This article was downloaded by: [University of Chicago Library]On: 10 October 2014, At: 03:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal ofQualitative Studies inEducationPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tqse20

Beyond "cool" and "hip:"engaging the question ofresearch and writing asacademic Self-woman ofcolor OtherNina AsherPublished online: 25 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Nina Asher (2001) Beyond "cool" and "hip:" engaging thequestion of research and writing as academic Self-woman of color Other,International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 14:1, 1-12, DOI:10.1080/09518390010007665

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390010007665

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

QUALITATIVE STUDIES IN EDUCATION, 2001, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 1–12

Beyond ‘‘cool’’ and ‘‘hip:’’ engaging the questionof research and writing as academic Self-womanof color Other

NINA ASHERDepartment of Curriculum and Instruction, Louisiana StateUniversity, Baton Rouge, LA, USA

This article presents a self-re� exive analysis of the situatedness of the author and her work –research and writing – as a woman of color in the academy. The author critically examines self-re� exivity in relation to her research by drawing on her lived experiences as academic Self-woman of color Other, � rst as an international doctoral student and now as a junior facultymember. Drawing on critical and feminist perspectives, she argues that such self-re� exivity allowsfor an openness which eliminates the apparent dichotomy of Self–Other and o¶ ers new spaces forre-presenting di¶ erence(s). In particular, she construes her writing as a self-renewing site ofactivism and resistance to Othering and her teaching as praxis and self-assessment. She concludesthat cutting-edge research and writing, when rigorously self-re� exive, are beyond ‘‘cool ’’ and‘‘hip,’’ allowing us to maintain integrity and agency as educators and researchers.

Introduction

Mindfulness must be engaged. Once there is seeing, there must be acting.

Otherwise, what is the use of seeing? (Thich Nhat Hanh, Peace is Every Step: The

Path of Mindfulness in Everyday Life, 1992)

This article is a self-re� exive e¶ ort to situate my research and writing in relation to

current discourses in the � eld of education. It engages with the apparent contradiction

of ‘‘academic Self-woman of color Other ’’ as it signi� es in terms of my lived experiences

with}in the academy, at the speci� c and the general level. I employ the hyphenated

phrase ‘‘academic Self-woman of color Other’’ to convey that, in the academy, I

encounter myself as both. For instance, as a junior faculty member who sees her

research, writing, and teaching as her lifework, I situate my-Self in the academy. At the

same time, I am aware of my Otherness as an academic who is also a woman of color.

For instance, my writings on identity and culture (Asher, 1997; Asher & Crocco, in

press) have drawn on my experiences as an international doctoral student and a

‘‘person of color ’’ in the ‘‘West.’’ At the particular}speci� c level, then, the exercise of

generating this article enables me to ‘‘take stock’’ – conduct a validity check in terms

of the relevance of my work to the construction of educational knowledge. At a general

level, it draws on and is re� ective of the present-day context of educational research

which, increasingly, employs constructivist approaches and a range of qualitative

methods in order to attend to the diversity and di¶ erence(s) visible in school and society.

Therefore, in this article, I engage with critical feminist and postcolonial perspectives to

situate my work and re� ect on its relevance to the � eld of education. To that end, I draw

on key, representative works to develop a framework within which I conceptualize my

self-interrogation and critique.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education ISSN 0951-839 8 print}ISSN 1366-589 8 online ’ 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltdhttp:}}www.tandf.co.uk}journals

DOI: 10.1080}09518390010007665

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

2 nina asher

In terms of my day-to-day lived experiences, I � nd that I engage with}in the

academy as both – academic Self and woman of color Other – as I research, write, and

teach. Or, more accurately, I � nd that I am compelled to do so : for me, critique is not

a choice. I do not have the option of visiting marginality solely as a researcher. I live

there. And I am reminded of it in innumerable ways (a parent of a prospective student

asking me where I am from originally ; hints about how I might be � lling a ‘‘minority ’’

faculty slot ; rejections of my statement of a hybrid, academic identity in exchange for

a given cultural and ethnic ‘‘ Indian’’ identity) which are as manifest as they are subtle

in a hard-to-document way. I � nd that if I am to continue conducting research and

writing with integrity, I cannot ignore professionally what I experience personally as an

educator of color.

I propose here to expand my writing by drawing on my speci� c relations with}in the

academy and relating them to the general realms of research, writing, and discourses of

truth and knowledge in the � eld of education. Speci� cally, I examine the intersections

of gender, race, and culture in relation to academic research and writing to situate my

scholarship. I draw on the critical voices of di¶ erent women academics, particularly

those who are ‘‘of color ’’ (for instance, Gloria Anzaldu! a, bell hooks, Chandra

Mohanty), to re� ect on my own work and its relevance in the � eld. In the sections that

follow, I situate my scholarship and the direction of its progress ; analyze considerations

for maintaining integrity and agency ; and discuss the implications of such intellectual

endeavors in terms of activism, pedagogy, and self-renewal.

Taking stock: situating my research and writing with/in the

academy

In her essay on Third World women and the politics of feminism, Mohanty (1991)

argues for ‘‘ storytelling or autobiography (the practice of writing) as a discourse of

oppositional consciousness and agency’’ (p. 39). Pointing to the socioeconomic and

cultural situatedness of written narratives, Mohanty notes their role ‘‘ in the production

of self- and collective consciousness ’’ (p. 33). Further, she argues that ‘‘ the existence of

third world women’s narratives in itself is not evidence of decentering hegemonic

histories and subjectivities. It is the way in which they are read, understood, and located

institutionally which is of paramount importance ’’ (p. 34). To that end, Mohanty asks

that we theorize and engage feminist politics of Third World women to address the

challenges of race and our postcolonial condition.

Speci� cally with regard to Asian-American cultural politics, Lisa Lowe (1996)

argues for the need ‘‘ to organize, resist, and theorize as Asian Americans ’’ (p. 68) while

attending to cultural and ethnic di¶ erences and speci� cities. As a subaltern community

then, Asian-Americans are not viewed as � xed and uni� ed in character but, rather, as

operating from distinct yet allied positions and practices to destructure speci� c

hegemonies. In order to avoid making the error of merely reacting to the dominant

culture, Lowe argues that we need to engage in ‘‘ internal critical dialogues about

di¶ erence ’’ (p. 71) as an integral part of this process, and establish ‘‘horizontal

aµ liations ’’ (p. 71) with other groups on the margins. Speaking in terms of the

individual’s agency, Matsuda (1996) exhorts young Asian-Americans to ‘‘remain free

to invent themselves ’’ (p. 169) despite popular images stereotyping Asian-Americans

as the model minority. She suggests looking to one’s own experiences as well as those of

similar others in order ‘‘ to understand the world’’ (Matsuda, 1996, p. xi) and negotiate

identity and change.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

beyond ‘‘cool ’’ and ‘‘hip ’’ 3

In a similar vein, advocating qualitative research for social change, Fine (1994)

urges us to engage self-consciously in ‘‘working the hyphen’’ at which ‘‘Self–Other join

in the politics of everyday life ’’ (p. 70) so that we are able to engage in ‘‘social struggles

with those who have been exploited and subjugated’’ (p. 72). According to Fine, it is

when we recognize and bring to the front of our texts the plural voices of those Othered,

the multiplicity of relations between ourselves and the contexts we study, and our own

implicated-ness at the hyphen that we are able to move beyond � xities, enter into the

in-between spaces, examine more fully the structures of Othering, and rupture the

imperialism of scholarship which serves to safeguard the interests of dominant groups.

Mohanty, Lowe, and Fine make a case for academics and researchers – writing

as}for}with the Other in postmodern, postcolonial contexts – to break hegemonic

practices through self-conscious writing and research. At the same time, we need to

balance and be vigilant in our engagement with such subjective forms of inquiry lest, in

our zest to decenter the dominant discourse, we end up unwittingly contributing to a

new ‘‘metanarrative of postmodern research ’’ (Constas, 1998). Rather, our e¶ orts of

resistance need to focus on clarifying the nature of postmodern inquiry (Constas, 1998)

and recognize the symbiotic relationship of postcolonial scholarship and the historical

past, if they are to serve as ‘‘responsible academic criticism’’ (Spivak, 1999). Further,

in order for qualitative inquiry to realize fully its critical, interpretive, and political role

in re-presenting discourses of marginality, it needs to engage not only the relationship

between the researcher and the researched but also the analytical voices of both

(Delgado-Gaitan , 1993; Garratt & Hodkinson, 1998 ; Pizarro, 1998).

Thus, intellectual endeavor may also be viewed as a form of activism. According to

Foucault (1984) the local struggles of the ‘‘speci� c ’’ intellectual of today can take on a

general signi� cance when they have implications and e¶ ects beyond her particular

situatedness. In other words, ‘‘The intellectual can operate and struggle at the general

level of that regime of truth which is so essential to the structure and functioning of our

society… The essential political problem for the intellectual is … that of ascertaining the

possibility of constituting a new politics of truth’’ (pp. 73–74).

I construe my scholarship as contributing to the e¶ ort to relocate discourses of

marginality in education. For instance, as a doctoral student, I entered the world of

educational research in the United States via interview studies which explored the

experiences of Asian-Americans in terms of identity, representation, marginality (Asher,

1999b ; Asher, Goodwin, Genishi, & Woo, 1997 ; Goodwin, Genishi, Asher & Woo,

1997). I came to know the signi� cance of constructivism, qualitative research, and

critical theory in relocating discourses of marginality. As my work grew in the areas of

identity, representation, and multiculturalism, I began drawing on postmodern

perspectives and postcolonial literature. And most recently (Asher, 1999a), I have

drawn on critical, feminist perspectives – particularly those articulated by women of

color – because they o¶ er me ways to examine self-re� exively the dynamics of such

intertwined forces as race, gender, marginality, and colonization. Thus, as a junior

faculty member}qualitative researcher of color}Third World woman scholar in the

USA, I see myself as struggling with the politics of truth and knowledge, writing about

the lives}experiences}identities of those ‘‘othered’’ (including my-Self). Further, my

work has inevitably been enriched via collaborations with di¶ erent others engaged in

similar or related struggles. Not only do such endeavors allow my collaborators and I

actually to work across di¶ erences but also they enrich the content and process of the

work. For instance, in a recent conference paper, I was attempting to synthesize my

understanding of the intersections of race, gender, and marginality in educational

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

4 nina asher

discourse in terms of ‘‘ (en)gendering a hybrid consciousness ’’ (Asher, 1999a). It made

sense to me – if I were to remain true to my writing – to collaborate with similarly

situated colleagues in proposing a panel on ‘‘Engaging Di¶ erence ’’ as women academics

of color, where each of us would speak about her scholarship from her particular

situatedness as Asian, Latina, African-American. Such a forum, I believe, allows the

distinct voices, histories, geographies, and sociopolitical realities of each presenter as

well as her participants to emerge and, at the same time, is a site for identifying common

threads in our struggles and strategies for change.

However, I am aware that ‘‘multiculturalism,’’ ‘‘ critical pedagogy,’’ ‘‘border

crossings,’’ ‘‘postmodernity, ’’ and ‘‘postcoloniality ’’ are pivotal issues in cutting-edge

educational research and writing today. One fears that they are so ‘‘hip’’ that they run

the risk of becoming hackneyed. (Which leads me to wonder: What does the cutting

edge cut? And where? And why? And (for) whom?)

Therefore, heeding Mohanty’s words on the importance of how narratives of alterity

are read, understood and located institutionally, I clarify here that I research, write and

theorize as I do, not because it is ‘‘ cool ’’ and ‘‘hip ’’ to do so ; rather, I speak from}about

the margins because if I do not, then I fail to examine the extant structures of Othering

and compromise my integrity as an educator and researcher. As Foucault’s ‘‘ speci� c

intellectual,’’ I conduct research to unearth the particular struggles, issues and concerns

that students}teachers}communities on the margins (for example: students from

immigrant homes, Asian-American teachers, women of color) confront, and I write and

share my work to include them in the general, oµ cial discourse of education. Thus I

situate my inquiry within the � eld of education. The questions I self-consciously debate

are :

E What are meaningful research and writing experiences (for me) as an academic

of color? As Self ? As Other ?

E Why? That is, what makes them signi� cant? In terms of Self}Other? In terms

of general educational discourse?

E How does this critical re� ection and analysis contribute to expanding

educational knowledge? What relevance, if any, does it have in terms of the

politics of truth and knowledge in academic discourse ?

The rest of this article is an e¶ ort to articulate responses to the above questions. To that

end, I focus on the intersection of race, culture, and gender in terms of methodology and

language (research and writing). In so doing I attempt to establish the signi� cance of

these discourses for (en)gendering oppositional consciousness and agency in the

construction of educational knowledge.

Integrity and agency: understanding Self–Other in terms of

research for oppositional consciousness

According to Anzaldu! a’s (1987) widely cited concept of a ‘‘mestiza consciousness,’’

individuals who inhabit borderlands and live in multiple cultures arrive at a new,

hybrid consciousness which emerges from the e¶ ort to negotiate and recenter ideas and

knowledge which often contradict each other. As a Third World woman and a

qualitative researcher of color situated in the US academy, I am aware of the multiple,

contradictory, and shifting realities with}in which I live. I struggle between these

multiple margins to maintain a sense of personal integrity, and, at the same time, to

continue working towards the meaningful development of my academic research and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

beyond ‘‘cool ’’ and ‘‘hip ’’ 5

writing. For instance, at a personal level, I am always aware of the irony of my use of

English to deconstruct colonial discourse. In terms of my engagement as a researcher,

I see the expansion of my work, which initially developed in the area of Asian-American

education and now intersects with postcolonial and feminist writings, as an ongoing

process of sense-making and situating myself in relation to the � eld of education. I

construe this progression, on the one hand, as my e¶ ort to identify sites of resistance

(hooks, 1990) from which to displace colonized representations of the Other. For

instance, the Indian American high school students who participated in my dissertation

study spoke, among other things, about how peers negated their constructions of

themselves as ‘‘hyphenated Americans,’’ while at least some teachers recognized that

there was an ‘‘American’’ and an ‘‘Asian ’’ side to them (Asher, 1999b). Such nuanced

realities, I believe, are signi� cant in terms of not only multiculturalism in teaching and

teacher education, but also broader issues such as re-presentation and decolonization.

On the other hand, I am aware of the built-in contradictions of being a [post]colonial

hybrid (Bhabha, 1985 : 173) who is implicated – personally and as an academic – in

the very relations of power against which she is struggling. For instance, the academy

is both a site from which I resist hegemonic discourses as well as a site of my own

implicatedness in an established system of knowledge production. Thus, my particular

situatedness, combined with the subjective nature of my research, leads me to

interrogate my work, engaging, as Lowe (1996) would say, in an ‘‘ internal critical

dialogue ’’ with myself.

I believe that by articulating these tensions and contradictions, I am able to wrestle

with the various forces which factor into working towards ‘‘a new politics of truth’’

(Foucault, 1984). Certainly, I am better able to see how and why academics of color

such as myself (as well as others who write from}about the margins) need to perform a

balancing act between learning and, at the same time, developing resistance to the

dominant discourse. Furthermore, I am aware that the process of building ‘‘horizontal

aµ liations ’’ (Lowe, 1996) allows me to learn from the stories of di¶ erent others and

identify threads of commonality across the distinct struggles. Such e¶ orts are helpful –

and, I believe, necessary – in developing enduring ways of researching, writing, and

resisting in order for those who have been Othered to decenter hegemonic discourses

and re-present themselves.

In that sense, my experience of integrity as academic Self-woman of color Other

depends on and implies self-re� exivity, and both are necessary for the development of

my academic endeavors. Further, they are fundamental to the work of resisting

marginalization and developing new spaces of re-presentation in educational and social

contexts. Fonow and Cook (1991b) have discussed such re� exivity and action-

orientation as characteristics of feminist methodology and epistemology. According to

Fonow and Cook (1991a), ‘‘consciousness raising’’ (p. 3) is part of the process as well

as an outcome of self-re� exive, feminist research and ‘‘ can lead to a creative insight that

is generated by experiencing contradictions ’’ (p. 3). Similarly, the action-orientation of

feminist research leads to ‘‘a more critical reexamination and … reformulation of the

action agenda in research’’ (p. 5).

Women academics of color have discussed self-re� exivity and agency in relation to

the experience of marginality. As Black women academics, bell hooks (1984) and

Patricia Hill Collins (1991) have written about the experience of simultaneously being

both insider and outsider. Collins (1991) notes that as ‘‘outsiders within,’’ Black female

intellectuals have used their marginality for self-de� nition and self-valuation in the

movement away from being represented as the dehumanized, objecti � ed Other towards

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

6 nina asher

the Self as subject. Given that this marginality is experienced ‘‘at the intersection of

multiple structures of domination ’’ (p. 41), Collins suggests that it is necessary to move

beyond ‘‘dichotomous oppositional di¶ erences ’’ (p. 42) in order to identify the

dialectical tensions among these interconnected systems of oppression and co-option.

This perspective is fundamental to research which envisions a society which can realize

‘‘ the freedom both to be di¶ erent and to be part of the solidarity of humanity ’’ (Collins,

1991, p. 54). In fact, hooks (1990) suggests ‘‘choosing the margin as a space of radical

openness ’’ from which to resist, to develop counter-hegemonic cultural practices and

alliances.

Similarly, Chicana}o researchers (see, for example, Bernal, 1998; Pizarro, 1998;

Villenas, 1996) have analyzed their own implicatedness in traditional, socially unjust

epistemologies and paradigms which undergird our ways of conducting research and

constructing new knowledge. They argue that we need to re� ect critically on the

research methods we employ in order to develop methodologies that support our e¶ orts

at social transformation and activism. For instance, Bernal (1998) draws on Black

feminist writings to develop her Chicana feminist epistemology, which engages the

‘‘ cultural intuition’’ that Chicana scholars bring to their research endeavors. Further,

she interprets Dillard’s concept of an ‘‘ endarkened’’ feminist ideology to encompass

‘‘ the feminist thought of all women of color ’’ (Bernal, 1998: 556). Articulating a First

Nations research methodology, Mary Hermes (1998) concludes that construing research

methods as a ‘‘recursive process ’’ (p. 166) allows for grounding studies in the concerns

of both the community and the academy.

The implications of self-re� exivity can also be understood in terms of the

development of the individual in the research process. Arguing for an emancipatory

feminist praxis which reuni� es ‘‘ life and thought, action and knowledge, change and

research’’ (p. 68), Maria Mies (1991) interprets intersubjectivity in feminist research in

terms of ‘‘double consciousness and partial identi� cation ’’ (p. 78). Double con-

sciousness emerges from a dialectic process which allows one to see oneself from outside

and partial identi� cation allows one to see oneself as both connected to and separate

from others}their experiences. This interpretation of the researcher’s engagement

with}in the process implies a self-conscious understanding of the researcher Self as also

the participant Other and vice versa. Further, it opens up the research space to allow

both, the researcher and the participant, to bring in this duality and the multiplicity of

perspectives it (en)genders. Indeed, when gathering data for my dissertation study, I

encountered myself as the ‘‘participant Other’’ very early in the research process. As I

have documented, the Muslim students ’ group at one of the schools, where the student

population was 50 % Asian-American, refused to participate in my study because it was,

according to one of the members, ‘‘ for the Indians not the Muslims ’’ (Asher, 1999b :

42). In writing about this process, I realized that I needed to ‘‘ listen to and re� ect on

what the potential subjects of the study … were saying, rather than � xating on ‘giving

voice ’ to them and mistakenly construing their refusal to participate as ‘ silence’’’ (p.

309). Certainly, this engagement with the realities of conducting research allowed me

to see how the potential participants can be ‘‘Subjects ’’ and the researcher, the

‘‘Other.’’ More broadly, it allowed me to focus on identifying and analyzing the forces

which operate at the micro and macro levels to perpetuate misinformation (that Indian

and Muslim are mutually exclusive identi� cations), divisiveness, and marginalization

in seemingly multicultural contexts.

Thus, I draw on the above framework to understand and situate my academic}researcher-Self in terms of integrity and agency. Self-re� exivity is an integral component

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

beyond ‘‘cool ’’ and ‘‘hip ’’ 7

of my constructivist, feminist, change-oriented perspective that guides my research and

writing. In this process, I work the hyphen (Fine, 1994) to develop the ‘‘double

consciousness and partial identi� cation ’’ (Mies, 1991) of the ‘‘outsider within’’ (Collins,

1991). Indeed, my academic Self engages with and grows from my experiences as

woman of color Other, rather than attempting either to subsume one under the other

or to polarize the two. For instance, in a coauthored paper (Asher & Crocco, in press)

which examines gender, identity, and representation in multiculturalism, I have

re� ected on the struggles I encountered when, as an international doctoral student and

a person of color, I taught at a large graduate school of education in the capacity of a

teaching assistant}instructor. I analyze three ‘‘stories ’’ in this article. I re� ected on two

episodes in each of which a White student enrolled in that particular class challenged

my authority and confronted me, and a third instance in which I critiqued the simplistic

(according to me) representations of Indian women in a text used for a course about the

women of the world. I believe that this exercise allowed me to develop and situate my

scholarship as both academic Self and woman of color Other. This recognition of my

hyphenated self, combined with the elimination of the either}or dichotomy, allows me

to identify not only the structures of domination I encounter (race and gender, for

instance) but also my location, participation, and resistance in these systems. In fact, I

realize that my research and writing are spaces of radical openness (hooks, 1990) which

allow me the freedom to explore and re-present di¶ erence(s) via my connection with

and production in the academy. Again, I believe that such self-re� exive scholarship is

e¶ ective in extending the relevance of my e¶ orts beyond my particular context and

contributing to the critique of marginality in the � eld of education.

The mestiza intellectual as activist: writing and language

As an academic I am also concerned with how I present my work in person and in print.

This implies not only the integration of theory, research, and practice (including my

own pedagogical approaches), but also the dissemination of my work in the � eld. In

what ways are my research and writing relevant to the � eld ? How does the language of

critique and self-re� ection serve in terms of an intellectual and activist agenda? What

are its epistemological implications?

As Foucault’s (1984) ‘‘ speci� c intellectual ’’ I � nd myself ‘‘working … at the precise

points where [my own and}or my participants ’ own] conditions of life or work situate

[me and}or them]’’ (p. 68). In that sense, my research engages with ‘‘real, material,

everyday struggles ’’ (p. 68) – particularly those of Asian-American students and

educators and those of Third World women and women of color in the United States.

I construe such research and writing as ways of deconstructing hegemonic practices and

representations. For instance, by writing about the process by which the Indian

American high school students who participated in my study were co-opted in reifying

their model minority image (Asher, in press), I bring to light the interconnected forces,

operating at the micro level, that serve to marginalize an apparently privileged (in

terms of educational opportunities and}or SES) group of students. Similarly, my

critique of my teaching experiences as an international, doctoral student at a graduate

school of education engages with the issues of curricular re-presentation and the

situatedness of Third World women academics}women academics of color at the

speci� c and the general level (Asher & Crocco, in press). Further, my dialogues with

di¶ erent others engaged in similar struggles in their speci� c contexts allow me to work

towards a new politics of truth and knowledge construction in the academy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

8 nina asher

This above analysis is complicated by the dimension of my own hybrid identi-

� cation(s). My ‘‘ consciousness of the Borderlands ’’ (Anzaldu! a, 1987: 77) with}in

which I operate, live, think, breathe, research, and write often results in a ‘‘psychic

restlessness ’’ and ‘‘an inner war’’ (p. 78) as I struggle with multiple, con� icting,

disparate realities and messages. For instance, in many ways, the US academy is a site

of resistance, a homeplace (hooks, 1990) for my research and writing, and yet, almost

daily, I am reminded in innumerable, sometimes subtle, and always signi� cant ways

that indeed I am an outsider. For instance, at a recent informal gathering of academics

(where I seemed to be the only person of color), a woman asked me where I was from.

I replied that I had just moved from the NYC}Philly area. She nodded and I heaved

a mental sigh of relief that this was one of those rare instances when my answer would

serve. A few minutes later, she turned to me again, and asked : ‘‘Where did you grow

up? ’’ This time I sighed for my short-lived sense of relief. In another recent instance, a

White, female, graduate student presumed to ask me how old I was when I � rst came

to the USA. Evidently, my hard-earned doctorate and faculty position are not proof

against such ‘‘ identity checks ’’ within the academy, which convey to me at least a

subconscious rejection of (if not active resistance to) my presence as a quali� ed

academic. The e¶ ort of living with and processing such realities consumes psychic

energy and is often enervating. It is through critiquing the same by working the hyphen

(Fine, 1994) of academic Self-woman of color Other that I maintain integrity and

agency in my work and arrive at new spaces of self-renewal. The process of sense-making

to maintain integrity of the self is a site of struggle as well as a space of synthesis and

creativity which allows me to break down ‘‘the unitary aspect of each new paradigm’’

(p. 80) I encounter. Like Anzaldu! a’s new mestiza, I � nd I can grow, personally and

professionally, ‘‘by developing a tolerance for contradictions, a tolerance for am-

biguity ’’ (p. 79) and documenting the struggles (p. 82) in the various spheres of my

existence. This article, then, is one such e¶ ort.

Lowe (1996), referring to the paradoxical character of the colonized subject, notes,

‘‘ the demands for � uency in imperial languages and empire’s cultural institutions

simultaneously provide the grounds for antagonism to those demands’’ (p. 97). In fact,

Lowe argues, it is the very sense of disidenti � cation, which the immigrant experiences

as she � nds herself a participant in the ‘‘ liberal discourses of development, assimilation,

and citizenship’’ (p. 103) within the material realities of the United States, that gives

rise to oppositional forms, including alternative political and cultural identities,

subjectivities, and alliances. Asian-American writing, therefore, can be viewed as

emerging out of decolonization (p. 107). Writing and language, then, are acts of critical

intervention on the part of the mestiza intellectual, not only at the level of her own

(double) consciousness, but also with}in her particular raced}classed}gendered}cultured communities as well as across other communities engaged in similar struggles.

For example, as a South Asian woman and an academic of color in the USA, I work

with}in and across communities comprised of South Asian intellectuals and activists,

researchers concerned with the education of Asian-Americans, and, more broadly,

feminist and}or postcolonialist critics in education.

In his analysis of the contradictions of writing as a signi� er of colonial authority

(focusing on the English book in particular), Bhabha (1985) notes that ‘‘ [h]ybridity is

the sign of the productivity of colonial power, its shifting forces and � xities ; … . It

unsettles the mimetic or narcissistic demands of colonial power but reimplicates its

identi� cations in strategies of subversion that turn the gaze of the discriminated back

upon the eye of power ’’ (p. 173). Therefore, while I am aware of the irony of my use of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

beyond ‘‘cool ’’ and ‘‘hip ’’ 9

English to decolonize educational representations, I am also aware of the displacement

function of such writing as it contributes to ‘‘proliferating di¶ erence [which] evades the

eye [of colonial authority] ’’ (Bhabha, 1985 : 173). This is all the more reason for me

(and others like me who research and write from in-between, contradictory spaces) to

interrogate my (our) own work, in ‘‘a fundamental attitude of vigilance rather than

denial ’’ (hooks, 1990 : 55) so that despite the contradictions inherent, it continues to

make a di¶ erence. That is, my self-re� ective critique needs to examine the very purpose,

language, and nature of the discourse (Minh-ha, 1993) in which I engage as I struggle

against othering.

If the broader, general signi� cance of the work of the ‘‘ speci� c intellectual ’’ is to

emerge from her engagement with the politics of truth, then her writing needs to be

relevant beyond her particular, local context. To that end, my e¶ ort would (should?)

be to create ‘‘an opening where the writing subject disappears endlessly ’’ (Foucault,

1977 : 116). And yet, writing as academic Self-woman of color Other, I realize that

my name (which although easily mistaken for a ‘‘Western’’ name, is indeed an

‘‘ Indian ’’ name) and authorship are signi� ers of the nature of the discourse including

its discontinuities and its status in the academic context (Foucault, 1977). For instance,

my writing can be viewed as adding to the body of work generated by Third World

women}qualitative researchers of color. It can also signify as one more eruption of

di¶ erence in the dominant discourse. Therefore, in order to balance this apparent

contradiction of disappearing as the writing subject even as I read my authorship as

signi� cation, I view the contribution of my research and writing in terms of putting

‘‘ into circulation a certain number of … characteristic signs, … relationships, and

structures ’’ (p. 132) which have relevance to the work of others in the � eld, and vice

versa.

Praxis: the pedagogy of Self–Other

If ‘‘ [p]ractice is a set of relays from one theoretical point to another, and theory is a relay

from one practice to another ’’ (Foucault, 1977: 206), then I need to consider the

implications of my research and writing in terms of pedagogical practice. If the role of

theory, in terms of the work of the speci� c intellectual, is to serve as ‘‘an instrument for

multiplication, ’’ (p. 208) worthwhile research and writing necessarily lead to as well as

emerge from new projects, practices, and dialogues as others engage with them in their

particular contexts. Thus, theory and practice fuel each other within and across speci� c

and general contexts.

With regard to pedagogy, Gore (1993) o¶ ers critical and feminist approaches as

regimes of truth. She argues that the operation of pedagogical practices within speci� c,

local}micro contexts reveals the e¶ orts of resistance and the play of power–knowledge

relations. Again, such micro-level practices and discourses in� uence the larger e¶ ort of

resistance as well as the regimes of truth and, in turn, are conditioned by these broader

systems. In that sense, Gore argues, critical and feminist pedagogies need to adopt a self-

re� exive approach and acknowledge their own situatedness with}in the context of

institutionalized pedagogical systems. For instance, we might self-re� exively interrogate

the rationale of such apparently progressive or liberating practices as journal writing

and action research in education in relation to our speci� c contexts and students (Gore,

1993). Thus, reminding us that no pedagogical practice is essentially liberating, Gore

alerts us, as educators, regarding the need to attend to the particular realities of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

10 nina asher

Self–Other. For instance, as Ropers-Huilman (1999) suggests in her self-re� exive

article, which grapples with the complexities of power and caring as a feminist educator,

‘‘ the ways in which teachers and students can be powerful is related to the ways in which

we have constructed caring relationships within our classrooms’’ (p. 133).

With regard to current multicultural pedagogy, Ho¶ man (1996) argues for a

re� exive, self-aware multiculturalism and Pryse (1998) raises the issue of developing

cross-cultural competence through critical interdisciplinarity. Ho¶ man points to the

ideological conformity underlying ‘‘hallway multiculturalism ’’ (p. 547) and suggests

we problematize culture and constructions of identity and self in multicultural discourse

in order to confront ‘‘established categories of knowledge or relations of power’’ (p.

547). To that end, Ho¶ man recommends the following reforms in multicultural teacher

education : the use of ethnographies and case studies ; a focus on psychology which

addresses intra- and cross-cultural variability ; ongoing exposure to and re� ection on

critiques of multicultural education; and the need to model this self-re� exive, critical

approach in teacher education practice itself. Similarly, Pryse (1998) suggests that

teachers can move away from practices which recreate colonialism in education by

developing cross-cultural competences which recognize the validity of cultural

alternatives and multiple ways of being for self and other. However, here too the praxis

of Self–Other and meaningful multiculturalism implies an examination of the

implicatedness of one’s own teaching practice which emerges from discourses embedded

in extant structures of oppression. In so doing we need to develop pedagogical processes

which allow for dialogue with communities on the margins as well as critical self-

re� ection on our own endeavors, leading to the transformation of both Self and Other

(see, for example, Delgado-Gaitan, 1993; Pizarro, 1998). In order to sustain and

disseminate such e¶ orts, of course, we need to develop ways of overcoming established

institutional resistance to change.

As a teacher educator, then, I believe that the rigor of self-re� exivity requires me to

check in on an ongoing basis not only on my situatedness but also on the meaningfulness

of my research, writing, and teaching in relation to my students and the classroom

discourse. It leads me to ask myself about the extent to and the ways in which I translate

my work as a mestiza intellectual into my practice. Or, in other words, this self-

re� exivity enables me to engage with the pedagogy-related struggles and lacunae I

encounter – diµ cult as they may be – as opportunities for growth and further

negotiation between (my) theory and (my) practice. For instance, I may ask myself

about the extent to which I succeed in inviting my students’ multiple, di¶ ering

perspectives into the classroom discourse and yet, at the same time, working with them

towards understanding and deconstructing the intersecting forces of oppression

operating at the micro and macro levels. Thus, I bring the action-orientation of my

research and writing to bear on my practice and vice versa. Indeed, then, self-re� exivity

serves as an oppositional praxis that renews itself and academic endeavor.

Parenthetical questions: what gives at the cutting edge?

Having attempted to answer the three main questions I posed at the outset, I now return

to the parenthetical ones regarding the cutting edge. From all the buzz, it appears that

a whole lot gives at the cutting edge – it is a cool, hip, happenin’ location. And yet, I

wonder: what (else) gives? What does the cutting edge cut? What gets shaped and

becomes visible as opposed to the pieces or particles that fall unheeded to the ground in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

beyond ‘‘cool ’’ and ‘‘hip ’’ 11

the process? What instruments are used? By whom? As academic Self, constructivist,

feminist researcher of color, I raise these questions for several reasons. First, I do not

wish to assume that these identi� cations automatically exempt my research and writing

– or that of others who identify themselves similarly – from critical scrutiny. In fact, I

believe that the rigor of self-re� exivity can only strengthen the endeavor, make it more

meaningful. Second, when the cutting edge is thus problematized, we avoid the pitfall

of complacency regarding the ‘‘ coolness ’’ and ‘‘hipness ’’ of our work. Indeed, I believe

that we are then able to engage endlessly with new possibilities, perspectives, and voices

in academic discourse. Finally, seeking answers to these questions a¶ ords us the

opportunity to think not only about how narratives of alterity are ‘‘read, understood,

and located institutionally ’’ (Mohanty, 1991, p. 34) but also about how they are

generated as academic discourse.

In fact, as I conclude I am troubled by that very issue, particularly as woman of

color Other. Once again, I am very conscious of my own implicatedness : when I engage

in research and writing as academic Self, I am aware that the material conditions which

I draw upon for my critique are the very ones which operate to marginalize me as

woman of color Other. And yet, I could not do otherwise. Therefore, as part of the

struggle to balance the realities of academic Self-woman of color Other, I � nd I need to

ask myself ‘‘what gives ’’ in the process and how it shapes my research and writing. I

believe that engaging this question is fundamental to my abiding integrity and agency

as a researcher and an educator.

Acknowledgment

I thank Frances Schoonmaker of Teachers College, Columbia University for sharing

thoughtful, thought-provokin g insights which allowed me to extend my engagement

with these questions.

References

Anzaldu! a, G. (1987). Borderlands}La frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco, CA: Aunt Lute.Asher, N. (1997). Apache Indian’s syncretic music and the re-presentation of South Asian identities : A case

study of a minority artist. Taboo: The Journal of Culture and Education, Spring, 99–118.Asher, N. (1999a). (En)gendering a hybrid consciousness : At the intersection of postcolonial and feminist research and

writing in education. Paper presented at the 20th Annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum,University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Asher, N. (1999b). Margins, center, and the spaces in-between: Indian American high school students’ lives at homeand school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Teachers College, Columbia University.

Asher, N. (in press). Checking the box marked ‘‘Model Minority.’’ In G. Hudak & P. Kihn (Eds.), Labeling:Pedagogy and Politics. NY: Routledge Falmer.

Asher, N., & Crocco, M. S. (in press). (En)gendering multicultural identities and representations. Theory and Researchin Social Education.

Asher, N., Goodwin, A. L., Genishi, C., & Woo, K. (1997). Asian American autobiographies: The construction ofidentity in historical context. Paper presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the AERA, Chicago, IL.

Bernal, D. D. (1998). Using a Chicana feminist epistemology in educational research. Harvard EducationalReview, 68, 555–582.

Bhabha, H. K. (1985). Signs taken for wonders : Questions of ambivalence and authority under a tree outsideDelhi, May 1817. In H. L. Gates, Jr. (Ed.), ‘‘Race, ’’ writing and di· erence (pp. 163–184). Chicago, IL:University of Chicago.

Collins, P. H. (1991). Learning from the outsider within : The sociological signi� cance of Black feministthought. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology : Feminist scholarship as lived research(pp. 35–59). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Constas, M. (1998). Deciphering postmodern educational research. Educational Researcher, 27(9), 36–42.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4

12 beyond ‘‘cool ’’ and ‘‘hip ’’

Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1993). Researching change and changing the researcher. Harvard Educational Review, 63,389–411.

Fine, M. (1994). Working the hyphens : Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin& Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 70–82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (1991a) . Back to the future : A look at the second wave of feminist epistemologyand methodology. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology : Feminist scholarship as livedresearch (pp. 1–15). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Fonow, M. M. & Cook, J. A. (Eds.). (1991b). Beyond methodology: Feminist scholarship as lived research.Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Foucault, M. (1977). Language, counter-memory, practice: Selected essays and interviews (D. F. Bouchard, Ed.).Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Foucault, M. (1984). The Foucault reader (P. Rabinow, Ed.). NY: Pantheon.Garratt, D. & Hodkinson, P. (1998). Can there be criteria for selecting research criteria? A hermeneutical

analysis of an inescapable dilemma. Qualitative Inquiry, 4, 515–540.Goodwin, A. L., Genishi, C., Asher, N., & Woo, K. A. (1997). Voices from the margins: Asian American

teachers’ experiences in the profession. In D. M. Byrd & D. J. McIntyre (Eds.), Research on the educationof our nation’s teachers : Teacher education yearbook V (pp. 219–241). Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin.

Gore, J. M. (1993). The struggle for pedagogies: Critical and feminist discourses as regimes of truth. New York :Routledge.

Hanh, T. N. (1992). Peace is every step: The path of mindfulness in everyday life. NY: Bantam.Hermes, M. (1998). Research methods as a situated response : towards a First Nations’ methodology.

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 155–168.Ho¶ man, D. (1996). Culture and self in multicultural education : Re� ections on discourse, text, and practice.

American Educational Research Journal, 33, 545–569.hooks, b. (1984). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End Press.hooks, b. (1990). Yearning: Race, gender, and cultural politics. Boston, MA: South End Press.Lowe, L. (1996). Immigrant acts: On Asian American cultural politics. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Matsuda, M. (1996). Where is your body? : And other essays on race, gender, and the law. Boston, MA: Beacon.Mies, M. (1991). Women’s research or feminist research? The debate surrounding feminist science and

methodology. In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology : Feminist scholarship as livedresearch (pp. 60–84). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Minh-ha, T. (1993). The language of nativism: Anthropology as a scienti� c conversation of man with man.In L. S. Kau¶ man (Ed.), American feminist thought at century’s end (pp. 107–139). Cambridge, MA:Blackwell.

Mohanty, C. T. (1991). Cartographies of struggle : Third world women and the politics of feminism. In C.Mohanty, A. Russo, & L. Torres (Eds.), Third world women and the politics of feminism (pp. 1–47).Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

Pizarro, M. (1998). ‘‘Chicana}o power! ’’ Epistemology and methodology for social justice and empowermentin Chicana}o communities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 57–80.

Pryse, M. (1998). Critical interdisciplinarity, women’s studies, and cross-cultural insight. National Women’sStudies Association Journal, 10, 1–22.

Ropers-Huilman, B. (1999). Scholarship on the other side : Power and caring in feminist education. NWSAJournal, 11, 118–135.

Spivak, G. C. (1999). A critique of postcolonial reason: Toward a history of the vanishing present. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Villenas, S. (1996). The colonizer}colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity, marginalization, and co-optation in the � eld. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 711–731.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

hica

go L

ibra

ry]

at 0

3:56

10

Oct

ober

201

4