed eventis for the routine cultural practices of the family.This, of course, imposes additional demands onresearchers in terms of the duration and intensityof data collection. (The result of our team's reflec-tions and deliberations was that we changed howthe data collection task was framed. We opted fora more open-ended approach, and thus, we askedfamilies to video recoi-d their daily routines. Ourplan was to subsequently identify literacy prac-tices from those routihes through an iterative cod-ing process.)

Another lesson is that a participant's behaviorcannot be interpreted as embodying her funda-mental nature or her traits (e.g.. Latino student'shome literacy practices), but as the result of peo-ple's situated efforts to participate in cultural prac-tices in particular contexts. People's discourse andactions in a given situation refiect how they re-solve the constant tension between (a) the rulesprescribed by their cultural community and (b)the positions they assume in particular circum-stances and situations that compel them to nego-tiate, comply, or innovate (Holland et al., 1998).

The families in our research project definedthe data collection task as a request to role-playschool literacy activities. This could have been in-terpreted as a strange request. Nevertheless, thefamilies honored our petition. But why did theyacquiesce to such an unusual request? The answer,in part, is grounded in another critical aspect ofecological validity, namely, power. Life events, in-cluding research activities, do not take place in a

vacuum. Every situation or event is always im-bued with power. Where there are people, thereare roles, hierarchies, and, thus, power. An impor-tant fact documented consistently in the sociol-ogy and anthropology of education is thatcomniunities create subtle cultural differentia-tions within themselves through political pro-cesses in which power is the main currency(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992). In the UnitedStates, certain groups (e.g., people with disabili-ties, women, racial minorities, poor families,some recent immigrant groups) occupy a lowerstatus, and, thus, they wield less power (Rosaldo,1993). Over time, mainstream perceptions, val-ues, and stances toward these oppressed groupsget fossilized, thus, building up historical residuesthat permeate social interactions or institutionalpolicies. An example is the range of stereotypescreated about low-status groups with regard totheir abilities and values (e.g., poor families donot value education; poor African Americans havelimited mathematical abilities but excel in the artsand sports) and the pernicious consequences ofsuch stereotypes on these individuals' perfor-mance in certain domains (Steele, 1997). Harryand Klingner's (2006) 3-year study of minoritiesin special education documents a host of exam-ples in which negative historical residues aboutminority children and families mediated howschool personnel represented them as dijferent(e.g., disabled) and lacking.

Researchers can no longer assume that studyresults represent a view from nowhere. All re-searchers bring perspectives, assumptions, and ex-pectations to their labor that are cultural in natureand shape the work done in their projects. Butculture and power are not only indexed in peo-ple's perspectives, they are encoded in the cate-gories and discourses on which research questionsand analytical categories are grounded. Foucault'sidea of dividing practices is relevant in this discus-sion—these are categories created for "organizingand controlling people and subjecting them to thegoals of a social institution" (as cited in Bloome& Clark, 2006, p. 237). Thus, it is germane toask how do researchers contribute to make schooldividing practices look "natural" for certaingroups of students through the questions they askand the methods used to gather evidence?

Exceptional Children

In summary, the notion of research as situ-ated cultural practice is made visible in fieldworkevents in which ecological validity is at stake.Concerns for ecological validity create crucial de-mands on researchers for the design of researchdata collection procedures and the task instruc-tions for participants. These examples illustratethe significance of checking for study participants'familiarity with research tasks and activities aswell as the alignment between researchers' andparticipants' understanding of research proce-dures. Equally important is the role of power andhow researchers use it in investigative activities,particularly with members of minority communi-ties. These considerations also create additionalchallenges for researchers in terms of the rolesthey play in their projects.

RESEARCHER ROLES: TENSIONS BETWEEN

PROFESSIONAL DISTANCE AND

INFORMANTS' WELL-BEING

Researcher roles have been debated for a longtime in research communities (Brantlinger, 1999;Rosaldo, 1993). Positivist approaches to researchexpect researchers to be detached from study par-ticipants as a way to preserve their objectivity.From a naturalistic perspective, researchers as-sume the role of the human instrument in whichthey are expected to document the role of theirsubjectivity in the research process (Marshall &Rossman, 2006). However, there is disagreementin the latter tradition regarding how involved theresearcher should be with his or her informants;some argue for merely documenting their ownsubjectivities (through keeping a journal, workingwith a peer debriefer, etc.), whereas others with aparticipatory bent do not object to becoming ad-vocates for their informants. Ultimately, re-searchers using all paradigms face fieldworksituations in which their roles are challenged. Thisissue has been framed as related to researcheridentities—researchers construct and (can) usevarious identities during the research process(Marshall & Rossman). For instance, researcherscan approach their work as a professional andtechnical endeavor in which interest-free goalsand a distant position is adopted. In contrast,other researchers might assume a transformativestance in which the goal is to change oppressive

conditions and an activist identity is embraced(Brantlinger). Harry (1996), for instance, de-scribes how she adopted various researcher identi-ties in her projects that included researcher asAfro-Latina, Third World mother, inclusion stan-dard bearer, and advocate. These identities wereshaped by specific contextual factors and the par-ticipants involved in the projects.

We argue that independent of the roles em-braced by researchers (from traditional to trans-formative), all the work that goes intoconstructing the division of labor in research pro-jects entails cultural practices. Consistent with theview of the culture we are using, power issues areat the center of these processes. This is an impor-tant consideration because researchers have signif-icant power in research projects. In the end,researchers' decisions about how to define theirroles are not based purely on technical considera-tions; moral and ethical sensitivities are at theheart of such decisions (Brantlinger, 1999). Inter-esting examples about the intertwining of power,ethical, and moral issues in the definition of re-searcher roles are found in Harry's (1996) work.In a study of Puerto Rican families with specialneeds children and their communication withspecial education professionals, she witnessedschool practices that violated legal rules in theconduct of IEP meetings with a participatingmother. She did not advocate for the mother dur-ing the meeting but informed her about the pro-cedural anomalies after the meeting. Harryreflected about her lack of involvement at themeeting as related to her role as a doctoral stu-dent, which positioned her in a more vulnerablestatus.

In a subsequent study with African Americanmothers of children with disabilities, Harry inter-vened actively to advocate for a mother who had,in her view, "been pressured into tears by the ar-guments ofthe committee" (Harry, 1996, p.298). Harry had to decide whether to adopt anadvocacy role in situations in which she was com-mitted to the well-being of both the families ofchildren with disabilities and the school staff. Inone case, she opted to advocate for the parentsand assist them in presenting the goals for theirchild with disabilities to the school personnel(Harry).

3 2 2Spring 2008

Researcher role dilemmas can also arise inquantitative studies. For instance, researchersleading a professional development experiment toprepare teachers in the use of "response to inter-vention" (RTI) strategies might face such aquandary. It is feasible, for instance, that the re-searchers might learn about teachers' low moralein the target schools that is due to the overwhelm-ing number of mandated reforms teachers are ex-pected to implement. Moreover, a subgroup ofteachers in the selected schools might expressstrong negative attitudes toward RTI for various(unstated) reasons that seemingly suggest a lim-ited understanding of RTI. What are researchersto do? How can this information be used as ran-dom assignment procedures are about to be im-plemented? What role should researchers assumewith regard to their relationship with the partici-pating teachers?

In all of these examples, decisions to pursueparticular roles are the result of cultural practicesrelated to normative assumptions and expecta-tions of what research is about, the expected iden-tities of the researchers, awareness aboutresearcher's power and how to exercise it, and thecontingencies of interactions during fieldwork.These examples illustrate how researchers face sit-uations in which some of the traditional expecta-tions and norms for their roles were challenged.As researchers face dilemmas, they make choicesabout their identities and roles as researchers.

I M P L I C A T I O N S OF R E S E A R C H

AS S I T U A T E D C U L T U R A L

P R A C T I C E : TOWARD

E P I S T E M I C R E F L E X I V I T Y

We explained earlier that the need to refine theo-retically the notion of research is driven by twomajor contemporary developments, namely, theincreasing diversity of the student population andthe growing pressure to respond to minority chil-dren's needs and their longstanding pattern of un-equal outcomes (Cole, 2000; Odom et al., 2005).Moreover, the problems and questions studied inpsychology and special education are increasinglycomplex, which require that researchers have ac-cess to a wide range of methodological approaches(Odom et al). We argue that one important effort

to respond to these challenges is to use the idea ofresearch as cultural practice in future researchprograms. Our proposal raises significant chal-lenges for researchers as illustrated by our exam-ples on the composition of research teams,sampling decisions, validity, and researcher roles.We expect our analysis will promote critical delib-erations about the cultural nature of human de-velopment and learning and the cultural resourceswe deploy to study them. These deliberations canhelp research communities make progress in bet-ter understand'ng and addressing effectively theneeds of students from marginalized communi-ties, such as ethnic and linguistic minorities, im-migrant students, and students w.' \ disabilities.

TOWARD AN EPISTEMIC REFLEXIVITY IN

PSYCHOLOGY AND SPECIAL EDUCATION

The discussion of research as situ.i d culturalpractice sheds light on the cultural historicalforces that shape the design and application of in-quiry strategies, procedures, techniques, and thegeneration of knowledge. Rather than abandonresearch with minority groups altogether, we ex-pect our analysis and examples will compel re-searchers to be mindful about the cultural natureof their research projects. Specific issues to be ad-dressed in future research include how researchteams are created, how access to communities isachieved, how samples are defined and selected,cultural considerations to achieve ecological valid-ity, and the need for ongoing deliberation aboutresearcher roles. Although space constraints pre-vent us from addressing these aspects, we outlinea few reflections about what we consider the mostcritical and perhaps challenging implication ofour analysis, namely, to maintain a meta-aware-ness about the fact that research is also a culturalpractice.

A meta-awareness about research practiceswill help researchers to engage systematically incritical self-reflection or embrace an "epistemic re-flexivity" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), that is"the inclusion of a theory of intellectual practiceas an integral component and necessary conditionof a critical theory of society" (Wacquant, 1992,p. 36). Epistemic refiexivity summons a stance to-ward the conduct of social science; as Wacquantexplains, this notion compels researchers to

Exceptional Children 323

engage in self-analysis as cultural producers. Epis-temic reflexivity reminds us that disciplines andthe work of researchers can be the objects ofstudy, and it challenges researchers to examinecritically the social and cultural influences thatconstitute theoretical categories and research prac-tices (Erickson & Gutierrez, 2002; Moss, 2005).

Although epistemic reflexivity has been theo-rized by various social scientists, we use Bour-dieu's take on this construct (Bourdieu &Wacquant, 1992). His primary focus

is not the individual analyst but the socialand intellectual unconscious emhedded in ana-lytic tools and operations . . . . [He also de-fined it as a] collective enterprise tather thanthe hurden of the lone academic; and [he]seeks not to assault hut to buttress tbe episte-mological security of [psychology and specialeducation]. (p. 36; emphases in original)

Epistemic reflexivity can assist researchers totackle at least three sources of bias that were re-flected in our analysis and examples. The firstsource of bias is in the sociocultural markers suchas social class, ethnicity, and gender that filter theresearcher's gaze. The second source is in the loca-tion of the researcher in the academic field thataffords her a particular point of view in relation toothers. It is assumed that scientific fields are socialfields with intellectual and political considera-tions.

By htinging to consciousness those forcesthat shape our understanding and practice,we can attain some degree of control overthem and reconsider the practices and insti-tutions through which they work so that thefield's incentives can hecome mote consistentwith its goals. (Moss, 2005, p. 26)

And third, the intellectualist bias that is found inthe "presuppositions inscribed in the fact ofthinking of the world, of retiring from the worldand from action in the world in order to thinkthat action" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p.39). These presuppositions are embedded in con-structs and data collection and analytic tools,strategies, and procedures. Epistemic reflexivity,therefore, "calls less for intellectual introspectionthan for the permanent sociological analysis andcontrol of [special education and psychological]practice" (Bourdieu & Wacquant, p. 40).

The challenge for researchers is to institu-tionalize epistemic refiexivity in the routine pro-cedures of journal peer reviews and grantevaluations, research design and conduct, and re-searcher and leadership preparation. We expectepistemic refiexivity will contribute to the consol-idation of research communities with disparatetheoretical views and methodological approachesthat engage in routine discourse with one anotherthat can be characterized as "transformative criti-cism" (Longino as cited in Green & McClelland,1999, p. 229). This way, the traditional researchthat documents mostly deficits and "typical" prac-tices of minority communities will shift to askmore complex questions about learning and de-velopment as cultural endeavors. The consolida-tion of an epistemic refiexivity will also assist usto frame studies with explicitly stated assump-tions about the cultural location of researchersand the means they use to answer study questionsand hypotheses. In conclusion,

epistemic reflexivity invites intellectuals torecognize and to work to neutralize the spe-cific determinisms to which their innermostthoughts are subjected and it informs a con-ception of the craft of research designed tostrengthen its epistemological moorings.(Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992, p. 46)

This is indeed a highly consequential practice thatshould be nurtured as we are living in an era inwhich culture is becoming increasingly complexand researchers are being challenged to account forculture as the medium of human development.

REFERENCES

American Educational Research Association. (2006).AERA drafl standards for reporting on researcb metbods.Retrieved September 1, 2006, from bttp:llwww.aera.netlHd=1194

Artiles, A. J. (2003). Special education's changing iden-tity: Paradoxes and dilemmas in views of culture andspace. Harvard Educational Review, 73, 164-202.Artiles, A. J., Klingner, J. K., & Tate, W. E (Eds.).(2006). Theme issue: Representation of minority stu-dents in special education: Complicating traditional ex-planations. EducationalResearcber, 35{6), 3-28.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C , & Kuan, L. A. (1997).Learning disabilities tesearch on ethnic minority stu-

Spring2008

dents: An analysis of 22 years of studies published inselected refereed journals. Learning Disabilities Researcb& Practice, 12, 82-91.

Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C , & Palmer, J. (2004). Cultur-ally diverse students in special education: Legacies andprospects. In J. A. Banks & C. M. Banks (Eds.), Hand-book of researcb on multicultural education (2nd ed., pp.716-735). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Arzubiaga, A. (2007). Transcending deficit thinkingabout Latina/o parents. In L. Diaz Soto (Ed.), Latinoeducation in tbe U.S.: An encyclopedia (pp. 102—105).Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Arzubiaga, A., Ceja, M., & Artiles, A. J. (2000). Tran-scending deficit thinking about Latinos' parentingstyles: Toward an ecocultural view of family life. In C.Tejeda, C. Martinez, & Z. Leonardo (Eds.), Cbartingnew terrains of Cbicana(o)/Latina(o) education (pp.93-106). Cresskill, NY: Hampton Press.

Banks, J. A, & Banks, C. M. (Eds.). (2004). Handbookof researcb on multicultural education (2nd ed.). SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass.

Bloome, D., & Clark, C. (2006). Discourse-in-use. InJ. L. Green, G. Camilli, & P. Elmore (Eds.), Handbookof complementary metbods in education researcb (3rd ed.,pp. 227-244). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Eribaum.

Boesch, E. E. (1996). The seven flaws of cross-culturalpsychology: The story of a conversion. Mind, Culture,and Activity, 3, 2-10.

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (Eds.). (1992). Aninvitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: The Universityof Chicago Press.

Brantlinger, E. (1999). Inward gaze and activism asmoral next steps in inquiry. Antbropology dr EducationQuarterly, 30, 413-429.

Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (1999). Cultural variadon inmanagement of attention by children and their care-givers. Developmental Psycbology, 35, 1079-1090.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psycbology: A once and futurediscipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cole, M. (1998). Can cultural psychology help usthink about diversity? Mind, Culture, and Activity, 5,291-304.

Cole, M. (2000). Struggling with complexity: Thehandbook of child psychology at the millennium: Essayreview of Handbook of Child Psychology by W.Damon. Human Development, 43, 369-375.

Cole, M., Hood, L., & McDermott, R. P (1997). Con-cepts of ecological validity: Their differing implicationsfor comparative cognitive research. In M. Cole, Y. En-gestrom, & O. Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activ-ity: Seminal papers from tbe Laboratory of Comparative

Human Cognition (pp. 49—56). New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Cornelius, W A. (1982). Interviewing undocumentedimmigrants: Methodological reflections based on field-work in Mexico and the U.S. International MigrationReview, 16,378-411.

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. (Eds.). (2002). Minority stu-dents in special and gified education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Engestrom, Y, & Middleton, D. (Eds.). (1998). Cogni-tion and communication at work. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Erickson, E (2002). Culture and human development.Human Development, 45, 299-306.

Erickson, E, & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor,and science in educational research. Educational Re-searcber, 37(8), 21-24.

Frankenberg, E., Lee, C , & Orfield, G. (2003). A mul-tiracial society witb segregated scbools; Are we losing tbedream? Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Har-vard University.

Gallego, M., Cole, M., & LCHC. (2001). Classroomcultures and cultures in the classroom. In V. Richard-son (Ed.), Tbe bandbook of researcb on teacbing (4th ed.,pp. 951—997). Washington, DC: American Educa-tional Research Association.

Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Compton, D., Coyne, M.,Greenwood, C , & Innocenti, M. (2005). Quality indi-cators for group experimental and quasi-experimentalresearch in special education. Exceptional Cbildren, 71,149-164.

Gibson, M. A. (1991). Minorities and schooling: Someimplications. In M. A. Gibson & J. U. Ogbu (Eds.),Minority status and scbooling (pp. 357—381). New York:Garland.

Goodnow, J. J. (2002). Adding culture to studies of de-velopment: Toward changes in procedures and theory.Human Development, 45, 237-245.

Goodwin, C. (2002). Time in action. Current Antbro-pology, 43 (Suppl.), 19-35.

Graham, S. (1992). "Most ofthe subjects were whiteand middle class" Trends in published research onAfrican Americans in selected APA journals,1970-1989. American Psycbologist, 47, 629-639.

Green, J. L., & McClelland, M. (1999). What diflFerencedoes the difference make? Understanding differenceacross perspectives. Discourse Processes, 27, 219-230.

Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativity of knowing,learning, and research. American Psycbologist, 53, 5-26.

Exceptional Children

Gueron, J. M. (2001). The polidcs of random assign-ment: Implementing studies and affecting policy. In RMosteller (Ed.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials ineducation researcb (pp. 15-49). Washington, DC:Brookings Institution Press.

Gutierrez, K. D., & RogofF, B. (2003). Cultural waysof learning: Individual traits of repertoires of practice.Educational Researcber, 32(5), 19-25.

Harry, B. (1996). These families, those families: Theimpact of researcher identities on the research act. Ex-ceptional Cbildren, 71, 149-164.

Harry, B., & Klingner, J. (2006). Wby are so many mi-nority students in special education? Understanding racedr disability in scbools. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Holland, D., Lachicotte, Jr., W, Skinner, D., & Cain,C. (1998). Identity and agency in cultural worlds. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

King, M. L., Jr. (1968). The role ofthe behavioral sci-entist in the civil rights movement. American Psycbolo-gist, 23, 180-186.

Knorr-Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How tbesciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press.

Latour, B. (1999). Pandora's bope: Essays on tbe reality ofscience studies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.

Lave, J. (1997). What's special about experiments ascontexts for thinking. In M. Cole, Y Engestrom, & O.Vasquez (Eds.), Mind, culture, and activity: Seminal pa-pers from tbe Laboratory of Comparative Human Cogni-tion (pp. 57-69). New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Lee, C. D. (2007). Culture, literacy, and learning: Tak-ing bloom in tbe midst of tbe wbirlwind. New York:Teachers College Press.

Lee, J. (2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gaptrends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educa-tional Researcber, 31{l), 3-12.

Marshall, C , & Rossman, G. B. (2006). Designingqualitative researcb (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.

McDermott, R., Goldman, S., & Varenne, H. (2006).The cultural work of learning disabilities. EducationalResearcber, 35{6), 12-17.

McGrath, D. J., & KurilofF, P J. (1999). They're goingto tear the doors off this place: Upper-middle-class par-ent school involvement and the educational opportuni-ties of other people's children. Educational Policy, 13,603-629.

Miller, P J., & Goodnow, J. J. (1995). Cultural prac-tices: Toward an integration of culture and develop-ment. In J. J. Goodnow, P J. Miller, & E Kessel (Eds.),Culturai practices as contexts for development (pp. 5-16).San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moll, L. C. (1997). The creation of mediating settings.Mind, Culture, andActivity, 4, 191-199.

Moss, P. (2005). Toward "epistemic reflexivity" in edu-cational research: A response to scientific research ineducation. Teacbers College Record, 107, 19-29.Naples, N. A. (1996). A feminist revisiting of the in-sider/outsider debate: The "outsider phenomenon" inrural Iowa. Qualitative Sociology, 19, 83-106.

O'Connor, C , & Fernandez, S. D. (2006). Race, classand disproportionality: Reevaluating the relationshipbetween poverty and special education placement. Edu-cational Researcher, 35{6), 6-11.

Odom, S. L., Brandinger, E., Gersten, R., Horner, R.H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. (2005). Research inspecial education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Cbiidren, 71, 137-148.Paradise, R. (2002). Findings ways to study culture incontext. Human Development, 45, 229-236.

Paredes, A. (1984). On ethnographic work among mi-norities: A folklorist's perspective. In R. Romo & R.Paredes (Eds.), New directions in Cbicano scbolarsbip(pp. 1-32). Santa Barbara, CA: Center for ChicanoStudies.

Rogoff, B. (2003). Tbe cultural nature ofbuman devel-opment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rogoff, B., & Angelillo, C. (2002). Investigating thecoordinated functioning of multifaceted cultural prac-tices in human development. Human Development, 45,211-225.

Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P (1995). What's become ofresearch on the cultural basis of cognitive development?American Psycbologist, 50, 859-877.

Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture & truth: Tbe remaking ofsocial analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.

Santos de Barona, M. (1993). The availability of ethnicmaterials in psychology journals: A review of 20 yearsof journal publication. Contemporary Educational Psy-cbology, 75,391-400.

Smitherman, G. (2001). Talkin tbat talk: Language, cul-ture, and education in African America. New York:Routledge.

Stanfield, J. H., & Dennis, R. M. (Eds.). (1993). Raceand etbnicity in researcb metbods. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

3 2 6 Spring 2008

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereo-types shape intellectual identity and performance,American Psycbologist, 52, 613-629.

Sue, S. (1999). Science, ethnicity, and bias: Where havewe gone viron^. American Psycbologist, 54, 1070-1077.

Van Maanen, J. (Ed.). (1995). Representation in etbnog-rapby. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). Toward a social praxeology:The structure and logic of Bourdieu's sociology. In P.Bourdieu & L. J. D. Wacquant (Eds.), An invitation toreflexive sociology (pp. 1—59). Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Walker, V. S. (2005). After methods, then what? A re-searcher's response to the report of the National Re-search Council. Teacbers College Record, 107, 30-37.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

ANGELA E. ARZUBIAGA, Assistant Professor,College of Education, Division of Psychology inEducation; ALFREDO J. A R T I L E S (CEC AZFederation), Professor, College of Education;KATHLEEN A. KING, Doctoral Student, Divi-sion of Curriculum & Instruction; and NANCY

HARRIS-MURRI, Doctoral Candidate, Collegeof Education, Division of Curriculum & Instruc-tion, Arizona State University, Tempe.

The second author acknowledges the support ofthe National Center for Culturally ResponsiveEducational Systems under Grant #H326E020003awarded by the U.S. Department of Education,Office of Special Education Programs. Endorse-ment by the ED of the ideas expressed in thismanuscript should not be inferred.

We are grateful to Stan Trent, Elizabeth Kozleski,the editors, and three anonymous reviewers foruseful feedback in earlier versions of thismanuscript.

Address correspondence to Angela Arzubiaga, Ari-zona State University, College of Education, P.O.Box 870611, Payne Building, Room 440B,Tempe, AZ 85287-0611 (e-mail: angeia.arzubiaga@asu.edu).

Manuscript received September 2006; acceptedOctober 2007.

Why Are So Many MinorityStudents in Special Education?

Do you know the answef?

Why AreSo Many

Minority Studentsin

Special Education?R!icc&' Disjibilih'iii Schools

This powerful book presents com-pelling stories representing the range ofexperiences that culturally and linguis-tically diverse students are apt to facein school. The authors examine thechildren's experiences, their families,interactions with school personnel, theteachers' and schools' estimation of thechildren and their families, and theschool climate that influences decisionsabout referrals. The book concludeswith recommendations for improvingeducational practice and teacher train-ing and for policy renewal.

2006. ISBN 0-80774-624-X

Member Price: $ 28.95Non-Member Price: $ 28.95

Item#S5781

Order Now! Call 1-888-232-7733or online at www.cec.sped.org

Council forExceptionalChildren

Exceptional Children 327