Educational Psychology Homework

Researching Race Within Educational Psychology Contexts

Jessica T. DeCuir-Gunby

Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Counselor Education

North Carolina State University

Paul A. Schutz

Department of Educational Psychology

University of Texas at San Antonio

In this article, we question why race as a sociohistorical construct has not traditionally been

investigated in educational psychology research. To do so, we provide a historical discussion

of the significance of race as well as present current dilemmas in the exploration of race,

including an examination of the incidence and prevalence of race-related constructs in top

educational psychology journals. As a means of expanding educational psychology’s use of

race as a sociohistorical construct, we introduce the concepts of race-focused and race-

reimaged constructs. We end the article with suggestions for how we can begin exploring

race as a sociohistorical construct in the field of educational psychology, including the need

to challenge traditional paradigms and embrace culturally relevant methodologies.

The racial demographics of the United States have been rap-

idly changing. According to the U.S. Census Bureau (2012),

the U.S. population was 78.1% White, 13.1% African Amer-

ican/Black, 1 16.7% Hispanic/Latino/a, 1.2% Native Ameri-

can, 5% Asian, and 2.3% multiracial. Currently, people of

color make up nearly 35% of the population and are

expected to represent nearly 50% of the population by 2050,

with Latinos/as as the largest minority group and Asians as

the fastest growing minority group (U.S. Census Bureau,

2013). Although race has historically played an important

role in the school context, because of the increasing change

in racial/ethnic diversity, race will undoubtedly continue to

play an even more influential role in the teaching–learning

process. Thus, it is imperative that educational psychologists

expand their understanding of the roles that race plays

within educational contexts. It is important to note that

although the need to research race is a global concern, this

article focuses on the examination of race within the U.S.

context. However, this conversation has great implications

for the international audience, particularly those countries

around the world with growing racial/ethnic diversity.

The purpose of this article is to examine educational

psychology’s use of race-focused and race-reimaged con-

structs. Race-focused constructs (e.g., racial identity, racial

socialization, stereotype threat, etc.) are centered around

issues of race and are developed from racial categorizations

and racial categorization theories (Helms, Jernigan, &

Mascher, 2005), whereas race-reimaged constructs are tra-

ditional constructs (e.g., self-efficacy, self-regulation,

achievement motivation, etc.) that are reconceptualized to

include racially influenced, sociocultural perspectives (e.g.

history, context, multiple identities, etc.). To do so, we

begin with a description of race, including a discussion on

the historical significance of race and current dilemmas in

exploring race, and how race has or has not been examined

in the discipline of educational psychology. With this

description and discussion of race, we review and critique

the incidence and prevalence of race-focused and race-

reimaged constructs in some of the top educational psychol-

ogy journals. This review then leads us to query why race as

a sociohistorical construct has not traditionally been inves-

tigated in educational psychology research and then expli-

cate how the field of educational psychology can rectify

Correspondence should be addressed to Jessica T. DeCuir-Gunby,

Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Counselor Education, North

Carolina State University, 2310 Stinson Drive, P.O. Box 7801, Raleigh,

NC 27695-7801. E-mail: jtdecuir@ncsu.edu 1 The U.S. Census defines “Black or African American” as anyone with

origins in the Black racial groups of Africa.

EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST, 49(4), 244–260, 2014

Copyright � Division 15, American Psychological Association ISSN: 0046-1520 print / 1532-6985 online

DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.957828

 

 

this oversight by challenging paradigms, embracing race-

focused and race-reimaged methodologies, and exploring

the use of race-focused and race-reimaged constructs in

relation to other well-investigated and well-established edu-

cational psychology constructs. We end the article by

providing guidelines for the investigation of race as a socio-

historical construct in the field of educational psychology.

WHAT IS RACE?

Although most researchers agree that race is a significant

issue within education, there is not agreement in how race

should be defined. People often think of race in terms of

phenotypical differences such as skin color (Omi & Winant,

1994). However, scientists have found that genetically there

is little difference between racial groups (e.g., Jorde &

Wooding, 2004). Despite this, humans still categorize one

another based upon perceptions of racial differences. This

suggests that race is a socially constructed concept that uses

categories to differentiate between groups of people in order

to establish systems of power (Fields, 1982; Massy, 2007;

Omi & Winant, 1994). Because race is a socially con-

structed concept, the definition of race has changed over

time based upon the particular context (Haney Lopez, 2006).

Another issue that makes defining race difficult is its

conflation with ethnicity. Ethnicity can be defined as “the

result of a group formation process based on culture and

descent” (Omi & Winant, 1994, p. 15). Specifically, an eth-

nic group is considered to be a group of people that shares

common characteristics such as a shared nation or region of

origin, ancestry, language, and culture, as well as a sense of

solidarity (Hutchinson & Smith, 1996). Scholars differ on

their perceptions of the relationship between race and eth-

nicity. Phinney (1996) viewed ethnicity as encompassing

race, whereas other scholars (e.g., Helms, 1990; Helms &

Talleyrand, 1997) argued that race and ethnicity are differ-

ent constructs that do not overlap. Our position is that the

two constructs are related but distinct in that groups can be

racially similar but ethnically different. For example, Afri-

can Americans and many Caribbean groups such as Jamai-

cans are both considered to be racially Black (at least in the

United States) because of their common African ancestry.

However, African Americans and Jamaicans are different

ethnically because of different customs, cultural practices,

and ways of being.

As suggested, defining race is a complex process. It

involves taking into consideration issues of power and the

importance of the sociopolitical context. A definition of

race should also include the significance of history. This is

an important element, particularly in the U.S. context,

because race has played an integral part in the founding of

the country and continues to play a role in all areas of life.

As such, Markus (2008) provided a comprehensive descrip-

tion of race:

[Race is] . . . a dynamic set of historically derived and insti- tutionalized ideas and practices that (1) sorts people into

ethnic groups according to perceived physical and behav-

ioral human characteristics; (2) associates differential

value, power, and privilege with these characteristics and

establishes a social status ranking among the different

groups; and (3) emerges (a) when groups are perceived to

pose a threat (political, economic, or cultural) to each oth-

er’s world view or way of life; and/or (b) to justify the deni-

gration and exploitation (past, current, or future) of, and

prejudice toward, other groups. (p. 654)

We agree with Markus’s (2008) conceptualization of

race because it expands beyond the traditional definitions

of race that largely rely on physical attributes and geo-

graphical locations by focusing on historical, cultural, and

social aspects. Specifically, this definition includes a

description of how groups are categorized, the meanings of

the categorizations, and the reasoning behind the categori-

zations. Because of the similarity of our conceptualizations

of race, we are using Markus’s definition of race to guide

our thinking in this article. Her definition ultimately

describes race in terms of history and power.

The Historical Significance of Race

To better understand the impact of race within the United

States, it is necessary for us to briefly discuss the role that

race has played over time. From a social historical perspec-

tive within the United States, the conceptualization of racial

differences emerged in 1619 with Africans arriving on a

Dutch ship in Virginia and being traded for food and sup-

plies (Morgan, 2003). As the colonies grew, the need for

cheap labor increased, thereby helping to solidify the differ-

entiation between non-Whites and Whites. Further, the

desire to highlight racial differences played a significant role

in the creation of the U.S. Constitution (adopted in 1787 and

put into effect in 1789) because of the growing number of

African slaves in the southern colonies and the subsequent

fear of the southern population outnumbering the northern

population (Kulikoff, 1986). In adding in Article 1, section

2, paragraph 3 of the U.S. Constitution that only three fifths

of slaves would count in terms of the population, the found-

ers solidified the importance of race in the United States. In

Scott v. Sanford (1856), the U.S. Supreme Court clarified by

ruling that African Americans, whether free or slave, were

not considered U.S. citizens. Later, the 14th Amendment,

passed in 1868, specifically stated that “all persons” born in

the United States were entitled to the rights and privileges

associated with citizenship. Many, particularly Southerners,

continued to question this assertion and began to circumvent

the amendment by passing and implementing anti-Black leg-

islation, such as the Jim Crow laws.

While creating the aforementioned race-based legisla-

tion, the U.S. Census began to count people in terms of

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 245

 

 

“free persons” and “slaves,” essentially racial categoriza-

tions (Anderson, 1988). Eventually, the U.S. Census began

to refine the racial categories used. For example, in 1850,

the U.S. Census only had one racial category—Black,

mulatto. In 1860, a racial category for “Indian” was added

as an option. Then in 1870, to address the country’s grow-

ing diversity, more racial categories emerged, including

White and Chinese 2

(Mays, Ponce, Washington, &

Cochran, 2003). Adding various racial and ancestral cate-

gories enabled a way to further distinguish Whites from

non-White groups.

The need to distinguish between racial groups continued

through further delineations in the law. In the late 1800s/

early 1900s, there were a series of court cases, including

Supreme Court cases, that examined which racial/ethnic

groups (e.g., Lebanese, Japanese, Chinese, etc.) could be

constituted as White (see Haney Lopez, 2006). These

racial/ethnic groups petitioned to be White in order to gain

access to full citizenship (e.g., the ability to vote, own prop-

erty, etc.)—rights non-Whites, particularly African Ameri-

cans, were not afforded. In addition, some ethnic groups

became White over time. For instance, when Italian, Irish,

Polish, and Jewish immigrants arrived in the United States,

they were considered to be non-White and were often com-

pared to African Americans and the Chinese, groups that

were not viewed favorably. (However, currently Chinese

Americans are viewed positively and are considered a

model minority; Massey, 2007.) At the time, Whiteness

implied having Anglo-Saxon roots and, to become White,

ethnic groups had to appear to become less European and

more American. They began to “work” their way into

Whiteness by assimilating into the American culture,

adopting the “American work ethic,” and separating them-

selves from African Americans (Roediger, 2005).

In general, the courts operated under a “common under-

standing” test that determined racial group membership by

analyzing phenotypical characteristics and geographic ori-

gin (Perea, Delgado, Harris, & Wildman, 2000). From this,

many states created antimiscegenation laws (laws against

racial mixing) including the “one-drop” rule, which deter-

mined that any person with “one drop” of Black blood was

considered to be Black (Davis, 1991). This general rule is

still in place and was upheld as recently as the 1980s in the

Susie Guillory Phipps case. Susie Guillory Phipps, who

lived her life as a White woman, sued the Louisiana Bureau

of Vital Records in order to change her racial classification

from Black to White. Because she was listed as Black (Col-

ored) on her birth certificate and was at least one-thirty-sec-

ond Black (her great, great, great, great grandmother was of

African descent), in accordance to Louisiana law, she was

determined to be Black. The state had the right to determine

racial classification, thereby denying Phipps’s request (Omi

& Winant, 1994). The courts have historically determined

who is non-White while never explicitly defining White-

ness. This has helped to further legitimize perceived biolog-

ical and social differences between racial groups.

Although the U.S. Census has historically featured vari-

ous racial categories, the courts have largely viewed race in

terms of the Black/White binary (Haney Lopez, 2006).

Those that were non-White were essentially considered

Black in that they had limited civil rights. In the United

States, there was little distinction among racial groups until

Hernandez v. Texas (1954). In this case, the Supreme Court

expanded the equal protection clause of the 14th Amend-

ment to include Latinos/as, specifically Mexican Americans

(Haney Lopez, 1997). With the Hernandez case, the courts

attempted to reconceptualize race by moving beyond the

Black/White binary. However, it must be added that at that

time Mexican Americans were considered to be White in

terms of the legal system. Over time, in the state of Texas,

Mexican Americans became less “White” because of their

darker skin and language differences (Haney Lopez, 1997).

More recently, the conceptualization of race is continu-

ing to expand. In the 1970s, the term “Hispanic” became

popularized in order to become more inclusive of the grow-

ing Latin American population within the United States

(Gomez, 1992). The term first appeared in the U.S. Census

in 1980 and was seen as less politically charged (i.e., not as

political as “Chicano”) and culturally neutral (i.e., did not

refer to a specific ethnic group). Many Latinos/as liked the

term “Hispanic” because it was sanitized and had little cul-

tural connections, yet others disliked the term because it

was seen as an attempt to separate Latinos/as from their

respective cultural heritages (Gomez, 1992). In addition, in

2000, the U.S. Census allowed for the designation of a mul-

tiracial category, including a write-in option. At this time,

the “White Hispanic” option was added. These new options

allow U.S. citizens to declare their specific racial and ethnic

heritages, thereby continuing to move beyond the Black/

White paradigm. (For more detailed discussions of the his-

torical impact of race, see Fields, 1982; Franklin, 1976;

Roediger, 2010.)

THE CURRENT RACE DILEMMA

Recently a number of researchers have begun to question

how “race” is being used in their disciplines. In part this

renewed interest in race has been the result of researchers

investigating the human genome project and the questions

arising regarding the usefulness of a biological conception

of race. For example, in the area of genetics, researchers

have suggested that Homo sapiens share around 99.9% of

their DNA (Lehrman, 2003). Likewise, a recent editorial in

Nature Genetics (“Genes, Drugs and Race,” 2001) stated,

“Scientists have long been saying that at the genetic level

2 It is important to note that “Chinese” is not a racial category but was

considered one then. It would now generally be considered an ancestral or

ethnic category.

246 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

 

 

there is more variation between two individuals in the same

population than between populations, suggesting little or no

biological basis for ‘race’” (p. 239). Such genetic findings

have resulted in organizations, such as the Institute of

Health, reevaluating the use of the term “race” by research-

ers (Oppenheimer, 2001). As Smedley and Smedley (2005)

described, “The consensus among most scholars in fields

such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, and other dis-

ciplines is that racial distinctions fail on all three counts—

that is, they are not genetically discrete, are not reliably

measured, and are not scientifically meaningful” (p. 16).

Although we have a number of researchers from a vari-

ety of fields providing evidence questioning the usefulness

of a biological conception of race, there are also researchers

in the biomedical field who provide evidence suggesting

that racial or ethnic groups in the United States demonstrate

differences in disease-related outcomes (LaVeist, 1996).

For example, Hummer, Benjamins, and Rogers (2004)

reported that African Americans tended to have higher rates

of mortality on eight of the 10 top causes of death, and

European Americans tended to die more often from heart

disease and cancer. Vega and Amaro (1994) documented

that Latinos/as had higher rates of death from diabetes and

liver disease than non-Latinos/as. It is also clear that these

differences may begin early in life, in that African Ameri-

can infants, when compared to European American infants,

have higher rates of low birth weights and preterm delivery

and they are twice as likely to die during their 1st year of

life (Giscomb�e & Lobel, 2005). As a way of attempting to resolve the aforementioned

dilemma, Ossorio and Duster (2005) suggested that “race

and racial categories can best be understood as a set of social

processes that can create biological consequences; race is a

set of social processes with biological feedbacks that require

empirical investigation” (p. 116). Thus, although “race” as a

definable genetically predetermined biological construct is

probably untenable, it has acquired meaning as a definable

sociohistorical construct (Ossorio & Duster, 2005). This sug-

gests that current constructions of “race” can be associated

with over- and underrepresentation of certain medical out-

comes, thus providing evidence for the importance of inves-

tigating race as a construct in biomedical research.

Similarly, sociohistorical discrepancies have been docu-

mented among racial/ethnic groups in education. For exam-

ple, students of color are overrepresented in special

education programs and underrepresented in Gifted and

Advanced programming. According to the U.S. Department

of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (2006), African

Americans made up around 17% of the school age popula-

tion yet were involved in 36% of all corporal punishment

cases. In addition, 29% of the students labeled emotionally

disturbed were African American, and 20% of the students

labeled with a specific learning disability were African

American. On the other hand, African American students

were underrepresented in areas like being invited into

Gifted and Talented programs (9.2%), enrolling in AP pro-

grams (7.9%), and receiving a high school diploma (13.4%

of all students who received a high school diploma). Like-

wise, Hispanic students made up 20.4% of the population

and were underrepresented in Gifted and Talented pro-

grams (12.8%), enrollment in AP programs (13.3%), and

receiving a high school diploma (13.7% of all students who

received a high school diploma).

As demonstrated, the concept of “race” is currently asso-

ciated with both medical and educational over- and under-

representation. In an effort to reconcile these conflicting

notions of race, some researchers have suggested that,

although there is questionable scientific evidence for a bio-

logical conception of race, the construct has developed

meaning because of the sociohistorical nature of the con-

cept (Ossorio & Duster, 2005; Smedley & Smedley 2005).

In other words, when people use beliefs (e.g., races are nat-

urally unequal and therefore can be ranked hierarchically)

either overtly or covertly, there is the potential to create

systems where some groups have more access to better

jobs, education, housing, and medical care than other

groups (Massey, 2007; Ossorio & Duster, 2005; Smedley &

Smedley 2005), which, in this case, may result in the afore-

mentioned health and educational disparities. Thus,

although race may not have a genetic basis, it is important

sociohistorically, and it is therefore vital for social scien-

tists to investigate race as a sociohistoric phenomenon.

THE EXAMINATION OF RACE IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY JOURNALS