Critical Counter-Narrative as Transformative Methodology for Educational Equity

Abstract

Counter-narrative has recently emerged in education research as a promising tool to stimulate educational equity in our increasingly diverse schools and communities. Grounded in critical race theory and approaches to discourse study including narrative inquiry, life history, and autoethnography, counter-narratives have found a home in multicultural education, culturally sensitive pedagogy, and other approaches to teaching for diversity. This chapter provides a systematic literature review that explores the place of counter-narratives in educational pedagogy and research. Based on our thematic analysis, we argue that the potential of counter-narratives in both pedagogy and research has been limited due to the lack of a unified methodology that can result in transformative action for educational equity. The chapter concludes by proposing critical counter-narrative as a transformative methodology that includes three key components: (1) critical race theory as a model of inquiry, (2) critical reflection and generativity as a model of praxis that unifies the use of counter-narratives for both research and pedagogy, and (3) transformative action for the fundamental goal of educational equity for people of color.

Since its formulation for education by Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995), critical race theory (CRT) has provided a powerful framework for articulating the needs of and demands for educational equity in U.S. education, and has demonstrated great success in shifting the terms of debate over the increasingly diverse student population from a community deficit model to one of community strengths. Among the tools CRT provides educators and researchers is the collection and analysis of stories in support of demands for educational equity. Within a framework of CRT these “counter-narratives” have emerged as powerful data sources to present the voices of marginalized communities—but have we stopped at the storytelling? Based on the long and difficult struggle for educational equity, we need to further understand how counter-narratives can be used as a research methodology for educational equity. While there is an increasing number of students of color in our K–12 schools, there are also historical and continuing problems of inequity for students of color.¹ These inequities appear in patterns of low achievement and graduation rates (Ford & Moore, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 2006; Milner, 2012a), high suspension and expulsion rates (Carter et al., 2017; Skiba et al., 2002; Skiba et al., 2011), limited access to highly qualified teachers (Zeichner, 2014), and increased presence of these students in the school-to-prison pipeline (Skiba et al., 2014; H. Wilson, 2014). These practices of inequity and the resulting experiences of institutional racism are captured in counter-narratives voiced by students of color and their teachers. In order to prevent continuing inequitable practices in K–12 schools, the most important next step is to address them through teaching and teacher education. This chapter provides a review of the literature focusing on the use of counter-narratives in research on K–12 education and teacher education—with a critical eye toward assessing the methodological strengths and weaknesses of counter-narrative in achieving equity for students of color. We use the following research questions to guide our study:

Research Question 1: How have researchers used counter-narratives in education research and practice?

Research Question 2: To what extent have counter-narratives helped transform education practices to advance the goals of educational equity for people of color?

Review Method

Our research included four phases. In the first phase, we surveyed approximately 250 articles in critical legal studies (CLS) and CRT of education to refresh our understanding of the theoretical underpinnings of counter-narrative in relation to educational equity and the transfer of the approach from legal education research and advocacy. In the second phase, we surveyed approximately 500 examples of educational literature and categorized three related approaches to storytelling and narratives in support of educational equity: (1) critical storytelling, (2) counterstory(ies), and (3) counter-narrative(s). These three approaches arose in the mid- to late 1990s but in different disciplines, with the first serious use of “critical storytelling” appearing in social work (Cooper, 1994), of “counterstories” in Latino/a Studies (Delgado Bernal, 1998; Villenas et al., 1999), and of counter-narratives in critical pedagogy (Lather, 1998). All three approaches were quickly adopted in education (Yosso, 2006). Although there are minor differences between the approaches, they are all grounded in a combination of critical theory and discourse theory, particularly CRT, critical feminism, and narrative inquiry. As such, we use counter-narrative as a covering term for all three approaches in our writing.

Informed by the historical development of counter-narratives in research, we then conducted the third phase of our literature research by using the three key phrases of counter-narrative(s), critical storytelling, and counterstory(ies) in the main educational databases (ERIC and Education FullText, and Education: A Sage Collection) as well as the much broader collections in JSTOR. Guided by our research questions, we further developed three criteria to narrow down the results. First, the definition of counter-narratives must be directly framed by CRT of education (excluding literature that uses “counter-narratives” in a generic way). Second, the research must have been conducted in the contexts of K–12 education and teacher education (excluding literature on counter-narratives in other fields such as medicine and law). Third, the research must be empirically based (excluding literature based in opinion or focused on policy prescriptions). Using counter-narrative(s), critical storytelling, and counterstory(ies), searching ERIC generates 239 peer-reviewed journal articles; searching Education FullText generates 228 peer-reviewed journal articles; searching Education: A Sage Collection generates 139; and finally, searching JSTOR produced a result of 292 peer-reviewed journal articles. There were significant overlaps in the search results. We then read through these articles carefully to exclude the ones that did not match our three criteria, which narrowed our results to 60 empirical journal articles for this review.

Finally, we conducted a systematic analysis of the 60 articles with the method of thematic analysis (Clarke & Braun, 2013), guided by the theoretical framework of CRT of education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995), with a specific attention to the element of social action as an important legacy of CLS (Delgado, 1995a; Matsuda, 1995). We treated the 60 empirical journal articles as qualitative data and identified patterns through a rigorous process of data familiarization, data coding, and theme development and revision to answer the two research questions we raised. In the rest of this chapter, we first provide a historical analysis of how counter-narratives are conceptualized in CLS and CRT of education, followed by a systematic literature analysis of counter-narrative research in K–12 and teacher education. We end this chapter by proposing critical counter-narrative as a transformative methodology that has the potential to unify CRT as a model of inquiry, critical reflection and generativity as a model of praxis, and transformative action as a fundamental goal to achieve educational equity for students of color.

Counter-Narrative in Critical Legal Studies

Counter-narratives and their application through CRT of education come out of an earlier movement in legal scholarship and practice, CLS, as does CRT itself (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). As with a number of other efforts to address inequality in the United States, such as Social Security and Workman’s Compensation, the locus of CLS was the University of Wisconsin–Madison (Altemeyer, 1958; Hoeveler, 1976). First taking shape as a conference in 1967, CLS quickly grew into a heterogeneous set of theories and practices that shared goals more than methodologies or even political standpoints (Russell, 1986, p. 4). From the beginning, however, CLS scholars and activists problematized normative concepts and practices of law by calling into question the most basic elements of laws and the application of laws, attempting to demonstrate the ideological basis of their justification by non-CLS scholars. Sometimes the questioning is rooted in poststructuralist close reading of legal texts; other times it comes out of empirical examination of laws in vivo. CRT then grew out of CLS as scholars of color, including Derrick Bell, Richard Delgado, Mari Matsuda, and Patricia Williams, began to build legal interventions by focusing on the lived experience of the law rather than on either legal texts or precedents.

The need to examine the lived experience of the law, and to make those experiences the basis for social change, stimulated CRT scholars to develop the practice of counter-narrative. Delgado and Matsuda, in particular, made significant use of counter-narratives in detailing the experience of Latinx and Asian Americans in a variety of legal situations (e.g., Delgado 1989, 1990, 1995b, 1996, 1999; Matsuda, 1991, 1993, 1995). It is important to remember, however, that collecting counter-narratives and presenting them in a new context is not just a scholarly pursuit for these scholars: Doing so in court is advocacy and action, and as such itself bears transformational potential. Legal concepts such as “disparate impact” allow for a counter-narrative, for example, of policing minor crimes, to be used in legislatures and the courts to change legal practice. It is not clear that counter-narratives in education can be as effective in transforming structures and practices as they have been in law, and even there the efficacy of counter-narrative in mobilizing community voices for issues such as environmental racism has not generally translated into legal victories (Foster, 2005). Nevertheless, the importance of counter-narrative in recentering the experience of marginalized communities impels us to consider how storytelling of this kind might generate action.

Counter-Narrative in Critical Race Theory of Education

One important tenet of CRT is recognizing and valuing the experiences and voices of people of color. In their groundbreaking work on critical race theory of education, Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) defined counter-narratives as “naming one’s own reality” or “voice” by critical race theorists through “parables, chronicles, stories, counterstories, poetry, fiction and revisionist histories to illustrate the false necessity and irony of much of current civil rights doctrine” (p. 56). Delgado (1995a) described counter-story as a “counter-reality that is experienced by subordinate groups, as opposed to those experiences of those in power” (p. 194). Critical race theorists and scholars continue to argue for the importance of drawing on experiences and voices of people of color. Ladson-Billings (2003) pointed out eloquently that “CRT understands that our social world is not fixed; rather, it is something we construct with words, stories, and silences” (p. 11). Solórzano and Yosso (2002) stated that “critical race theory recognizes that the experiential knowledge of people of color is legitimate, appropriate, and critical to understanding, analyzing, and teaching about racial subordination” (p. 26). Many critical theorists and educators have provided similar definitions, such as “counter-storytelling is a means of exposing and critiquing normalized dialogues that perpetuate racial stereotypes” (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004, p. 27), counter-narratives as stories that challenge widespread beliefs and discourses (Solórzano & Yosso, 2001), or counter-narratives as “perspectives that run opposite or counter to the presumed order and control” (Stanley, 2007, p. 14). In general, counter-narratives are important means to document and share how race influences the educational experiences of people of color, whose stories counter the stories of the privileged that are considered normal and neutral.

Delgado (1989) suggested three reasons for naming one’s own reality in legal discourse: (1) much of social reality is socially constructed, (2) stories provide members of outgroups a vehicle for psychic self-preservation and for lessening their own subordination, and (3) stories help members of ingroups enrich their own reality—through the dialectic process of telling and listening to stories “we can overcome ethnocentrism and the unthinking conviction that our way of seeing the world is the only one” (p. 2439). Despite the differences in definitions, critical theorists and scholars in education seem to agree upon Delgado and colleagues’ rationale for counter-narratives: Counter-narratives are able to achieve educational equity by giving voices to silenced and marginalized populations aimed at informing and educating dominant and elite groups, geared toward the ultimate goal of revealing the truth that “our society is deeply structured by racism” (Delgado, 1990, p. 98). Fairbanks (1996), for instance, argued that by giving voice to previously silenced groups, and by describing the diversity of their experiences, readers gain insight into their own practices, experiences, and biases.

In addition, counter-narrative holds promise to expose, analyze, and critique the racialized reality in which those experiences are contextualized, silenced, and perpetuated. For example, DeCuir and Dixson (2004) focused on exposing and critiquing normalized dialogs, while Delgado (1995a) emphasized the process of analyzing the myths, presuppositions, and received wisdoms that make up the common culture about race. Solórzano and Yosso (2002) pointed out that counterstories help readers critique unfair practices and pinpoint transformative possibilities from the standpoint of traditionally silenced voices. These efforts, indeed, push forward research and practice in educational equity because the “voice” component of CRT, according to Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995), provides a means to communicate the experiences and realities of the oppressed—“a first step on the road to justice” (p. 58). They also called for our attention to the notion that “the voice of people of color is required for a complete analysis of the educational system” (p. 58). Ladson-Billings (1998) further argued that “adopting and adapting CRT for educational equity means that we will have to expose racism in education and propose radical solutions for addressing it” (p. 22). To that end, we need to further explore the concept of counter-narrative and the role it plays in educational equity by supporting the development of solutions and actions.

Reconceptualizing Critical Counter-Narrative

Revisiting the goals of CLS on which CRT of education was founded, we see that the ultimate goals of both remain the same: “CRT works toward the end of eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression” (Matsuda, et. al., 1993, p. 6). Based on a comprehensive review of scholarship in CRT of education, Dixson and Rousseau (2005) observed the core value of CLS that centers on action and argue that “this element of CRT in legal studies must be translated to CRT in education” (p. 23). More specifically, they urged that “in addition to uncovering the myriad ways that race continues to marginalize and oppress people of colour, identifying strategies to combat these oppressive forces and acting upon those strategies is an important next step within CRT” (p. 23). Earlier critical race theorists have observed the inseparable relationship between reflection and social action in CRT striving toward equity (e.g., Calmore, 1995; Crenshaw, 1988; Lawrence, 1992; Matsuda, 1995; Matsuda et al., 1993). Calmore (1995), for example, stated that CRT

finds its finest expression when it . . . serves as “fuel for social transformation.” In that sense, our efforts must, while directed by critical theory, extend beyond critique and theory to lend support to the struggle to relieve the extraordinary suffering and racist oppression that is commonplace in the life experiences of too many people of color. (p. 317)

Calmore (1995) is arguing for counter-narrative as a praxis that Freire (2000) defined in his Pedagogy of the Oppressed: “reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed” (p. 126). He further argued that through praxis those who are oppressed can acquire critical awareness of their own conditions but, more important, of their “struggle for liberation.” Freire (2000) specifically cautioned that the experiences of the oppressed must lead them to become subjects of transformation; their experiences cannot be objects of somebody else’s praxis (p. 127). Habermas (1968/1971) also linked reflection and action closely, stating “we have made this interlocking of knowledge and interest clear through examining the category of ‘actions’ that coincide with the ‘activity’ of reflection, namely that of emancipatory actions” (p. 212).

According to Liu (2015), sharing, reflection, and action constitute a hermeneutic process because “by reflecting on one’s actions there can be new knowledge and illumination of one’s interests that can, in turn, inform new action” (p. 140). Built on the scholarship of critical theorists such as Habermas, Mezirow’s (1990, 2000) transformative theory proposed the interlocking connection between critical theory and transformative learning. For Mezirow, we need to address “the question of the justification for the very premises on which problems are posed or defined in the first place” (Mezirow, 1990, p. 12) based on socially or personally distorted assumptions. This process is exactly what Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) proposed as a complete analysis of the education system. Mezirow (1990) further pointed out that this type of analysis by and of itself does not lead to transformation; “acting upon these emancipatory insights, a praxis is also necessary” (p. 354). The transformation requires, according to Ball (2009), a generative framework supporting agency, efficacy, and advocacy on the part of teachers, students, and the community as a whole.

Counter-narrative, an important praxis in CRT, promises to bridge reflection and social action in achieving educational equity. However, we argue that we need to (re)center emancipatory action in conceptualizing and implementing counter-narratives. Delgado and Stefancic (1992) clearly explained the limits of sharing and listening to counter-narratives:

The belief that we can somehow control our consciousness despite limitations of time and positionality we call the empathic fallacy [emphasis added] . . . believing that we can enlarge our sympathies through linguistic means alone. By exposing ourselves to ennobling narratives, we broaden our experience, deepen our empathy, and achieve new levels of sensitivity and fellow-feeling. We can, in short, think, talk, read, and write our way out of bigotry and narrow-mindedness, out of our limitations of experience and perspective. As we illustrate, however, we can do this only to a very limited extent. (p. 1261)

Based on the critical scholarship above, we see an imperative need to underscore the importance of transformative action in the conceptualization of counter-narrative. Building on and extending previous scholars’ definitions, we propose the following definition of critical counter-narrative:

Critical counter-narrative is a methodology for critically analyzing the racialized social reality in the education system and society by narrating the authentic lived experiences of people of color, searching for and acting upon emancipatory solutions, and transforming the educational system in order to provide equitable education for people of color.

Therefore, it is the transformative action and its ultimate outcome of enhancing educational equity that we focus on in our systematic review of research on counter-narratives in education. We return to our definition of critical counter-narrative as a methodology at the end of this chapter to provide a comprehensive description of the key components in it.

Counter-Narrative in Education Research

In this section, we provide the findings of our thematic analysis to answer research question one. Specifically, we found three primary types of applications of counter-narrative in education research: (1) counter-narrative as theoretical or methodological framing, (2) counter-narrative as research method, and (3) counter-narrative as a pedagogical tool in teaching and teacher education.

Counter-Narratives as Theoretical or Methodological Framing

Counter-Narrative as Theoretical Framing

Although some researchers do not ascribe theoretical significance to counter-narrative, or at least do not address it as such in their writing, others lay claim to counter-narrative as a theoretical framing, often explicitly placed within the broader framework of CRT. For example, many authors explain their approach through descriptions of CRT and the importance of storytelling by Delgado and Stefancic (2001), Ladson-Billings (1998), and Solórzano and Yosso (2002). Some choose only a portion of the scholars associated with counter-narrative to make their claims. For example, Amos (2016) cited Solórzano and Yosso (2009) in discussing the privileging of the voices of people of color (p. 44), while Ellison and Solomon (2019) cited Delgado and Stefancic (2001) and DeCuir and Dixson (2004) in laying out the basic thrust of counter-narrative (p. 224). Finally, N. A. Williams and Ware (2019) took the approach of citing Solórzano and Yosso (2002) in describing their mix of counter-narrative and autoethnography, while simultaneously disavowing their intent to use CRT as a theoretical framework, or indeed in proposing modifications to either CRT or counter-narrative (p. 89).

Education scholars also tend to reference the description of CRT laid out by Matsuda (1991) and Matsuda et al. (1993), usually in the form of a list of features developed by Solórzano and Yosso (2002). For example, Shiller (2018) and Ellison and Solomon (2019) used the list and elide reference to Matsuda (p. 224), whereas Cook and Dixson (2013) drew directly from Matsuda to identify the major themes of CRT as well as to explain the importance of counter-narrative in conveying the experience of life in the United States “from the bottom” (p. 1239). Of all the scholars reviewed here, Cook and Dixson (2013) provided the deepest genealogy of both CRT and counter-narrative, clearly tracing both back to CLS in a section titled “The Centrality of Story in CRT and Method” (pp. 1242–1243).

One important purpose of counter-narrative for theoretical framing is to bring into scholarship the lives and experiences of “those people whose experiences are not often told (i.e., those on the margins of society)” (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002, p. 34) with the aim of critiquing dominant narratives such as deficit thinking. Milner (2012b) explained,

A counter-narrative provides space for researchers to disrupt or to interrupt pervasive discourses that may paint communities and people, particularly communities and people of color, in grim, dismal ways. Indeed, counter-narratives can be used as an analytic tool to counter dominant perspectives in the literature such as discourses that focus on negative attributes, qualities, and characteristics of Black teachers. (p. 28)

Similarly, Flennaugh et al. (2017), referencing Matsuda (1993), suggested that “the idea of counter-storytelling and the inclusion of narratives as a mode of inquiry offer a methodology grounded in the particulars of the social realities and lived experiences of these students” (p. 212).

However, the terminology used to describe the theoretical role of CRT in general, and counter-narrative more specifically, tends to be more evocative than technical. For example, Caton (2012), citing Ladson-Billings (1998) and Delgado and Stefancic (2001), referred to CRT as a “conceptual lens,” and counterstorytelling as CRT’s “method” (p. 1062). Motha and Vargese (2018), working from Solórzano and Yosso (2002), used the same idea of a theoretical lens for their counterstorytelling study of women faculty of color (p. 507). Similarly, in their examination of deficit discourse concerning historically Black colleges and universities, K. Williams et al. (2019) described counter-narrative as an “approach” that should not be assigned “an inflated value in social justice scholarship,” noting fundamental limitations suggested by Delgado and Stefancic’s (1992) notion of the empathic fallacy, detailed earlier.

Counter-Narrative as Methodological Framing

In addition to presenting counter-narrative as a generalized theoretical frame, a small number of the authors we surveyed argue for counter-narrative as full methodology. The most influential example is Solórzano and Yosso’s (2002) “Critical Race Methodology: Counter-Storytelling as an Analytical Framework for Education Research.” This work proposes counterstorytelling as an analytical framework for education research, arguing that the result is a “critical race methodology.” Key to their argument is the idea that critical race scholars themselves create counter-narratives, a notion that is not congruent with all approaches to counter-narrative but that is certainly arguable. Drawing on Strauss and Corbin’s (1990) notion of theoretical sensitivity and Delgado Bernal’s (1998) idea of cultural intuition, Solórzano and Yosso (2002) specified four data sources for the counter-stories that critical race methodology researchers construct: “(a) the data gathered from the research process itself, (b) the existing literature on the topic(s), (c) our own professional experiences, and (d) our own personal experiences” (p. 34).

Scholars who incorporate Solórzano and Yosso’s critical race methodology tend to use standard qualitative methods for data collection, typically a combination of semistructured interviews and field observations, with the resultant data coded to produce a thematic analysis. There are several exceptions. Mensah (2019) combined counter-narrative with co-autoethnography in a longitudinal study. Chapman (2007), Lynn (2006), and Ngunjuri (2007) used the idea of portraiture, and multiple scholars employed composite counter-narratives (Cook & Dixson, 2013; Juárez & Hayes, 2010; 2015; Tafari, 2018), originally presented as the central analytical method for critical race methodology (Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Milner (2008) and Lynn (2006) both intended to differentiate research methodology from methods. Specifically, Lynn (2006) articulated, “Methodology . . . is what guides our thinking about our research . . . Method, on the other hand, describes the specific practices used to collect data” (p. 2502). Citing Lynn (2006), Milner (2008) stated, “Narrative and counter-narrative are the methodologies that framed my research. They were analytic tools that I used to make sense of matters in the study; they guided my rationales, decision-making, and thinking” (p. 1577). What remains unclear is how counter-narrative serves as a research methodology as opposed to counter-narrative as theoretical framing.

Counter-Narrative as Research Method

In addition to the efforts to establish counter-narrative as a theoretical or methodological framing, many scholars have made use of counter-narrative as a research method. For example, Love’s (2004) CRT analysis of “achievement gap” narratives argued for the value of collecting and retelling counter-narratives “to change the form and content of research and conversations about events, situations, and societal participation” (p. 232). In making this claim, Love relied on scholars such as Solórzano and Yosso (2002) and Delagado Bernal and Villalpando (2002), who positioned counter-narrative as a vital tool to center analysis on the experiences of people of color within systems conditioned by racism and ethnocentrism. In other words, counter-narrative can be an important data collection method for CRT scholarship, particularly in service to educational equity. Our review indicates two approaches to using counter-narrative as a research method: (1) eliciting narratives from research participants that are conceived of by either the participants or the researchers (or both) as counter to majoritarian narratives and (2) eliciting data of various types from participants that the researchers use to construct a counter-narrative. It is not always clear from the statement of methods typical to research articles which approach a given study uses, but it always becomes clear through reading the findings and discussion. We call the first the whole narrative approach, and the second the narrative factors approach.

In a piece titled “Counter-Narrative as Method: Race, Policy and Research for Teacher Education,” Milner and Howard (2013) provided the clearest discussion of the whole narrative approach. After rehearsing the history and basic thrust of CRT, Milner and Howard turned to the use of narrative in education research beginning with the development of narrative inquiry by Connelly and Clandinin (1990). They emphasized that collecting narratives of lived experience and naming that experience are important not just for storytellers but for listeners as well, which makes the narratives vital to pedagogy as well as research (p. 540). With that background, Milner and Howard then turned specifically to counter-narrative and its importance in CRT for conveying the voices of people of color and for disrupting normative narratives such as ideas of meritocracy. For Milner and Howard, then, and for the whole narrative approach to counter-narrative, the two goals of using authentic narratives are (1) to convey the voices of those underrepresented in research and (2) to make use of these voices as analytical devices to identify and critique majoritarian narratives, especially those that target people of color.

Within the broad category of the whole narrative approach, data collection and analysis methods vary considerably. Auerbach (2002) and Kraehe (2015), for example, used personal narratives to develop ethnographic case studies, while Castro-Sálazar and Bagely (2010) used a life history approach. Berry (2008) employed a phenomenological approach to analyze collected counter-narratives; Lee (2009) and C. M. Wilson (2016) used guided interviews and written reflection papers to stimulate counter-narratives, whereas Milner (2008) deliberately elicited counter-narratives among his participants. Romero et al. (2009) collected youth voices with the intent to construct counter-narratives; Cammarota and Romero (2011), working with students in Tucson Unified School District (TUSD), assisted participants trained in CRT to generate poetic counter-narratives that then form the basis for individual or collective action. Morris (2008) used an analytic review of literature on Brown v. Board of Education to tell the counterstory of Black schools before and after that decision, while Mungo (2013) did much the same using thematically coded interviews with six participants in the Civil Rights era. Occasionally, researchers adopt first-person narratives to construct their own counter-narratives. For example, Rodríguez and Greer (2017) constructed their counter-narratives to shed light on the experiences of men of color who grew up in complex community and schooling environments.

In contrast to the whole narrative approach, the narrative factors approach treats participant narratives as one data source among several from which the researcher constructs counter-narrative. The result may be closer to a thematic analysis rooted in CRT than a full counter-narrative, or it may proceed to the composite counter-narrative discussed below. Several scholars describe the overall process of the narrative factors approach. The clearest explanation is in DeCuir and Dixson (2004), in which they used the words of their participants to construct counter-narratives to common majoritarian narratives identified by CRT. In other words, the researchers themselves created counter-narratives, taking the words of their participants as “an illustration of the salience of race and racism in education” (DeCuir & Dixson, 2004, p. 29). For example, Vaught (2012) created a set of counter-narratives regarding the racial identity and categorization of Sa’moan high school students using formal and informal interviews with a broad range of participants, ethnographic observations in the school, and analysis of official documents from the school and the district. However, Vaught was clear that the goal was not to transmit the stories of Sa’moan high school students. Rather, “This is a story about the ways in which institutions and their members construct race. Therefore, I am not paying paramount attention to the stories of Sa’moan students and adults, but including them as they reflect the institutional dynamics” (Vaught, 2012, p. 578). Sealey-Ruiz (2013), on the other hand, although using a similar coding and narrative analysis method as Vaught, was less clear about the motivation for avoiding participant-generated narrative in favor of researcher-constructed counter-narrative. Shiller (2018) took a somewhat different approach, employing counter-narrative in a participant action research project that included the group generation of counter-narrative by the participants through “collected mapping” of interview materials (p. 34). The result, framing school closures in Black neighborhoods in Baltimore in terms of settler colonialism, was then used to advocate at the city level against further school closures. Shiller’s approach represented a potentially fruitful amalgam of the whole narrative and narrative factors approaches, ensuring that the participants create the counter-narratives but doing so through analysis rather than pure storytelling.

Finally, because Solórzano and Yosso (2002), working from CLS scholars such as Bell (1987, 1992, 1996) and Delgado (1995a, 1995b, 1996), developed composite counterstorytelling into a key method in their critical race methodology, it merits special attention. In this method, researchers construct literary narratives based on the experiences of the participants and the researchers themselves, creating composite “characters” that represent the collective voice of a marginalized group. Often counterstorytelling begins much like other counter-narrative approaches, with interviews, field observations, written materials, and the like. As Solórzano and Yosso (2002) explained, once the data have been compiled, the researchers create composite characters to help tell the counterstory. Thus, although grounded in the voices of the participants like other forms of counter-narrative, the resulting counterstory puts those voices in dialog with the researchers’ knowledge and experience, including their own experiences as members of a marginalized group (p. 34). The result, although created through literary procedures and with literary devices, is not intended to be taken as “fiction” (p. 36). Cook and Dixson (2013) indicated that in addition to emphasizing the shared issues faced by all participants rather than the specific details of individual participants’ experiences, composite characters may also protect the privacy—and therefore safety—of participants (p. 1246).

Counter-Narrative as Pedagogical Tool

Finally, counter-narrative has been used as a pedagogical tool in K–12 teaching and in teacher education programs. Some have directed K–12 students to create their own personal counter-narratives, while others have provided already constructed counter-narratives to K–12 students, preservice teachers, or in-service teachers in efforts to counter deficit thinking and colorblindness. Mensah (2019), on the other hand, used longitudinal co-autoethnography to employ counter-narrative as both pedagogy and research tool in a teacher education program. Our review of counter-narrative as a pedagogical tool crosses areas of teaching in K–12 contexts and teacher education programs. Since counter-narrative is an important tenet of CRT, critical theorists consider the construction of counter-narratives an educational outcome of both critical pedagogy and critical literacy (Beach et al., 2010), but there are important differences in specific implementations.

K–12 Teaching and Teacher Professional Development

In K–12 teaching and in-service teacher professional development, having participants identify or construct counter-narratives appears to be the dominant model, whether the participants are students or teachers (Anderson, 2017; Degener, 2018; Godley & Loretto, 2013; Kersten, 2006). Battey and Franke (2015) examined how a math teacher professional development program used counter-narrative to support teachers in gathering counterevidence to challenge dominant deficit narratives about students of color by identifying examples of successful students, and redirecting teachers away from blaming students and toward new approaches to supporting their success. This example shows that when used as a pedagogical tool and implemented in classroom teaching, counter-narrative can produce transformation in teachers’ practice. As the authors concluded, this practice of fostering counter-narratives is not about “talking in general”; instead, it is about “embedding stories in the practice of teaching” (p. 456) so that teachers not only challenge deficit thinking about students of color but also take actions to change their teaching practices to better support them to succeed.

In a series of articles beginning in 2008, Cammarota and colleagues reported research on the Social Justice Education Project (SJEP) in the TUSD before the Arizona legislature passed the anti–ethnic studies House Bill 2281 in 2010 that eliminated the program (Cammarota, 2008, 2014; Cammarota & Romero, 2011; Romero et al., 2009). Using CRT as a foundation to the educational praxis in the project, the authors supported high school students to construct counter-narratives through youth participatory action research. The ultimate purpose of this project, according to Cammarota (2008), was for the students to study and attempt to change their social contexts by facilitating the “organizing of stakeholders and constituents for taking direct action to transform practice, policies, and conditions in school sites” (p. 48). In order to engage the students—primarily Chicano/a—one approach the program used was to encourage students to adopt a CRT framework and document the influence of race on their education. The pedagogical process, according to Cammarota (2014), included students selecting themselves as primary subjects of the record, observing their own social context (school, community, family, etc.), reflecting on what they were observing, and creating counterstories through reflective journals or poetry.

Teacher Education Context

In contrast to the K–12 context, teacher educators tend to provide premade counter-narratives to preservice teachers in an effort to counter specific master narratives. For example, Buchanan and Hilburn (2016) used the documentary Which Way Home as an immigration counter-narrative, exploring how this film influenced preservice teachers’ thinking regarding immigration. The authors found that preservice teachers were able to grapple with immigration counterstories and demonstrated shifts in their thinking about immigration. Similarly, Glenn (2012) used counter-narratives found in young adult novels with the intent to prompt preservice English teachers to think more acutely about their understandings of race within and beyond the text. Ball (2006, 2009), in a multisite, international longitudinal study, provided counter-narratives in the form of published literacy autobiographies to preservice teachers in the United States and South Africa, then teachers produced and shared their own literacy autobiographies and wrote biographies of their students in order to increase their metacognitive awareness of the critical role of literacy in their lives and in the lives of their students.

On the other hand, there are a small number of teacher educators eschewing the use of prepared counter-narratives. Salinas et al. (2016) guided Latina prospective teachers in a bilingual social studies methods course to produce a collection of counter-narratives to address the omission and distortion of history that “reveal a rich legacy of agency and activism that is pronounced by the voices of Tejanas/Chicanas like Marta Cotera and Gloria Anzaldua” (p. 280). Battey and Franke (2015) also helped in-service math teachers develop counter-narratives to be used in classroom teaching to challenge deficit narratives of students of color. In both of these examples, teacher educators scaffolded the creation of counter-narratives and guided their use in interpreting or modifying curriculum. This interest in producing change in the classroom leads us to the findings for Research Question 2.

Evidence for Transformation of Education Practices

Research Question 2 asks us to go beyond the employment of counter-narrative in research and pedagogy and consider to what extent counter-narratives in those contexts enhanced transformations in education practices to advance the goals of educational equity. In short, what actions have been taken beyond crafting and reporting counter-narratives? In answering Research Question 2, our analysis reveals that except for a small portion of research emphasizing emancipatory action as part of the practice of counter-narrative, much research focuses on reporting the counter-narratives themselves, or on changing participants’ perceptions or attitudes, with little discussion of the need for follow-up actions in classrooms, schools, or communities. As a consequence, there is limited evidence demonstrating the transformation of educational practices to advance the goals of educational equity for students of color. As Cochran-Smith et. al (2015), Liu and Ball (2019), and others have observed, many teacher education researchers focus on changes in teacher attitudes and perceptions toward students of color, paying little attention to exploring actual change in their teaching practices. This focus is also true of much of the research and pedagogy employing counter-narrative. Buchanan and Hilburn (2016), for example, reported shifting preservice teachers’ intentions for future teaching such as becoming informed about social issues like immigration and committing to learning about students’ backgrounds, cultures, and experiences. Similarly, Glenn (2012) reported that after exposure to literature on immigrant life experiences, preservice teachers expressed a willingness to reconsider their assumptions about people of color and claimed heightened awareness of Whiteness. However, neither study attempted to further analyze whether these reported changes in attitude resulted in changed teaching practices.

A subset of researchers have articulated the importance of counter-narrative as a stepstone to further dialog and action (King & Pringle, 2019; Rodríguez & Greer, 2017; C. M. Wilson, 2016). For example, Rodríguez and Greer (2017) envisioned “a series of ways that our counter-narratives can be used to engage students and communities, spur dialogue and action, and shape policy and practice at all levels” (p. 118). Salinas et al. (2016) also argued that in framing the historical counter-narratives written by the future Latina teachers within the typology of resistance (Solórzano & Bernal, 2001), “a political, collective, conscious” (Solórzano & Bernal, 2001, p. 320) effort for inclusivity and clarity was made explicit.

However, some researchers such as Ball (2000, 2006, 2009) and Cammarota and Romero (2011) did provide further data to analyze how transformative action was carried out by the participants in teaching students of color. For example, scholars who use a participatory action research framework for their research and pedagogy have been able to go beyond “hearts and minds” and report efforts to make change. Cammarota and colleagues required action on the part of their participants as an essential element of the TUSD Social Justice Education Project. In one of the studies, Cammarota and Romero (2011) reported a student creating a counter-narrative through poetry responding to his experience having a Mexican flag patch taken away by school security labeling it a “gang symbol.” As part of the requirement of the participatory action research in the Social Justice Education Project, the student recited his poetry in front of teachers, administrators, and district officials, leading the principal to make a new policy to allow students to display “appropriate cultural symbols” at school. Similarly, in Shiller (2018), participants used collaboratively created counter-narratives to advocate against school closures in Black neighborhoods in Baltimore.

Summary of Counter-Narrative in Education Research and Practice

In sum, the comprehensive review above demonstrates that counter-narrative in education research has produced invaluable knowledge to reveal the racialized reality in our educational system. Counter-narrative provides great opportunities for students and teachers of color to voice their oppressed experiences that can lead to further critical analysis of the educational system and the society at large by both people of color and the White majority. Our review, on one hand, further demonstrates that there is a lack of emphasis on the transformative actions in research on counter-narratives as well as in the pedagogical process of facilitating counter-narratives. By action, we mean “emancipatory actions” articulated by Mezirow (2000) and Habermas (1971). Specifically, when educators facilitate students to construct counter-narratives, there needs to be a framework to guide the sharing and using of the counter-narratives. In addition to the current practice that primarily focuses on sharing counter-narratives, we argue that educators need to guide the students to further use counter-narratives to analyze the educational system and society at large and search for and implement alternative solutions that may generate new ways to enhance equity for people of color.

On the other hand, our review reveals a lack of clarity in using counter-narratives in education research. Most researchers collect stories shared by people of color, and these stories, in many cases, become data analyzed through the lens of CRT. Therefore the counter-narratives in most cases function as a research method—“the specific practices to collect data” (Lynn, 2006, p. 2502). Researchers such as Solórzano and Yosso (2002), Lynn (2006), and Milner (2012a) push us to see counter-narrative beyond a research method, as a methodology, which inspires us to further build on their work by developing a model of counter-narrative as a methodology. When conducting research on counter-narratives, in addition to collecting counter-narratives as data and analyzing them as content, we should employ a comprehensive framework to focus on whether or not counter-narratives move beyond the sharing stage and into transformative action.

Critical Counter-Narrative as Transformative Methodology for Educational Equity

A quarter century into CRT of education and counter-narrative implementation in education practice and research, racial inequity inside and outside schooling has persisted, if not intensified. This inequity is evident through the resegregation of neighborhood schools (Frankenberg & Orfield, 2012; Orfield & Yun, 1999), a tripling of the wealth gap between White and non-White families (Shapiro et al., 2013), and the elimination of opportunities for students of color to learn beyond the basic skills needed to improve performance on high-stakes standardized tests (Holmes, 2012). As a consequence, 4-year high school graduation rates and college attendance for students of color still lag behind their White peers’. The median net worth of African American families is more than $236,000 lower than their White peers, both resulting from and in turn creating fewer opportunities for their children to participate in the education system (Shapiro et al., 2013, pp. 1–2). All of these have created an inequity loop that perpetuates negative experiences and outcomes for students of color.

Given the racial inequities revealed by counter-narratives in education research, how can we build upon the insights from the counter-narratives in order to address those inequities? Examining the history of counter-narrative in CRT in education versus CLS reveals a clear difference: In CLS, uncovering and sharing counter-narratives is by and of itself advocacy—action with the goal of transforming the legal system. As Crenshaw et al. (1995) asserted, one of the core values of CLS is “the desire to not merely understand the vexed bond between law and racial power but to change it” (p. xiii). Matsuda et. al. (1993) similarly described CRT in legal studies as “work that involves both action and reflection. It is informed by active struggle and in turn informs the struggle” (p. 3). Bringing the lived experience of the law for people of color into the legal discourse can shape the interpretation of the law directly, even when it does not affect the letter of the law. In education, however, uncovering, analyzing, and retelling counter-narratives do not, in themselves, generate change in the same way. Our review of the literature therefore supports the warning by Dixson and Rousseau (2005) that “this element of CRT in legal studies [action] must be translated to CRT in education” (p. 23)—or as Ladson-Billings (1998) argued earlier, “We will have to expose racism in education and propose radical solutions for addressing it” (p. 22).

In short, counter-narrative can affect change in the educational system, but only if the sharing and analysis of counter-narrative form the basis for transformative action, moving beyond counter-narrative as data and toward counter-narrative as praxis—“the process of reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed” (Freire, 2000, p. 126). In response, we offer here a comprehensive transformative methodology based on critical reflection and generative change (Liu & Ball, 2019), with the crucial work of praxis carried out by counter-narrative. We begin with a brief description of the essential features of a methodology, then focus on the specific model of our transformative methodology.

Essential Components of a Research Methodology

In research on counter-narrative, as well as more broadly, the term methodology is frequently used as a synonym for methods, which in turn is usually a synonym for data collection and analysis. The terms are not synonymous, however, and some of the scholars we have already discussed earlier—notably Milner (2008), Lynn (2006), Solórzano and Yosso (2002)—have suggested that counter-narrative can go beyond its role in data collection and analysis and become a research methodology. Nevertheless, as we have seen, the relationship of the elements of previous models of counter-narrative as a methodology are not clearly stated. We argue that this lack of clarity actually stems from some fuzziness in the definitions of methodology in these previous models. To have a clear sense of a methodology of counter-narrative requires a clear sense of the definition of methodology itself, but this has been largely absent.

Cordeiro et al. (2017) saw methodology itself as the unifying element to theory, methods, assumptions, and actions of research:

From a theoretical perspective a methodology poses the theoretical framework of the research or project in order to increase understanding of what stance the researcher is taking when designing the research. . . . The methodology puts forth the philosophical assumptions that underlie the science. The methods of the research are . . . the tools and processes that are used to carry out the research and are often driven by the methodology. The methods spell out the “action” of the research, the techniques that are used to gather and analyze data. It answers how the research actually gets accomplished and answers the research question(s). (p. 399)

From this standpoint, methodology is typically understood as a broad concept that encompasses methods along with “the values and justifications behind a particular characterization” of method (https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/). Examining multiple models of scientific inquiry suggests that methodology typically unifies three core elements: (1) theoretical models of the inquiry process, (2) praxis appropriate to the different stages of the inquiry process, and (3) broad goals for the whole enterprise. These three elements form a hermeneutic in which the theoretical model of inquiry determines praxis and goals, the goals inform the theoretical model and praxis, and praxis acts as the intermediary between theoretical model and goals.

This definition of methodology suggests that the previous uses of counter-narrative in education we reviewed above, as well as the specific ideas of methodology by Lynn (2006), Milner (2008), and Solórzano and Yosso (2002), lack the hermeneutic linkages between theory, methods, and goals, and especially the mediating element of praxis. We suggest that this problematic construction inhibits the ability of CRT and counter-narrative-based research in education to build upon the undeniable strengths of counter-narrative and achieve transformation of the educational system. Therefore we propose a methodology rooted in CRT, employing counter-narrative and extending the existing approaches, that unifies the following three essential elements: (1) CRT as a theoretical model of inquiry, (2) a praxis model of critical reflection and generative change, and (3) transformative action for the fundamental goal of educational equity for people of color.

Critical Race Theory as a Model of Inquiry

CRT, since its inception within CLS through to its uptake in education, has clearly informed the underlying assumptions, methods of data collection and analysis, and also the broad goals of much research in education. CRT has been adopted widely by researchers to investigate racism and education inequalities. For example, CRT clearly points out that racism is “a normal fact of daily life in U.S. society that is neither aberrant nor rare” (Taylor, 2009, p. 4) and that racism is endemic, pervasive, widespread, and ingrained in society (Milner, 2007). Working from these basic theoretical points, Dixson and Rousseau (2005) identified eight constructs in CRT that scholars use to analyze race and racism: (1) Whiteness as Property, (2) Intersectionality, (3) Critique of Liberalism and Colorblindness, (4) Interest-Convergence, (5) Racial Realism, (6) Restrictive versus Expansive Notions of Equality, (7) Voice/Counterstory, and (8) Social Change. Although some scholars argue that CRT lacks “the systemic structure” (Trevino et al., 2008, p. 9) necessary to form strong analytic tools that can promote action (Rogers & Jaime, 2010), this assertion clearly is not borne out by our literature review on counter-narrative, several examples of which did result in action. The question, then, is how CRT functions as the model of inquiry for a research methodology, which requires establishing a hermeneutic relationship with both a praxis and the broad goals of educational equity.

Critical Reflection and Generative Change as a Model of Praxis for Critical Counter-Narrative

As Milner (2012b) observed, “From critical race theory perspectives, knowledge can and should be generated through narratives and counter-narratives that emerge from and with people of color” (p. 28). Inspired by earlier calls put forward by Ladson-Billings (1999) for “proposing racial solutions” and Dixson and Rousseau (2005) for acting upon those proposals, Liu and Ball (2019) proposed a framework for transformative teacher education by synthesizing critical reflection for transformative learning (Liu, 2015) with the model of generative change for educational equity (Ball, 2009). In this section, we first briefly review critical reflection for transformative learning and generative change and then demonstrate how the synthesized model is a praxis (Freire, 2000) central to constructing a methodology for counter-narrative.

Critical Reflection for Transformative Learning

Critical reflection is a hermeneutic approach that involves repeated reexamination of one’s assumptions about knowledge and understanding, particularly those that are socially, politically, or culturally based (Liu & Ball, 2019). Important as critical reflection in learning, Mezirow (1990, 2000) and other scholars such as Brookfield (1995) and Habermas (1968/1971) have pointed out that reflection itself cannot lead to transformative learning—it is the emancipatory action, the praxis based upon reflective insights, that leads to transformation. Liu (2015), building upon Dewey (1933), Mezirow (1990, 2000), and Habermas (1968/1971) and working from Brookfield’s stages of critical reflection (1995), developed a full hermeneutic model of critical reflection for transformative learning, including a cycle of six steps—from assumption analysis to reflection on reflection-based action, and asserting an ultimate goal of educational equity (see Figure 1; from Liu & Ball, 2019).

Figure 1

Hermeneutic Cycle of Critical Reflection for Transformative Learning

The Model of Generative Change

Building on the work in psychology of Erikson (1963), Epstein (1996), and Franke et al. (2001), and influenced by Bandura’s (1977, 1997) self-efficacy theories in teacher education, Ball (2009) combined generativity theory and teacher efficacy in a model designed to prepare teachers to believe in their potential to affect positive change in the lives of their students and to think in generative ways about how to incorporate creative transformative action in their classroom practices. Figure 2 illustrates the model of generative change as a series of steps by which individuals move from metacognitive awakening to their own sense of efficacy to becoming transformative intellectuals (Giroux, 1988) able to reshape curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional structures and practices, resulting in teachers who are agents of change rather than objects of change—teachers who forge new relationships between teachers and students, schools and communities (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Model of Generative Change

The Synthesized Model of Praxis for Critical Counter-Narrative

Recognizing significant congruence between the two models, with the hermeneutic steps of the one linking with the generative steps of the other, Liu and Ball (2019) combined the two approaches into a unified framework for promoting the transformation of schools and communities as well as the transformation of learning among teachers and students: critical reflection and generative change. However, beyond the broad ideas of reflection, critique, and so forth, the combined model does not articulate specific key methods for accomplishing the goal of educational equity. In conducting the review of counter-narrative laid out above, we recognized that, along with the practice of counter-narrative, the combined model provides a powerful praxis—“reflection and action directed at the structures to be transformed” (Freire, 2000, p. 126)—for achieving educational equity. This combined model, animated via counter-narrative, stimulates the generation of new knowledge and action through five stages, each one of which represents both cognitive development and greater social engagement.

In summary form (see Figure 3), the process begins with the narrativization of personal learning experiences (Ball, 2009) and assumption analysis (Liu, 2015) coupled with awakening (Ball, 2009), focusing on the development of metacognitive awareness and subsequent critical analysis of individual and social assumptions (Ball, 1998; Mezirow, 2000) embedded in counter-narratives. From there, participants begin to explore theoretical, historical, cultural, and political factors underpinning distorted assumptions they may hold. Through introspection (Ball, 2009) and a contextual analysis (Liu, 2015) of these experiences, participants develop a sense of agency and an intellectually grounded “ideological becoming” (Bakhtin, 1981; Freedman & Ball, 2004). In the third step, with the foundation of their counter-narratives, participants engage a series of imaginative speculations tempered by reflective skepticism generated by their counter-narratives in an effort to develop and advocate alternatives to the reality in which they find themselves, building upon introspection and critique that leads to what Vygotsky (1978) referred to as internalization. During the fourth step, participants generate new knowledge through problem-solving, implement reflection-based actions that result from their experiences, and develop a sense of efficacy, setting the stage for the final stage of generativity, further reflection on their actions, and further generation of new knowledge, new actions, and new worldviews.

Figure 3

Critical Reflection and Generativity: A Model of Praxis for Critical Counter-Narrative

While each stage of the model is vitally important, Step 3 is critical to this discussion because it is here that the process pivots outward from counter-narrative as a focus on the individual to counter-narrative as the basis for the consideration and generation of action in the school and the community. However, it is important to note that counter-narrative is a vital element at every stage in the process, forming the backbone of the praxis that links CRT as the animating theory and generative transformation for educational equity as the ultimate goal. Figure 3 presents a visualization of this model of praxis.

In short, incorporating critical counter-narrative into the combined model enables us to elevate the framework in Liu and Ball (2019) into the praxis for a full methodology to achieve educational equity by not just grounding personal reflection and awareness in CRT theory and method but also fueling the pivot from the individual out toward society in the marginalized voices revealed through counter-narrative. The movement from voice to agency is fueled through the dialectic process of critical reflection, counter-narrative, and generative action for transformative change—the creative and destructive halves of the dialectic (Delgado, 1989)—that provides blueprints for change, then subjects those blueprints to the same critical consideration that produced them in the first instance.

The Goal of Transforming Educational Systems and Practices for Educational Equity

The final element required for a methodology is the overall goal of the entire inquiry process, supported by the theoretical framework and pursued through the praxis. In the case of critical counter-narrative the goal is educational equity for all students. In identifying this goal, we are not going outside the bounds of other CRT applications in education or, for that matter, much of the previous counter-narrative research and pedagogy. However, here we explicitly identify it as the goal of a coherent methodology grounded in CRT and pursued through the praxis of critical counter-narrative. As such, it is a subgoal of the larger goal of CRT as a whole, “eliminating racial oppression as part of the broader goal of ending all forms of oppression” (Matsuda et. al., 1993, p. 6). It should be clear from our review of the literature that this goal is at least implicit in previous and current counter-narrative research and pedagogy, even in studies that do not go beyond the production or identification of counter-narrative, because the theoretical and methodological framing of counter-narrative assumes a master narrative that denies educational equity.

In any case, making educational equity the explicit goal of a critical counter-narrative methodology encourages the praxis to focus on transformative action. This is particularly important in mentoring teacher education students who have much greater structural incentive to speak and write in support of educational equity than in taking action to achieve it (Liu, 2015, 2017; Thomas & Liu, 2012). For example, focusing on the elicitation or construction of counter-narratives through this praxis means that, whether emphasizing research or pedagogy, participants have in mind not just historical or current inequities but also ideas to address those inequities, and are encouraged to avoid empty discussion, euphemisms, and blame-shifting (Gao et al., 2019). Participants also have incentives to subject their counter-narratives and ideas to the same rigorous critical reflection they use in dealing with the initial majoritarian narratives, which not only enhances the quality of the resulting ideas but also further reinforces the habits of critical reflection for generative transformation. In short, clarifying the end goal of the critical counter-narrative methodology as educational equity strengthens the praxis and efficacy of the methodology as well as contributing to the larger CRT theoretical framework.

The three elements of the critical counter-narrative methodology thus form a hermeneutic process in which the CRT theoretical model of inquiry conditions the critical reflection and generativity for transformative praxis, the praxis reformulates the goals of educational equity, the goals inform reformulation of the praxis, and the reformulated praxis informs reflection on the theoretical model of inquiry. Figure 4 visualizes critical counter-narrative as a methodology for educational equity.

Figure 4

Critical Counter-Narrative as a Transformative Methodology for Educational Equity

Conclusion and Implications

In this chapter, we have reviewed the application of counter-narratives in education research and pedagogy as a tool to stimulate educational equity for students of color. Based on a thematic analysis focused on education and research in K–12 and teacher education contexts, we argue that the potential of counter-narrative to achieve educational equity remains limited by the lack of a unified methodology, including a central praxis and clear goals to support action beyond the collection or construction of counter-narratives. It is crucial to observe that far from criticizing the current practice of counter-narrative itself, whether the whole narrative or the narrative factors approach, the introduction and development of these practices have been very effective at bringing the voices of marginalized communities into education research and pedagogy. However, with the exception of projects clearly designed from the ground up to result in action (notably the participatory action research–based projects in Tucson and Baltimore; Ball, 2006, 2009; and a few others), there is limited evidence that bringing in voice has led to transformation in the educational system or substantial change in teachers’ classroom practices. We therefore proposed critical counter-narrative as a transformative methodology for educational equity, including three key components: (1) CRT as a model of inquiry, (2) critical reflection and generativity as a model of praxis that unify the use of counter-narratives for both research and pedagogy, and (3) transformative action for the fundamental goal of educational equity for people of color.

The implications of this critical counter-narrative methodology begin with reinforcing the call to go beyond telling stories. Yet we must also go beyond calling for change and move into action by examining research and pedagogy using counter-narrative to implement the methodology. We have been piloting critical counter-narrative methodology in our teacher education courses and have the following suggestions for other teacher educators who wish to make use of it in their own courses. First, although an initial step toward awakening can begin with preservice and in-service teachers being given counter-narratives as a discussion point on majoritarian narratives, having participants transition to developing their own counter-narratives is necessary to avoid the common pitfalls of avoiding serious discussion of race and racism, the substitution of abstract concepts for concrete issues, and the practices already identified in CRT research, such as colorblindness, the discourse of meritocracy, and so forth. Second, having preservice and in-service teachers help their own students in K–12 classrooms identify majoritarian narratives and develop counter-narratives will further enable real awareness and growth, particularly when coupled with concrete efforts to connect the teachers with the communities surrounding their schools. Finally, it is important for teacher educators to reframe the talk about counter-narratives so as to stimulate critical reflection on the ultimate goal of educational equity, and what actions, grounded in CRT, could proceed from the knowledge generated by the counter-narratives. In other words, helping the participants develop their agency as well as their voices, and encouraging them to come up with alternative solutions and further take actions to implement them, will more effectively promote generative transformative action inside and outside the classroom.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Katrina Liu

Arnetha F. Ball

Notes

References

Altemeyer

A. J.

(1958). The Wisconsin Idea and social security. The Wisconsin Magazine of History, 42(1), 19–25.

Amos

Y. T.

(2016). Wanted and used: Latina bilingual education teachers at public schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(1), 41–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2015.1122557

Anderson

(2017). “I’m known:” Building relationships and helping students construct counter-narratives on the west side of Chicago. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 673(1), 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217723613

Auerbach

(2002). “Why do they give the good classes to some and not to others?” Latino parent narratives of struggle in a college access program. Teachers College Record, 10(7), 1369–1392. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9620.00207

Bakhtin

M. M.

(1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays ( Holmquist

, Ed.; Emerson

Holmquist

, Trans.). University of Texas Press.

Ball

A. F.

(1998). The value of recounting narratives: Memorable learning experiences in the lives of inner-city students and teachers. Journal of Narrative Inquiry, 8(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.8.1.07bal

Ball

A. F.

(2000). Preparing teachers for diversity: Lessons learned from the U.S. and South Africa. Teaching and Teacher Education, 16(4), 491–509. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(00)00007-X

Ball

A. F.

(2006). Multicultural strategies for education and social change: Carriers of the torch in the United States and South Africa. Teachers College Press.

Ball

A. F.

(2009). Toward a theory of generative change in culturally and linguistically complex classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 46(1), 45–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831208323277

10.

Bandura

(1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

11.

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Freeman.

12.

Battey

Franke

(2015). Integrating professional development on mathematics and equity: Countering deficit views of students of color. Education and Urban Society, 47(4), 433–462. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513497788

13.

Beach

Campano

Edmiston

Borgmann

(2010). Literacy tools in the classroom: Teaching through critical inquiry grades 5-12. Teachers College Press.

14.

Bell

(1987). And we will not be saved: The elusive quest for racial justice. Basic Books.

15.

Bell

(1992). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. Basic Books.

16.

Bell

(1996). Gospel choirs: Psalms of survival for an alien land called home. Basic Books.

17.

Berry

R. Q.

III . (2008). Access to upper-level mathematics: The stories of successful African American middle school boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(5), 464–488. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/pdf/40539311.pdf?seq=1

18.

Brookfield

(1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. Jossey-Bass.

19.

Buchanan

L. B.

Hilburn

(2016). Riding la Bestiá: Preservice teachers’ responses to documentary counter-stories of U.S. immigration. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(5), 408–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116660153

20.

Calmore

(1995). Critical race theory, Archie Shepp, and fire music: Securing an authentic intellectual life in a multicultural world. In Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

(Eds.), Critical race theory: the key writings that formed the movement (pp. 315–329). New Press.

21.

Cammarota

(2008). The cultural organizing of youth ethnographers: Formalizing a praxis-based pedagogy. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 39(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2008.00004.x

22.

Cammarota

(2014). Challenging colorblindness in Arizona: Latina/o students’ counter-narratives of race and racism. Multicultural Perspectives, 16(2), 79–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2014.889569

23.

Cammarota

Romero

(2011). Participatory action research for high school students: Transforming policy, practice, and the personal with social justice education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 488–506. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904810361722

24.

Carter

P. L.

Skiba

Arredondo

M. I.

Pollock

(2017). You can’t fix what you don’t look at: Acknowledging race in addressing racial discipline disparities. Urban Education, 52(2), 207–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085916660350

25.

Castro-Sálazar

Bagley

(2010). “Nideaquíni from there.” Navigating between contexts: Counter-narratives of undocumented Mexican students in the United States. Race Ethnicity and Education, 13(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613320903549651

26.

Caton

M. T.

(2012). Black male perspectives on their educational experiences in high school. Urban Education, 47(6), 1055–1085. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912454442

27.

Chapman

T. K.

(2007). Interrogating classroom relationships and events: Using portraiture and critical race theory in education research. Educational Researcher, 36(3), 3–69. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07301437

28.

Clarke

Braun

(2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.

29.

Cochran-Smith

Villegas

A. M.

Abrams

Chavez-Moreno

Mills

Stern

(2015). Critiquing teacher preparation research: An overview of the field, Part II. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 109–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487114558268

30.

Connelly

F. M.

Clandinin

D. J.

(1990). Stories of experience and narrative inquiry. Educational Researcher, 19(5), 2–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X019005002

31.

Cook

D. A.

Dixson

A. D.

(2013). Writing critical race theory and method: A composite counterstory on the experiences of black teachers in New Orleans post-Katrina. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26(10), 1238–1258. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2012.731531

32.

Cooper

(1994). Critical storytelling in social work education. Australian Journal of Adult and Community Education, 34(2), 131–141.

33.

Cordeiro

Baldini Soares

Rittenmeyer

(2017). Unscrambling method and methodology in action research traditions: Theoretical conceptualization of praxis and emancipation. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116674771

34.

Crenshaw

(1988). Race, reform, and retrenchment: Transformation and legitimation in antidiscrimination law. Harvard Law Review, 101(7), 1331–1387. https://doi.org/10.2307/1341398

35.

Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

(Eds.). (1995). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement. New Press.

36.

DeCuir

J. T.

Dixson

A. D.

(2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there:” Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033005026

37.

Degener

R. M.

(2018). Title IX story club: Creating possibilities for minoritized middle school girls in physical activity. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 62(2), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaal.870

38.

Delgado

(1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87(8), 2411–2441. https://doi.org/10.2307/1289308

39.

Delgado

(1990). When a story is just a story: Does voice really matter? Virginia Law Review, 76(1), 95–11. https://doi.org/10.2307/1073104

40.

Delgado

(Ed.) (1995a). Critical race theory: The cutting edge. Temple University Press.

41.

Delgado

(1995b). The Rodrigo chronicles: Conversations about America and race. New York University Press.

42.

Delgado

(1996). The coming race war? And other apocalyptic tales of America after affirmative action and welfare. New York University Press.

43.

Delgado

(1999). When equality ends: Stories about race and resistance. Westview.

44.

Delgado

Stefancic

(1992). Images of the outsider in American law and culture: Can free expression remedy systemic social ills. Cornell Law Review, 77, 1258–1297.

45.

Delgado

Stefancic

(2001). Critical race theory: An introduction. New York University Press.

46.

Delgado Bernal

. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard Educational Review, 68(4), 555–582. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.68.4.5wv1034973g22q48

47.

Delgado Bernal

Villalpando

. (2002). An apartheid of knowledge in academia: The struggle over the “legitimate” knowledge of faculty of color. Equity & Excellence in Education, 35(2), 169–180. https://doi.org/10.1080/713845282

48.

Dixson

A. D.

Rousseau

C. K.

(2005). And we are still not saved: Critical race theory in education ten years later. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000340971

49.

Ellison

T. L.

Solomon

(2019). Counter-storytelling vs. deficit thinking around African American children and families, digital literacies, race, and the digital divide. Research in the Teaching of English, 53(3), 223–244.

50.

Epstein

(1996). Cognition, creativity, and behavior. Praeger.

51.

Erikson

E. H.

(1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). Norton.

52.

Fairbanks

(1996). Telling stories: Reading and writing research narratives. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 11(4), 320–340.

53.

Flennaugh

T. K.

Howard

T. C.

Malone

Tunstall

Keetin

Chirapuntu

(2017). Authoring student voices on college preparedness: A case study. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(2), 209–221. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2017.1301840

54.

Ford

D. Y.

Moore

J. L.

(2013). Understanding and reversing underachievement, low achievement, and achievement gaps among high-ability African American males in urban school contexts. Urban Review, 45(4), 399–415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0256-3

55.

Foster

S. R.

(2005). Critical race lawyering: Forward. Fordham Law Review, 73(5), 2027–2039.

56.

Franke

Carpenter

Levi

Fennema

(2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038003653

57.

Frankenberg

Orfield

(2012). The resegregation of suburban schools: A hidden crisis in American education. UCLA Civil Rights Project.

58.

Freedman

S. W.

Ball

(2004). Ideological becoming: Bakhtinian concepts to guide the study of language. In Ball

Freedman

S. W.

(Eds.), Bakhtinian perspectives on language, literacy, and learning (pp. 3–33). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755002.001

59.

Freire

(2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th ed.). Continuum International.

60.

Gao

Liu

McKinney

(2019). Learning formative assessment in the field: Analysis of conversations between preservice teachers and their classroom mentors. International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education, 8(3), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMCE-10-2018-0056

61.

Giroux

H. A.

(1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. Greenwood.

62.

Glenn

W. J.

(2012). Developing understandings of race: Preservice teachers’ counter-narrative (re)constructions of people of color in young adult literature. English Education, 44(4), 326–253.

63.

Godley

A. J.

Loretto

(2013). Fostering counter-narratives of race, language, and identity in an urban English classroom. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 316–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2013.03.006

64.

Habermas

(1971). Knowledge and human interests ( Shapiro

J. J.

, Trans.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1968)

65.

Hoeveler

J. D.

Jr. (1976). The university and the social gospel: The intellectual origins of the “Wisconsin Idea.” Wisconsin Magazine of History, 59(4), 282–298.

66.

Holmes

S. L.

(2012). An investigation of No Child Left Behind and its primary purpose to close the achievement gap (Unpublished EdD dissertation). Northern Arizona University.

67.

Institute of Education Sciences. (2016, April). Projections of education statistics to 2023. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics.

68.

Juárez

B. G.

Hayes

(2010). Social justice is not spoken here: Considering the nexus of knowledge, power and the education of future teachers in the United States. Power and Education, 2(3), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.2304/power.2010.2.3.233

69.

Juárez

B. G.

Hayes

(2015). On being named a Black supremacist and a race traitor: The problem of White racial domination. Urban Review, 47(2), 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-014-0294-5

70.

Kersten

(2006). Why’s everyone White? Moving toward critical pedagogy in an elementary classroom. Journal of Urban Learning, Teaching, and Research, 2, 35–44.

71.

King

N. S.

Pringle

R. M.

(2019). Black girls speak STEM: Counterstories of informal and formal learning experiences. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 56(5), 539–569. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21513

72.

Kraehe

A. M.

(2015). Sounds of silence: Race and emergent counter-narratives of art teacher identity. Studies in Art Education, 56(3), 199–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00393541.2015.11518963

73.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1998). Just what is critical race theory and what’s it doing in a nice field like education? International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/095183998236863

74.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory perspective. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 211–247. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X024001211

75.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(2003). It’s your world, I’m just trying to explain it: Understanding our epistemological and methodological challenges. Qualitative Inquiry, 9(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800402239333

76.

Ladson-Billings

G. J.

(2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

77.

Ladson-Billings

Tate

(1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 47–68.

78.

Lather

(1998). Critical pedagogy and its complicities: A praxis of stuck places. Educational theory, 48(4), 487–497. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.1998.00487.x

79.

Lawrence

(1992). The word and the river: Pedagogy as scholarship as struggle. Southern California Law Review, 65, 2231-2298.

80.

Lee

(2009). Language, identity, and power: Navajo and Pueblo young adults’ perspectives and experiences with competing language ideologies. Journal of Language, Identity, and Education, 8(5), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348450903305106

81.

Liu

(2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational Review, 67(2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131911.2013.839546

82.

Liu

(2017). Creating a dialogic space for prospective teacher critical reflection and transformative learning. Reflective Practice, 18(6), 805–820. https://doi.org/10.1080/14623943.2017.1361919

83.

Liu

Ball

A. F.

(2019). Critical reflection and generativity: Toward a framework of transformative teacher education for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 68–105. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18822806

84.

Love

B. J.

(2004). Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling: A critical race theory analysis of the “majoritarian achievement gap” story. Equity & Excellence in Education, 37(3), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665680490491597

85.

Lynn

(2006). Education for the community: Exploring the culturally relevant practices of Black male teachers. Teachers College Record, 108(12), 2497–2522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00792.x

86.

Matsuda

M. J.

(1991). Voices of America: Accent, antidiscrimination law, and a jurisprudence for the last reconstruction. Yale Law Journal, 100(5), 1329–1407. https://doi.org/10.2307/796694

87.

Matsuda

M. J.

(1993). Public response to racist speech: Considering the victim’s story. In Matsuda

M. J.

Lawrence III

C. R.

Delgado

Williams Crenshaw

(Eds.), Words that wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech, and the first amendment (pp. 17–52). Westview. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429502941-2

88.

Matsuda

(1995). Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations. In Crenshaw

Gotanda

Peller

Thomas

(Eds). Critical race theory: The key writings that formed the movement (pp. 63–79). New Press.

89.

Matsuda

Lawrence

Delgado

Crenshaw

(Eds.). (1993). Words that wound: critical race theory, assaultive speech and the first amendment. Westview.

90.

Mensah

F. M.

(2019). Finding voice and passion: Critical race theory methodology in science teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 56(4), 1412–1456. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218818093

91.

Mezirow

(Ed.). (1990). Fostering critical reflection in adulthood: A guide to transformative and emancipatory learning. Jossey-Bass.

92.

Mezirow

(2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. Jossey Bass.

93.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X07309471

94.

Milner

H. R.

IV (2008). Disrupting deficit notions of difference: Counter-narratives of teachers and community in urban education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1573–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.011

95.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2012a). Beyond a test score: Explaining opportunity gaps in educational practice. Journal of Black Studies, 43(6), 693–718. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021934712442539

96.

Milner

H. R.

(2012b). Challenging negative perceptions of Black teachers. Educational Foundations, 26(1–2), 27–46.

97.

Milner

H. R.

IV. Howard

T. C.

(2013). Counter-narrative as method: Race, policy and research for teacher education. Race Ethnicity and Education, 16(4), 536–561. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2013.817772

98.

Morris

J. E.

(2008). Research, ideology, and the Brown decision: Counter-narratives to the historical and contemporary representation of Black schooling. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 713–732.

99.

Motha

Vargese

(2018). Rewriting dominant narratives of the academy: Women faculty of color and identity management. Race Ethnicity and Education, 21(4), 503–517. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248826

100.

Mungo

(2013). Our own communities, our own schools: Educational counter-narratives of African American civil rights generation students. Journal of Negro Education, 82(2), 111–122. https://doi.org/10.7709/jnegroeducation.82.2.0111

101.

Ngunjuri

F. W.

(2007). Painting a counter-narrative of African womanhood: Reflections on how my research transformed me. Journal of Research Practice, 3(1), 1–13.

102.

Orfield

Yun

J. T.

(1999). Resegregation in American schools. Harvard University Press. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-diversity/resegregation-in-american-schools/orfiled-resegregation-in-american-schools-1999.pdf

103.

Rodríguez

L. F.

Greer

(2017). (Un)Expected scholars: Counter-narratives from two (boys) men of color across the educational pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education, 50(1), 108–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1256004

104.

Rogers

C. A.

Jaime

A. M.

(2010). Listening to the community: Guidance from Native community members for emerging culturally responsive educators. Equity & Excellence in Education, 43(2), 188–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665681003719657

105.

Romero

Arce

M. S.

Cammarota

(2009). A Barrio pedagogy: Identity, intellectualism, activism, and academic achievement through the evolution of critically compassionate intellectualism. Race Ethnicity and Education, 12(2), 217–233.

106.

Russell

J. S.

(1986). The critical legal studies challenge to contemporary mainstream legal philosophy. Ottawa Law Review, 18(1), 1–24.

107.

Salinas

C. S.

Fránquiz

M. E.

Rodríguez

N. N.

(2016). Writing Latina/o historical narratives: Narratives at the intersection of critical historical inquiry and LatCrit. Urban Review, 48(2), 264–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-016-0355-z

108.

Sealey-Ruiz

(2013). Learning to resist: Educational counter-narratives of Black college reentry mothers. Teachers College Record, 115, 1–31.

109.

Shapiro

Meschede

Osoro

(2013). The roots of the widening racial wealth gap: Explaining the Black-White economic divide (Research and Policy Brief). Brandeis University Institute on Assets and Social Policy.

110.

Shiller

(2018). The disposability of Baltimore’s Black communities: A participatory action research project on the impact of school closings. Urban Review, 50(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0428-7

111.

Skiba

R. J.

Arredondo

M. I.

Williams

N. T.

(2014). More than a metaphor: The contribution of exclusionary discipline to a school-to-prison pipeline. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 546–564, https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2014.958965

112.

Skiba

R. J.

Horner

R. H.

Chung

Rausch

M. K.

May

S. L.

Tobin

(2011). Race is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85–107.

113.

Skiba

R. J.

Michael

R. S.

Nardo

A. C.

Peterson

R. L.

(2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021320817372

114.

Solórzano

D. G.

(1997). Images and words that wound: Critical race theory, racial stereotyping, and teacher education. Teacher Education Quarterly, 24(3), 5–19. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23478088

115.

Solórzano

D. G.

Bernal

D. D.

(2001). Examining transformational resistance through a critical race and LatCrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban Education, 36(3), 308–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085901363002

116.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2001). Critical Race and LatCrit theory and method: Counter-storytelling. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(4), 471–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390110063365

117.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/107780040200800103

118.

Solórzano

D. G.

Yosso

T. J.

(2009). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analytical framework for educational research. In Taylor

Gilborn

Ladson-Billings

(Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in education (131–147). Routledge.

119.

Stanley

C. A.

(2007). When counter narratives meet master narratives in the journal editorial-review process. Educational Researcher, 36(1), 14–24. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X06298008

120.

Strauss

Corbin

(1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Sage.

121.

Tafari

D. N. H.

(2018). “Whose world is this?”: A composite counterstory of Black male elementary school teachers as Hip-Hop other fathers. Urban Review, 50(5), 795–817. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-018-0471-z

122.

Taylor

(2009). The foundations of critical race theory in education: An introduction. In Taylor

Gilborn

Ladson-Billings

(Eds.), Foundations of critical race theory in education (pp. 1–13). Routledge.

123.

Thomas

Liu

(2012). The performance of reflection: A grounded analysis of prospective teachers’ eportfolios. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(3), 305–330.

124.

Trevino

A. J.

Harris

M. A.

Wallace

(2008). What’s so critical about critical race theory? Contemporary Justice Review, 11(1), 7–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10282580701850330

125.

Vaught

S. E.

(2012). “They might as well be Black”: The racialization of Sa’moan high school students. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(5), 557–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2010.538746

126.

Villenas

Dehyle

Parker

(1999). Critical race theory and praxis: Chicano(a)/Latino(a) and Navajo struggles for dignity, educational equity, and social justice. In Parker

Dehyle

Villenas

(Eds.) Race is . . . race isn’t: Critical race theory and qualitative studies in education (pp. 31–52). Westview. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429503504-3

127.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind and society. Harvard University Press.

128.

Williams

Burt

Clay

Bridge

(2019). Stories untold: Counter-narratives to anti- Blackness and deficit-oriented discourse concerning HBCUs. American Educational Research Journal, 56(2), 556–599. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831218802776

129.

Williams

N. A.

Ware

(2019). A tale of two “halfs:” Being black, while being biracial. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 32(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2018.1548036

130.

Wilson

C. M.

(2016). Enacting critical care and transformative leadership in schools highly impacted by poverty: An African American principal’s counter narrative. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(5), 557–577. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2015.1023360

131.

Wilson

(2014). Turning off the school-to-prison pipeline. Reclaiming Children and Youth, 23(1), 49–53.

132.

Yosso

T. J.

(2006). Critical race counterstories along the Chicana/Chicano educational pipeline. Routledge.

133.

Zeichner

(2014). The struggle for the soul of teaching and teacher education. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 551–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2014.956544