Race-Evasive White Teacher Identity Studies 1990–2015: What Can We Learn from 25 Years of Research?
by James C. Jupp, Alisa Leckie, Nolan Cabrera & Jamie Utt - 2019
Background/Context: With a rationale informed by the demographic imperative, the resegregation of public schools, and our positionalities as researchers, we understand both the high stakes and the complexity of capacitating White preservice and in-service teachers capable of anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning in public school classrooms.
Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: Deploying the framework of colorblind racism, we systematically reviewed race-evasive White teacher identity studies and answered the question: What can we learn from 25 years of research?
Research Design: In using the method called the synoptic text, we engaged electronic databases, with special emphasis on ERIC EBSCOhost. The simple and general search term “White teachers” conducted using year-by-year parameters provided the most systematic net for capturing relevant studies. In narrowing our focus, we developed the following criteria: (a) White teachers as central topic, (b) analytical emphases on colorblind racism, (c) publication in peer-reviewed journals, (d) use of qualitative and/or narrative research methodologies, and (e) publication date between 1990 and 2015.
Data Collection and Analysis: Our general search yielded 136 (N = 136) peer-reviewed empirical qualitative and/or narrative studies between 1990 and 2015, and after narrowing our criteria, we found 47 race-evasive White teacher identity studies (n = 47, 47/136) that we reviewed here. Each study in the document universe was abstracted by authors, added to a spreadsheet, and categorized by emergent themes.
Findings/Results: The following five themes emerged and developed over the last 25 years: (a) racialized silence and invisibility (9/47), (b) resistance and active reconstruction of White privilege (12/47), (c) whiteness in institutional and social contexts (8/47), (d) fertile paradoxes in new research (9/47), and (e) reflexive whiteness pedagogies (9/47).
Conclusions/Recommendations: We believe our literature review identifies the complex contours of White preservice and in-service teachers’ silence, resistance to, engagement in, and pedagogical grappling with racism, whiteness, and White privilege. The importance of preservice and in-service teachers being able to engage, understand, and challenge these issues becomes critically important at our crossroads in the present, especially given the recent election that bolstered open and tacit White supremacists into power. If White teachers are to engage racism, whiteness, and White privilege, they must do so with as opposed to for their students, in a Freirean sense. If teaching for social justice is important, renewed interest and investment in White teacher identity studies and related whiteness pedagogies is key for the next 25 years.
Keywords: White teachers, White teacher identity studies, teacher education, colorblind racism
Our purpose1 in this literature review is to analyze and synthesize 25 years of race-evasive White teacher identity studies. Race-evasive White teacher identity studies, by definition, refer to the subset of White teacher identity studies that deploys the framework of colorblind racism in analyzing White preservice and in-service teachers White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness. As a site for study and analyses, race-evasive White teacher identity studies have provided strident, provocative, and relevant research representations for teacher educators and education researchers interested in anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning over the last 25 years. Our review provides careful analyses of race-evasive White teacher identity studies, and in doing so, we seek to answer the following research questions: What can we learn from 25 years of research? How does 25 years of empirically based race-evasive White teacher identity studies better inform teacher educators and education researchers anti-racist praxis in the present moment?
The rationale for taking on this question emerges within the exigency of advancing new theoretical and empirically based research on White teacher identities that ultimately drives at anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning in contemporary contexts. In approaching this exigency, we anchor our work within two historical motives: (a) the demographic imperative and (b) the resegregation of public schools. First, the demographic imperative provides a historical motive for this review. The demographic imperative (Banks, 1995, 2004; Cochran-Smith, Davis, & Fries, 2004; Grant & Sleeter, 1999, 2007; Sleeter, 1992, 2001) is an ongoing concern in U.S. educational literatures. Over the last 25 years, the demographic imperative has only increased in saliency. While in 1990 White students made up 67% of public school students (National Center for Educational Statistics [NCES], 2015), by 2012 White students made up only 51% of public school students, and it is generally acknowledged that presently White students constitute less than half of public school students (NCES, 2015). Meanwhile, the number of White teachers has remained relatively constant over the last 25 years, decreasing from 91% in 1990 to 86% in 2008 (National Center for Educational Information [NCEI], 2011). While recognizing the importance of engaging and conscientizing a diverse teacher workforce as part of a larger social justice project (e.g., Berry, 2005; Morales, 2011; Sleeter, Neal, & Kumashiro, 2015; Valenzuela, 2016),2 the demographic imperative drives this review of race-evasive White teacher identity studies.
Second, the resegregation of public schools provides an educationally based historical motive for this review. Acknowledging Kozols (2005) journalistic observations, we understand the resegregation of public schools over the last 25 (or more) years to mark a return to an older order of accepted isolation (p. 10). Tracking racial group concentrations in public schools, recent statistical research supports Kozols observations. In the case of the most sizeable minorities3 in the United States, 54% of Hispanic students attend schools with 75% or more minority group populations, and 77% of Hispanic students attend schools with 50% or more minority group populations (NCES, 2009). Similarly, 51% of Black students attend schools with 75% or more minority group populations, and 73% of Black students attend schools with 50% or more minority group populations (NCES, 2009). Clearly demonstrating tendencies toward resegregation, only 3% of White students attend schools with over 75% minority group populations, and only 12% of White students attend schools with 50% or more minority group populations (NCES, 2009). While recognizing the ability of minority students to excel without the presence of White students (Ladson-Billings, 1994/2009), the resegregation of public schools combined with an overwhelming 86% of White teachers also drives this study.
With these two motives in mind, we believe that White teacher identity studies requires renewed research investments, and we support recent research that has called for (Berchini, 2016; Jupp, 2013; Jupp & Slattery, 2010a; Jupp, Berry, & Lensmire, 2016; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Lensmire et al., 2013; Mason, 2016; Tanner, 2015, 2016) or contributed to the second wave of White teacher identity studies (e.g., Amos, 2016; Borsheim-Black, 2015; Cabrera, 2012c; Crowley, 2016; Flynn, 2015; Lensmire 2011, 2014; Lensmire et al., 2013; Miller, 2015a, 2015b; Smith & Crowley, 2015; Spanierman & Cabrera, 2015; Utt & Tochluk, 2016). Second-wave White teacher identity studies, further referenced in our discussion and conclusion section, has emphasized renewed investments and racial stamina in studying colorblind racisms White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness in contemporary schooling.
Our review emerges from both shared and individual commitments to anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning in education research, teacher education, and public schools. Regarding our shared commitments, we are all educators who worked and taught in resegregated majority minority public schools and programs. Informed by these commitments, our review of race-evasive White teacher identity studies ultimately drives at our ongoing concerns regarding preservice and in-service teachers anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning. With these concerns in mind, we advance our review in order to better sustain pedagogical efforts toward anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning in teacher education and education research. Ultimately, our purpose in developing anti-racist praxis of White preservice and in-service teachers drives at the potentials and problematics of race-visible teaching and learning in public schools.
Regarding individual commitments, we provide our brief autobiographies. In providing our autobiographies, we understand the personal, intentional, and social embeddedness of our identities within the review that follows (e.g., González Delgado, 2014, 2016; Lather, 2007). James Jupp, a White middle-class male who spent 18 years in majorityminority schools teaching predominantly Mexican, indigenous, and African American students, has spent the last 12 years researching race-visible teaching and learning. Alisa Leckie, a White middle-class female from a working-class background who also spent 18 years working with language minority students in Arizona, researches the education of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Nolan Cabrera, a biracial (Chicano/White) man of color who worked with urban youth in schools as volunteer, Coordinator, and Director of the Boys and Girls Club in the San Francisco Bay Area for 10 years, researches race/racism in higher education, White identity formation, diversity, and affirmative action policies. Jamie Utt, a White man who briefly taught students of color in Chicago before working for six years as an educational consultant and trainer focusing on identity and racial equity, is a PhD student investigating the role of police in racialized school systems and the role of White teacher racial identity development on teaching practices. Our identities, working through anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching within racialized urban contexts and White spaces of teacher education, inform our desires and efforts in our review of race-evasive White teacher identity studies.
Related to the complexities of our identities embedded in our research, we foreground several terms used in our review. Following recent convergences in race-based identity traditions, we understand identity and identity formations in non-essentializing ways. Non-essentializing identities, by definition, refer to understanding identities as complex and multidimensional self, social, and historical structuring processes that should not be reduced to any single criterion or group membership. White identities, by definition, refer to the complex, multidimensional, and structurally privileged ways White-skinned individuals conjugate identities in relation to whiteness. Whiteness, by definition, refers to hegemonic racial structurings of social and material realities that perpetuate White privilege, inequalities, and injustices. White privilege, by definition, refers to the structural privileges and unearned benefits conferred on White-skinned individuals through the quotidian functionings of whiteness. White race-evasion, by definition, refers to tacit and explicit identity strategies and speech acts taken up by White-skinned individuals who diminish, deny, and evade the saliency of race and, therefore, defend and buttress White privilege and hegemonic whiteness. Anti-racist praxis, by definition, refers to the complex area of theory, empirical research, and practice that drive against the grain of racism, whiteness, and White privilege in educational and other social institutions. Finally, race-visible teaching and learning, by definition, refers to teachers critical deployment of identity in their routine teaching practices that recognizes and uses the potentials of race, class, culture, language, ethnicity, or other historicized identitarian resources in classrooms with students. Read together and as used in the trajectory of this review, these terms move the discussion in White teacher identity studies from one of correct thinking so prevalent in early White teacher identity studies toward a discussion that emphasizes the heavy lifting of professional and institutional practices, both in teacher education and in public school classrooms. This emphasis on professional and institutional practice is characteristic of White teacher identity studies second wave, discussed further below.
With a rationale informed by the demographic imperative, the resegregation of public schools, and our positionalities as researchers, we understand both the high stakes and the complexity of capacitating White preservice and in-service teachers capable of anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning in public school classrooms. Advancing our rationale, we analyze 25 years of empirically based race-evasive White teacher identity studies to find out what was learned about White teachers over the last 25 years. Working with this research base, we adapt the research method of the synoptic text from curriculum studies scholars to analyze the race-evasive subset of White teacher identity studies.
In this literature review, we (a) provide a framework that informs text selection and analyses, (b) situate our review within an account of White teacher identity studies, (c) explain the research method called the synoptic text used for selecting and analyzing the research, (d) list our findings and explain and narrate each thematic pattern that emerged in our analysis, and (e) provide a discussion and conclusion section that presents new leads and reflections for teacher educators and education researchers anti-racist praxis in the present moment. Overall, our point in this literature review is straightforward: Race-evasive White teacher identity studies have expanded beyond simply documenting White teachers race-evasion toward becoming a nuanced body of research that supports critical whiteness pedagogies, anti-racist praxis, and race-visible teaching and learning.
In Section 1, we discuss the framework that informs our review. In the text selection, interpretation, analysis, discussion, and conclusion, our review of race-evasive White teacher identity studies broadly draws on the framework of colorblind racism. Variously developed and deployed in the human sciences, the study of colorblind racism is important here because it binds together three concepts that drove our review: White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness. Additionally, in its focus on qualitative understandings of racial ideology, the study of colorblind racism also influenced our decision to focus on qualitative or narrative studies.
Emblematic of the study of colorblind racism, Bonilla-Silvas (2010) research is fundamental to our review. Articulating whiteness as racial component of hegemony (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Cabrera, 2012b; Cabrera, Franklin, & Watson, 2016; Feagin, 2001; Frankenberg, 1994; Lewis, 2004; Omi & Winant, 1994; Sleeter, 1993), Bonilla-Silva (2010) identifies colorblind racism as the dominant racial ideology that informs White peoples frames or set paths for interpreting information (p. 26). In Bonilla-Silvas study of respondents interviews, colorblind racism marks the central ideological column that sustains White peoples understandings of race. Importantly, rather than allowing for sincere and authentic grappling with questions of racism, Bonilla-Silvas work demonstrates colorblind racism to be a paradoxical phenomenon that, through White peoples various denials or evasions of race, allows White people to buttress whiteness and White privilege.
Generally, as dominant racial ideology, colorblind racism facilitates and supports the position among most White people that race has all but disappeared as factor in shaping the life chances of all Americans (Bonilla-Silva, 2010, p. 262; Feagin, 2001; Frankenberg, 1993; Omi & Winant, 1994). That is, despite consistent and convincing evidence of historical and social racialized inequalities in living conditions, wealth, income, education, healthcare, and other empirical social variables correlating with race, colorblind racism operates through White peoples persistent denials, failures to see, or evasions of the saliency of racism in the historical present. Moreover, behind these denials, failures, and evasions, colorblind racism traffics not the overtly racist views of the past but instead slots in colorblind understandings of work ethic, merit, family, individualism, and individual failures to do the old racist work of maintaining racialized inequalities.
Bonilla-Silva, who provides the most comprehensive study on the topic, encapsulates what is meant by colorblind racism:
The data . . . evinced color-blind racism forms an impregnable yet elastic ideological wall that barricades whites off from Americas racial reality. . . . Today there is a safe color-blind way of calling minorities niggers, Spics, or Chinks. Today most whites justify keeping minorities from having the good things in life with the language of [individual] liberalism. . . . Whites believe that minorities have the opportunities to succeed and that, if they do not succeed, it is because they do not try hard. (2010, p. 265)
As demonstrated in Bonilla-Silvas analyses of qualitative interview data, colorblind racism provides the dominant racial ideology to many Whites who deny or evade the salience of race in U.S. society. Through these denials and evasions, colorblind racism facilitates and advances whiteness and White privilege through deracialized understandings of individualism and meritocracy.
As we approach our review, colorblind racism informed our selection of studies in terms of conceptual content and research method, both of which are further discussed under the section called Method. First, regarding conceptual content, Bonilla-Silvas (2010) study of colorblind racism informed our work because it binds together White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness. Importantly, colorblind racism begins with the contradiction of White race-evasion as driving present-day racial inequalities (Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Feagin, 2001; Frankenberg, 1993; Omi & Winant, 1994). That is, as indicated in the denotative meaning of blind, it is precisely White peoples various diminutions, denials, evasions and quite literally failures to see race in social and historical structurings that defend and buttress White privilege and whiteness. Our review of race-evasive White teacher identity studies selected, interpreted and analyzed, and rendered literatures that worked the analytic arch of White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness.
Second, regarding research method, Bonilla-Silvas (2010) study of colorblind racism emphasizes qualitative research as central to understanding contemporary racism and, especially, White racism. Importantly, and also supporting our choice of framework, ongoing research on the study of racism argues for qualitative or narrative approaches to understanding respondents experiences of race and racialized structurings (e.g., Berry & Jennings, 2016; Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Delgado, 1990; Ladson-Billings, 1998; Solórzano & Yosso, 2002). Following Bonilla-Silva and others, our review of race-evasive White teacher identity studies focuses on qualitative or narrative studies of White preservice and in-service teachers race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness. Overall, the framework of colorblind racism helped organize our review of race-evasive White teacher identity studies regarding both conceptual content and research method.
AN ACCOUNT OF WHITE TEACHER IDENTITY STUDIES
Section 2 situates our review within a brief account4 of the development of White teacher identity studies with special emphasis on race-evasive studies. Our brief account of the field situates White teacher identity studies within critically insurgent knowledges in African American and critical White studies (CWS) intellectual traditions. In our account, we narrate White teacher identity studies as an extension and continuation of these two critical and insurgent traditions. In relation to White teacher identity studies, African American intellectual traditions provided historical and social foundations for studying race in the United States within the emergence of university-based human sciences, and CWS provided the conceptual content that initiated and continues to develop the field.
AFRICAN AMERICAN HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS
From a historical perspective, we understand African American intellectual traditions as providing the understandings of race on the U.S. scene from which White teacher identity studies became possible in the first place. An important aspect of African American intellectual traditions is that they were often written with both African American and White audiences in mind, and they have provided important conceptualizations of White identity from their outset. Often ignored in discussions of White teacher identity studies, African American intellectual traditions provided understandings of race as dehumanizing social institution (e.g., Bell, 1992; Douglass, 1846/1986; Du Bois, 1903/1995), race as bound up in understandings of educational identities and knowledges (e.g., Du Bois, 1903/1995, 1935; Woodson, 1933/2000, X & Haley, 1964/1999), and race as imbued in understandings of social problems (e.g., Bell, 1992; Du Bois, 1903/1995). Moreover, African American intellectual traditions began theorizations of whiteness (Du Bois, 1903/1995, 1920/1998; X & Haley, 1964/1999), White race-evasion (Baldwin, 1963/1998a, 1965/1998b; X & Haley 1964/1999), White racial identity development (Helms, 1984, 1990, 1995), and discussions of a-critical education as aligned with dominant deculturalization and whiteness (Bell, 1992; Woodson, 1933/2000; X & Haley, 1964/1999).
Additionally, it is important to note how CWS (further discussed below) emerged within and overlapped with the general milieu of the Critical Race Theory (CRT) family tree (Matias, Viesca, Garrison-Wade, Tandon, & Galindo, 2014; Yosso, 2005, p. 72). As a theoretical tradition originally conceived by African American legal scholars, CWS co-emerged and built on the foundation of CRTs applications to education (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) and CRTs tradition of analyzing whiteness as a discourse of power, introduced by Harris (1993/1995) in her conceptualization of whiteness as property. Within CRTs generativity, African American education scholars began to infuse CRT-influenced perspectives into their activist conceptual reflections on working with and preparing White preservice and in-service teachers (Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1996). Additionally, many scholars in both CRT and CWS called for complicating White identity by considering it intersectionally in the context of other identity constructions as informed by Crenshaws (1993) call to account for multiple grounds of identity when considering how the social world is constructed (p. 1245). African American traditions, from our purview, provided understandings of race and racialized identity in human science that are foundational for the emergence of White teacher identity studies in the 1990s.
Despite a few exceptions in White teacher identity studies that draw directly on African American traditions (Jupp et al., 2016; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Lensmire et al., 2013; Tanner, 2015, 2016), by and large White teacher identity studies scholars have omitted the contributions of African American intellectual traditions in their research and understanding of the field, and this is an omission we seek to correct. Through our brief historical account, we understand that African American intellectual traditions provided the first horizon of intelligibility for the emergence of White teacher identity studies on the U.S. scene in the 1990s, and we believe that engagement in the African American historical archive is important for the continued development of the field (Berry, 2012, 2014; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Lensmire et al., 2013).
DEVELOPMENTS IN CWS
In addition to African American intellectual traditions, we understand CWS traditions as providing the broad conceptual content that made White teacher identity studies possible. Contrasting with African American intellectual traditions whose contributions are often omitted, CWS traditions are frequently recognized and cited as providing conceptual content to White teacher identity studies. Broadly, CWS traditions conceptual content included notions of White identity as historically constructed (e.g., Ignatiev, 1995; Roediger, 1994; Saxton, 1990), whiteness as invisible hegemony (e.g., Cabrera, 2012b; Dyer, 1988; Hall, 1981; Kincheloe, 1999; West, 1993), White racism bound up in academic knowledge and ontology (e.g., Scheurich, 1993; Scheurich & Young, 1997; Sleeter, 1992, 1993, 1995; West, 1993), and White privileged and race-evasive identities (e.g., Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Frankenberg, 1993; hooks, 1992; Leonardo, 2002, 2009; McIntosh, 1988; Sleeter, 1995). While Sleeter (1992, 1993, 1994, 1995), Scheurich (1993), and Scheurich and Young (1997) played groundbreaking roles in introducing CWS to education research early on, Girouxs (1997) publication in Harvard Educational Review was also seminal to the study of whiteness in education. This broad key conceptual content focusing on whiteness as hegemonic normativity, White identities racialized silences and invisibilities, and White resistances and evasions of racialized knowledges is foundational to all peer-reviewed articles discussed in our findings. These concepts are also variously echoed, corresponded with, and fueled in Bonilla-Silvas work, which is central to our framework outlined above. As situated within the developing field of White teacher identity studies, these concepts inform our analyses in our first two findings on (a) racialized silences and invisibilities and (b) resistances and reconstruction of White privileges detailed and discussed at length in Section 3.
Since the early 2000s, CWS has moved toward notions of complexity and non-essentializing White identities (e.g., Eichstedt, 2001; Leonardo, 2002; Lewis, 2004; Moon & Flores, 2000; Trainor, 2002; Winans, 2005), reflexivity in whiteness pedagogies (e.g., Kincheloe, 1999; Kincheloe, Steinberg, Rodriguez, & Chennault, 1998; Perry & Shotwell, 2009; Winans, 2005; Zingsheim & Goltz, 2012), and contextuality and relationality of racialized identities (e.g., Avant-Mier & Hasian, 2002; Dwyer & Jones, 2000; Edwards, 2006; Kendall, 2013; Lewis, 2004; McDermott & Samson, 2005) as key conceptual content. From this shift in CWS conceptual content, race-evasive White teacher identity studies co-developed and incorporated notions of reflexivity, whiteness pedagogies, and contextuality. Echoing the complexity of Bonilla-Silvas (2010) chapters on White habitus and White activists, these concepts permeate the analyses of the findings on whiteness in institutional and social contexts, fertile paradoxes, and reflexive whiteness pedagogies also discussed below in Section 3.
THE EMERGENCE AND DEVELOPMENT OF RACE-EVASIVE WHITE TEACHER IDENTITY STUDIES
Recognizing important humanist precursors to the field (e.g., Kohl, 1969; Kozol, 1967; Longstreet, 1978; Paley, 1979), we acknowledge their contributions toward bringing focus on race in education, schools, and classrooms. Nonetheless, we distinguish such precursors from White teacher identity studies reviewed here. Precursors to White teacher identity studies, rather than operating from CWSs conceptual content laid out in our framework, instead generally reified liberal humanist strategies of White scholars studying racialized others, their communities, and their families with liberal supplications for support.
Beginning with this important distinction in mind, we understand White teacher identity studies as having originated approximately 25 years ago (Haberman & Post, 1990, 1992; King, 1991; Sleeter, 1992, 1993) with an emphasis on King (1991) and Sleeters initial forays (1992, 1993). Reflecting yet also co-developing with CWS conceptual content, King (1991) and Haberman and Posts (1990, 1992) research on White urban preservice and in-service teachers and clinical supervisors began to highlight new racialized understandings key to White teacher identity studies. King (1991), combining Black research epistemology and social reconstructionist pedagogy, begins to identify whiteness and White privilege in her discussions of White preservice teachers dysconscious racism. Moving in similar directions, Haberman and Post (1992) emphasized White preservice teachers race-evasive identities emblematic of the colorblind belief that kids are just kids! (p. 31).
In research on White in-service teachers with findings very similar to those of King (1991) and Haberman and Post, Sleeter (1992) emphasized that the White teachers in her research variously diminished, denied, or dismissed students racialized identities. Further developing these early findings on White race-evasion, Sleeter (1992, 1993, 1995) explained that working-class and female White teachers denied the saliency of students racialized identities. In her findings, Sleeter (1992) emphasized that many White teachers tried to minimize race by negating it all together (p. 21). Further contextualized and discussed in our systematic review of the literature presented in Section 3 below, we identify King (1991), Haberman and Post (1992), and Sleeter (1992) as originators in the complex field that co-developed with CWS and CRT and emerged in teacher education and education research in the 1990s.
Further historicizing the broad development of race-evasive White teacher identity studies, our review recognizes previous literature reviews emphasizing the topic of White teachers and Marxs (2003a, 2003b) special issue as important in influencing the field under review here. Cochran-Smith and colleagues (2004) historical review of multicultural teacher education is important because it documented the emergence of a new genre of research in the 1990s that required White preservice and in-service teachers to interrogate whiteness, privilege, and power (p. 950). Sleeters (2001) review of multicultural teacher education was also key because it correctly reframed the problem of preparing teachers as one that must confront the overwhelming presence of whiteness in teacher education (p. 102). Lowensteins (2009) review of multicultural teacher education hastened White teacher identity studies second wave by insisting on White preservice teachers non-essentializing identity complexity along with a conceptualization of teacher candidates as competent learners (p. 187). Corresponding with CWSs conceptual shift since the early 2000s, Lowensteins reconceptualization of White preservice and in-service teachers as learners is also foundational to findings on whiteness in institutional and social contexts, fertile paradoxes, and reflexive whiteness pedagogies.
Additionally, we recognize Marxs (2003a, 2003b) special issue of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE), advanced under Scheurichs editorial leadership, as a key defining moment in the field. Marx consolidated White teacher identity studies in the early 2000s as a burgeoning critical field of inquiry with special import for teacher education. Marx, in consolidating the field, drove at important implications of CWS for preservice and in-service teacher education, and in doing so, she made foundational arguments for White teacher identity studies. Notably, Marxs special issue oriented the field by providing discussions of foundational CWS scholarship and anti-racist praxis (e.g., Bell, 1992; Frankenberg, 1993; hooks, 1992; McIntosh, 1988; McIntyre, 1997b; Scheurich, 1993; Scheurich & Young, 1997). Further, Marxs special issue provided several studies that very much defined and extended notions of White teachers race-evasive identities (e.g., Hytten & Warren, 2003; Marx & Pennington, 2003). Finally, and courageously we add, Marx (2003b) also provided provocative critiques of the White teacher identity studies (McCarthy, 2003; Thompson, 2003) that both indicted and pushed the field beyond its first iterations toward the more complexly nuanced field that emerges in our systematic review of the literature in Section 3 below. Having provided a brief account of the development of race-evasive White teacher identity studies to inform our review, we now turn to a discussion of the method used in the systematic review of race-evasive literatures.
In Section 3, we document the method used in text selection and in developing and substantiating our findings, presented in section called Findings below. In developing this literature review on race-evasive White teacher identity studies, we use the method called the synoptic text (Pinar, 2006; Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman, 1995; Schubert & Lopez Schubert, 1980; Schubert, Lopez Schubert, Thomas, & Carol, 2002). Adapted from curriculum scholars as a method for systematic analysis and synthesis of research studies in a particular area of study, our review provides an approach for selecting, analyzing, and synthesizing the last 25 years of race-evasive White teacher identity studies. As a research method, the synoptic text allows us to attend to accurate and rigorous citing, paraphrasing, and quoting of each particular research study in a way that carefully situates each study within a historicized discursive field. In this way, our review drives at a cogent analysis and synthesis of 25 years of research.
Specifically, we take up the synoptic text as our research method in order to illuminate race-evasive White teacher identity studies over 25 years so that education researchers and teacher educators might understand, use, and participate in a key body of relevant and developing research. We believe that this body of research, whose goals are the development of White teachers anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning in public schools (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 1994/2009, 2014; Jupp, 2013; Jupp & Slattery, 2010a, 2012; Milner, 2008, 2011, 2012; Rubinstein-Ávila & Leckie, 2014; Sleeter, 2015a, 2015b; Sleeter & Owuor, 2011), represents a key research base requiring further attention and investment from teacher educators and education researchers.
Our analyses of race-evasive White teacher identity studies strive to analyze and render the literatures between 1990 and 2015. Acknowledging White teacher identity studies development, we conducted an exhaustive search of the empirically based qualitative research on White teacher identity. In this process, we engaged electronic databases such as ERIC, EBSCO, Academic Search Complete, JSTOR, and meta-search databases such as GALILEO, with special emphasis on ERIC EBSCOhost. The search terms we used within these databases included White teachers, White teacher identity, whiteness and Boolean combinations of those terms. Overall, the simple and general search term White teachers conducted using year-by-year parameters casted the broadest net and yielded the most systematic and useful results. Findings from these broad searches were vetted both for topic and specific criteria laid out below.
In determining which articles to include in the literature review, we developed the following criteria: (a) White teachers as central topic, (b) analytical emphases on colorblind racism, (c) publication in peer-reviewed journals, (d) use of qualitative and/or narrative research methodologies, and (e) publication date between 1990 and 2015. First, our criterion emphasizing White teachers as central subject defined the topic of our review. This focus on White teachers as central topic distinguished the literature under review here from research on preservice and in-service teachers of color (e.g., Berry, 2005; Morales, 2011; Sleeter, Neal, & Kumashiro, 2015; Valenzuela, 2016).
Second, our criterion emphasizing the framework of colorblind racism focused on studies that variously deployed the concepts of White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness. This focus on colorblind racisms analytical arch distinguished the literatures under review from research on race-visible studies emphasizing White teachers racial conscientization processes and efforts toward race-visible teaching and learning (e.g., Bueler, Ruggles Gere, Dallavis, & Haviland, 2009; Jupp, 2013; Jupp & Slattery, 2010a; Jupp & Slattery, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1994/2009, 1995, 2014; Milner, 2008, 2011; McDonough, 2009; Raible & Irizzary, 2007).
Third, our criterion regarding studies appearing in peer-reviewed journals served to advance research on race-evasive White teacher identity that reviewers in the field considered new contributions at the time of their publication. This emphasis on peer-reviewed journals distinguishes the literature under review from general discussions on the topic of White teachers in textbooks (e.g., Bennett, 2007; Johnson, Musial, Hall, Gollnick, & Dupius, 2008; Tozer, Senese, & Violas, 2009) and companion texts (e.g., Howard, 2006; Landsman, 2009; Lewis & Landsman, 2011; Nieto, 1999), both predominantly directed toward undergraduate preservice teachers readership.
Fourth, our criterion of including qualitative and/or narrative research methodologies emphasized the empirically based study of White preservice and in-service teachers race-evasive identities within varied institutional and social contexts. This focus on qualitative and/or narrative research methodologies distinguishes the studies under review from autobiographical or conceptual essays that did not engage in systematic data collection or analysis (e.g., Cross, 2003; Freitas & McAuley, 2014; Paul, 1998; Porfilio & Malott, 2011; Schreffler, 1998; Schwartz, 2003; Starnes, 2006; Williams Chizhik, 2003)5 and from empirical survey research on White teachers (e.g., Chan, Lam, & Covault, 2009; Hlebowitsh, 1993; Kalin, 1999; Nel, 1993; Reiter & Davis, 2011; Tettegah, 1996; Torok, 2000).6
Fifth, our criteria focused on the 25 years of research between 1990 and 2015 as parameters. In this case, the year 1990 delineated what we considered the first race-evasive White teacher identity studies (Haberman & Post, 1990, 1992; King, 1991; Sleeter, 1992, 1993), and the period ends with the fully published archive of 2015 articles. This criterion is designed to allow us to recount the development of race-evasive White teacher identity studies as a field increasingly relevant to teacher education and education research in the present moment.
Overall, our criteria focused on the last 25 years of empirical qualitative and/or narrative research organized around the topic of White teachers and analyzed through the concepts of colorblind racisms White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness. Taken from a larger 25-year review of White teacher identity studies literatures that selected 136 (N = 136) peer-reviewed empirical qualitative and/or narrative studies on White teachers, we narrowed our focus in this review to race-evasive White teacher identity studies only. We narrowed our study for reasons of analytical clarity and also practicality, and in doing so, we developed a document universe with 47 (n = 47, 47/136) race-evasive White teacher identity studies that are analyzed and synthesized in our findings section.
Approaching the analytical task, we catalogued and rendered each study attemptingas much as possible as always-already embedded and positioned researchersto represent the studies with fidelity to their own epistemological and methodological intentions. During and after rendering these studies, we organized each study according to the emergent themes in the document universe along the lines of relative emphasis. After writing synopses of each study in the form of a one page or less abstract, we categorized each study according to our understanding of its main focus and contribution to the literature. In our analyses, we found that a single study almost always contained more than one focus, theme, or key finding. Given that condition, we sorted the documents not as absolute categorical statements on a single theme, but rather along the lines of relative emphasis and contribution to the field of race-evasive White teacher identity studies in the moment of their publication. Having catalogued and rendered each study with a researcher-composed abstract, we discussed and sorted the studies within each category by year to help us recognize the development of each theme over time. Following the themes and their emergence in the literature between 1990 and 2015, we composed the systematic review of the literature that follows. (See the Appendix for further discussion and an application of our textual analysis.)
In Section 4, we detail and narrate the findings of our review. In our review, the following five themes emerged and developed in race-evasive White teacher identity studies over the last 25 years: (a) racialized silence and invisibility, (b) resistance and active reconstruction of White privilege, (c) whiteness in institutional and social contexts, (d) fertile paradoxes in new research, and (e) reflexive whiteness pedagogies. (See Figures 1 and 2.) Approaching analytical categories and their relative weight in the findings, we provide a definition and the number of studies that fell under each category.
Figure 1. White teacher identity studies between 1990 and 2015
Note. This figure illustrates the total number of White teacher identity studies categorized by emphasis in findings. Only race-evasive studies are reviewed here.
Figure 2. Race-evasive white teacher identity studies by emergent analytical emphasis
Note. This figure illustrates the number of studies that supported each analytical category.
The theme racialized silence and invisibility (9/47) refers to studies whose primary findings emphasized silences and inabilities of preservice and professional teachers to variously see, name, call forth, discuss, or respond to questions of racism, whiteness, or White privilege. The theme resistances and reconstruction of White privilege (12/47) refers to the largest grouping of studies whose primary findings emphasized specific race-evasive identity strategies and speech acts used by White preservice and in-service teachers denying the saliency of race in ways that reconstructed White privilege. The theme whiteness in institutional and social contexts (8/47) refers to studies whose primary findings emphasized overarching ideological contexts in preservice and in-service teachers lives, teacher education, student teaching, and schools that served to variously diminish or sideline White teachers learning and teaching on racialized identities. The theme fertile paradoxes (9/47) refers to studies whose primary findings emphasized the complex production of race-evasions and race-visibility that nonetheless served to diminish structural or critical analyses of race. Finally, the theme reflexive whiteness pedagogies (9/47) refers to studies whose primary findings emphasized instructors teaching and pedagogical efforts to engage White preservice and in-service teachers in learning about racism, whiteness, and White privilege. (See Table 1.)
All of these directionsdeveloping in race-evasive White teacher identity studies over the last 25 yearsare further substantiated below. In substantiating our findings, each subsection follows a similar pattern. First, we substantiate each subsections specific finding by documenting each studys thematic emphasis. Next, we identify and discuss emblematic studies representing the finding. Finally, we narrate the development of similarly grouped findings over time. This pattern of documenting, discussing emblematic studies, and narrating thematic development over time is repeated for each finding.
Table 1. Studies Under the Theme of Racialized Silence and Invisibility
Studies Under the Theme of Resistance and Reconstruction of White Privilege
Studies Under the Theme of Whiteness in Institutional and Social Contexts
Studies Under the Theme of Fertile Paradoxes
Studies Under the Theme of Reflexive Whiteness Pedagogies
RACIALIZED SILENCE AND INVISIBILITY
Nine (9/47) studies theorized preservice and in-service teachers racialized silence and racial invisibility as the primary research finding (Bullock, 1996; Garza & Garza, 2010; Glazier, 2003; Henze, Lucas, & Scott, 1998; King, 1991; Mawhinney, Rinke, & Park, 2012; Mazzei, 2004, 2008, 2011). As this theme permeated many subsequent studies in the subsections below, we lead by characterizing studies that emphasized racialized silence and invisibility as a main finding because this finding is very often part and parcel of studies that emphasized other themes as well. That is, racialized silence and invisibility is also part of resistances and reconstruction of White privilege, whiteness in institutional and social contexts, fertile paradoxes, and reflexive whiteness pedagogies as well, so a discussion of this fundamental theme requires foregrounding, even though we found it emphasized as the primary finding in only nine studies.
Emphasizing racialized silence and invisibility in their findings, researchers in this section provided the following representations of White preservice and in-service teachers in their research. Researchers emphasized (1) White preservice teachers who understood their professional identities and subject-area teaching without reference to their own or their students racial identities (Mawhinney et al., 2012), (2) insisted on looking past skin color (Mazzei, 2008, p. 1133), (3) were unable to identify or teach about the dominant White culture (Bullock, 1996, p. 6), (4) fixated exclusively on understandings of poverty in schools (Garza & Garza, 2010, p. 203), and (5) generally preferred that race remain an unspeakable thing (Glazier, 2003, p. 84). Furthermore, researchers in this group theorized White preservice and in-service teachers silence and racial invisibility as (6) evincing dysconscious racism and miseducation (King, 1991, p. 143), (7) buttressing beliefs that US institutions are meritocratic (Henze et al., 1998, p. 207), (8) positioning themselves against loss of privilege, identity, and comfort (Mazzei, 2008, p. 1134), and (9) avoiding a loss of power and control (Mazzei, 2011, p. 662).
Of the nine studies emphasizing racialized silences and invisibility reviewed above, Mazzeis (2004, 2008, 2011) research is emblematic. Emphasizing the silence and racial invisibility of the preservice and in-service teachers she studied, Mazzei variously came to understand empirically observed silences as an expression of White privilege in the first place (2004), a fear of loss of those privileges (2008), and a desire to reify and maintain a whole social world (2011, p. 666) that allowed for unquestioned White privilege across their social interactions and in classrooms. Important in Mazzeis (2011) reading of White preservice and in-service teachers racialized silence and invisibility was respondents desire to go about their the business of learning how to teach (p. 664) without confronting any serious interruption in their education, social life, or thinking. For Mazzei, racialized silence and invisibility represented a shared group identity project that protected White privilege, de-racialized students in their classrooms, and left unquestioned an ahistorical common sense that reified whiteness, individuality, and meritocracy as proper social understandings and principles for distribution of wealth and privilege. Writ large, Mazzei (2004, 2008, 2011) advanced previous understandings of White preservice and in-service teachers silences and inabilities to articulate (e.g., Glazier, 2003; Henze et al., 1998) by positioning racialized silence as unspoken desire that reenacts, continues, and extends White preservice and in-service teachers existing relations in the social world. Mazzei understood racialized silences and invisibilities as a key act of complicity in a social world that extends respondents White privilege and whiteness, and also diminished any serious attempts at authentic cross-cultural or multicultural education.
Viewed over 25 years, the nine studies on racialized silence and invisibility began by identifying racialized silence and invisibility, and recently, they developed both more specific and more global theorizations of these empirical phenomena. Research that theorized silence and invisibility initially identified them as White preservice and in-service teachers dysconscious avoidance (King, 1991) of talking about, learning, or teaching on race (Bullock, 1996; Glazier, 2003) and protecting White privilege (Henze et al., 1998; Mazzei, 2004). As understanding of racialized silences and invisibility developed over time, researchers findings moved toward both increased specificity (Garza & Garza, 2010; Mahwinney et al., 2012) and increased globality (Mazzei, 2008, 2011). Following the direction of increased specificity, Garza and Garza (2010) tracked how White teachers deemed effective by their principals provided de-racializing all children and standards-based discourses in justifying their effective teaching that produced good test scores, and Mahwinney, Rinke, and Park emphasized White preservice teachers professional identities that remained silent on racial identity. Following increased globality, Mazzei (2008, 2011) deployed poststructuralist and psychoanalytic understandings in articulating White silences as bringing into being a White-centric world in which White preservice teachers could go about their lives without any challenge from critical or different worldviews. Overall, finer understandings of the functioning of racialized silence and invisibility might follow Garza and Garzas (2010) work in further detailing the functions of silence and invisibility in classrooms of children of color. Especially, this work seems to be an important area of classroom ethnography in an era of standardization that fetishizes primary-aged childrens test scores while, as Garza and Garza (2010) insightfully argued, standardization sells short the adolescent and young adult inside the child.
RESISTANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION OF WHITE PRIVILEGE
Twelve (12/47) studies emphasized resistance and reconstruction of White privilege as the primary research contribution (Amos, 2010; Birrell, 1994; Hytten & Warren, 2003; Marx, 2004, 2008; Matias, 2013, 2015; McIntyre, 1997a; Picower, 2009; Sleeter, 1992; Solomon, Portelli, Daniel, & Campbell, 2005; Warren, 2002). Very much related to and accompanying the nine studies on racialized silence and invisibility, studies emphasizing resistance and reconstruction of White privilege focused on the race-evasive speech acts that accompanied gulfs of silence and related theorizations described in the subsection above.
Researchers in this group emphasized White preservice and professional teachers who (1) demonstrated hostility towards the minority instructor (Amos, 2010, p. 35), (2) espoused colorblind positions but hated their [Black students] ethnic attitudes (Birrell, 1994, p. 35), (3) used race-evasive speech to secure the dominance of the [White] center (Hytten & Warren, 2003, p. 88), (4) characterized their students and their neighborhoods as dirty, poor, trashy, (Marx, 2004, p. 37), (5) or reconstructed de-racialized notions of humanist human beings (Marx, 2008, p. 54) for themselves and their students. Furthermore, researchers in this group emphasized White preservice and professional teachers who argued that (6) skin-color shouldnt matter (McIntyre, 1997a, p. 671), (7) responded to questions of race by saying I dont even see color (Picower, 2009, p. 206), (8) reconstructed meritocratic understandings by negating the privileges of white capital (Solomon et al., 2005, p. 159), (9) demonstrated teachers of color and White teachers deficit language (Warren, 2002), and (10) developed the notion of White Diss-course that inherently disrespects people of color (Matias, 2015, p. 5). This group of articles provided an archive that consistently documented, conceptualized, and refined notions of White preservice and in-service teachers denial of, open resistance to, and belligerence before understandings of race-based inequalities. Overall, this research documented, in increasingly complex and insightful ways, Sleeters (1992, 1993) original thesis that White teachers variously deny, evade, and resist that they are racialized actors in their teaching and learning with students of color.
Of the 12 studies reviewed here, both Amos (2010) and Matias (2013, 2015) are emblematic of the developing field. Studying White preservice teachers from the point of view of students and/or instructors of color, Amos and Matias made an important epistemological breakthrough. Representing this breakthrough, Amos (2010) gathered interview data from preservice teachers of color that described White preservice teachers hostility toward the course, the instructor, and the minority students themselves. Narrating minority students frustration, despair, and fear, Amos (2010) documented White students hostility towards the minority instructor (p. 35) and minority students who, in classes with angry White preservice teachers, became fearful for their own safety (p. 35). Further developing this direction, Matias (2013, 2015) reflected on empirical qualitative data contextualized within conceptual-autobiographical essays in which White preservice teachers employed a White Diss-course that made it okay to disrespect me [instructor of color] (2013, p. 65). In deploying this White Diss-course, White preservice teachers almost mock race and aggressively choose to refuse their acknowledgement of how their racial marker impacts how People of Color experience race (2013, p. 62). This notion of White Diss-course refers to White preservice teachers actively taking up and using colorblind discourses to intentionally undermine different or critical worldviews and actively reconstitute their own White privileges in intentional ways (Leonardo, 2002, 2009; Utt & Tochluk, 2016). Representing both students and instructors of color, recent research emphasizing resistance and reconstruction of White privilege provided an important epistemological breakthrough that began to articulate experiences of people of color in whitened teacher education departments and colleges of education. Developing this breakthrough, Amos (2010) and Matias (2013, 2015) articulated the harrowing and negative experiences of students and instructors of color within the overwhelming presence of whiteness (Sleeter, 1994, 1995, 2001) in colleges of education.
Viewed over 25 years, we understand a field that began by documenting White preservice and in-service teachers race-evasive identities (Birrell, 1994; McIntyre, 1997a; Sleeter, 1992) and moved toward detailed descriptions of White preservice and in-service teachers race-evasive and deficit thinking in relation to students of color (Birrell, 1994; Marx, 2004; Warren, 2002). Providing ever-finer parsings of race-evasion, Hytten and Warren (2003), Marx (2004), and Picower (2009) emphasized White preservice and in-service teachers complex race-evasive identity strategies that most recently culminated in Picowers (2009) fine-grained tools of whiteness (p. 204) that included detailed descriptions of emotional, ideological, and performative tools of White race-evasion. This work, which emphasized Leonardos (2002, 2009) constitutive understandings of how White privilege is actively reconstructed, helped education researchers and teacher educators better identify the subtle ways that White preservice and in-service teachers evade race in teaching and learning. Finally, as discussed above, most emblematic of a still emerging field were Amos (2010) and Matias (2013, 2015), who both initiated an important new direction by studying how students and instructors of color experienced whiteness and White aggression within colleges of education.
WHITENESS IN INSTITUTIONAL AND SOCIAL CONTEXTS
Eight (8/47) studies emphasized whiteness in institutional and social contexts as the primary research contribution (Canella & Reiff, 1994; Finny & Orr, 1995; Haberman & Post, 1992; Jupp & Slattery, 2010b; Levine-Rasky, 2000; Locke, 2005; St. Denis & Schick, 2003; Vaught & Castagno, 2008). Researchers in this subsection described whiteness in contexts that alternatively advanced, framed, or reinforced White preservice and in-service teachers race-evasion.
Researchers in this group (1) emphasized the White preservice teachers deficit thinking prior to clinical field experiences as self-fulfilling (Haberman & Post, 1992, p. 30); (2) contextualized K12 interactions and institutional limitations (Canella & Reiff, 1994, p. 32) that worked against the practice of multicultural teaching; (3) described critical cross-cultural preservice teacher curriculum that preservice teachers reincorporated back into individual, untransformed, and unconnected (Finney & Orr, 1995, p. 331) liberal ideologies; and (4) identified preservice teachers ideologies that gave rise to privilege and disempowerment (Levine-Rasky, 2000, p. 278). Furthermore, researchers in this group (5) described discursive contexts (Jupp & Slattery, 2010b, p. 208) that co-created White teachers deficit thinking, (6) emphasized [p]reservice teachers do not enter multicultural education classes as a tabla rasa (Locke, 2005, p. 20), (7) identified common ideological assumptions . . . that make the reception of anti-racist work difficult (St. Denis & Schick, 2003, p. 56), and (8) critiqued even the individualistic ideologies assumed in consciousness-raising events that focused simplistically on teachers being individually aware of privilege (Vaught & Castagno, 2008, p. 99). Overall, researchers in this group located White teachers race-evasive identities within increasingly complex discussions of whiteness in institutional and social contexts.
Of the eight studies reviewed here, St. Denis and Schick (2003), Locke (2005), and Vaught and Castagno (2008) are emblematic of the developing field. Echoing recent conceptual content in CWS that articulated notions of contextuality and relationality in the practice of racialized identities (e.g., Avant-Mier & Hasian, 2002; Dwyer & Jones, 2000; Leonardo, 2002, 2009; Lewis, 2004; McDermott & Samson, 2005), researchers in this group acknowledged White race-evasive identities but also mapped these identities onto whiteness in broader institutional and social contexts. Emphasizing that White race-evasive identities are not just in the heads of White preservice and in-service teachers, these researchers provided important new analyses of previous and ongoing race-evasive studies outlined in Subsections 1 and 2 above that should affect future reflexive whiteness pedagogies described in the final findings subsection below.
Studies by both St. Denis and Schick (2003) and Locke (2005) exemplified research that mapped preservice and in-service teachers empirical data onto popular race-evasive liberal discourses, and Vaught and Castagno (2008) drove at contradictory assumptions in consciousness-raising training events. In mapping transcribed data onto liberal discourses, St. Denis and Schick emphasized the need to look at the discursive practices of individuals and institutions as well as at the ideological assumptions that underwrite these practices (St. Denis & Schick, 2003, p. 67). Further, Locke demonstrated that White preservice teachers maintained and reproduced the ideology, practices, and relationships of the [White, liberal] teacher education program (p. 26). Further articulating these directions, Vaught and Castagnos (2008) findings critiqued contradictions that matched individual consciousness-raising events (e.g., teachers reading and discussing McIntosh, 1988) as prescribed means to heroically fix the structural functions of whiteness in urban schools. Driving at more radical epistemological and ontological transformation in Harris (1993/1995) notion of whiteness as property, Vaught and Castagno revealed the contradictions in empirical data that insisted on awkwardly pairing a structural problem with an individualized [consciousness raising] solution (p. 98). In their analysis, they indicated that overly simplistic consciousness-raising training events re-inscribed hyper-individualized (p. 104) assumptions of liberal individualism in the first place. Read together, the emblematic studies described above questioned critiques of White preservice and in-service teachers race-evasive identities that simply harped on respondents race-evasive wrongheadedness. Instead, researchers in emblematic studies located respondents empirical response data within hegemonic discourses that co-created race-evasion in colleges of education, school systems, and hegemonic individualistic discourses.
Viewed over 25 years, these studies began a discussion on White teachers that first identified preservice and in-service teachers prior ideological deficit thinking and liberal ideologies (Finney & Orr, 1995; Haberman & Post, 1992) and described whiteness in institutional contexts that limited multicultural teaching and learning (Canella & Reiff, 1994). From there, researchers mapped preservice and in-service teachers transcript data as representative of deficit thinking and whiteness in popular social discourses, including liberal and progressive ones (Jupp & Slattery, 2010b; Levine-Rasky, 2000; Locke, 2005; St. Denis & Schick, 2003). Finally, Vaught and Castagno analyzed and questioned the simplistic assumptions of many consciousness-raising events accompanied by White respondents pious confessionals that continued to advance the assumptions of heroic individualism within the historical and structural arrangements of whiteness as property (Harris, 1993/1995). Overall, researchers in this group of studies provided notions of whiteness within institutional and social contexts that emphasized (1) preservice and in-service teachers socially located thinking, (2) whiteness in schools and teacher education programs, (3) broad whitening discursive formations that tied into White teachers identities, and finally, (4) the contradictions of consciousness-raising events with White teachers.
Nine (9/47) studies emphasized contradictions we called fertile paradoxes as primary research contributions (Amos, 2011; Brown, 2013; Han, 2009; Haviland, 2008; LaDuke, 2009; Leer, 2009; Monroe, 2013; Segall & Garrett, 2013; Yoon, 2012). Fertile paradoxes, important for new directions in race-evasive White teacher identity studies, articulated a race-visibility within White race-evasive identities and contexts. Researchers in this group described race-cognizant or race-visible identities whose overall trajectories recognized race yet did so in ways that limited or diminished its importance.
Researchers in this group (1) emphasized White preservice and in-service teachers who discussed race in contradictory ways that were powerful yet power-evasive (Haviland, 2008, p. 44); (2) described teachers who recognized culture and race as part of teaching but held naïve beliefs about racial/cultural diversity (Han, 2009, p. 91); (3) reduced students complex racial and linguistic backgrounds to taking a warm demander stance (Monroe, 2013, p. 193); and (4) reported results of consciousness-raising events in which preservice teachers acknowledged White privilege, yet folded those understandings back into humanisms like we are all the same people (Amos, 2011, p. 287). Furthermore researchers in this group (5) described the practice of teachers who attempted to teach about race, yet whose observed practice did not explore the concept with any depth (Leer, 2009, p. 57); (6) emphasized preservice teachers acknowledgement of White privilege that did not result in antiracist identities or actions (LaDuke, 2009, p. 42); (7) described a school equity team charged with addressing racial inequalities whose interactions reified whiteness at work (Yoon, 2012, p. 589); (8) recounted responses with White preservice students who included racialized understandings in their responses only to render race insignificant or irrelevant (Segall & Garrett, 2013, p. 284); and (9) detailed interactions and contexts at a high-performing college prep charter school whose project focused on race-visible politics and student successes, yet whose White teachers predominantly reasserted the colorblind meritocracy of the capitalist state (Brown, 2013, p. 142).
Of the nine studies reviewed here, Segall and Garett (2013), Yoon (2012), and Brown (2013) are emblematic of the recent paradoxes that are characteristic of the present field. Important in these emblematic studies was a new type of color-power evasion (Frankenberg, 1993, p. 189) that served to recognize yet diminish the centrality and criticality of race. Emblematic studies described race-evasive White teacher identities that ostensibly offered up understandings of racialized inequalities while simultaneously diminishing their importance or criticality. Directly or indirectly, emblematic studies provided contradictory race-visible representations inside representations whose overall purpose was race-evasive. Segall and Garrett (2013) provided a clear research representation of these fertile paradoxes. Segall and Garrett, in their data transcripts, narrated preservice teachers sophisticated race-evasive understandings that first offered race-cognizant representations in their discourse. This sophisticated race-evasion was apparent though not fully theorized in the data transcripts of several other researchers studies (Amos, 2011; Haviland, 2008; LaDuke, 2009) as well. Additionally, Yoon (2012) and Brown (2013), further articulating fertile paradoxes, provided rich discursive contexts that illuminated the contradictory paradoxes. Yoon (2012), in a sociological analysis that emphasized the notion of whiteness at work, revealed complex forces that both created race-visible and race-evasive White identities. Situating her research within similar contexts, Brown (2013) studied White teachers who worked within an elite college prep charter school known for successes with post-secondary placement with urban students of color. Brown, with notable exceptions, nonetheless unpacked both the race-visible representations of minority students successes that clashed with the whitened college prep curriculum delivered by predominantly White teachers as re-inscribing de-racialized academic disciplines.
Situated primarily in the last five years of race-evasive research, researchers in this group revealed fertile paradoxes in race-evasive White teacher identity studies and provided a new contradictory discourse that requires further unpacking and study. This recent research provided three sub-strands for continued research. The first sub-strand demonstrated that preservice teachers recognition of White privilege, central to the goal of early race-evasive research, was simply not enough to achieve significant changes in teachers development of racial conscientization and race-visible teaching (Amos, 2011; Haviland, 2008; LaDuke, 2009). The second sub-strand documented White teachers practices who understood that culture and race represented important concerns (Han, 2009; Leer, 2009; Monroe, 2013); nonetheless, these same teachers maintained reductionist, over-simple, or shallow rules of thumb in their practices. The third sub-strand provided contextualized descriptions that understood race-visibility as included in White preservice and in-service teachers race-evasive identities and practices (Brown, 2013; Segall & Garrett, 2013; Yoon, 2012). Overall, researchers in this group of studies articulated new analytical tools and practical exigencies for race-visible teaching and learning in the present color-visible multicultural teacher education epoch, which, nevertheless, can drive steadfastly at a-critical color-evasive notions of diversity tied to individual merit.
REFLEXIVE WHITENESS PEDAGOGIES
Nine (9/47) studies emphasized reflexive whiteness pedagogies as part of primary research contributions (Berlak, 1999; Brown, 2006; Case & Hemmings, 2005; Marx & Pennington, 2003; McIntyre, 2002; Michie, 2007; Pennington, 2007; Pennington, Brock, & Ndura, 2012; Wade, 1998). Whiteness pedagogies, a specific area of critical pedagogy (Allen, 2004; Giroux, 1997; Kincheloe, 1999; Kincheloe, Steinberg, Rodriguez, & Chennault, 1998), referred generally to a type of self-formation that allows them [White individuals] to cross race lines not in order to become Black but to begin to forge multiracial coalitions based on critical engagement (Giroux, 1997, p. 299). Not without limits, whiteness pedagogies are an important part of race-evasive White teacher identity studies with special emphasis on teacher education practices.
As whiteness pedagogies relate specifically to the research reviewed in this subsection, reflexive whiteness pedagogies referred to the intellectually demanding task that teacher educators and education researchers face in developing compelling ways of talking about racial identity, racial prejudice, racial privilege, and racial discomfort (Kincheloe, 1999, p. 179). Developing these compelling ways to engage their students, studies emphasizing reflexive whiteness pedagogies described teaching and learning that, by degrees, racially conscientized White preservice and in-service teachers for race-visible teaching and learning. Researchers in the section, emphasizing silences and resistances reported in Subsections 1 and 2, theorized reflexive whiteness pedagogies for White preservice and in-service teachers in their charge.
Researchers in this group (1) emphasized instructors whiteness pedagogies that acknowledged pedagogical brick walls (Wade, 1998, p. 84) posed by White preservice teachers; (2) discussed uses of testimony for witnessing, and bearing witness (Berlak, 1999, p. 104) to racism and White privilege; (3) included arts-based curricula for negotiating the multiple meanings of whiteness (McIntyre, 2002, p. 33); and (4) emphasized self-disclosure pedagogy as a means to engage White preservice teachers in discussions of whiteness and White race-evasion (Marx & Pennington, 2003; Pennington, 2007). Furthermore, researchers in this group (5) described self-narrativized intersectional pedagogies that enabled some White preservice teachers new racial-self meanings (Brown, 2006, p. 267); (6) countered White preservice teachers distancing strategies through a metadialogic approach where students essentially talk about White talk (Case & Hemmings, 2005, p. 623); (7) provided pedagogical representations of advice from teachers of color for White preservice and in-service teachers (Michie, 2007); and (8) described multi-semester cohort programs that helped some White preservice teachers advance on Helms (1990) White racial identity development model (Pennington et al., 2012). Reporting on differing degrees of racial conscientization and limits among the students in their charge, researchers provided an archive of curricular and pedagogical wisdom for working with White preservice and in-service teachers.
Of the nine studies reviewed here, Case and Hemmings (2005) and Pennington et al. (2012) are emblematic of the developing field. Echoing an increased reflexivity in CWS (e.g., Eichstedt, 2001; Kincheloe, 1999; Lewis, 2004; Perry & Shotwell, 2009; Trainor; 2002) and White teacher identity studies (e.g., Marx, 2004; Marx & Pennington, 2003; Pennington, 2007; Thompson, 2003), researchers reflexively began to identify their own White identities and complicities with whiteness inside the research. This increased researcher reflexivity, emergent in the studies reviewed in this subsection, rejected the positionality of the critical whiteness scholar poised above the fray who simply noted White preservice and in-service teachers White racism seemingly implied in early research representations (e.g., Birrell, 1994; Henze et al., 1998; Levine-Rasky, 2000; McIntyre, 1997a; Sleeter, 1992, 1993).
Instead, as exemplified here in Case and Hemmings (2005) and Pennington et al. (2012), researchers began to conceptualize the need for whiteness pedagogies that reflexively located the researchers themselves within the concerns of the preservice and in-service teachers in their charge. Detailing distancing strategies similar to previous race-evasive findings above (e.g., Hytten & Warren, 2003; Marx, 2004; McIntyre, 1997a; Sleeter, 1992), Case and Hemmings (2005) nonetheless exemplified an important turn in the field toward whiteness pedagogies. Case and Hemmings, in their conclusions, began to think through a metadialogic approach (p. 623) to race-visible teaching and learning with their White preservice and in-service teachers that implied a moral commitment on the researchers part to better engage and actually teach the White students in their charge. More clearly representing reflexive whiteness pedagogies, Pennington et al. (2012) provided a full representation of the reflexive, emotional, and intellectual challenges signaled in Giroux (1997) and Kincheloes (1999) notions of whiteness pedagogies. Describing a complex series of curricular and pedagogical activities, Pennington et al. detailed activities, films, discussions, and of key importance, follow-up a year later. These provided a map of White female preservice teachers learning that approximated an authentically caring pedagogy . . . that would build cultural bridges wherever there are divisions and privilege biculturalism (Valenzuela in Pennington et al., 2012, p. 769). In our assessment, emblematic studies (Case & Hemmings, 2005; Pennington et al., 2012) have begun to provide an archive of practical, curricular, and pedagogical wisdom (e.g., Cole & Knowles, 2000; Henderson & Gornik, 2007; Schwab, 1969) for teaching and learning with preservice and in-service teachers about whiteness and White privilege, which is very important in the present moment.
Viewed over 25 years, race-evasive White teacher identity studies began to focus on the challenges of whiteness pedagogies (Allen, 2004; Giroux, 1997; Kincheloe, 1999; Kincheloe, Steinberg, Rodriguez, & Chennault, 1998). As this research emerged in peer-reviewed journals, researchers provided pedagogical strategies for what to expect in approaching White preservice teachers race-evasion (Berlak, 1999; McIntyre, 2002; Wade, 1998). As researchers work with White preservice and in-service teachers progressed, studies in this group began to explicitly theorize whiteness pedagogies, including testimony (Berlak, 1999), self-disclosure (Marx & Pennington, 2003), self-narrative (Brown, 2006), and autoethnography (Pennington, 2007) as pedagogies for teaching and learning about whiteness and White privilege. Of key importance, researchers in this group began to provide pedagogically designed research representations that might be read, discussed, and folded back into coursework with White preservice and in-service teachers as a means to conscientize them (Brown, 2006; Michie, 2007). Case and Hemmings are emblematic of this shift because they explicitly theorized the need for instructors to better engage in co-constructed learning that included give-and-take talk (2005, p. 625) that strove to confront whiteness and White privilege. Case and Hemmings work was the precursor to Jupp, Berry, and Lensmire (2016), Lensmire (2011, 2014), and Lensmire et al.s (2013) recent emphasis on co-constructed whiteness pedagogies. Overall, Penningtons research, both by herself and with others (Marx & Pennington, 2003; Pennington, 2007; Pennington et al., 2012), provided the greatest commitment to co-constructed complex whiteness pedagogies. Penningtons work on whiteness pedagogies included the instructors self-disclosure, theorized the importance of autoethnography in public school and community settings, and provided examples of multi-semester program interventions and follow-ups that advanced the conscientization of preservice teachers in her charge.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
In Section 5, we discuss and conclude our review. Anchored in our concerns about the demographic imperative, the resegregation of public schools, and need for anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning, our literature review answered the questions: What can we learn from 25 years of race-evasive research? How does 25 years of race-evasive White teacher identity studies better inform teacher educators and education researchers anti-racist praxis in the present moment? In providing an answer to these questions, we speak directly to teacher educators and education researchers who seek to inform their anti-racist praxis within the complexities of theoretically informed, empirically based research. Each finding documented above is extended and contextualized below for teacher educators and education researchers application to race-visible teaching and learning in teacher education departments and public schools. In the broadest sense, the paradigm shift represented in the 25 years of race-evasive literature makes White preservice and in-service teachers critical reflection, engagement, and process learning with concepts of White privilege and whiteness central to educational efforts in multicultural or diversity education. We believe our literature review makes several contributions to teacher educators and education researchers efforts to move beyond inconsequential, a-critical and ahistorical, or otherwise superficial notions of multicultural or diversity education (e.g., Gay, 1995; Jupp & Espinosa-Dulanto, 2017; Kenny, 2000; Sleeter, 1989, 2001) by deepening these engagements within new and more comprehensive, complex, and pedagogical contours of CWS (Cabrera, Franklin, & Watson, 2017; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Jupp et al., 2016; Leonardo, 2002, 2009; Thandeka, 1999) that better inform White teacher identity studies.
First, we believe our literature review identifies the contours of White preservice and in-service teachers silence, resistance to, engagement in, and pedagogical grappling with colorblind racisms complex arch of White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness. Specifically, the contours of the five findings represent an empirically based research tradition that counters essentializing theoretical tendencies in CWS and White teacher identity studies past. These previous theoretical tendencies either essentialized White identity as smoothly experienced privilege or assumed White ally identities as a simple option. Pushing back against essentializing tendencies, CWS and White teacher identity studies have recently sought, not to negate past notions of whiteness and White privilege, but rather to recondition and re-capacitate essentializing tendencies in these concepts with new emphases on identity complexities and whiteness pedagogies (e.g., Asher, 2007; Jupp & Lensmire, 2016; Jupp et al., 2016; Cabrera, 2012c; Flynn, 2015; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Lensmire & Snaza, 2010; Lowenstein, 2009; McCarthy, 2003; Sarigianides, 2017; Thandeka, 1999; Trainor, 2002; Utt & Tochluk, 2016; Zingsheim & Goltz, 2012). Rather than adhering to past essentializing tendencies, these five themes in the literature highlighted many of the nuances and contradictions that White teachers face when engaging issues of racism. In doing so, our literature review adds to White identity complexities and whiteness pedagogies associated with what has been called second-wave White teacher identity studies in recent conceptual and empirical research (e.g., Berchini, 2016; Borsheim-Black, 2015; Crowley, 2016; Flynn, 2015; Jupp & Lensmire 2016; Jupp et al., 2016; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Lensmire et al., 2013; Mason, 2016; Miller, 2015a, 2015b; Smith & Crowley, 2015; Tanner, 2015, 2016).
Besides countering broad essentializing tendencies in CWS and White teacher identity studies, each finding above provides specific insights for teacher educators and education researchers. Racialized silence and invisibility is a critically important finding because popular media and institutionalized understandings of racism generally focus on what individual people do and say, their openly racist remarks and deeds, racialized gaffes, or missteps and misstatements of racist individuals. Although fighting back against openly racist individual acts remains important, White preservice and in-service teachers racialized silence and invisibilities require teacher educators and education researchers to push beyond individual notions of racism in their anti-racist praxis. Pushing beyond individual notions, the finding on racialized silence and invisibility reinforces and reminds teacher educators and education researchers of the cornerstone of CWS and its important role in education writ large, and in White teacher identity studies as well. This cornerstone emphasizes that colorblind racisms natural, common-sense, and hegemonic status manifests itself not as contestation or even declaration, but rather as dyed into the ontic, epistemic, and axiomatic social fabric. As dyed into the social fabric, colorblind racisms White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness articulate a systemic and reproductive social reality that, though continually morphing and adapting per context (Duster, 2001), serves to privilege and buttress White-skinned individuals (e.g., Appelbaum, 2010; Bonilla-Silva, 2010; Dyer, 1988; Hall, 1981; Leonardo, 2002, 2009; Scheurich, 1993; Scheurich & Young, 1997; Sleeter, 1994, 1995, 2001; West, 1993). The finding on racialized silence and invisibility harkens back to the old adage, The most powerful thing you can say when someone asks, What do you think about me? is I dont. Within the notions of silence and invisibility, Ladson-Billings early observation on multi-variegated silences as weapons (1996, p. 79) takes on even more clarity within the President Trump-phenomenon. The Trump phenomenon emphasizes the open advancement of White supremacy and privilege by several constituencies that is buttressed by studious silences, invisibilities, and retreats to colorblind racism by other White supporters as a continuous two-step move. In the present moment, we reemphasize silences as weapons of White supremacy and White privilege, and moreover, we believe it is crucial to press preservice and in-service teachers beyond silences toward critically conscientized race-visible teaching and learning in public schools. Programmatically speaking, teacher educators and education researchers need to step up their game in relation to actual anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning as requirements of preservice and in-service teacher education that extends into the field and induction. This anti-racist praxis certainly goes beyond White teacher identity studies first-wave focus on correct thinking, speech, and confessions of White privilege within the space of a single curricular intervention.
Beyond findings on silence and invisibility, it makes sense that many preservice and in-service teachers turn to the racial resistances and reconstruction of White privilege discussed as the second finding. Frequently, education programs provide the first opportunities for White preservice and in-service teachers, particularly White women, to actually explore colorblind racism, and this usually happens in the curriculum of a multicultural education class within initial licensure or masters degree programs in education. As beneficiaries of contemporary structurings of White privilege and whiteness, resistances and reconstructions are common reactions when first learning about these difficult knowledges (Mason, 2016; Pitt & Britzman, 2003). Beyond the selection criteria of race-evasive White teacher identity studies covered in our review here, recent social psychological or psychoanalytic approaches to whiteness and White identitys difficult knowledges have illuminated the resistances and reconstructions of White privilege reported above. Social psychological approaches have interpreted White respondents resistances and reconstruction of White privilege through notions of ego maintenance and the desire of White-skinned people to understand themselves as good non-racist individuals in well-intentioned yet over-simple ways (Lowery, Knowles, & Unzueta, 2007; Unzueta, Gutiérrez, & Ghavami, 2010; Unzueta & Lowery, 2008). That is, the more that White individuals deny that racism is a powerful contemporary force, the more they are able to maintain a positive view and console themselves that they, at least, are not bad people. Additionally, social psychoanalytic approaches have reread transcripts focusing on resistances and reconstruction of White privilege through contradictions in White-skinned individuals thought systems. In driving at these contradictions, social psychoanalytic re-readings have attempted to open up intra- and inter-individual psychic space for whiteness pedagogies and White identity change (Hardee & Whitaker, 2016; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Mason, 2016; Sarigianides, 2017; Thandeka, 1999). Eschewing what Jupp and Slattery (2010a, 2012) called conversion pedagogy of previous essentializing White teacher identity studies, psychoanalytic approaches draw on and echo historical resources in African American intellectual traditions on race (e.g., Baldwin, 1965/1998b; Du Bois, 1903/1995, 1920/1998; Ellison, 1953/1995) that emphasized White individuals possible coming to know themselves as racialized historical, social, and cultural subjects through a process of problematization (Freire, 1970/2000; González Delgado, 2009) carried out in open-ended pedagogies over time. Both social psychological and social psychoanalytic approaches tend toward upending binary understandings of good versus bad White individuals seemingly inherent in previous findings on resistance and reconstruction of White privilege. Instead, these approaches begin to suggest psychic processes of learning and unlearning whiteness that represent a component of White teachers lifelong reflective professional projects.
Besides emphasizing White individuals responses to colorblind racisms notions of White privilege and whiteness, our review also emphasizes whiteness in institutional and social contexts as the third finding. Institutional and social contexts are critically important in terms of understanding White preservice and in-service teachers personal and professional identities in ways that push beyond White respondents simplistic wrong-headedness and toward systemic understandings of White privilege and whiteness. Ideology, as demonstrated in the finding on institutional and social contexts, is different from popular understandings of being liberal or conservative. Instead of following popular meanings, ideology in studies reviewed here both articulated and further grounded Bonilla-Silvas (2010) notion of ideology as pathway for present and future thinking and acting. As Bonilla-Silva (2010) empirically demonstrated and the studies in this review revealed, White preservice and in-service teachers are oriented within institutional and social structurings that provide ongoing interpretive pathways that both diminish racialized understandings and reinforce White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness.
Studies emphasizing institutional and social contexts articulated, as neatly encapsulated in Lockes (2005) study, that preservice and in-service teachers do not arrive in multicultural education classes as tabla rasa (p. 20), ready to receive racialized knowledges. Rather, several studies in this group emphasized that White race-evasion, White privilege, and whiteness are tied into respondents family values, personal experiences and relationships, media and television programs, and attitudes and predispositions that teacher educators must dislodge in any whiteness pedagogies that drives at anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning. Besides these more personal aspects of learned White privilege, studies in this group also emphasized that social and institutional contexts, even when ostensibly concerned with racialized inequities, still served to re-inscribe hyper-individualized (Vaught & Castagno, 2008, p. 104) notions of teacher accountability, thereby maintaining teachers as individualized culprits or heroes in reference to their stance on White privilege. Regarding the necessary work in teacher education programs, we think that studies by Canella and Reiff (1994), St. Denis and Schick (2003), Locke (2005), and Vaught and Castagno (2008) help teacher educators focus not only on program and instructional-level interventions, but also on what Cabrera, Watson, and Franklin (2016) have called whiteness analyses of campus ecology (p. 119). That is, studies emphasizing institutional and social contexts require teacher educators to look at how whiteness and White privilege are reproduced or interrupted, especially under the purview of program initiatives, student interactions, field experiences, and institutional policies across teacher education programs.
The fourth finding on fertile paradoxes provided a portrait of White preservice and professional teachers who did engage in issues of racism, but who still struggled to truly realize its contemporary power and instead frequently downplayed racisms meanings and relevance in schools. These fertile paradoxes were both troubling and promising, but they also signaled the need for a more developed anti-racist praxis language in White teacher identity studies. That praxis language should go beyond White preservice and in-service teachers consciousness-raising events, and instead drive steadfastly toward race-visible teaching and learning in classroom contexts (Jupp, 2013; Jupp & Slattery, 2010a, 2012; Rubinstein-Ávila & Leckie, 2014; Tanner, 2015, 2016). Overall, the fertile paradoxes were troubling because, even those respondents who gave the proverbial nod of understanding in consciousness-raising events on racism in curriculum interventions were still recreating colorblind racism within the broader scope of their thinking. Nonetheless, respondents who acknowledged the realities of racism provided the opportunity for future dialogue and critical engagement as they understood that race belonged in discussions of their practice as teachers and in school inequality. Even so, the bulk of the research in this review did not articulate this possibility, as the teachers are either directly resisting racial engagement or passive-aggressively doing so through reifying racialized silence and invisibility.
With these shortcomings of fertile paradoxes in mind, the field of White teacher identity studies is pushed in new directions, emphasizing the study of race-visible White teacher identities and process-oriented identities. The study of race-visible White teacher identities, outside the selection criteria of the systematic review presented in our findings here, provides an important lead that develops race-visible teaching and learning in specific contexts (e.g., Borsheim Black, 2015; Jupp, 2013; Jupp & Slattery, 2010a, 2012; Ladson-Billings, 1994/2009, 1995, 2014; Milner, 2011, 2012; Rubinstein-Ávila & Leckie, 2014; Sleeter, 2015a, 2015b; Sleeter & Owuor, 2011; Tanner, 2015, 2016). The study also drives steadfastly at the problematics and potentials of White identities that attempt to work against the grain of institutional and social contexts that reify whiteness and White privilege (Cabrera, 2012c; Jupp, Berry, & Lensmire, 2016; Jupp & Lensmire, 2016; Utt & Tochluk, 2016). Process-oriented identity understandings, as they relate to White teacher identity studies, also begin with an understanding that single consciousness-raising events in a multicultural education or diversity class can never be enough to generate the complex professional behaviors and judgments required for anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching and learning in school-based contexts (Jupp, 2013; Jupp & Slattery, 2010a; Rubinstein-Ávila & Leckie, 2014; Utt & Tochluk, 2016). Instead, process-oriented identity understandings argue that greater investments should be made in CWS, CRT, and multicultural content across teacher education programs coursework, field placements, teacher induction, and professional developmentif social justice and equity are truly valued in teacher education.
Finally, the fifth finding on reflexive whiteness pedagogies is deeply rooted in the pedagogy of possibility. First documented in Woodson (1933/2000), who wonders about the conundrum of working within the historical structurings of White supremacy associated with White philanthropy in Black educational institutions, this pedagogy of possibility adheres to imagining alternative institutional and identity outcomes from those that simply re-inscribe racism. Following Woodsons working through, we argue that reflexive whiteness pedagogies provide institutional interventions in which White people may be privileged via colorblind racism, but they can also be understood to have the potential to learn anti-racist praxis (Cabrera, 2012c; Jupp, 2013; Jupp & Slattery, 2010a, 2012; Lensmire, 2011, 2014; Lowenstein, 2009; Mason, 2016; Rubinstein-Ávila & Leckie, 2014; Spanierman & Cabrera, 2015; Tanner, 2015, 2016; Utt & Tochluk, 2016).7 This is critically important within the context of CWS because all too often the analyses focus on racism without developing notions of how White people can ethically engage in anti-racist praxis. As Warren (2010) observed, White studies of white racism could fill a small library, the studies of white anti-racism, if you will, could fit in a small bookshelf (p. xi). That is, the C in CWS has been emphasized with less attention to solutions to these systemic racial problems. Nonetheless, a delicate balance is required here because racially privileged White individuals who first engage anti-racism can inadvertently recreate White privilege by, for example, dominating conversations, acting patronizingly toward communities of color, demanding racial comfort in racial justice organizing, or considering racial justice a hobby (Edwards, 2006). Despite these pitfalls, the potential of White people engaging in anti-racist praxis is present, and it becomes even more important in the context of teacher education programs and teaching and learning in public schools. Here, in reference to the finding on whiteness pedagogies, the work of Marx and Pennington (2003), Pennington (2007), and Pennington et al. (2012) all deserve one last mention, especially because of Penningtons continuous commitment to whiteness pedagogies developed to work across differences within specific contexts. These interventions provide important leads for teacher education programs curriculum wisdom for racial conscientization, and how this wisdom might be articulated across programs and into the field.
While the contours laid out in the five findings have been particularly illuminating and have provided new directions for teacher educators and education researchers, there are also some key considerations still missing. For example, the mechanisms for developing racially conscientized White teachers or White teacher allies are still largely undefined and in need of further commitment and development across institutional space that transcend one off interventions. In particular, there is also a central question left unaddressed that lies within the importance of the emergent ethnic studies movement: What role can ethnic studies play in helping White teachers engage the complexities of contemporary racism? Taking ethnic studies classes has been shown to produce a number of positive cognitive and social outcomes (Cabrera, 2012a; Sleeter, 2011, 2015a, 2015b). These analyses tend to be focused on students of color, which makes sense since ethnic studies was created to serve their needs in educational systems that normalized and privileged the experiences of White students (Cammarota & Romero, 2014; Hu-DeHart, 1993; Takaki, 1993). Ethnic studies as a field represents a structured mechanism for educationally disrupting the normalcy and hegemony of colorblind racism (Cammarota & Romero, 2014; Leonardo, 2009). Thus, there is a great deal of potential for the development of anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching through this scholar/activist paradigm, but a word of caution is needed. As previously stated, ethnic studies was meant to be a challenge to the hegemonic paradigm (Cammarota & Romero, 2014; Hu-DeHart, 1993; Takaki, 1993), and encouraging White students to participate can inadvertently re-center whiteness (Leonardo, 2009). Thus, there does not just need to be curricular engagement with White, race-evasive teachers, but pedagogical engagement as well. That is, it is not just what is being taught, but how it is being taught. It must be understood that while ethnic studies was not created for White people, they are welcomed into the space to the extent that they do not recreate White privilege in the process (Kendall, 2013).
Thus, we return once more to Woodsons (1933/2000) conundrum as we recognize that the fields of teaching and learning and teacher education are collectively fertile paradoxes in that educational institutions have historically functioned as both the vanguards of racial stratification (e.g., Gillborn, 2008; Leonardo, 2009) as well as the arenas of democratic social transformation (e.g., Freire, 2000; Gutmann, 1999). The struggle to embed anti-racist praxis into teacher educators work and ultimately race-visible teaching and learning is not only relevant for individual teachers and their students, but also in terms of contemporary perpetuation of ontic, epistemic, and axiomatic racism, whiteness, and White privilege. Given that this reviews rationale is driven by the demographic imperative and resegregation of public schools, teachers being able to engage, understand, and challenge issues of racism becomes critically important at our crossroads in the present, especially with the recent election that bolstered open and tacit White supremacists into power. The 2016 election and its White privilege final solution is clearly the response of embattled whiteness in the present moment as students, families, and communities are increasingly becoming majorityminority (NCES, 2015) in many contexts. This permanent demographic shift is occurring under conditions of increasing resegregation (NCES, 2009), along with aggressive market-driven solutions that both resegregate White students and deracialize students and communities of color in schools. Malcolm X, shortly before he was assassinated, emphasized, We cant teach what we dont know (Howard, 1999/2006, p. 6), and there is a depth to this issue in that it is not simply asking about content understanding, though content understanding represents one key component. Rather, it begins to question the very nature of teaching and learning under institutional and social contexts and problematized under fertile paradoxes, findings three and four, respectively. As colorblind and neoliberal ideologies and practices continue to permeate the standards-based reform movement (i.e., test and punish), teachers are increasingly called upon to be purveyors of specific knowledge that will help their students score well on tests (Ravitch, 2010; Sondel, 2015). At the same time, the anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching of White teacher identity studies increasingly requires teachers, in particular White teachers, to be less a center of authority and more facilitators of dialogue (Freire, 2000), particularly critical racialized dialogue in schools and communities. That is, if we care about social justice in schools and communities, the teacher needs to be learning with the students on a journey of anti-racist praxis and race-visible teaching. If White teachers are to engage instead of evade, deny, or resist race, they must do so, again borrowing from Freire (2000), with as opposed to for their students. This represents the central challenge of the next 25 years as we collectively try to push from race-evasive to race-engaged White teacher identities.
1. Of course, a broader purpose of our literature review is to advance a tradition of race-based approaches including Black curriculum orientations, critical race theory, critical White studies, and White teacher identity studies in the contexts of teacher education and education research. The resurgence of the U.S. race question, after decades of race-evasive and whitened educational standards (Sleeter, 2002), provides an additional purpose beyond the concerns of teacher education and education research. Recent media coverage of numerous racially charged events or crimes only added to previous tensions. These include the White supremacist rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, the terrorist murder of antiracist activist Heather Heyer, and the recent fatal shootings of Philando Castile in St. Paul, Minnesota, and Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, followed by retaliations against the police. Dylann Roofs Church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina, discussions on the Confederate flag, the resurgence of White supremacist symbols, and the rash of African American church burnings in the South resonate within the same purposes. Moreover, these recent racialized crimes only added to racialized tensions surrounding the police killing of Freddie Gray and the Baltimore race riots; the fatal police shootings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, 12-year-old Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Ohio, and Tony Robinson in Madison, Wisconsin; and the police cover-up of the shooting of Laquan McDonald, among others. Certainly, the election of Donald Trump as 45th president of the United States, his identification of racialized others as threats, and his White privilege final solution do nothing but up the ante on educators need to take a stand on antiracist praxis. How we are teaching and learning about race takes on new levels of saliency in the present moment.
Sarigianides, S. T. (2017). Coerced loss and ambivalent preservation: Racial melancholia in American born Chinese. Educational Theory, 67, 3749.
The purpose of our Appendix is to provide a sense of the textual analysis used in our study. The textual analysis began with Authors 1 and 2s close reading of all 47 studies selected for review by our criteria. During the readings and extending into the meetings in which the analyses were conducted, Authors 1 and 2 also wrote an approximately one-page abstract that summarized each article following, as closely as possible, the articles human science discursive features. Our initial analysis emerged from Author 2s creation of analytical categories that grouped all the studies reviewed through 2014. Over the course of three meetings in the spring of 2014, Authors 1 and 2 reviewed and discussed the relative contribution of each article and manipulated them within the categories. Through a process of deliberation (Schwab, 1969, 1978), Authors 1 and 2 discussed each article unto itself and then asked: What is the contribution of this article to White teacher identity studies? During these discussions, Authors 1 and 2 deliberated referring to evidence from the abstracts. Through the process of deliberation, adjustments were made both in the categorization of each article and in the themes that named the categories. Using the abstracts in the summer of 2014, a spreadsheet was constructed that abbreviated content from the previously constructed abstracts. Importantly, the spreadsheet added to the discursive data analysis allowing us to sort by theme and year. After the close of 2015, all the studies from the year 2015 were added into the existing work and deliberative processes in the spring of 2016, and the addition of more studies required more adjustments to our category titles and a reorganization of the studies according to the new categories. Moreover, presentations at national conferences added to our analysis and presentation of the textual data. Finally, a draft of the manuscript up through the findings section was shared with Authors 3 and 4 for input and feedback, which also added analytical clarity, especially given Author 3s strong suggestion that an analytical framework be provided among other important insights and additions to the analysis.
In the next paragraph, we demonstrate how one particular study was rendered from abstract to spreadsheet. This provides an application of the synoptic text method for researchers who are interested in further applying and developing it. As example of application, we choose Marxs (2008) research as representative of race-evasive White teacher identity studies.
Marx, S. (2008). Popular white teachers of Latino/a kids: The strengths of personal experiences and the limitations of Whiteness. Urban Education, 43, 2967.
The author draws on CRT in developing this study. This study also draws on other studies on CRT in teacher education. The author argues that Whites experience race as invisible and undetectable. The author interviews four veteran White teachers concerning the ways they can relate and do not relate to students of color they teach. The study also looks at the effects that whiteness had on teachers ability to relate according to the interpretive practices of CRT and critical studies in whiteness. The study took place at a continuation high school in which Marx taught reading to students who were doing credit recovery. The school, in a rural setting, has predominantly Mexican-American students, and gangs are present. The teachers were caring, and they were not novice teachers. Regarding methodology, the teachers were selected because they could relate to the students. The teachers were identified as participants through the principals selection. The interviews provided the stories that are the backbone of this study. The authors cite the study of teachers lives with reference to Ball and Goodson. This study focuses on making CRT available outside of academic fields as a distinct advantage of the study of teachers lives. We move through all of the respondents narrativized presentations. Following very much the interview instrument, each of the teachers found ways to relate to his or her students. Nonetheless, whiteness drove the ways that teachers did not relate to their students. The respondents relate to students along the lines of humanistic lived experiences. The respondents do not relate to gang violence. Analyzing their transcripts through CRT, the respondents all show race-evasive identities. Teachers in this study evaded discussions of race and racially structured institutions and social order. Instead, teachers in this study said they could relate to students based on shared experiences: . . . each teacher strongly emphasized her ability to relate to students as human beings and gave the kids the benefit of the doubt in trying situations (p. 54). All of the teachers, nonetheless, could not relate to gangs and gang violence. They all carried deficit thoughts about students of color including deficit thoughts about people of color, lack of respect for women and girls, and simplified understandings of people of color (pp. 5557). Additionally, all teachers in this study took positions that reflected race-evasive color blindness (p. 58) in their understandings of race. That is, they talked about race in ways that evaded it. Marxs conclusions emphasize that whiteness was a limiting characteristic for all teachers (p. 59). The author goes on, These findings are compelling for the wide racial chasm they illuminate (p. 60).
What follows is the rendering of this abstract into the spreadsheet. As part of the analysis, the spreadsheet
included both identifying information as well as information that can be used in the analysis. Author name, year, title, method, thematic emphasis, short abstract, and emblematic quotes provided the columns of the spreadsheet. For our purposes, the ability to group and regroup studies on the spreadsheet sorted by theme and year became important in how we described and narrated the findings. The spreadsheet also served as an intensive form of prewriting that helped us slowly and carefully characterize each study and select data that was used as a synecdoche for the article.