xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam a22 u 4500
controlfield tag 008 c19999999azu 000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E11-00133
Educational policy analysis archives.
n Vol. 7, no. 21 (July 08, 1999).
Tempe, Ariz. :
b Arizona State University ;
Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida.
c July 08, 1999
Facing the consequences : identifying the limitations of how we categorize people in research and policy / Cynthia Wallat [and] Carolyn Steele.
Arizona State University.
University of South Florida.
t Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA)
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
mods:mods xmlns:mods http:www.loc.govmodsv3 xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govmodsv3mods-3-1.xsd
mods:relatedItem type host
mods:identifier issn 1068-2341mods:part
mods:detail volume mods:number 7issue 21series Year mods:caption 19991999Month July7Day 88mods:originInfo mods:dateIssued iso8601 1999-07-08
1 of 15 Education Policy Analysis Archives Volume 7 Number 21July 8, 1999ISSN 1068-2341 A peer-reviewed scholarly electronic journal Editor: Gene V Glass, College of Education Arizona State University Copyright 1999, the EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS ARCHIVES. Permission is hereby granted to copy any article if EPAA is credited and copies are not sold. Articles appearing in EPAA are abstracted in the Current Index to Journals in Education by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation and are permanently archived in Resources in Education Facing the Consequences: Identifying the Limitations of How We Categorize People in Research and Policy Cynthia Wallat Florida State University Carolyn Steele Florida State UniversityAbstract Social policy researchers and policy rule s and regulation writers have not taken advantage of advances in assessing ways in which so cial representations of ideas about people can convey alternative explanations of socia l life. During the past decade a growing number of scholars have considered how repr esentational practices and the representations that are outcomes of such practices have value. Neglecting to consider representational practices has consequences includi ng failure to mobilize and sustain alternative ideologies that reject narrow perspecti ves on families and communities. As evidenced by recent OMB rulings on census categorie s, the dominant sense of meaning of populationÂ—and hence family and communityÂ—is qui te similar to the 17th century sense of people as objects of a particular category in a place from which samples can be taken for statistical measurement. However, the con trastive analysis presented in this paper points out how sustained attention to consequ ences of use of sets of information categories collected to enumerate population to inf orm social policy can still materialize. In the wake of federal welfare reform, policy maker s are particularly interested in
2 of 15questions of benefit relative to social service del ivery and community revitalization. The presentation includes lessons learned from several dozen family, youth, school and community research projects.Introduction During the past few years, the population categories of race, ethnicity, gender, have been scrutinized by legal and political instit utions, as well as social science disciplines and associations (e.g. Begley, 1995; Ho llins, King & Hayman, 1994; Hill & Greenhaugh, 1997; Hughey, 1998; Hutchinson & Smith, 1996; Schlosberg 1998). Acting on recommendations presented by Members of the Pres idential Advisory Board on Race known as the President's Council for One America, t he fiscal 2000 budget included a proposal to create new types of social science popu lation data that will provide ways to measure racial bias in everyday life and educate th e public about population categories such as racial and ethnic groups (Ross, 1999; Watso n, 1998). At the same time, Federal Courts are reexamining the nature and legitimacy of principles of public justification of decades old consent degrees that lead to dividing p ublic school populations into different groups (Siskind, 1994). In academic arenas, the goa l of formulating a knowledge base for teaching about diverse populations has been jud ged inadequate on several counts. "A major element in the confusion and conflict surroun ding the field of 'ethnic phenomena' has been the failure to find any measure of agreeme nt about what the central concepts of ethnicity signify or how they should be used" (Hutc hinson & Smith, 1996, p. 15). Assessment of the analytical contributions of idiom s of population such as pluralism and multiculturalism has also been negative. One set of negative judgments is that continued concern with technical matters of demography fail t o advance understandings of renewed ethnic polarizations and the conditions in which numerous ethnic, religious or cultural groups coexist within a society, (e.g. Gre enhalgh, 1995, Higham, 1998; McNicoll, 1994, Schlosberg, 1998, Webster, 1997). Representatives of multiple social scienc e disciplines argue the need for policy scientists to remake population analysis by incorpo rating historical contingency and societal specificity in narrative modes of explanat ion. Schlosberg (1998) argues that such approaches provide "an acknowledgment of multi plicityÂ—an openness to ambiguity and the differences its spawns" (p. 603). Restating McNicoll's (1992) plea for a demography for a more turbulent world, Greenhalgh (1995) calls for policy researchers to direct audiences' attention to studies that atte mpt multilevel analysis to provide explanations that embrace "not only the social and economic, but also the political and cultural aspects of demographic change" (p. 49). Gr eenhalgh (1995) raises the question, How can the agenda of studying population as a phen omena of interest across social science disciplines be contextualized in the social and economic terms of demography and in political and cultural terms as well?Overview In this article, we provide examples of c urrent work in social science disciplines which addresses the policy research argument that u nderstanding the impact of changes in human numbers on social and cultural life requir es moving beyond current standards of empirical categories. For example, the United Na tions suggests enumeration of the structure of the world's populations and their patt erns of change involves collecting information on at least 4 sets of empirical facts: (1) Demographic, including sex, age, marital status, birthplace, place of usual residenc e, relationship to head of household, number of children; (2) Economic or type of activit y, occupation; (3) Social and
3 of 15Political, including language, ethnic or religious affiliation; (4) Educational including literacy or level of education, school attendance ( cf. "census" Encyclopedia Britannica Online, 1999). The meaning of theses sets of words and i deas about people are taken for granted and used as a referent in social policy, courts and other legal institutions to link the individual with society. Yet, few researchers make clear how their categorization and measurement of individuals along social identity an d ethnic lines is linked to a conceptual foundation or theoretical base. "While c onceptually researchers are pointing to the dynamics and fluid nature of ethnicity, empi rically they are measuring ethnicity [and social identity] as a static entity" (Leets, G iles & Clement, 1996, p. 11). The common tendency has been to use measu rement categories such as suggested by the United Nations to project that the world wil l include 6 billion people in the 21st century. Such projections are predicated without ex amination of just what it is about standards categories of human numbers that will imp act social life (Kertzer, 1995). Consequently, policy researchers point to a need fo r exploring how different categories of people are linked to different communicative pra ctices (Wallat & Piazza, 1991; 1997). One argument is that a focus on "plurality o f meanings" and "variable functions of communication" could bring attention to both int ernal and external influences on the "construction of the subjectivity that group member ship and citizenship built upon" (Schlosberg, 1998, p.160). Practices of communicati on as a key issue in policy research are proposed as a strategy to: (a) affirm the theor etical richness of available notions of pluralism such as "the irreducible plurality of the social realm" (cf. Schlosberg, 1998, p. 586), and (b) provide "an acknowledgment of multipl icity an openness to ambiguity and the differences it spawns" (cf. Schlosberg, 199 8, p. 603). Reconsidering the need within social scie nce to expand its discursive practices to address the consequences of the projected 21st cent ury number of 6 billion people on economy, government and society is also a current f ocus of the American Anthropological Association (Hill & Greenhalgh, 199 8). Marking 1998 as the bicentennial of the publication of "Essay on the Pr inciple of Population as it Affects the Future Improvement of Society," association members have reminded social scientists that the empirical observations on the realities of poverty reported by Thomas Malthus in 1798 have defied attempts to identify factors th at increase the likelihood that institutional adaptation will occur fast enough to deal with current and prospective populations (Bean, 1990, p. 27). The American Anthropology Association Ann ual Program Meeting Chair Susan Greenhalgh suggested that population questions, inc luding, Who is counting whom? Why is counting taking place? and, How are the vari ables constructed?, can be reformulated and addressed as areas of inquiry. Exa mples of such areas for examination include: (a) Population categories as pattern, that is behavior conceptualized as social organization and culture change, (b) Population cat egories as discourse, that is how notions of discourse shape construction of discursi ve categories, (c) Population categories as politics, that is attention to the ne gotiations and contestations surrounding population as an issue or problem. Commentaries by members of the associatio n on the proposed questions provide further suggestions on how they might be developed as a framework for analysis of social science literature. Charles Briggs (1998), f or example, suggests focusing on the extent to which public discourse terms can be taken in a marked sense, as issues of standard population measurement versus representati ons of populations as contested categories of cultural, political and economic powe r. Such contrastive analysis could provide examples of the extensive variety of ways o f seeing and interpreting the study of
4 of 15humankind. The work reported in this article is orga nized to address these questions, areas of inquiry, and framework for analysis. For our purpos e a contrast between population as a marked term and representations of population is as follows: the marked sense of population is what can be learned about a social political construct enacted in legislation as social control indicators that are c ountable, manageable and amenable to manipulation in policy prescription; representation s in observational studies include what has been learned from accounts of the conseque nces of social control statistics of populations such as ethnicity on understanding indi viduals' development of social identity. We propose that policy analysis can take advantage of how advances in assessing social representations of people convey a lternative explanations of social life. We point to examples of recent ethnographies that i llustrate consequences of use of prevailing categories of the substance of people em bedded in social policy. In the wake of federal welfare reform, policy makers are partic ularly interested in questions of benefit relative to family and community revitaliza tion and possible misdirection of funding contingencies. For example, The Congressional Record provides hundreds of references for the terms "youth" and "community ser vices" in policy debates and appropriation hearings ( http:// thomas.loc.gov ). Our presentation includes findings from studies of youth organization projects supported th rough such policy initiatives. Overall the findings from studies of youth organization and dominant heath and education institutions suggest that the formulation of approp riation rules and regulations for American family adolescents members may be misdirec ted by standard categories of people. Ethnographers of schools and communities il lustrate how young people represented in policy as populations at risk are re sisting pejorative values embedded in such appropriation categories. Rather they portray their styles of social and individual identity in ways that leave ethnic and racial popul ation categories behind (e.g. Davidson, 1995, Heath & McLaughlin, 1993, McCarthy, 1997, Mir on, 1996, Munoz, 1998). Thus a more anthropologically oriented position, including avoiding a priori assumptions about social identity or community affiliation, is indica ted.What Do We Mean by Population Categories? Who Is Co unting Whom? Why Is Counting Taking Place? How Are the Var iables Constructed? During the past several decades scholars from a number of disciplines have focused on the practices used across the human scie nces to shape and create objects of knowledge such as population. Researchers trace the historical development of ideologies as particular ways of "seeing" and inter preting collective identity to the 17 th century (e.g., Popkewitz, 1991, Laosa, 1984). Popke witz highlights tensions which have accompanied the intersection of knowledge, power an d historically situated practices in the following way: Beginning in the 17th century, there was a shift fr om a classical view in which [a] word was representative of the object [ob served] to a world in which people [were attributed with the capacity to] reflect and be self conscious about their historical conditions. A view of change occurred that tied progress to reason...and systematic human inte rvention to social institutions. The new sets of relations between kno wledge and social practice inhered in a variety of social relations. Accompanying the emergent [ideology indexed as the] Enlightenment was the cre ation of the nation
5 of 15state, where, for the first time, people were assig ned a collective identity that was both anonymous and concrete. Abstract conc epts of....constitutional, democratic rules produced new sets of boundaries, expectations, and possibilities of the general noti on of citizen. At the same time, people could be considered in specific and de tailed ways as populations that could be characterized into subgro ups distinct from any sense of the whole. The concept of population made possible new technologies of control, since there was greater po ssibility for the supervision, observation, and administration of the individual. (p. 32).... People came to be defined as populations that could be or dered through the political arithmetic of the state, which the French called statistique State administrators spoke of social welfare in terms of biological issues such as reproduction, disease, and education (individual de velopment, growth, and evolution). Human needs were seen as instrumental a nd empirical in relation to the functioning of the state. (p. 38) Laosa (1984) cited policies established o ver the past 400 years in which children, youth and families were defined by a variety of anc estry ties, codified as people in treaties and laws, and denied opportunities to deal with their social and economic subordination (cf. p. 7). As evidenced by recent OM B rulings on census categories, the dominant sense of meaning of populationÂ—and hence f amily and communityÂ—is quite similar to the 17th century sociologists' sense of "population" as objects of a particular category in a place from which samples can be taken for statistical measurement. In contrast to the 100 plus possible social identity r epresentations identified in the 1980 Harvard Encyclopedia of American ethnic groups (Thernstrom, 1980) and the 1998 Atlas of American Diversity (Shinagawa & Jang, 1998), the year 2000 census information will delimit the meaning of population to five minimum categories for data on race and two categories for data on ethnicity (i .e., American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian o r Other Pacific Islander, White, Hispanic or Latino). In 1995, Ruth McKay prophesied delimitati on of social identity would continue to occur as standards for the classification of federa l data on population because of conceptual and affect problems that occurred in int erviews that were conducted to try new versions of race and ethnicity questions. "Many respondents were uncomfortable answering any question about race, because they fea red the questionnaire was really about racism, and...a covert attempt to learn if th ey were really racist" (McKay & del la Puente, 1995, p. 4). Interview questions were based upon a technical frame of reference for collection of data needed to monitor policy pre scriptions rather than local knowledge (cf. Pike, 1954). Questions asked included, "Please tell me what you think is the most important characteristic that defines race [and] Do you think there is any difference between race, ethnicity, and ancestry?.... Several respondents thought the [interviewer] was asking about the ethical character of races. On e [person] thought the word 'characteristic' meant that we were asking about [t heir]character" (McKay & del la Puente, 1995, p.4). Hence, by law and policy U.S. p opulation means the marked standards designed by the Office of Management and Budget for collecting data on the race and ethnicity of broad population groups in th is country, "and are not anthropologically or scientifically based" (Office of Management and Budget, 1997). Examination of Congressional bills during 1997-1998 ( http:// thomas.loc.gov ) also suggests that population issues will continue to be legislatively framed as population management, family planning, and ancestr y and social economic identity.
6 of 15We question whether the consequence of continued us e of a technical base for policy evaluation continues use of stereotypes. To counter myths or broad social meanings that shape experience and evaluation of attributes requi res finding ways to "pay attention to the particulars, the specifics, the concrete realit y, with all its blemishes and contradictions" (Lye, 1997, p. 2) Under these circumstances, attempting to counter prevailing population ideology by further engaging in examining "practices of deco ding and re-encoding, of translation and interlocution, and of rhetorical deconstruction (Brown, 1995, p. 13) may seem foolhardy. Yet, Charles Goodwin (1994) argues that the phenomena of legal argumentation surrounding social policies be subjec ted to further attention as objects of knowledge that members of the profession can contes t. In his article, "Professional Vision," Goodwin illustrates how the activities of coding, highlighting, and producing and articulating ways of seeing and interpreting, c an be applied to the politics of representation. He believes this may occur as the f ollowing three questions are reformulated in a new era of studies on discursive practices used across social science: (a) What are the conditions in which modes of repre sentations are accepted in social science and humanities as objective, valid, or legi timate? (b) How are accounts of social norms made adequate to their respective purposes an d audiences through discursive and political practices? (c) How can sustaining interes t in rhetorical analysis of genres or texts be directed towards attention to claims, proo fs, and propositions as well as to the communicative contexts in which "members of a profe ssion hold each other accountable and context the constitution and perception of the objects that define their professional competence" (p. 606). Richard Brown (1995) has also produced a collection of arguments by anthropologists and sociologists to persuade others to make problematic the construction and presentation of representations by focusing on the how of representationÂ—of objectivity, of native view, of group, of cultureÂ—a nd so forth (p.13). The unifying perspective presented by Brown, is that an emphasis on deconstruction and rhetorical analysis may counter current pessimism and suspicio n flagged in both academic and public discourses on the limits of social science ( cf. Wallat & Piazza, 1999). According to John Van Maanen (1995), howe ver, the consequences of the introspection of written representations of culture produced by specific ethnographers since the 1960s, as well as the spread of methodolo gical self-consciousness across the "cultural representation business" remains to be se en. What is needed is examples of how this turn towards displaying problems that soci al science representations face, and cracking open representational practices altersÂ—if at allÂ—traditional practices in educational community, and legal arenas (cf. Van Mannen, 1995). The following section provides a compilat ion of such examples.Focus on the Extent to Which the Term Should Be Tak en in its Marked Sense, As Issues of Population versus the Re presentations of Populations The value of Charles Briggs' advice to de velop critiques of the concept population as a contrastive analysis of marked sense of the te rm in legal documents such as government standards for the classification of fede ral data on race and ethnicity, versus representations of populations that may demystify s uch standards through drawing attention to particulars of family and community ex periences, is beginning to emerge in studies of school populations. For example, contras tive analysis is possible due to the availability of primary sources for reviewing schoo l population issues as they are marked
7 of 15in reports developed by The National Center for Edu cational Statistics ( http://nces.ed.gov ) through funding appropriated to this agency and a growing number of published collections of life experience narrati ves. Recent ethnographies of African American and Asian American students and their teachers, families, and communities (e.g., Fordham, 1996; Lee, 1996), "pay attention to the particulars, the specifics, the concrete realit y, with all its blemishes and contradictions" (Lye, 1997, p. 2). Analysis of the contributions of such studies is the researchers' ability to point out that a major cons equence of population categories in educational domains is that "Whiteness remains the dominant racial ideology, not by promoting Whiteness as superior, but by promoting W hiteness as normative" (Spina & Tai, 1998, p. 36). For example, the population cate gory "at risk youth" continues to be a term synonymous with Black, and Latino youth while Asian America students are represented as "academic superstars." The power of the dominant normative stance "does not stop at simply defining Others.... It sup ports the assumption that White youth are not all 'at risk' nor are they all 'academic su perstars.' This position grants White youth the privilege to determine their own academic desti ny" (p. 36). Reviewers of such ethnographies of studen ts, teachers, families and communities (e.g. Sleeter, 1992) provide a means of publicly co ntesting limited knowledge of concrete realities of and continued use of "prefabr icated panethnicity" ( Spina & Tai, 1998, p. 40) such as White, Black, Hispanic and Lat ino in public discourse. Educational researchers are beginning to recognize that more ca n be learned about "how power lies not in the making of generalizations, but in making generalizations stick" (Spina & Tai, 1998, p. 36). As Greg Urban stated in his response to the year long Anthropology Newsletter discussion on the known and unknown in social scie nce, the question should not be: What is the relationship between the cultur e being represented in an ethnography and the world. "Rather, because culture is both in the world and about the world, the question [we should be asking participants in our s tudies to help us explore is] What is the relationship between culture that is out there and culture that is a representation of what [you believe] is out there?" (Urban, 1997, p. 1). Compilations of stories of youth, families and communities, representing individuals' attempts to define their personal and social identity provide new images of the concept o f power through considering how persons receive, resist, contest, or transform domi nant representations.Facing the Consequences of Traditional Research on Youth Development The General Accounting Office (GAO) has i dentified 131 programs administered by 16 different federal departments and other agenc ies that direct four billion dollars a year at communities represented as disadvantaged to support the creation of empowerment zones, comprehensive community services delivered through schools, gang prevention efforts, and programs that serve ru naway or delinquent youth (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1996). A study panel tha t produced the 1996 National Research Council (NRC) report "Youth Development an d Neighborhood Influence: Challenges and Opportunities" (Chalk & Phillips, 19 96) considered the long term gains and consequences of such federal support and conclu ded that investments in social strategies and community resources to promote youth development require "more attention to the types of social resources that you th seek out and create, as well as consideration of the ways in which youth gain infor mation and control over their environment" (p.25). The study panel also noted that such effo rts require shifting from a prior problem
8 of 15categories such as delinquency and dropping out of school to social setting perspectives and approaches that may stimulate "interest in reco gnizing how adolescents themselves perceive role models of successful adult behavior, how they protect themselves during periods of danger or uncertainty, and how they seek out individuals or groups that constitute community assets capable of helping" (Ch alk & Phillips, 1996, p. 7). The NRC report noted the contribution of private foundations to research and development efforts along these lines as well as po inting out that ethnographic research has alerted social science to new possibilities for research on family and community research and policy. Their Study Panel noted that r esearch efforts that rely on demographic and census data to assess change and de velopment within neighborhoods and examine pathways by which ethnicity and racial heritage messages affect youth development, "have revealed many uncertainties in u nderstanding how teenagers negotiate critical transitions...the formation of s elf identity, and the selection of life options" (p.3). Examples of private foundations pro jects were noted as examples of ways of dealing with issues in the concept of population with formulating new policies on children, youth and families, and with crafting new lines of research inquiry highlighting the need to integrate children, youth and family de velopment literature with research on community development and organizations. Efforts me ntioned include the Casey Foundation's nationwide Kids Count project to identify model programs and policies ( http://www.aecf.org ), the Ford Foundation's Community Revitalization p rograms ( http://www.fordfoundation.org ), the Carnegie Foundation on Adolescent Developmen t ( http://www.carnegie.org ), and foundation sponsored research grants program s. One such foundation's research grants pro gram provides an excellent example of the questions, areas of inquiry, and framework for analysis described in the introduction section of this paper. The Spencer Foundation ( http://www.spencer.org ) supported a five-year study of 60 different organizations descr ibed by local city officials as located in 'the projects,' 'the barrio,' or, alternately 'co mmunities suffering from poverty, crime, [and] severe ethnic tensions'" (Heath & McLaughlin, 1993, p. 5). The project called "Language, socializati on, and neighborhood based organizations," included exploring how members of n eighborhood based organizations in the 1990s perceive their social settings, as wel l as tracing 20th century family and youth policy notions (James, 1993). Fundamental dif ferences among the crafters of youth policy and the youth from 60 different organi zations who participated in this study ranged from perspectives on the role of ethnicity t o types of processes and structures that set up contingent attributes of valuable life exper iences. Youth avoid programs defined in terms of population policy labels and people as object statistics categories such as reduction in crime, lowered rates of school dropout s. Youth do not elect to participate in programs that label them as deviant, 'at risk,' or in some way deficient or negative. 'What works' for inner city youth conforms to the c ontexts in which an activity is embedded and to the subjective realities of the you th it intends to advance, not to distant bureaucratic directives" (p. 227).Summary The formulation of population categories to aid in understanding the nature of people and the properties of sociocultural systems hold consequences for social science and public policy. Following scientific conventions the many things that can be said or predicated of objects of inquiry can be subject to criticism of method and substance. Correspondingly, difficult questions have been rais ed for centuries about procedures for observing events, processes or phenomena glossed as the study of human nature.
9 of 15However, changes in the world we have lived in duri ng the past few decades have brought a host of new, more concrete issues into th e social science intellectual agenda (Greenhaugh, 1995). Concepts, categories and repres entations of people are being scrutinized in terms of how events, processes or ph enomena are ordered and denoted. Major consequences of the realities of fu nding formulas based upon statistical meanings of people that began taking hold in the 17 th century are being uncovered as organizations attempt to serve youth and families. The challenge to explicate and use local knowledge in contrast to relying on a prior c ategories of people in the design and delivery of services is being formulated in reports of personal life experiences of health, education and social service providers and the chil dren, youth and families who constitute the pluralistic community of these domin ant social institutions. Such life experience stories explicate patterns of exclusion, as well as elicitation methods for overcoming patterns of silence about exclusion (e.g ., Davidson, 1996, McCarthy, 1997, Miron, 1996, Munoz, 1995, Olsen, 1997, Pang & Cheng 1998, Spindler & Spindler, 1994; Wallat & Steele, 1997). As Kenneth Pike (1954) pointed out nearly a half century ago when he introduced the concepts of emic and etic knowledge, the founda tion for documenting the structure of local knowledge including how individuals receiv e or resist dominant representations such as ethnic identity stands in sharp contrast to continuing to document categories of people marked by statisticians as a means of collec ting technical descriptions of objects.NotePortions of this paper were presented at the Americ an Anthropology Association Annual Meeting, December 1998, Philadelphia.ReferencesBean, F. D. (1990, April 1). Too many, too rich, to o wasteful. The New York Times Section 7, p.27.Begley, S. (1995, February 13). Three is Not Enough : Surprising New Lessons From the Controversial Science of Race. Newsweek pp. 67-69. Briggs, C. (1998). Linguistic anthropology and "Pop ulation and the Anthropological imagination." Anthropology Newsletter 39 (2), 45. Brown, R. H. (Ed.). (1995). Postmodern representations: Truth, power, and mimes is in the human sciences and public culture Chicago, IL.: University of Illinois Press. "census" Encyclopedia Britannica Onlinehttp://www.eb.com:180/bol/topic?/eu=22402&sctn=2Chalk, R. & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (1996). Youth development and neighborhood influences: Challenges and opportunities Washington, D. C.: National Academy Press. Davidson, A. L. (1996). Making and molding identity in schools: Student nar ratives on race, gender, and academic engagement Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Fordham, S. (1996). Blacked out: Dilemmas of race, identity, and succes s at Capital
10 of 15High Chicago, IL.: The University of Chicago Press. Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96 (3), 606 633. Greenhalgh, S. (Ed.). (1995). Situating fertility: Anthropology and demographic i nquiry New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Heath, S. B. & McLaughlin, M. W. (Eds.). (1993). Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender New York: Teachers College Press. Higham, J. (1998). Multiculturalism and Universalis m: A History and Critique. In M. W. Hughey (Ed.) New Tribalisms: The Resurgence of Race and Ethnicit y (pp. 212 236). New York, NY: New York University Press.Hill, J. & Greenhalgh, S. (1998). Population and th e Anthropological imagination: 97th AAA Annual Meeting Theme. Anthropolgy Newsletter 39 (1), 1,7. Hollins, E King, J. & Hayman, W. (Eds.) (1994). Teaching Diverse Populations: Formulating a Knowledge Base Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Hughey, M. (Ed.). New tribalisms: The resurgence of race and ethnicit y New York, NY.: New York University Press.Hutchinson, J. & Smith, A. (Eds.) (1996). Ethnicity New York, NY: Oxford University Press.James, T. (1993). The winnowing of organizations. I n S. B. Heath & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.) Identity and inner city youth: Beyond ethnicity and gender (pp. 176 195). New York, N.Y.: Teachers College Press.Kertzer, D. I. (1995). Political economic and cul tural explanations of demographic behavior. In S. Greenlaugh (Ed.). Situating fertility: Anthropological and demographi c inquiry (pp. 29-51) New York, NY.: Cambridge University Pre ss. Laosa, L. M. (1984). Social policies toward childre n of diverse ethnic, racial, and language groups in the United States. In H. W. Stev enson & A. E. Siegel (Eds.), Child development research and social policy (pp. 1 109). Chicago, IL.: The University of Chicago Press.Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the "model minority" stereotype: Listeni ng to Asian American youth New York, NY.: Teachers College Press. Leets, L., Giles, H. & Clement, R. (1996). Explicat ing ethnicity in theory and communication research. Multilingua 15, 115-147. [Online] Available: http://www.stanford.edu/~leets/leets.htmlLye, J. (1997). Ideological analysis: Some questions to ask of the text [Online] Available: http://www.brocku.ca/english/courses/4F7 0/characteristics McCarthy, C. (1997). The uses of culture: Education and the limits of et hnic affiliation New York, N.Y.: Routledge.
11 of 15McKay, R. B. (1995, November). Social and cultural considerations in developing th e Current Population Survey Supplement on race and et hnicity Paper presented at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association Washington, D.C. [McKay, R. B. & de la Puente, M. (1995). Cognitive research in de signing the CPS Suplement on race and ethnicity. Proceedings of the Bureau of the Census' 1995 Annua l Conference (pp. 435 445). Rosslyn, VA.]McNicoll, G. (1992). The agenda of population studi es: A commentary and a complaint. Population and Development Review 18 (3), 399-420. Miron, L. F. (1996). The social construction of urban schooling: Situati ng the crisis Cresskill, N.J.: Hampton Press.Munoz, V. L. (1995). Where "something catches:" Work, love, and identity in youth Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press.Nordhaus, William. D. (1996, January 14). Elbow roo m. The New York Times Office of Management and Budget. (1997). Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicit y: Notice of decision [Online] Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/EOP/OMP/htm l/fedreg/Ombdir15.html Olsen, L. (1997). Made in America: Immigrant students in our public s chools New York, N.Y. : The New Press.Pang, V. O. & Cheng, L. L. (Eds.) (1998). Struggling to be heard: The unmet needs of Asian Pacific American children Albany, N.Y.: State University of New York Press. Pike, K. (1954). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior. Glendale, CA.: Summer Institute of Lingui stics. (Available in J. Van Willigen & B. R. Dewaly (1985). Training manual in policy ethnography. Special Publ ication No 19 Washington, D.C.: American Anthropological Associ ation) Popkewitz, T. S. (1991). A political sociology of educational reform: Power / knowledge in teaching, teacher education, and research New York, NY.: Teachers College Press. Ross, S. (1999, February 3). President proposes for mal study of racial bias in today's America. Tallahassee Democrat pp. 1A, 5A. Schlosberg, D. (1998). Resurrecting the pluralist u niverse. Political Research Quarterly 51 (3): 583 615.Shinagawa, L. H. & Jang, M. (1998). Atlas of American diversity Walnut Creek, CA.: AltaMira Press, A Division of SAGE Publications.Siskin, L. (1994, July 13). Counting upon the law. The Recorder: American Lawyer Media Sleeter, C. (1992). The white experience in America : To whom does it generalize? Educational Researcher 17 (3), 13 23.
12 of 15Spina, S. U. & Tai, R. H. (1998). The politics of r acial identity: A pedagogy of invisibility. Educational Researcher 27 (1), 36 -40, 48. Spindler, G. & Spindler, L. (1994). Pathways to cultural awareness: Cultural therapy with teachers and students Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications. Therstrom, S. (Ed.). (1980). Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.Thompson, J. B. (1990). Ideology and modern culture: Critical social theory in the era of mass communication Stanford, CA.: Stanford University Press. Urban, G. (1997). Culture: In and about the world. Anthropology Newsletter 38 (2), 1,7. U.S. General Accounting Office. (1996). At-risk and delinquent youth (GAO Report No. HEHS-96-34). Washington, D.C.: General Accounti ng Office. Van Maanen, J. (Ed.). (1995). Representations in ethnography Thousand Oaks, CA.: SAGE Publications.Wallat, C., & Piazza, C. (1999). Critical examinations of the known and unknown in social science: Where do we go from here? Manuscript submitted for publication. Wallat, C. & Piazza, C. (1997). Early childhood eva luation and policy analysis: A communicative framework for the next decade. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 15 (5). [Online] Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v 5n15.html Wallat, C. & Piazza, C. (1991). Perspectives on pro duction of written educational policy reports. Journal of Education Policy 6 (1), 63 84. Wallat, C. & Steele, C. I. (1997). Welfare reform: The positioning of academic work. The Qualitative Report 3 (1), 1 18. [Online] Available: http://www.nova.edu/ssus/QR/QR3-1Watson, D. L. (1998, May 15). Connerly Gives Heat n ot Light to National Dialogue on Race. The Baltimore Sun Webster, Y. (1997). Against the Multicultural Agenda: A Critical Thinki ng Alternative Wesport, CT: Praeger.About the AuthorCynthia WallatDepartment of Educational Foundations and Policy St udies 306 Stone BuildingTallahassee, FL. 32306 4070E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.orgCynthia Wallat is Professor of Social Sciences and Education in the Department of
13 of 15 Educational Foundations and Policy Studies at Flori da State University. Her research emphasis and publications address: socialization an d language; comparative social policy; and institutional and professional developm ent. Her interest in relating language and policy centers on demonstrating how attention t o forms of communication and community can address the known and unknown about d iversity in and out of school. Carolyn SteeleSchool of Social WorkUniversity CenterFlorida State UniversityTallahassee, FL 32306 2570 Email: email@example.com Carolyn Steele is Associate Professor in the clinic al track curriculum at the School of Social Work at Florida State University. In additio n to her teaching, research and practice interests in how the field of human servic es can broaden its analytical and educational functions in terms of curriculum develo pment related to clinical social work, and the psychological and social problems related t o physical and mental health and illness, she is a licensed psychologist, clinical s ocial worker, and marriage/family therapist.Copyright 1999 by the Education Policy Analysis ArchivesThe World Wide Web address for the Education Policy Analysis Archives is http://epaa.asu.edu General questions about appropriateness of topics o r particular articles may be addressed to the Editor, Gene V Glass, firstname.lastname@example.org or reach him at College of Education, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0211. (602-965-96 44). The Book Review Editor is Walter E. Shepherd: email@example.com The Commentary Editor is Casey D. Cobb: firstname.lastname@example.org .EPAA Editorial Board Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin Greg Camilli Rutgers University John Covaleskie Northern Michigan University Andrew Coulson email@example.com Alan Davis University of Colorado, Denver Sherman Dorn University of South Florida Mark E. Fetler California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Richard Garlikov firstname.lastname@example.org Thomas F. Green Syracuse University Alison I. Griffith York University
14 of 15 Arlen Gullickson Western Michigan University Ernest R. House University of Colorado Aimee Howley Ohio University Craig B. Howley Appalachia Educational Laboratory William Hunter University of Calgary Richard M. Jaeger University of North CarolinaÂ—Greensboro Daniel Kalls Ume University Benjamin Levin University of Manitoba Thomas MauhsPugh Green Mountain College Dewayne Matthews Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation William McInerney Purdue University Mary McKeown-Moak MGT of America (Austin, TX) Les McLean University of Toronto Susan Bobbitt Nolen University of Washington Anne L. Pemberton email@example.com Hugh G. Petrie SUNY Buffalo Richard C. Richardson New York University Anthony G. Rud Jr. Purdue University Dennis Sayers Ann Leavenworth Centerfor Accelerated Learning Jay D. Scribner University of Texas at Austin Michael Scriven firstname.lastname@example.org Robert E. Stake University of IllinoisÂ—UC Robert Stonehill U.S. Department of Education Robert T. Stout Arizona State University David D. Williams Brigham Young University EPAA Spanish Language Editorial BoardAssociate Editor for Spanish Language Roberto Rodrguez Gmez Universidad Nacional Autnoma de Mxico email@example.com Adrin Acosta (Mxico) Universidad de Guadalajaraadrianacosta@compuserve.com J. Flix Angulo Rasco (Spain) Universidad de Cdizfelix.firstname.lastname@example.org Teresa Bracho (Mxico) Centro de Investigacin y DocenciaEconmica-CIDEbracho dis1.cide.mx Alejandro Canales (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicocanalesa@servidor.unam.mx
15 of 15 Ursula Casanova (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universitycasanova@asu.edu Jos Contreras Domingo Universitat de Barcelona Jose.Contreras@doe.d5.ub.es Erwin Epstein (U.S.A.) Loyola University of ChicagoEepstein@luc.edu Josu Gonzlez (U.S.A.) Arizona State Universityjosue@asu.edu Rollin Kent (Mxico)Departamento de InvestigacinEducativaDIE/CINVESTAVrkent@gemtel.com.mx email@example.com Mara Beatriz Luce (Brazil)Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do SulUFRGSlucemb@orion.ufrgs.brJavier Mendoza Rojas (Mxico)Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicojaviermr@servidor.unam.mxMarcela Mollis (Argentina)Universidad de Buenos Airesmmollis@filo.uba.ar Humberto Muoz Garca (Mxico) Universidad Nacional Autnoma deMxicohumberto@servidor.unam.mxAngel Ignacio Prez Gmez (Spain)Universidad de Mlagaaiperez@uma.es Daniel Schugurensky (Argentina-Canad)OISE/UT, Canadadschugurensky@oise.utoronto.ca Simon Schwartzman (Brazil)Fundao Instituto Brasileiro e Geografiae Estatstica firstname.lastname@example.org Jurjo Torres Santom (Spain)Universidad de A Coruajurjo@udc.es Carlos Alberto Torres (U.S.A.)University of California, Los Angelestorres@gseisucla.edu