Abstract
Mothers United (2011) examines the urban American education system within a particular school district in Oakland, California. The Latino dominated community Andrea Dyrness (2011) explores is mainly comprised of children of low-income immigrant parents. These students inhabit classrooms plagued by overcrowding, poor access to educational resources, and underqualified teachers. Amid these challenges within the school system, immigrant parents are additionally faced with not possessing a college education, appropriate English literacy skills, or even American citizenship. Dyrness (2011) follows the experiences of five Latina immigrant mothers in the community as they become informed, engaged advocates surrounding the education of their children. Preconceived notions concerning the link between economic stability and the ability to initiate community change are additionally acknowledged. The collaborative group formed “Madres Unidas” (Mothers United), a neighborhood collective of parents and teachers resulting in the planning of a new school designed to replace the overcrowded one. Joining with the author and other community activists, the mothers engaged in the ethnographic research process by conducting interviews and focus groups with teachers, parents, and students. From a feminist standpoint, the women begin to transition from oppressed marginalized members of the community into engaged researchers and activists. The journey of the women is centered around their ability to create their own space, which will enhance the future livelihood of their children. In addition, Dyrness (2011) sheds a critical lens on community organizers, teachers, and policy makers who inadvertently reproduce injustice through negligence of the histories of the people they are ultimately aiming to serve. Dyrness (2011) provides a refreshing view of self-learning among immigrant women, raising consciousness and empowerment at the grassroots level while exploring the need for educational ethnography, school reform, and parental agency achieved through research for social justice.
Reading Mothers United: An Immigrant Struggle for Socially Just Education (2011) raised many of my personal concerns as a minority student who grew up in a low socioeconomic community with poorly educated immigrant parents. Negative stereotypes are generally associated with this social predicament, as parents are sometimes conveyed as unwilling (rather than unable) to become involved in their children’s education due to employment (working long hours in demeaning jobs for low wages) or misunderstand the school system. In the case of Mothers United (2011), language barriers also served as a hindrance for parents who attempted to become active within the school system. Dyrness’s (2011) ethnography presents a contrast to these misconceptions of Latino parents through a dissertation project conducted over the course of 3 years. Her method involved a combination of participatory action research built on Third-World feminist theory and included interviews, focus groups, and observational notes. Dyrness (2011) sheds light on the notion that progressive advocacy is generally preached but rarely practiced, and thus attempts to provide insight into the conflict that emerges between parents (struggling through personal circumstances including immigrant acculturation) and teachers (who are predominantly White and do not reside in the minority neighborhoods in which they work, resulting in misunderstanding significant factors that affect residents of the community).
Dyrness (2011) breaks down her ethnographic dissertation into six sections. She initially addressed the movement for implementing smaller schools in Oakland as the community began to recognize disparities between affluent schools and predominantly minority areas. One of the major issues that low-income communities faced was overcrowding, which resulted in directing momentum toward creating smaller yet more efficient schools. The community viewed this opportunity as a way to achieve social justice, but teachers envisioned a place to apply educational theories and emerging practices that were not yet part of the larger public school dynamic. Dyrness (2011) attempts to capture this division throughout her book by analyzing parental claims to space within the new school design, stereotypes surrounding immigrant parents (the good, the angry (problematic), and the “Other”), and lessons for educators working toward change within immigrant communities. The book additionally explains the bureaucratic processes involved in new school proposals, the organization and admissions policies and ultimately, the mission of social justice within this context. Two main goals that emerged from these plans included parental desire for more opportunities to participate in the education system and the goal of teachers to obtain more professional development. According to Dyrness (2011), this resulted in conflicts as teachers entered the picture with developed agendas regarding the organization and curriculum design of the school, whereas parents were relegated to assisting with menial tasks such as naming the school while they sought more representative participation within the developmental phase. Although parental involvement was encouraged, it was not always welcome unless supported by the teaching administration. Sadly, the process of the new school reflected a systematic capitalist view where parents simply became consumers of the “product” that teachers and the administrators were willing to deliver.
Dyrness’s (2011) analysis emerged from Third-World feminist theory as her goal included empowering the five women she worked with to help them realize their marginalized position in society. Indirectly, her interaction with her subjects shaped their perception of themselves as they became further involved in community advocacy. Her support allowed the women to further contribute to the new school that would eventually better serve the low-income minority community. As a researcher, she adequately takes empowerment and social justice to the people through engaging in practice around kitchen tables and traditional meals, which results in a coalition that is built on confianza (trust) and convivencia (coexistence). While this fostered a sense of community, friendship, and unified change in a safe space that promoted dialogue, it is important to consider that perhaps this created an outsider dynamic among teachers. Dyrness (2011) argues that the creation of a safe space was necessary for the women to understand their oppression, resistance, and subjectivity within the system.
Dyrness (2011) ends with observations on participatory research and the politics of social change, additionally noting that educational professionals working for change with immigrant parents often hinder parental involvement within the school system. Educators view parental involvement as a limited role; therefore, perceived overstepping of these boundaries instigates conflict for both parties. The resulting circumstance is detrimental to both groups which have similar end goals pertaining to serving the children of the community; however, the larger political process causes both parties to lose sight of the unified vision. Dyrness (2011) argues that parents are not seen as equals within the educational community and should be seen as experts (similarly to academics) because they understand injustice directly related to their minority status, which would be beneficial to teachers seeking insight into serving marginalized students. She notes that the valuable insights of the community and minority experience overall is a larger part of a unique history, thus enabling parents to act as a liaison between both worlds rather than a barrier. The idea of the separation of existences based on history ultimately refers to ideas of “Otherness” and paradigms embedded in socialization.
Lather (2006) acknowledges that reality is not dialectical, but, colonialism is, which should remain a central point to understanding research in regard to objectivity, complicity, difference, interpretation, and legitimization overall as we seek to examine social experiences, behaviors, and reactions as educational researchers. The linear format of structural events remains historically inaccurate as many events overlap in occurrence resulting in a form of hybridism, including ethnicity, race, gender, and other differences (Dillard, 2006) that directly affect the formation of knowledge which Dyrness (2011) addresses as she traces the history of the small schools movement in Oakland, overcrowding and the differences between social classes within the school system.
The pursuit of knowledge in and of itself is tainted by a history written by individuals who have based their stories on biased experiences. Similarly, research can be conducted inadequately without acknowledgment of one’s positionality (race, class, socioeconomic status, education level, religion, etc.), thereby affecting the legitimacy of the results and disfiguring the experiences of the subject. Dyrness (2011) does interrogate her position as a doctoral student with roots in the Bay Area and through her infiltration of the community via organized committee meetings (serving as a translator), she does not necessarily analyze her own racial identity. Dyrness (2011) acknowledges that her access and ability to gain trust within the community is realized through her racial and cultural identity in a space where 90% of the teachers are White, while the parents are predominantly Spanish speakers from Central America and Mexico. She refers to herself as a bilingual, bicultural Central American Latina who is racially White and class privileged, which allows her to occupy common spaces with both the teachers and parents; yet, she does not interrogate her Whiteness within this context. Rather, she focuses on her accessibility to the administration through her role as a graduate student from a prestigious university. She also falls short in her analysis of her five subjects as she discusses their social location, access, and roles without addressing their complex histories, thus lumping together women of various experiences and historical circumstances into one subcategory: Latina immigrant.
Lather (2006) notes that humans are merely actors and narrators of history. Therefore, the facts of “what happened” and “what is said to have happened” result in a one-sided account of the perspective of the dominant actor. Similarly, one’s lived experiences affect interpretations of the lives of research participants. For Dyrness (2011), this may refer to her “White” academic voice speaking for an under-represented minority experience. Historical narratives in this regard as a claim to “truth” forego an understanding of the existence of various truths. The “truth” of the parents can now be written in the language of an academic. It is important to consider a full account of events of the past with both sides of the stories intact as social processes of history tend to privilege one side in the matter. Similarly, one’s lived experiences affect interpretations of the lives of research participants (as women, as immigrants, as citizens/legal residents, as uneducated, as employed or unemployed and as a compressed ethnic class within the U.S. context: Latina/Hispanic). It is important to examine these factors, especially when the author has not adequately analyzed her own social location within the research process.
Perspective is an important factor to consider as the research documenting the event may inadvertently silence the voice of the “Other” he or she is attempting to speak with in the first place. Could Dyrness’s (2011) voice become merged with her subjects because of her close relationship with them or did she remain objective in her ability to maintain separate academic views? Scheurich and Young (1997) argued that White researchers should familiarize themselves with the foundations of research from scholars of color to understand the shaping of the dominant discourse with particular regard to racism (Lather, 2006). According to Lather (2006), this is vitally important in research for us to understand how questions came to be, the effects within power relations, and modes of domination which opens up a history of thought and how it is shaped. For Dyrness (2011), this may mean engaging with discourse beyond the community status and socioeconomic lines and thoroughly breaking down ideas of privilege and “Whiteness,” particularly when communication serves a progressive purpose between teachers and parents. Living in hybrid spaces, “speaking with” in terms of research participants and “within/against” in terms of institutional disciplines force us to acknowledge dual agendas as we must take note of our different positions. Although Dyrness (2011) does acknowledge some of her ingrained social and historical privileges, she falls short in examining other valid points that would not only strengthen the voice of her participants but also her role as a researcher. For those who have been colonized multiple times, the view may be completely different and the approach to the pursuit of knowledge may take a different route altogether. How does Dyrness (2011) see the world as a non-immigrant, racially White woman with cultural Latin roots in comparison with her subjects? How do the experiences of Mexican Latina women and Central American women differ and shape their immigrant experiences prior to their recent settlement in California? How does this affect the way in which they foresee the education of their children (especially in the case of Carolina, Dyrness’s youngest participant who is also a single mother)? How can the author relate to the reality of her participants’ lives as domestic and restaurant workers (a position that her privilege has protected her from)?
Lather (2006) advocated teaching educational research in a way that allows students to develop the ability to locate themselves in the tensions that characterize fields of knowledge, which may arise through self-reflection. But how does one reflect on a self that has been denied through most of one’s education? This process in itself may leave students incapable of fully acknowledging issues within marginalized research communities. Dyrness’s (2011) analysis remains limited through what she herself identifies as the prestigious institution at which she has been educated, and although she makes a noble attempt at including anti-racial feminist practices, her shortcomings emerged with her infiltration of the community as she began to view herself as a Spanish-speaking minority over her actual intended purpose: to conduct dissertation research as a privileged student. In this respect, Dyrness (2011) begins to move into dangerous territory, initially as an observer but later as a participant through coalition building with her participants without thoroughly addressing the power dynamics and potential exploitative nature of that relationship.
Perhaps the most important aspect of research is to acknowledge the privileging of ethnography as a research practice. According to Lather (2006), the intimate relation of fieldwork leaves us with a higher risk of misusing participant trust; however, the danger increases as we infiltrate marginalized communities that restrict outsiders, further distressing is the reality that Dyrness (2011) poses herself as an insider. As an insider, utilizing participant/observational research while performing an identity allows one to misuse the trust of those who expect academic researchers to objectively (without critique) convey the practice of culture and language when silenced voices cannot speak for themselves through varying historical memories, perspectives, educational backgrounds, access, understanding, and so on. It is discerning that Dyrness (2011) does not acknowledge the reality that language transforms what we know and how we produce that knowledge especially in regard to the power structure that she witnesses manifested through structural, racial, gender, and identity relations (while she serves as a translator).
Interviewee’s statements are not collected but rather co-authored (Kvale, 1996). Qualitative researchers should aim to not objectify participants as solely a source of data collection and analysis but rather engage with and immerse ourselves in the actual lived experiences of our participants. Initially, Dyrness (2011) begins her project by observations and interviews but later begins to engage with her participants. As human beings, we tend to forget social discourse and focus on final outcomes because research urges us to relay our findings back to the academic community. However, it is within this process that we forego the value of the depth of the interaction itself. This weakens the researcher/participant relationship as the conversation is easily forgotten and the results become key. This lack of objectivity stems from the researcher’s reality that we are searching for similarities we expect to find rather than engaging in the research process as an objective observer. That being said, it would be refreshing to see Dyrness (2011) address some of these issues in a follow-up to her book including the depth of conversations with her participants, the current progress of the school and teachers involved, including an analysis of the aftermath of the publication of her manuscript and perhaps an epilogue that allows her to interrogate her own social location fully as an interactive part of the process. In addition, it would have largely contributed to the book to see Dyrness (2011) address language as a form of constructed reality created through place, identity, and space in the context of social relations and interactions (Best, 2003) both as a Spanish speaker and as a racially White woman conveying the lived experiences of Latinas. Further analysis of the negotiations of racial identity and language between the Latino community and predominantly White teachers would have only strengthened her work. Being that Dyrness (2011) represents a part of both worlds, she falls short on her examination of her lived reality as both an insider and an outsider within the context of her study. However, she must be given credit for her use of language in the publication itself, as she avoids academic jargon in a stylistic effort that maintains the accessibility of her book to both her research population and the student community.
Apart from being useful in the field of educational research, Dyrness’s (2011) book should serve as a tool for professional teachers who work within communities of color to understand the depth of the issues endured by minority students. Readers should not be left wondering whether change can only be initiated by outsiders posing as community insiders but rather, how the tools of resistance aid in bringing positive changes to marginalized groups. At the heart of the book is the inspiration that the lives and stories of immigrant women can contribute to the work of academics, administrators, and teaching professionals as it humanizes a largely political discourse. It is important to acknowledge immigrant stereotypes that continue to pervade the United States, but there are still many like Dyrness’s (2011) Madres Unidas who are attempting to create a better world for all children within under-represented communities of color.