Racisms in Qualitative Inquiry: Recognitions and Challenges

Abstract

The purposes of this article are to introduce a special issue of Qualitative Inquiry focusing on “Racisms in Qualitative Inquiry” and to make obvious the institutionalized perspectives and practices of racism that are embedded in the conceptualizations and doings of qualitative research. The articles address unexamined purposes, direct practices, and methodologies of research like coding and biases in representation, along with rethinking and reconceptualizing research though knowledges like Black Studies (and other Ethnic Studies generally) and the use of methodologies that have been ignored and excluded like pláticas. The final articles discuss those hidden relational and policy complexities in higher education as the predominant location for the practice and rewarding of qualitative inquiry.

Keywords

racism(s)qualitative methods Institutional racism systemic racism coding

The purposes of this special issue of Qualitative Inquiry are to make obvious the institutionalized perspectives and practices of racism that are embedded in the conceptualizations and doings of qualitative research and to put forward reconceptualizations that counter these practices in order to facilitate anti-racism, intersectional equity, and just transformations in/with qualitative inquiry. Although much of qualitative research would always and already be designed to move toward increased justice and contemporarily emerges from diverse locations that would counter dominant, oppressive discourses (e.g., feminisms, poststructuralism, postcolonial critique, critical race theory, to name a few), conceptualizations of quantitative research broadly with its rational, universalist, modernist origins continue to influence the acceptance and interpretations of the field of qualitative research in academia. To some extent, even diverse purposes and practices are controlled through these origins, as research methodologies and the ways inquiry is evaluated are generally only accepted using particularized perspectives and follow fairly standard processes. Some of these commonalities can be beneficial, but certainly many represent dominant perspectives that in themselves do not increase possibilities for anti-racism and may even unconsciously perpetuate racist orientations. In times such as these in which persons of color are locked in cages whether young or old—Black, Brown, and other bodies that do not fit the dominant continue to be disqualified by hegemonic perspectives, even “so-called” diverse academic philosophies and interpretations—race remains an avenue for the imposition of human erasure. Recognizing the multidirectional doings of qualitative research is of great importance.

Questions like the following are necessary: What are the unchallenged performances of racism hidden in the conceptualizations and practices of qualitative research? How does/should racism become a concern that is obvious in all qualitative inquiry? How can qualitative inquiry be conceptualized to unveil and disrupt the perpetuation of racism? How can qualitative inquiry be retheorized, designed, and practiced in ways that are anti-racist and facilitate justice?

Contributors to this special issue were invited to draw on different orientations and traditions, to broadly consider the ways that racisms are perpetuated, and the ways that racist entanglements can be disrupted through qualitative inquiry. These considerations may be illustrated through particular research investigations or through philosophical discussions of research practices and possibilities. Ultimately, we ask questions like: how can qualitative research become an instrument for the elimination of racism and race-based inequities, and ultimately a vehicle for more just transformations?

As we planned to introduce the various articles, we began by thinking that we should discuss past work on the existence of racism within the conceptualization of research as a construct broadly and qualitative research as a genre or field employing diverse perspectives and practices more specifically. We soon realized, however, that this discussion would be both massive and limited, resulting in the need to review the complex vast history of the social, mostly White, and imperialist construction of the notion of race along with the imposition of racisms within diverse histories, locations, and circumstances. These performances range from the genocide of Indigenous peoples, to European imperialism, to the Atlantic slave trade, to racial segregation in the United States, to apartheid in South Africa, just to name a few (Du Bois, 1903; Feagin, 2000; Gossett, 1997; Olson, 2005). The histories are themselves massive, are very important, and can be found in other publications and locations. Two prominent examples that we want to mention here, however, are the imposition of scientific racism used to label, discredit, and erase particular peoples across a range of fields and life circumstances (Smedley & Smedley, 2005; Gould, 1981/1996); and, Hitler’s Nazi racial ideology that literally praised and used American models of systemic racism (Whitman, 2017). Hitler referred to, and used, American practices of “gunning down millions of Redskins” (Westerman, 2016, p. 46) and caging “coloreds” (Labovic, 2017, quote in title) as models for constructing Nazi racial laws. These laws were then used to legitimate the slaughter of 6 million Jews, 1.8 million non-Jewish Polish citizens, and 250,000 to 500,000 Romani peoples (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, 2020).

The point for our purposes here is to demonstrate that the historically embedded and diverse constructions of race within the multiplicities and biases of various locations and time periods along with the range of types of racisms (whether structural, institutional, or individual racism) are always and already intertwined and entangled with the construction of research broadly. These entanglements continue even as there have been/are attempts to challenge the biases in conceptualizations and practices of research through postcolonial/indigenous, queer, poststructural, various ethnic studies, and other critical perspectives (Arendt, 1951; Cannella & Lincoln, 2019; Cannella et al., 2015; Sandoval, 2000; Tuhiwai Smith, 1999).

Furthermore, the construct of research itself is embedded within Euro-American Western forms of thought like the belief in progress, dualistic thinking, linear rationality, the privileging of individualism, singular truth orientations, and a belief in predetermined universals (see these deconstructions in a range of fields, Cannella, 1997; Pers & Salemink, 1999; Powell & Frankenstein, 1997; Scott, 1998). In addition, for some time now, many of us have expressed concerns that research is another Enlightenment/modernist discursive practice that facilitates and even creates unequal power structures and relations. The Western construction was created within an ideology that reflects “utopian beliefs that truth, reason, and science are paths to liberation, and that if we design our investigations appropriately and rigorously, we can truly “know” and understand” (Cannella & Viruru, 2004, p. 145). Furthermore, this perspective has been used to legitimate objectification and subjugation of diverse groups of human beings without question. As expressed by Tahauhi Smith (1999, p. 1), “(R)esearch is probably one of the dirtiest words in the indigenous world’s vocabulary.

However, even with this expanded awareness along with the diverse perspectives that have contested both research as construct and the dominant discourse practices in which it is embedded, direct challenges to research purposes, dominant methodologies (e.g., interviews, observations, ethnography), forms of interpretation, and uses in academic environments related to the researcher specifically are limited. This absence is especially prominent related to the entanglements of various forms of racism with research as construct. Therefore, we begin by very briefly overviewing examples of past work that reveals qualitative research ties to/with racism to introduce the first set of articles in the special issue that examine that direct tie even more closely along with unquestioned dominant forms of practice. However, most who have dealt with racism in qualitative research explain ties between definitions of knowledge within the research environment, expectations, and faculty researcher identities and relations in academia more broadly. Therefore, we also describe the manuscripts that deal with the intersections between racism and the conducting and acceptance of research within the hegemonic academic environment. Finally, each author presents anti-racist locations and possibilities for research practices that would change academia.

Acknowledging Racist Structures Within Qualitative Inquiry

In recent years, some scholars have challenged the dominant epistemological goals or purposes of research that would reveal truths about reality, contesting notions like subjectivity and universalities. While these contestations do not usually address racism specifically, they do problematize research conceptualizations and practices that often construct, ground, and perpetuate racism. Ethnography is a good example. Although performed in a variety of ways that challenge research practices from within a deterministic quantitative framework, ethnographic purposes and methodologies within qualitative research tend to continue intellectual forms of colonialization that can serve as direct performances of racism. Dirks (2001, pp. 43–60) reminds us of the construction of White power over people of color as he writes about India as “The Ethnographic State.” Projects of data collection that would surveil, interpret, and even perpetuate the caste system emerged, as research about the Indian people, who are entirely people of color, was used to legitimate White British rule. While these, and other examples, may not always be directly thought of as racist, they demonstrate the continued power orientations and control by particular groups who were/are predominantly White and European. This power over “others” is embedded within the conceptualization and practices of research, orientations that can themselves be interpreted as race-based, especially from within colonialist past present practices.

Furthermore, 30 years ago, Mohanty (1991) deconstructed the notion of giving voice that has been a major component of the practice of qualitative research, illustrated through interviews, cultural observation, and description, as well as researcher representation of the other/subjects/participants. “Colonizing discourses have created one group that is vocal (with voice) and the other that is silent” (Cannella & Viruru, 2004, p. 146). The researcher who “listens to” and “gives voice” to participants, especially when those participants have been traditionally oppressed, maintains power, a kind of intersectional power that exhibits and facilitates racisms, sexisms, classism, and other forms of patriarchal privilege and control:

. . . postcolonial critics point to the essential untranslatability of local discourses into imperialist language. As Spivak’s (1988/2010a) classic essay suggests, speaking itself belongs to a tradition and history of domination. At best, postcolonial voices are translated versions of original thoughts. (Cannella & Viruru, 2004, p. 147)

Other examples include notions like participant observation as voyeuristic (Tobin & Davidson, 1990), ethical questions related to naturalistic inquiry (Hatch, 1995), implied determinism in the conceptualizations of triangulation (Walkerdine, 1997), and interviewing as colonialist practice (Viruru & Cannella, 2006). During the 1990s, some scholars even questioned the researcher’s “right” to surveil and represent other people (Walkerdine, 1997). Hierarchal power is maintained by the researcher as the one who decides what and who to investigate.

Relatedly, the first three articles in this special issue address the often unexamined and unthought direct practices of research. These specific qualitative investigations focus on racism in unquestioned methodologies, in this case the practice of coding; hidden researcher forms of racism in the practice of representation as related here to the historical ways Black boys have been viewed and consequently represented in qualitative research; and damage that critical qualitative work can impose without critiquing itself, in this case racist (re)traumatization in the name of justice.

In “Needed Methodological Emancipation: Qualitative Coding and the Institutionalization of the Master’s Voice,” Radhika Viruru and Ambyr Rios demonstrate how protocols for analyzing qualitative data represent dominant voices and ways of knowing the world. While qualitative research has been among the more open of academic disciplines, processes for analyzing qualitative data have remained dogmatic. Most qualitative data are “coded” by breaking it into pieces of information that stand alone (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) or through contextualizing it as researchers see fit. Data analysis thus remains a process of deconstructing participant voices and reconstructing stories through sound bites, creating an acceptable form of “fake news” to obtain a seat at the research high table. This continues established traditions of denying “subalterns,” already less agentive in higher education spheres, the ability to speak (Spivak, 2010b) as the voice of the participant is subjugated to the discourse community of the master. Indigenous and other critical epistemologies are foregounded as alternatives.

Anthony L. Brown explores how race and the body are central to social and educational research in “Qualitative Description and Black Males: On Race, the Body and Researching the Unimaginable.” The guiding question of this essay is: How has the Black male body been conceptualized over time through qualitative description? Brown argues that as Black males became part of different historical systems of reasoning, the Black male body was subjugated to/by the particular system and its biases. Drawing from Sylvia Wynter’s (1995) notion of subjective understanding and David Theo Goldberg’s (1993) notion of racial knowledge, the author explores the temporal and spatial contexts of qualitative description in the context of African American males. Finally, Brown concludes the essay by arguing for a different approach to qualitative descriptions of Black males that explores the unimaginable and seeks to move beyond recycled stories of deficit or counter narratives

In the conceptual article “The Limits of Justice-Informed Research and Teaching in the Presence of Antiblackness and Black Suffering,” Keffrelyn Brown examines the turn of justice-oriented research and teaching from transformative to traumatic and its relationship to generationally durable antiblackness. The author considers the value of research and teaching that makes antiblackness visible, while presenting portraits of Black suffering that Black people view as (re)traumatizing. Drawing from critical multicultural education and social justice scholarship, alongside Black intellectual thought in literary studies, visual studies, Eastern philosophy, and qualitative and ethnographic research, she asks whether and how researchers should engage justice-informed research and teaching. Brown further explores the affordances and limits of engaging practices that illuminate antiblackness, even as they cite it simultaneously. She concludes by offering insights to consider when seeking either to capture antiblack injustice or share it as curriculum.

Constructing Anti-Racist Research Life Worlds

Almost 30 years ago, as part of the challenges to universalist dominant perspectives, James Banks (1993) discussed the notion of diverse knowledges and that interpretations and understandings of the world reflect the values, lives, ideologies, politics, and interests of the creators of that knowledge. As has already been mentioned related to diverse, traditionally marginalized perspectives like feminisms, queer theories, indigenous knowledges, and a range of other ways of thinking, research as construct certainly represents a particular knowledge. The authors of the following articles recognize that values and knowledges that do not underly research as construct and practice can be used to disrupt and counter the dominant, to therefore construct anti-racist practices. The authors demonstrate the rethinking and reconceptualizing of research though knowledges like Black women’s spirituality, specific Black performances of refusal and futurity, along with Black Studies (and other Ethnic Studies) generally, and by employing methodologies that have been ignored and excluded like pláticas. This rethinking requires a respect for diverse philosophies and lives, a continued attempt to embody an anti-racist presence, and critical interpretations of qualitative inquiry.

In “Still Following Our North Star: The Necessity of Black Women’s Spiritual (Re)membering in Qualitative (Re)search,” Cynthia B. Dillard (Nana Mansa II of Mpeasem, Ghana) and Amber M. Neal begin with a lived story that can be thought of as a piece of data. The authors describe (re)search for Black women as originating with a deep, persistent search for self, for one’s humanity. Furthermore, Black women (re)search to see themselves as African people, guided by previous (re)search on race, religion, spirituality, and education, by a process of (re)membering in qualitative research. Using evidence drawn from a study that Amber conducted on her experiences working with Black students in a predominately White private Christian school, the authors articulate specific elements of living spirituality in Black women’s (re)search when (re)membering is an explicit part of the inquiry.

“Disrupting Anti-Blackness in Early Childhood Qualitative Inquiry: Thinking With Black Refusal and Black Futurity” is an article through which Fikile Nxumalo seeks to illustrate what is possible when early childhood research does not begin with the anti-Blackness that is pervasive in traditional early childhood education, therefore employing an analytic of Black refusal and Black futurity. The focus is on the liberatory potential of attending to commonplace relational world-making practices in the places and spaces of Black childhood. To illustrate, Black refusal research looks outside traditional spaces like classrooms looking for opportunities to subvert deficit notions of Black childhood. Thinking with a photo essay on Black boys and with images of a young Black girl from a place-based research project, Dr. Nxumalo gestures toward the otherwise worlds that are made possible by experimenting with wayward methods as a practice of listening for Black childhood futurity.

Bryce Henson discusses Black Studies as a means to understand the tension between Black being and becoming a researcher in “Unsettling the Coloniality of the Researcher: Towards a Black Studies Approach to Critical Humanisms in Qualitative Inquiry.” This tension exists because the “Black” is not a simple qualifier to an already existing researcher but rather a sociopolitical reality that is often in conflict with the researcher subject itself. Black Studies provides a vehicle for unsettling the coloniality of the researcher, and ultimately the human, along with expanding the conceptualization of qualitative research. Henson further discusses African-derived cosmologies pertinent as epistemological tools such as the ways Wynter’s (2003) critiques the category human as tending to represent Western, White man. Furthermore, he demonstrates that Black Studies can further reveal and critique dominant components of qualitative inquiry.

The methodology of pláticas is used by Judith Flores Carmona, Manal Hamzeh Al Smadi, Dolores Delgado Bernal, and Ifham Hassan Zareer in “Theorizing Knowledge with Pláticas: Moving Toward Transformative Qualitative Inquiries.” The authors demonstrate the method to reveal how they have experienced both epistemicide and apartheid of knowledge through epistemological racisms in academia. Furthermore, the ways the method itself has been/continues to be marginalized and invalidated in academia, especially in the social sciences, is demonstrated in the engagement. The method has not been absent, but rather it has not been legitimized in academia. Finally, refusal to employ dominant epistemologies and methodologies is illustrated as necessary to allow for greater movement toward transformative anti-racist qualitative inquiries.

Racisms and Inquiry in the Academic Environment

Racisms are stoked by policy which codifies rules, procedures, processes, regulation, and guidelines for governing people through written and unwritten practices (Kendi, 2019). As a result, racist policy generates, regenerates, and maintains disparities across groups. In addition, racisms intersect across multiple life circumstances including education/academic, socioeconomic, ethnic, gender, labor, religious, sexual identity (Mills, 2009). These inequities, discriminations, and forms of marginalization are embedded within specific locations like the practice and rewarding of research in academia as well as life performances in society in general and, because of hegemonic discourses that would claim standards, quality, and excellence, are often not recognized. The final two articles in this special issue discuss those hidden relational and policy complexities in higher education as the predominant location for the practice of qualitative inquiry.

In “The Equity Paradox Typology: An Application of Critical Race Methodology to Redress Racial Harm Against Faculty of Color,” Marlon C. James, Ana Carolina Diaz Beltran, Monica Neshyba, Quinita Ogletree, Jemimah Young, and John Williams unearth the stratified nature of racial harm in higher education by applying critical race theory’s counterstorytelling to qualitative inquiry. The construction of an equity case study is demonstrated. Furthermore, when applied to faculty of color, the authors postulate that racial harm consists of four interconnected hazardous conditions (hyper-cognition, hyper-isolation, hyper-distress, and hyper-reactivity) brought on by persistent exposure to enactments of racial discrimination at three strata (individual, communal, and institutional) embedded subtlety within the daily operations of academic departments as a series of racialized conflicts (diversity & curriculum clashes, and relational & power dynamics). These conflicts are illustrated using what the authors label as the equity paradox typology, a qualitative research tool that can be used to unmask institutional racism, as a guide for talking back, and literally as an anti-racist tool for faculty development.

Yvonna S. Lincoln and Christine A. Stanley use seven cases to illustrate “The Faces of Institutionalized Discrimination and Systemic Oppression in Higher Education: Uncovering the Lived Experience of Bias and Procedural Inequity.” These cases are drawn from both personal experience and informal interviews with colleagues from research-intensive universities to demonstrate the forms institutionalized discrimination can take if it is supported by policies or procedures encoded into an institution’s rules and regulations. The authors suggest heuristics for reexamining such procedures to more fully address such inherent biases. They proffer a qualitative methodological approach to explore not only the lived experiences of faculty of color, but also experiences of other marginalized faculty. They further explore the latent as well as manifest meanings of these experiences for the faculty involved, which are frequently neither obvious nor transparent to non-minority faculty or to those responsible for carrying out institutional policies and regulations. Finally, Stanley and Lincoln offer some criticisms of qualitative research in this arena to which organizational researchers must attend.

Challenging Racisms in Research

Racisms are by definition and execution not simply of one type, but rather institutional, structural, and systemic (Kendi, 2019). The systems are so well engrained into daily functioning that performances appear to be normal. However, while not feeling normal to victims, racist performances are an ordinary occurrence in their lives (Delgado & Stefancic, 2017). Furthermore, as with White supremacy, racisms intersect and interact across multiple performances of injustice (e.g., academic, gender, socioeconomic, linguistic, labor, religious, sexual identity, even environmental). When one type of racism is curtailed (e.g., slavery, African apartheid, Jewish Holocaust, European physical colonialist conquest), one cannot assume racisms are extinguished across all forms. In fact, new performances of intersectional, systemic racisms can emerge. The authors in this special issue are aware of these complexities, multiplicities, and even potentials for racist reterritorializations. In different ways, they work to reveal dominant, racist constructions of knowledge as well as hidden forms and practices. Most importantly, the authors demonstrate ways to counter complex intersectional racisms within qualitative research itself and the academic environment in which it is most commonly practiced and imposed. These counters range from the use of anti-racist conceptualizations of methodology like decolonial critique and traditionally marginalized knowledge frameworks, to the construction of critical analytic typologies, to the continued critique of self as researcher who can always and already construct damage and power over others even from within the best of intentions.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Because of the complexities of racisms and the limitations placed within the modernist notion of “definition,” we do not define the construct here. Rather, we request that the reader consider this text and the texts of the various authors in this special issue, along with one’s own experiences related to race, justice, equity, and research. Furthermore, we use the term in both singular (racism) and plural (racisms) as a continued reminder of the diverse forms, locations, histories, performances, and victims of racism(s). We believe that racisms produce, and are produced by, values, politics, particular (but ranging) discourse practices, and entanglements with/of/by power. The issues are complex and multiple, requiring both a constant critical disposition but also the continued acknowledgment of the human potential for kindness, possibility, and increased justice.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Gaile S. Cannella

Author Biographies

Donald R. Collins (PhD, Texas A&M University) is Professor of educational leadership and counseling in the Whitlowe R. Green College of Education at Prairie View A&M University. He is a board member of the national HBCU-Faculty Development Network and the Texas National Association for Multicultural Education. He has professional experience in psychology and education spanning teaching, counseling, assessment, and leadership. He is published in the areas of qualitative research, higher education accreditation, assessment, and multicultural education. He authored Conducting Multi-Generational Qualitative Research in Education: An Experiment in Grounded Theory and Reflecting on Autoethnography and Phenomenological Experiences: A Caregiver’s Journey.

Gaile S. Cannella (EdD, University of Georgia) is an independent scholar who was a tenured Full Professor at Texas A&M University – College Station and at Arizona State University – Tempe, as well as the Velma Schmidt Endowed Chair of Education at the University of North Texas. Her doctoral students have received outstanding dissertation awards from the American Educational Research Association. Dr. Cannella’s scholarship focuses on diverse constructions of critical qualitative inquiry, reconceptualist childhood studies/education, and justice broadly, including related to environmental studies and the more-than-human. Her most recent book is Employing Critical Qualitative Inquiry to Mount Non-Violent Resistance (2019).

References

Arendt

(1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Schocken Books.

Banks

J. A.

(1993). The Canon debate: Knowledge construction and multicultural education. Educational Researcher, 22(5), 4–14.

Cannella

G. S.

(1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. Peter Lang Publishing.

Cannella

G. S.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2019). Employing critical qualitative inquiry to mount nonviolent resistance. Myers Education Press.

Cannella

G. S.

Perez

M. S.

Pasque

P. A.

(2015). Critical qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures. Routledge.

Cannella

G. S.

Viruru

(2004). Childhood and postcolonization: Power, education, and contemporary practice. RoutledgeFalmer.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2017). Critical race theory: An introduction (3rd ed.). New York University Press.

Dirks

N. B.

(2001). The ethnographic state. In Castes of mind: Colonialism and the making of modern India (pp. 43–60). Princeton University Press.

Du Bois

W. E. B.

(1903). The souls of Black folk. Bantam Classic.

10.

Feagin

J. R.

(2000). Racist America: Roots, current realities, and future reparations. Routledge.

11.

Goldberg

D. A.

(1993). Racist culture: Philosophy and the politics of meaning. Blackwell.

12.

Gossett

T. F.

(1997). Race: The history of an idea in America. Oxford University Press.

13.

Gould

S. J.

(1996). The mismeasure of man. W.W. Norton (Original work published 1981)

14.

Hatch

(Ed.). (1995). Qualitative research in early childhood settings. Praeger

15.

Kendi

I. X.

(2019). How to be an antiracist. One World.

16.

Labovic

(2017, August 13). American laws against “coloreds” influenced Nazi racial planners. Times of Israel. http://www.timesofisrael.com/american-laws-against-coloreds-influenced-nazi-racial-planners/

17.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE.

18.

Mills

C. W.

(2009). Blackness visible: Essays on philosophy and race. Cornell University Press.

19.

Mohanty

C. T.

(1991). Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. In Mohanty

C. T.

Russo

Torres

(Eds.), Third world women and the politics of feminism (pp. 255–277). Indiana University Press.

20.

Olson

(2005). W.E.B. Du Bois and the race concept. Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society, 7(3–4), 118–128.

21.

Pers

Salemink

(1999). Introduction: Locating the colonial subjects of anthropology. In Pers

Salemink

(Eds.), Colonial subjects: Essays on the practical history of anthropology (pp. 1–52). University of Michigan Press.

22.

Powell

A. B.

Frankenstein

(1997). In Powell

A.B.

Frankenstein

(Eds.), Ethnomathematics, challenging eurocentrism in mathematics education (pp. 1–5). State University of New York Press.

23.

Sandoval

(2000). Methodology of the oppressed. University of Minnesota Press.

24.

Scott

J. C.

(1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.

25.

Smedley

B. D.

(2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real. American Psychologist, 66(1), 16–26.

26.

Spivak

G.C.

(2010a). Can the subaltern Speak? In Nelson

Grossberg

(Eds.), Marxism and the interpretation of culture. University of Illinois Press (Original work published 1988).

27.

Spivak

G. C.

(2010b). “Can the Subaltern Speak?” Revised edition, from the “History” chapter of Critique of Postcolonial Reason. In Morris

(Ed.), Can the subaltern speak? Reflections on the history of an idea (pp. 21–78). Columbia University Press

28.

Tobin

Davidson

(1990). The ethics of polyvocal ethnography. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 271–284.

29.

Tuhiwai Smith

(1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Zed Books.

30.

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. (2020, December 8). Documenting numbers of victims of the Holocaust and Nazi persecution. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/documenting-numbers-of-victims-of-the-holocaust-and-nazi-perscution

31.

Viruru

Cannella

G. S.

(2006). A postcolonial critique of the ethnographic interview: Research analyzes research. In Denzin

N. K.

Giardina

M. D.

(Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and the conservative challenge (pp. 175–192). Left Coast Press.

32.

Walkerdine

(1997). Daddy’s girl: Young girls and popular culture. Harvard University Press.

33.

Westermann

E. B.

(2016). Hitler’s Ostkrieg and the Indian wars: Comparing genocide and conquest. University of Oklahoma Press.

34.

Whitman

J. O.

(2017). Hitler’s American model: The United States and the making of Nazi race law. Princeton University Press.

35.

Wynter

(1995). 1492: A new world view. In Hyatt

V. L.

Nettleford

(Eds.), Race, discourse and the origin of the Americas (pp. 5–57). Smithsonian.

36.

Wynter

(2003). Unsettling the coloniality of being/power/truth/freedom: Towards the human, after man, its overrepresentation—An argument. The New Centennial Review, 3(3), 257–337.