‘Race’, Difference and the Inclusive Society

Sociology and Sociologists

Peter Ratcliffe

Lecture outline

• Researching ‘race’ and ethnicity• Role of sociology and sociologists• Researcher identity – implications• Ethics and politics• Implications of funding and the

institutional context of research• Future directions?• Research Essay

The role of sociologists

I’ve argued the case for a clear, unambiguous value position, that our work …

• Can (should?) be broadly emancipatory and empowering, and

• Must be achieved without pathologising (or patronising) those suffering oppressive or exclusionary forces

It must also recognise the obligations of privilege and relative power

The role of sociologists

Others would argue for role as dispassionate observer and analyst.

- morally unacceptable and intellectually naïve?

• All sociological research is ‘political’ in the sense that it enters the public domain and informs debate

Can never predict all the uses to which our work will be put, but can take care to minimise the likelihood of its misuse. BUT…academics in a difficult position…

• Normally paid by the state/public purse. • Much research paid for by government departments, local

authorities, quangos, research councils, etc.

Key issues• Who does the research? • Does it matter if researchers are predominantly

white? And male?• For whom do they work? (government, local

authority, university, pressure group, ‘independent’ research organisation?)

• Where do they get their funding?• What will happen to their results? Will there be

measurable, tangible results ‘on the ground’? If so, positive/negative?

• Are the interests of vulnerable people potentially threatened?

One radical view

I want to start with a quote from an article by Jenny Bourne (with Anil Sivanandan) in Race and Class from around three decades ago:

There is a dangerous sociology abroad – a sociology of race relations that is – and dangerous to the black cause that it seeks to espouse (Cheerleaders and Ombudsmen: the sociology of race relations in Britain, 1980)

Central Claims• Migration to the UK changed the nature of

research on ‘race’, but also transferred the focus from the colonial site to the UK

• Profession lost its way in the 1950s. seduced by the idea of assimilation

• none ‘saw’ what was happening in the real world. e.g. Liverpool (Anthony Richmond), Stepney

(Michael Banton), Brixton (Sheila Patterson)

Despite major unrest, no conflict in the literature (cf. Blauner’s comments re. US)

Revolution at the IRR

History of IRR illustrates research tensions..

• Origins - mainstream academic research, prioritising ‘scientific’ approach

• Then in 1971, Robin Jenkins at BSA conference: “white researchers should be told to ‘f*** off’ (as agents of the state)”…..

In-house revolution at IRR (cf. CARD)

• Journal ‘Race’ became ‘Race and Class’

New IRR position

B&S article again (p.339):

‘Where the fundamental problem lay was now the issue. It was not black people who should be examined, but white society; it was not a question of educating blacks and whites for integration, but of fighting institutional racism; it was not race relations that was the field of study, but racism.’

Role of white sociologists?

Doesn’t attack all white academics – praises books by Robert Moore, Ann Dummett and Robert Moore and Tina Wallace because they focused on white racism.

Target was ‘mainstream research’..

• Stuck in the cultural pluralist mould(?) • Ethnicity accepted as changing/adapting,

becoming redefined, and reactive, but not ‘positive’

Cultural pluralism to political pluralism?

CP (cheerleaders) – PP (ombudsmen)

• John Rex (RUER/CRER) as latter(?)• Argument conflates research of

Director and staff – is this legitimate?

Point remains that research was tied to public purse, and controlled by ESRC…..implications?

Role of white sociologists - revisited

• Useful for studying white racism and white run organisations?

• But, there is the danger of becoming the white expert

• Researcher often male: a further problem? Need to watch the direction of the overall research agenda.

Wider identity issues

Robin Jenkins called for increase in the number of Black and especially Black female, researchers – still an issue? Less so?

• Obviously, a good idea to have more Black academics (though not just studying ‘race’).

One word of caution here…..

• These arguments are often linked to the idea that we need a ‘Black perspective’. Is there really a Black perspective? Is everything OK if the researcher is Black? Heidi Mirza talks about the need for ‘cultural competence’(?)

Implications Horace Campbell wrote about state-sponsored ‘rasta

studies’ - by ‘white Blacks’ like Rex Nettleford and Len Barratt.

Ken Pryce: Endless Pressure:• Exploited his roots to gain access to people’s private

lives and then betrayed ‘his brothers’• Deployed racist stereotyping• Avoided the gender issue (substituted stereotypes)• Used unethical methods that undermined the work of

other colleagues

This raises a key issue: what sort of research can do harm? Likely material effects of his work?

Implications (cont.)

Many other cases (by white researchers):

• Cashmore and Troyna’s Black Youth in Crisis

• Lea and Young’s What Can be Done About Law and Order

• Certain issues which are dangerous? • Need for the introduction of the concept a

research agenda?

Limits to research agenda?• Studies of ‘riots’? E.g. Tina Wallace and

Harry Joshua’s study of the St Paul’s ‘riots’ in 1980. Book appeared as To Ride The Storm

• Inter-communal conflict? Researchers shy away from topic for fear of deflecting attention away from racism, and possibly fuelling increased concerns about ‘violent Blacks’, ‘the enemy within’, etc.

• Theoretical areas, e.g. Race and IQ, Sociobiology?

Ethics and politics1. Profession has ‘Codes of Ethics’ but these don’t, and

can’t, have the same effect as those governing the actions of doctors, lawyers…

• A community of scholars/sociologists? Not now!

2. Problematic forms of nomenclature• The definition of oppressive language shifts over time.

This is a vital issue in that ‘we’, the relatively powerful, tend to define the terrain, i.e. the ways in which ‘they’ are labeled by ‘us’.

• Our work is in the public domain, and ‘we’ contribute to the development of the agenda - measurement of ‘ethnic group’ in Census.

• Commission on the Future of Multi-Ethnic Britain - ‘a community of communities’!?

Research funding: implications

• Research often funded by ‘the state’ (e.g. government departments, local authorities and quangos)

Why, and is this a problem?• Depends on the likely impact on minority

communities? • Funding inevitably has strings attached?

Implications?• Driven by REF? No, but raises other

issues – prioritisation of ESRC funding

Interrogating Research

• If the aim is to undermine inequalities, is it likely that this will be achieved?

• Are there any dangers that the research will be misused, or perhaps, simply ignored?

• Is one justified in undertaking research if the likelihood of meaningful change is slight (simply to feather the university’s ‘REF nest’)?

Action Research: a way forward?

• Rather than doing research on communities, one could (should?) do research with communities, as part of a process of empowerment

• Institutional research. Could work to ensure that change processes are built into the design of the project [e.g. current work on ‘contract compliance’]

• ALL IS NOT LOST...No, but beware the REF!

Assessment II: Research Essay

• As you know, under the recently ‘reinvented’ module all of you are required to undertake research on a topic of your choice under the supervision of your seminar tutors, and to submit an essay of 5,000 words (maximum) by 2pm on Tuesday 24 April 2012.

• For those of you taking the module by 50% assessed/50% examination the research essay constitutes your assessed component. N.B. YOU ARE NOT PERMITTED TO SUBMIT AN ESSAY FROM ASSESSED ESSAY LIST I.

• The timing of the submission is significant in the sense that this piece of assessment should, as I’ve said from the outset, be regarded essentially as a modified assessed essay.

Aims and objectives• The aims and objectives of this part of the module are

to ensure that you not only understand the theoretical, historical and conceptual terrain covered by the module, but are also capable of engaging actively with the literature by devising researchable ideas/questions and following these up with independent research. This is designed to ensure that you develop a key transferable skill, namely the ability to respond to the need to undertake innovative research firmly grounded in an existing knowledge base.

The following notes are here simply to guide you to successful completion, and will back up the detailed individual tuition given by tutors in the second term.

Key points1. The essay should be based on a topic closely related to

the issues covered in the module. Topic choice should be agreed in advance with tutors (i.e. Peter or Teresa).

2. The work should be seen as an extended assessed essay in the sense that the starting point for your submitted work should be a review of the relevant literature. Crucially, this should display clear evidence that you have covered, and taken on board, the theoretical and conceptual terrain addressed by the module. Put simply this means, for example, that terms such as ‘race’, racism, ethnicity, ‘ethnic group’, inclusion, exclusion, social/community cohesion and multiculturalism should not be taken at ‘face value’ (but, rather, interrogated).

Key points3 The literature you address should relate directly to the

substantive focus of your research, and you should provide a clear link (with rationale) between the two. This means that the research questions you raise are provoked/stimulated by your reading of the literature.

4. Irrespective of the primary source of your research material (e.g. content/discourse analysis, ethnographic methods and/or secondary analysis) you must include a succinct but precise, reflexive account of methods deployed (probably in the region of 500 words).

5. Your data presentation should avoid simple descriptive accounts of events: it should always be theoretically informed.

Key points6. The substantive content of your data should

clearly relate to your research questions (which in turn stem from your literature review).

7. Where elements of triangulation have been

introduced into your research design, this should be clear from your data analysis. In other words, your analysis should embody an ‘internal conversation/debate’ with an interpenetration of the various sources and not separate accounts based on the different types of data.

Finally…..8. Your essay should always contain a clear succinct

conclusion. This should incorporate a number of key features:

• A summary of conclusions that reflect on your research questions

• A reflection on the significance of your research area/topic, i.e. why it should be researched

• Suggestions as to how your research might be improved and/or extended (substantively, empirically, theoretically, etc)

[Note: If you wish to include a small amount of case study material or other data on which your analysis draws, this may be contained in an Annex(es). This material will not be deemed to fall within your overall word count.]