Educational Psychology Homework

Researching Race Within Educational Psychology Contexts

Jessica T. DeCuir-Gunby

Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Counselor Education

North Carolina State University

Paul A. Schutz

Department of Educational Psychology

University of Texas at San Antonio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to challenge traditional paradigms and embrace culturally relevant methodologies.

The racial demographics of the United States have been rap-

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

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

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

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

color make up nearly 35% of the population and are

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

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

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

2013). Although race has historically played an important

role in the school context, because of the increasing change

in racial/ethnic diversity, race will undoubtedly continue to

play an even more influential role in the teaching–learning

process. Thus, it is imperative that educational psychologists

expand their understanding of the roles that race plays

within educational contexts. It is important to note that

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

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

context. However, this conversation has great implications

for the international audience, particularly those countries

around the world with growing racial/ethnic diversity.

The purpose of this article is to examine educational

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

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

socialization, stereotype threat, etc.) are centered around

issues of race and are developed from racial categorizations

and racial categorization theories (Helms, Jernigan, &

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

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

achievement motivation, etc.) that are reconceptualized to

include racially influenced, sociocultural perspectives (e.g.

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

begin with a description of race, including a discussion on

the historical significance of race and current dilemmas in

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

in the discipline of educational psychology. With this

description and discussion of race, we review and critique

the incidence and prevalence of race-focused and race-

reimaged constructs in some of the top educational psychol-

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

a sociohistorical construct has not traditionally been inves-

tigated in educational psychology research and then expli-

cate how the field of educational psychology can rectify

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

Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Counselor Education, North

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

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

origins in the Black racial groups of Africa.

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

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

DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.957828

this oversight by challenging paradigms, embracing race-

focused and race-reimaged methodologies, and exploring

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

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

cational psychology constructs. We end the article by

providing guidelines for the investigation of race as a socio-

historical construct in the field of educational psychology.

WHAT IS RACE?

Although most researchers agree that race is a significant

issue within education, there is not agreement in how race

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

phenotypical differences such as skin color (Omi & Winant,

1994). However, scientists have found that genetically there

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

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

another based upon perceptions of racial differences. This

suggests that race is a socially constructed concept that uses

categories to differentiate between groups of people in order

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

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

structed concept, the definition of race has changed over

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

Another issue that makes defining race difficult is its

conflation with ethnicity. Ethnicity can be defined as “the

result of a group formation process based on culture and

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

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

common characteristics such as a shared nation or region of

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

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

their perceptions of the relationship between race and eth-

nicity. Phinney (1996) viewed ethnicity as encompassing

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

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

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

two constructs are related but distinct in that groups can be

racially similar but ethnically different. For example, Afri-

can Americans and many Caribbean groups such as Jamai-

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

United States) because of their common African ancestry.

However, African Americans and Jamaicans are different

ethnically because of different customs, cultural practices,

and ways of being.

As suggested, defining race is a complex process. It

involves taking into consideration issues of power and the

importance of the sociopolitical context. A definition of

race should also include the significance of history. This is

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

because race has played an integral part in the founding of

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

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

tion of race:

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

ethnic groups according to perceived physical and behav-

ioral human characteristics; (2) associates differential

value, power, and privilege with these characteristics and

establishes a social status ranking among the different

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

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

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

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

prejudice toward, other groups. (p. 654)

We agree with Markus’s (2008) conceptualization of

race because it expands beyond the traditional definitions

of race that largely rely on physical attributes and geo-

graphical locations by focusing on historical, cultural, and

social aspects. Specifically, this definition includes a

description of how groups are categorized, the meanings of

the categorizations, and the reasoning behind the categori-

zations. Because of the similarity of our conceptualizations

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

our thinking in this article. Her definition ultimately

describes race in terms of history and power.

The Historical Significance of Race

To better understand the impact of race within the United

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

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

tive within the United States, the conceptualization of racial

differences emerged in 1619 with Africans arriving on a

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

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

cheap labor increased, thereby helping to solidify the differ-

entiation between non-Whites and Whites. Further, the

desire to highlight racial differences played a significant role

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

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

African slaves in the southern colonies and the subsequent

fear of the southern population outnumbering the northern

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

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

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

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

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

ruling that African Americans, whether free or slave, were

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

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

the United States were entitled to the rights and privileges

associated with citizenship. Many, particularly Southerners,

continued to question this assertion and began to circumvent

the amendment by passing and implementing anti-Black leg-

islation, such as the Jim Crow laws.

While creating the aforementioned race-based legisla-

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

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 245

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

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

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

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

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

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

ing diversity, more racial categories emerged, including

White and Chinese 2

(Mays, Ponce, Washington, &

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

gories enabled a way to further distinguish Whites from

non-White groups.

The need to distinguish between racial groups continued

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

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

Supreme Court cases, that examined which racial/ethnic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Polish, and Jewish immigrants arrived in the United States,

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

pared to African Americans and the Chinese, groups that

were not viewed favorably. (However, currently Chinese

Americans are viewed positively and are considered a

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

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

ethnic groups had to appear to become less European and

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

Whiteness by assimilating into the American culture,

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

selves from African Americans (Roediger, 2005).

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

standing” test that determined racial group membership by

analyzing phenotypical characteristics and geographic ori-

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

many states created antimiscegenation laws (laws against

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

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

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

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

Susie Guillory Phipps case. Susie Guillory Phipps, who

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

of Vital Records in order to change her racial classification

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

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

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

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

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

racial classification, thereby denying Phipps’s request (Omi

& Winant, 1994). The courts have historically determined

who is non-White while never explicitly defining White-

ness. This has helped to further legitimize perceived biolog-

ical and social differences between racial groups.

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

ous racial categories, the courts have largely viewed race in

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

Those that were non-White were essentially considered

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

States, there was little distinction among racial groups until

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

expanded the equal protection clause of the 14th Amend-

ment to include Latinos/as, specifically Mexican Americans

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

attempted to reconceptualize race by moving beyond the

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

time Mexican Americans were considered to be White in

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

Mexican Americans became less “White” because of their

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

More recently, the conceptualization of race is continu-

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

popularized in order to become more inclusive of the grow-

ing Latin American population within the United States

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

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

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

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

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

tural connections, yet others disliked the term because it

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

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

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

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

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

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

heritages, thereby continuing to move beyond the Black/

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

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

Roediger, 2010.)

THE CURRENT RACE DILEMMA

Recently a number of researchers have begun to question

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

renewed interest in race has been the result of researchers

investigating the human genome project and the questions

arising regarding the usefulness of a biological conception

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

have suggested that Homo sapiens share around 99.9% of

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

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

“Scientists have long been saying that at the genetic level

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

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

ethnic category.

246 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

there is more variation between two individuals in the same

population than between populations, suggesting little or no

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

have resulted in organizations, such as the Institute of

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

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

described, “The consensus among most scholars in fields

such as evolutionary biology, anthropology, and other dis-

ciplines is that racial distinctions fail on all three counts—

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

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

Although we have a number of researchers from a vari-

ety of fields providing evidence questioning the usefulness

of a biological conception of race, there are also researchers

in the biomedical field who provide evidence suggesting

that racial or ethnic groups in the United States demonstrate

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

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

reported that African Americans tended to have higher rates

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

European Americans tended to die more often from heart

disease and cancer. Vega and Amaro (1994) documented

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

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

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

can infants, when compared to European American infants,

have higher rates of low birth weights and preterm delivery

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

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

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

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

processes that can create biological consequences; race is a

set of social processes with biological feedbacks that require

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

definable genetically predetermined biological construct is

probably untenable, it has acquired meaning as a definable

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

gests that current constructions of “race” can be associated

with over- and underrepresentation of certain medical out-

comes, thus providing evidence for the importance of inves-

tigating race as a construct in biomedical research.

Similarly, sociohistorical discrepancies have been docu-

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

ple, students of color are overrepresented in special

education programs and underrepresented in Gifted and

Advanced programming. According to the U.S. Department

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

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

tion yet were involved in 36% of all corporal punishment

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

disturbed were African American, and 20% of the students

labeled with a specific learning disability were African

American. On the other hand, African American students

were underrepresented in areas like being invited into

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

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

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

wise, Hispanic students made up 20.4% of the population

and were underrepresented in Gifted and Talented pro-

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

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

received a high school diploma).

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

ciated with both medical and educational over- and under-

representation. In an effort to reconcile these conflicting

notions of race, some researchers have suggested that,

although there is questionable scientific evidence for a bio-

logical conception of race, the construct has developed

meaning because of the sociohistorical nature of the con-

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

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

urally unequal and therefore can be ranked hierarchically)

either overtly or covertly, there is the potential to create

systems where some groups have more access to better

jobs, education, housing, and medical care than other

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

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

mentioned health and educational disparities. Thus,

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

sociohistorically, and it is therefore vital for social scien-

tists to investigate race as a sociohistoric phenomenon.

THE EXAMINATION OF RACE IN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY JOURNALS

Because of the existence of various race-focused and race-

reimaged issues in education, which were alluded to earlier

in this article, it is important for researchers to be more pro-

active in the examination of race. Generally, in empirical

research there are at least three basic reasons why con-

structs like race are included in the research process: (a) for

descriptive/demographic purposes (i.e., to simply describe

participants in the Methods section but without using race

in any further analysis), (b) for explanatory purposes (i.e.,

when race is used to explain variance in an outcome varia-

bles such as academic performance in mathematics), and/or

(c) for comparative purposes (i.e., when the information is

used to make comparisons among various groups, e.g.,

comparing South Korean students with U.S. students on

goal orientation). However, to better explore racial issues

in education, we propose two additional approaches: (d)

using race-focused constructs to provide theoretical under-

standings of race-related issues and (e) embracing race-

reimaged constructs, which combine traditional approaches

with race-influenced perspectives. It is through the addi-

tional approaches of using race-based and race-reimaged

constructs that we base our argument for why the study of

race is important in the field of educational psychology.

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 247

Race-Focused Constructs

Race-focused constructs are grounded in race-based and

cultural theories. Utilizing a race-focused approach

involves placing racial constructs at the center of analysis,

making it the focus of the research rather than simply play-

ing a cursory or nonexistent role. Examples of race-focused

constructs include racial identity, racial socialization, eth-

nic identity, racial microaggressions, and stereotype threat,

among others. An example of a race-focused approach

would be to examine the influence of Hispanic/Latino/a

students’ racial identity development on academic identity

and achievement, where the emphasis is on racial identity

development rather than the other variables. Taking a race-

focused approach to research differs from the three afore-

mentioned reasons race is often used in research. First, tak-

ing a race-focused approach requires more than just

presenting a racial group(s) as a description or demo-

graphic; taking a race-focused approach involves focusing

on a construct that is theoretically based in racial literature.

Second, a race-focused approach goes beyond explaining

variance based upon race; rather, it focuses on understand-

ing the race-focused construct instead of how race explains

other constructs. Third, using a race-focused approach goes

beyond comparing racial groups; it focuses on how a racial

group(s) experiences a racially-grounded construct. With a

race-focused approach, the racial construct itself is essential

to understanding the educational experience of the research

participants.

Within the research literature, there are examples of

race-focused research. One such example is that of Thomas,

Caldwell, Faison, and Jackson’s (2009) study that examined

how racial identity moderated the relationship between per-

ceptions of teacher discrimination and academic achieve-

ment for African American and Caribbean Black

adolescents. In the study, the researchers found that African

American and Caribbean Black students perceived discrim-

ination by their teachers. In addition, they found that some

aspects of racial identity (e.g., public regard or perceptions

of others’ feelings of one’s racial group) moderated the

relationship between perceived discrimination by teachers

and academic achievement, whereas other aspects did not

serve as moderators (e.g., centrality or the importance of

race to one’s identity). In using a race-focused approach,

the African American and Caribbean Black participants

were not just demographics; their racialized experiences

were core to the study. Also, race was not used as a means

of explaining variance; instead, racial identity and per-

ceived teacher discrimination, race-focused constructs,

were the center of analysis. Although some comparisons

were made between the African American and Caribbean

Black participants, such analyses were conducted in order

to provide a more nuanced understanding of how racial

groups experience race-focused constructs (racial identity

and teacher discrimination) in context.

Race-Reimaged Approaches

Race-reimaged constructs are similar to race-focused

constructs in that they center on issues of race. However,

race-reimaged constructs differ in that they involve viewing

a traditional construct (one not necessarily derived from a

racial theory such as self-efficacy, goal theory, etc.) from

a socioculturally relevant lens. This includes employing a

race-influenced theoretical framework to explicate a nonra-

cial construct using participants from specific racial group

(s). In doing so, all aspects of the research study are influ-

enced by race-influenced research and theories, including

the theoretical framework, research methods, and research

interpretations. An example of such research includes using

indigenous education theories to examine parent–teacher

relationships among Native American parents and White

teachers in Native American communities. To better clar-

ify, engaging in a race-reimaged approach to research dif-

fers from the three aforementioned reasons race is often

used in research. First, taking a race-reimaged approach

goes beyond using race just as a demographic in that the

goal of the research is to explore a traditional construct that

is applied using a sociocultural lens. In doing so, race

becomes a central focus of the study. Second, a race-reim-

aged approach does more than explain variance based upon

race; rather, it focuses on understanding how sociocultural

perspectives can be applied to traditional constructs. Third,

using a race-reimaged approach goes beyond comparing

racial groups; it focuses on how a racial group(s) experien-

ces particular constructs, using sociocultural lenses.

Within the research literature, there are examples of

race-reimaged research. One such example is that of Rodg-

ers and Summers (2008). In the article, the authors recon-

ceptualized (or reimaged) a psychological college student

retention model using a culturally sensitive framework that

focused on a way to better understand how African Ameri-

can students attending predominately White institutions

experience the process of retention. Within the model the

authors addressed various traditional constructs including

academic self-efficacy, motivation, achievement goals, and

attributions, among others. They also discussed race-

focused constructs such as ethnic and bicultural identity

development. The authors ended the article by providing a

discussion on how their model could be expanded using a

more afrocentric approach (e.g., focusing on African-based

values) and the need to better understand the successful

retention practices at historically Black colleges and

universities.

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Constructs in Educational Psychology

To explore the use of race-focused and race-reimaged

research, it was necessary to examine how race has been

addressed in the educational psychology research literature.

248 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

In 2001, Educational Psychologist published a special edi-

tion focusing on the schooling of ethnic minority children

and youth. The articles in the special edition highlighted

the need for the field of educational psychology to further

examine issues involving the education of ethnic minority

children and youth. Thus, in writing this article, we decided

to examine how the field of education psychology has

embraced this call. Delimiting our parameters from 2001

(when the call was made in the special issue) to 2012, we

made a targeted search for race-related terms in the top edu-

cational psychology journals: Educational Psychologist

(EP), Journal of Educational Psychology (JEP), Review of

Educational Psychology (REP), Contemporary Educational

Psychology (CEP), and the British Journal of Educational

Psychology (BJEP). We included terms such as race, eth-

nicity, stereotype threat, acting White, urban, minority, and

prejudice. We excluded all studies that were not explicitly

examining race-focused constructs or using race-reimaged

perspectives. As such, we excluded research studies that

essentially used race as a demographic variable by examin-

ing constructs in multiple cultural contexts without connec-

tion to race as a sociohistorical construct (e.g., studying

self-regulation using Chinese and Mexican participants

without grounding the study in socioculturally relevant

literature).

Since 2001, only a paucity of studies in the top educa-

tional psychology journals have utilized race-focused or

race-reimaged constructs to explore the experiences of eth-

nic minority children and youth (see Tables 1–5). In explor-

ing these five educational psychology journals, we found 27

articles out of 2,146 articles published during the 11-year

period. Specifically, there were three in BJEP, four in CEP,

12 in EP, three in EPR, and five in JEP, representing

roughly 1.3% of all articles published in these journals dur-

ing the past decade. EP featured the most race-focused and/

or race-reimaged articles. However, it must be noted that

seven of the 12 articles in EP came from the aforemen-

tioned 2001 issue on ethnic minority youth. Almost all of

the 27 articles explored issues in motivation except for a

few that examined linguistic issues (e.g., African American

Vernacular English, ESL issues, etc.). There were more

articles featuring race-reimaged constructs than race-focused

constructs. Overall, the most common race-focused con-

struct was stereotype threat, whereas the most commonly

used race-reimaged construct was teacher expectations.

Although the majority of the articles reviewed in jour-

nals were not race focused or race reimaged, many of the

journals did have studies that included participants from a

variety of racial and ethnic groups, including some interna-

tional and cross-cultural samples. We do acknowledge that

there has been some cross-cultural work published in edu-

cational psychology journals. However, just because a

study includes participants from various racial groups, it

should not automatically be assumed the study is investigat-

ing race-focused race-reimaged constructs or issues. Unless

a study specifically states that its goal is to measure or

inquire about some race-focused or race-reimaged con-

struct, the study cannot be assumed to be measuring or

inquiring about a race-focused or race-reimaged construct.

Why the Lack of Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Research?

As demonstrated, in more than a decade of research, there

were only a limited amount of race-focused and race-reim-

aged articles in the top educational psychology journals

(1.3%), and the majority of those articles came from special

issues. We postulate that there are several reasons for the

lack of race-focused or reimaged research in educational

psychology such as the nature of the history of psychology,

the perceptions of the universality of constructs, the idea of

single truths versus multiple realities, and the lack of racial/

ethnic scholars in the field of educational psychology.

One reason for the lack of race-focused or race-reimaged

research articles in educational psychology journals stems

from the history of the broader field of psychology. Psy-

chologists have historically been inclined to use race as a

means of exploring variation and differences in areas such

as intelligence (Smedley, & Smedley, 2005; Yee, 1983).

Such approaches often promoted deficit views of racial

groups—for example, viewing Whites as more intelligent

than other racial groups (Yee, Fairchild, Weizmann, &

Wyatt, 1993). By focusing on perceived genetic-based

views of race, psychologists have not explored race as a

TABLE 1

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Articles in British Journal of Educational Psychology from 2001 to 2012

Author(s) Title Race Focused Race Reimaged

den Brok, van Tartwijk, and Wubbels (2010) “The Differential Effect of the Teacher–Student Interpersonal

Relationship on Student Outcomes for Students With Different

Ethnic Backgrounds”

X

Rubie-Davies, Hattie, and Hamilton (2006) “Expecting the Best for Students: Teacher Expectations and

Academic Outcomes”

X

Verkuyten and Thijs (2004) “Psychological Disidentification With the Academic Domain

Among Ethnic Minority Adolescents in The Netherlands”

X

Note. Total number of articles published between 2001 and 2012 D 441.

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 249

sociohistorical construct. The earliest psychologists largely

excluded the experiences of people of color and women,

focusing almost exclusively on the experiences of White

men (Kennedy, 2000). It is important to add that, excluding

the baby doll studies 3 by Kenneth and Mamie Clark (1939,

1940, 1947), people of color and women did not begin to

take more prominent roles within psychological theories

and research until the 1960s (see Philog�ene, 2004). As an extension of psychology, educational psychologists have

tended to maintain this research approach. As such, there

seems to be little discussion of race-focused or race-reim-

aged constructs in major educational psychology textbooks.

Most discussions on race are relegated to a few paragraphs

at the end of chapters (e.g., adding a paragraph on culture

at the end of a chapter on another topic). Race-focused and

race-reimaged constructs are often seen as topics of discus-

sion for other fields of psychology such as counseling

TABLE 2

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Articles in Contemporary Educational Psychology from 2001 to 2012

Author(s) Title Race Focused Race Reimaged

Gutman (2006) “How Student and Parent Goal Orientations and Classroom Goal

Structures Influence the Math Achievement of Africa Americans

During the High School Transitions”

X

Osborne (2001) “Testing Stereotype Threat: Does Anxiety Explain Race and Sex

Differences in Achievement?”

X

Xiang, Lee, and Shen (2001) “Conceptions of Ability and Achievement Goals in Physical

Education: Comparisons of American and Chinese Students”

X

Zusho and Barnett (2011) “Personal and Contextual Determinants of Ethnically Diverse

Female High School Students’ Patterns of Academic Help

Seeking and Help Avoidance in English and Mathematics”

X

Note. Total number of articles published between 2001 and 2012 D 340.

TABLE 3

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Articles in Educational Psychologist from 2001 to 2012

Author(s) Title Race Focused Race Reimaged

Balfanz, Herzog, and Mac Iver (2007) “Preventing Student Disengagement and Keeping Students on the

Graduation Path in Urban Middle-Grades Schools: Early

Identification and Effective Interventions”

X

Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) “Analyzing cultural models and Settings to Connect Minority

Achievement and School Improvement Research”

X

Good and Nichols (2001) “Expectancy Effects in the Classroom: A Special Focus on

Improving the Reading Performance of Minority Students in

First-Grade Classrooms”

X

Hudley, Graham, and Taylor (2007) “Reducing Aggressive Behavior and Increasing Motivation in

School: The Evolution of an Intervention to Strengthen School

Adjustment”

X

Logel, Walton, Spencer, Peach, and Mark (2012) “Unleashing Latent Ability: Implications for Stereotype Threat for

College Admissions”

X

McKown (2005) “Applying Ecological Theory to Advance the Science and Practice

of School-Based Prejudice Reduction Interventions”

X

Meece and Kurtz-Costes (2001) “Introduction: The Schooling of Ethnic Minority Children” X

Okagaki (2001) “Triarchic Model of Minority Children’s School Achievement” X

Ryan and Ryan (2005) “Psychological Processes Underlying Stereotype Threat and

Standardized Math Test Performance”

X

Slaughter-Defoe and Rubin (2001) “A Longitudinal Case Study Case Study of Head Start Eligible

Children: Implications for Urban Education”

X

Spencer, Noll, Stoltzfus, and Harpalani (2001) “Identity and School Adjustment: Revisiting the ‘Acting White’

Assumption”

X

Wong and Rowley (2001) “The Schooling of Ethnic Minority Children: Commentary” X

Note. Total number of articles published between 2001 and 2012 D 267.

3 In the Clarks’ landmark doll experiments, Black children were asked

about their preference for playing with a “white doll” or a “black doll.”

The results of these studies were key to the Supreme Courts decision on

Brown v. Board of Education. See Clark and Clark (1947).

250 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

psychology, social psychology, or multicultural psychol-

ogy, as well as other social science areas. In fact, there has

been work in related fields such as math education (e.g.,

Cross & Hong, 2012), social studies education (e.g., Dix-

son, 2003), language education (e.g., Lee, 1995), social

foundations of education (e.g., Alridge, 2008), social psy-

chology (e.g., Steele, 1997), and the learning sciences (e.g.,

Nasir, 2005). However, not all major books in educational

psychology neglect the discussion of race-focused and/or

race-reimaged constructs. For example, the APA Educa-

tional Psychology Handbook (2012), edited by K. R. Harris,

Graham, and Urdan, features several chapters on race-

focused and race-reimaged topics, including a chapter on

racial and ethnic identity.

Another reason for the lack of race-focused and race-

reimaged research is the potential assumption that theory,

constructs, and how those constructs are measured are cul-

turally neutral and universally applied (Berry, Poortinga,

Segall, & Dasen, 2002; Zusho & Clayton, 2011). From this

perspective, researchers with an absolutist worldview

would tend to assume that psychological processes and con-

structs are essentially universal, culture free, and therefore

are universally applicable across populations. We would

suggest that some of the dominant theories that provide the

foundation for much of the research in educational

psychology hail either explicitly or implicitly from an abso-

lutist worldview (e.g., Achievement Goal Theory will work

the same with any social or cultural group; Zusho & Clay-

ton, 2011). These assumptions may be problematic if the

theories and constructs, as well as the measurements of the-

ories and constructs, have been developed using a White,

male, and/or middle class frame of reference. It is an

untested assumption to suggest that all groups function in

the same manner as those that are White, male, and/or mid-

dle class. Likewise, it is even more problematic to assume

that groups that do not perform in the same manner are defi-

cient. Instead, using a universalist worldview assumes there

may be some basic psychological processes that are spe-

cies-wide and universal but also recognizes the impact of

the larger contextual and sociohistorical influences on psy-

chological processes (Berry et al., 2002; Zusho & Clayton,

2011). The development of race-focused and race-reimaged

research stems from this perspective.

A third, related reason for the lack of race-focused and

race-reimaged research in educational psychology might

stem from the discipline’s roots in psychology where the

goal of research tends to be the search for universal truths.

One problem with this approach is that “the truth” tends to

be the majoritarian truth or the truth of the dominant group.

In addition, “the truth” is often assessed using research

TABLE 4

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Articles in Educational Psychology Review from 2001 to 2012

Author(s) Title Race Focused Race Reimaged

Phalet, Andriessen, and Lens (2004) “How Future Goals Enhance Motivation and Learning in Multicultural

Classrooms”

X

Rodgers and Summers (2008) “African American Students at Predominantly White Institutions: A Motivational

and Self-Systems Approach to Understanding Retention”

X

Smith (2004) “Understanding the Process of Stereotype Threat: A Review of Mediational

Variables and New Performance Goal Directions”

X

Note. Total number of articles published between 2001 and 2012 D 296.

TABLE 5

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Articles in Journal of Educational Psychology from 2001 to 2012

Author(s) Title Race Focused Race Reimaged

Harber et al. (2012) “Students’ Race and Teachers’ Social Support Affect the Positive Feedback Bias

in Public Schools”

X

Pressley et al. (2004) “Providence–St. Mel School: How a School That Works for African American

Students Work”

X

Taylor and Graham (2007) “An Examination of the Relationship Between Achievement Values and

Perceptions of Barriers Among Low-SES African American and Latino

Students”

X

Tenenbaum and Ruck (2007) “Are Teachers’ Expectations Different for Racial Minority Than European

American Students? A Meta-Analysis”

X

Thomas et al. (2009) “Promoting Academic Achievement: The Role of Racial Identity in Buffering

Perceptions of Teacher Discrimination on Academic Achievement Among

African American and Caribbean Black Adolescents”

X

Note. Total number of articles published between 2001 and 2012 D 802.

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 251

methods that are not necessarily socioculturally relevant for

all groups (e.g., using inferential statistics in a school dis-

trict where African American students make up only a

small percentage of the population). Embracing the exami-

nation of race-focused and race-reimaged constructs

involves accepting the potential for multiple truths and real-

ities and the use of socioculturally relevant measurements.

Because race is a social construction and various racial

groups have different experiences and histories, the exami-

nation of race-focused and race-reimaged constructs chal-

lenges the fundamental assumption that there is one “truth”

and that researchers are obtaining close approximations of

that “truth.” The examination of race-focused and race-

reimaged constructs also supports the need for more socio-

culturally relevant means of assessment.

The fourth reason involves the racial/ethnic demo-

graphics of researchers in educational psychology. Quite

simply, there is a lack of scholars of color in educational

psychology. For example, in 2011, the Educational Psychol-

ogy division (Division 15) of the American Psychological

Association had 1,130 members (American Psychological

Association, 2013). Of the total number of members, only

108 identified themselves as people of color: American

Indian (one), Asian (41), Hispanic (23), Black (39), and

multiracial/multiethnic (five). The remaining members iden-

tified as either White (863) or with no racial classification

(158). We are not implying that all educational psycholo-

gists are members of American Psychological Association

Division 15. However, membership demographics of Divi-

sion 15 tend to be reflective of the larger number of practic-

ing educational psychologists. The presence of scholars of

color is more apparent in other divisions of psychology

including the society of counseling psychology (Division

17) and the society for the psychological study of ethnic

minority issues (Division 45). One of the possible reasons

for more scholars of color in other divisions of psychology

is that researchers in these areas more frequently address

diverse topics and populations. Also, scholars of color are

more likely to examine race-focused and/or race-reimaged

constructs than White scholars. Ultimately, research in a

discipline’s field is reflective of the values held by the

members of the discipline. In the case of educational psy-

chology, it is reflective of the older (61% older than 60),

White (69%), largely male (55%) membership.

When we combine those potential reasons we also end

up with the potential for bias at several levels including at

the journal article reviewing process. It tends to be difficult

to publish race-focused and race-reimaged research in tradi-

tional educational psychology journals. This issue has a his-

tory in many fields as indicated by Amado Padilla (2003),

when discussing the reasons for the creation of the Hispanic

Journal of Behavioral Sciences. He stated,

On the dark side, however, was the feeling shared by many

Latino scholars by the latter part of the 1970s that it was

very difficult to publish in professional guild journals such

as American Psychological Association–sponsored jour-

nals. The identified problem was the peer-review process

that favored the traditional paradigms and methodologies of

the day and that made it difficult for ethnic scholars who

were thinking outside of the traditional paradigm box to

find outlets for their research articles. (p. 4)

Thus, when we look at the combined influence of these

potential reasons it may shine some light on the small num-

ber of articles that have been published in this area. So the

question becomes, Where do we go from here?

THE FUTURE OF RACE-FOCUSED AND RACE- REIMAGED RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONAL

PSYCHOLOGY

To further the development of race-focused/reimaged

research in educational psychology, it may be necessary for

the field to both evaluate and expand its current approaches

to scholarship. More specifically, it is imperative that we

revisit our philosophical assumptions and broaden our

methodological approaches in order to better explore race-

focused and race-reimaged constructs, incorporate race-

focused and race-reimaged constructs into the educational

psychology canon, and expand our approach to measure-

ment by taking more socioculturally relevant approaches.

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Methodologies

In terms of methodologies, we are suggesting an expansion

of the current approaches to take into consideration a multi-

plicity of experiences and interpretations. As such, it will

be useful to move to embrace the complexity of race-

focused and race-reimaged experiences. Such approaches

include but are not limited to postmodernism, poststructur-

alism, and critical theories. Critical approaches, particularly

that of critical race theory, is a useful perspective to use to

examine race-focused and race-reimaged issues.

Critical race theory. Critical race theory (CRT) was an approach developed by Derrick Bell and other legal

scholars in the 1970s to challenge traditional views of race

in the legal arena (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). CRT takes

a historical approach while placing race at the center of

analysis. A primary tenet is counterstories, which are sto-

ries that challenge the master narrative or majority perspec-

tive by focusing on the experiences of marginalized groups

(Delgado, 1989). In addition to counterstorytelling, the ten-

ets of CRT include the permanence of racism, which inves-

tigates the pervasiveness of racism (Bell, 1992); the

critique of liberalism, which critiques liberal discourses

regarding colorblindness (race neutrality), meritocracy

(beliefs of equal access and opportunity), and incremental

252 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

change (the need to make small changes rather than system-

atic changes; Gotanda, 1991); interest convergence, which

explores how racial progress occurs only when Whites ben-

efit (Bell, 1980); intersectionality, which examines the

intersection of identities, specifically race and gender

(Crenshaw, 1989); and Whiteness as Property, which

explores White privilege and the expansive rights associ-

ated with Whiteness (C. Harris, 1993).

An essential aspect of CRT is counterstorytelling, which

is a method of telling stories that enables the questioning of

the views of the majority (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012).

Counterstorytelling serves as a method of both hearing the

voices of the marginalized and analyzing and challenging

the majority discourse and reality (Delgado, 1989; Delgado

& Stefancic, 2012; Sol�orzano & Yosso, 2002). By allowing marginalized groups to provide an alternate vision and real-

ity, counterstorytelling enables the majority to understand

the perspectives of others and thereby question their social

reality. Counterstories can be personal stories/narratives,

other people’s stories/narratives, and composite stories/nar-

ratives (Sol�orzano & Yosso, 2002). Although counterstorytelling is the central method used in

CRT, the key tenet of CRT is the permanence of racism or

the acceptance that racism is a normal, customary, and rou-

tine social construction (Delgado & Stefancic, 2012). CRT

presupposes a racial realist perspective in that racism

remains an “integral, permanent and indestructible compo-

nent of this society” (Bell, 1992, p. ix) and is institutional-

ized throughout all economic, social, and political systems

of the United States (Bell, 1980). In addition to addressing

the institutionalization of racism, the permanence of racism

also examines an individual’s ideas, attitudes, and beliefs

regarding race that are formed by cultural experiences. Ulti-

mately, examining the permanence of racism includes

addressing how racism is individually perpetuated.

Another tenet of CRT is the critique of liberalism, which

addresses colorblindness, neutrality of law, and incremental

change. Colorblindness assumes a sense of race-neutrality

of the law that translates into the “nonrecognition” of race

and racial differences (Gotanda, 1991; Lewis, 2001). This

is problematic because ignoring race also means ignoring

the social and cultural experiences that are associated with

race. The neutrality of the law operates under the notion

that there is equal opportunity and that advancement occurs

as a result of merit. The idea of a meritocracy assumes that

all things are equal and that hard work translates into suc-

cess. This view, however, does not acknowledge the inequi-

ties that result from systemic practices of racism, the

function of financial privilege, or group contributions to

success. Specifically, the myth of meritocracy helps to

serve as justification of racial discrimination and class hier-

archies (Bonilla-Silva, 2009; Peller, 1990). Under the idea

of incremental change, any gains for marginalized groups

are to come at a pace that is agreeable to those in power,

most often at a slow and sometimes unreasonable pace.

From this perspective, marginalized groups are encouraged

to wait because progress is deemed to come in time. Mean-

while, those in power continue to get further ahead while

marginalized groups continue to lag further behind. Incre-

mental change is beneficial to those that are not adversely

affected by racism and racist practices as well as the ineq-

uity in social, economic, and educational arenas (Peller,

1990).

A fourth tenet of CRT is interest convergence. Bell

(1980) suggested that although civil rights gains within

communities of color have been plentiful, early civil rights

legislation provided only the basic rights that had been

enjoyed by Whites for centuries. These basic civil rights

gains were superficial in that they represented fundamental

human rights that had been guaranteed to all U.S. citizens

under the U.S. Constitution. Because of this, Bell (1980)

argued that these very basic rights were enacted only

because they converged with the self-interests of Whites. In

addition, it is important to note that these concessions were

not enacted as a significant disruption to the “normal” way

of life for the majority of Whites. For instance, school

desegregation that resulted from Brown v. Board did not

change the schools in which White children attended. In the

majority of cases, African American children were bused to

schools in White communities rather than White children

being bused into African American communities (Love,

2004). White children benefited from attending school with

African American children without having to lose their

neighborhood schools.

A fifth tenet of CRT is intersectionality, which focuses

on the idea that women of color are often not included

when discussing racial or gender legal issues in that issues

of racism are often associated with African American men

whereas issues of sexism are associated with White women

(Crenshaw, 1989). This forces women of color to choose

between race and gender; however, this is problematic

because one’s racial and gender identities intersect (Car-

bado & Gulati, 2001). As described by Wing (2003), inter-

sectionality is not simply race plus gender. Instead,

intersectionality implies that women of color have a multi-

plicative identity in that race and gender are “multiplied

together to create a holistic One” (Wing, 2003, p. 7).

Whiteness as property, the last tenet of CRT, suggests

that Whiteness has value and can be viewed in the same

terms as property (see C. Harris, 1993). This includes the

property rights of possession, use, and disposition. More

specifically, like property rights, Whiteness includes the

rights of transferability, the right to use and enjoyment, rep-

utation rights, and the right to exclude others. The right to

transferability (or disposition) ensures the inalienability of

Whiteness through the guarantee that Whiteness can be

transferred generationally from one person to another. By

transferring Whiteness across generations, those possessing

it are entitled to all of the rights and privileges held by pre-

vious generations. The right to use and enjoyment refers to

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 253

asserting White privilege and maintaining White identity.

From this perspective, Whiteness is seen as intangible,

something that you experience, as well as tangible, and

something that is seen as a resource. The property right of

reputation means that there is a value for White identity as

well as a desire to preserve White identity, even at the

expense of other racial groups’ identities. It involves estab-

lishing Whiteness as the most socially desirable identity

and thus the most respectable. The right to exclude is the

right to establish a system of exclusion that determines

opportunities, access, and rights based upon race. This right

concerns the absolute exclusion of those who are not White

and extends to all arenas where Whiteness can conceivably

have power.

Because CRT is rooted in the legal literature and takes a

historical perspective, much of the theory concerns the

Black–White binary. However, extensions of CRT such as

LatCrit (Haney Lopez, 1997), TribalCrit (Brayboy, 2005),

and AsianCrit (Chang, 1993) are also helpful approaches to

exploring issues of race beyond the traditional Black–White

binary. CRT is a growing theory within education (see

DeCuir & Dixson, 2004; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995;

Parker, 1998) as indicated by the recent publication of the

Handbook of Critical Race Theory in Education (Lynn &

Dixson, 2013). This growth in other disciplines within edu-

cation could help facilitate race-focused and race-reimaged

research within educational psychology.

For example, DeCuir-Gunby and Williams (2007)

engaged in a race-reimaged approach by using a CRT per-

spective to examine the impact of race and racism on Afri-

can American students’ emotions within the private school

context. In this study, students reflected upon a Black his-

tory month assembly led by a civil rights leader that was

perceived negatively by many of the White students in

attendance because of the civil rights leader’s references to

the history of racism in the South and the idea that slavery

was an essential cause of the Civil War. Specifically, the

authors used counterstorytelling to present the participants’

experiences. The authors focused on telling what Sol�orzano and Yosso (2002) referred to as “other people’s stories or

narratives” (p. 33). Such stories are biographical, situated

within the sociohistorical context, and used to discuss expe-

riences regarding racism. The authors explored the stories

of the marginalized students at the school, the African

American students, which challenged the dominant dis-

course of the White students at the school. In analyzing the

students’ stories, the authors focused on CRT’s tenets of

the permanence of racism and the critique of liberalism

(colorblindness). They discussed how the participants’

emotions were impacted by their classmates’ lack of under-

standing of the pervasiveness of racism as well as the idea

that race does not matter. By using a CRT lens, the authors

were able to explore the negative emotions experienced by

the participants while relating those experiences to the

racial history of the school and the larger U.S.

sociohistorical context, thus race-reimaging the construct

of emotions. A race-reimaged approach provided a broader

understanding of how issues of race and racism can impact

students within the school context. By taking a race-reim-

aged approach, the authors were able to take a traditional

construct such as emotions and refocus it by applying a

racial lens. This approach went much further than the prev-

alent way of viewing race as simply a demographic.

Instead, race was the center of focus.

Expanded methodologies. In addition to revisiting commonly used theoretical approaches, educational psy-

chologists need to broaden the specific research methods

used. Educational psychologists have tended to focus on

quantitative approaches, with emphases on experimental

and quasi-experimental designs. They have relied on tradi-

tional inferential statistics (e.g., analyses of variance,

regressions, etc.). However, problems within educational

contexts are not always best answered using quantitative

approaches. As such, educational psychologists need to

embrace additional research methods beyond traditional

quantitative approaches. Qualitative methods such as inter-

viewing allows for a more in-depth understanding of phe-

nomena. It enables researchers to more deeply explore

individuals’ experiences. For example, Pressley, Raphael,

Gallagher, and DiBella (2004) conducted a grounded theory

study in order to better understand a high-achieving K-12

school that served urban, African American students. They

used observations, open-ended questionnaires, and docu-

ments as their data sources. The goal of their study was to

create a theory to explicate why the school was academi-

cally successful. They found that the school was successful

because of many community, cultural, and psychological

factors, consistent with the research literature. Because the

researchers were attempting to understand the context with

the ultimate goal of generating theory, a qualitative

approach was most appropriate. This study could not have

been conducted from a quantitative approach in that quanti-

tative approaches tend to be used to test theories rather than

create theories.

Qualitative approaches are essential to exploring race-

focused and race-reimaged constructs in that racial experi-

ences are often individualized despite common narratives

amongst groups. We are not suggesting the abandonment of

quantitative approaches; on the contrary, we are suggesting

that researchers embrace both quantitative and qualitative

approaches, which will allow the field to more thoroughly

examine phenomena, particularly race-focused and race-

reimaged constructs. Likewise, the use of mixed-methods

research should be further embraced.

Although there has been significant growth in the use of

mixed-methods research, much of this has been quantitative

dominant. For example, a common quantitative-dominant

mixed-methods approach involves utilizing a quantitative

component followed by a qualitative component. If a

254 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

researcher wants to examine Latino/a students’ experiences

with stereotype threat in the calculus classroom, a quantita-

tive dominant mixed-methods approach may involve col-

lecting a Likert survey regarding their experiences and

conducting interviews to support the findings of the sur-

veys. In such a design, referred to as an explanatory sequen-

tial mixed-methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011),

the emphasis is on the quantitative component.

Because of the common focus on individual experiences,

in researching race-focused and race-reimaged constructs, it

may be helpful to utilize more qualitative-dominant mixed-

methods studies in addition to quantitative-dominant

mixed-methods studies (see Hesse-Biber, 2010). Qualita-

tive-dominant mixed-methods studies place emphasis on

the qualitative rather than the quantitative components. In

the case of the aforementioned example, researchers could

still use an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design

where they give Likert surveys and then conduct interviews

in order to understand Latino/a students’ experiences with

stereotype threat in the calculus classroom. However, in a

qualitative-dominant approach, the Likert surveys are col-

lected only to inform the interviews. The interviews are the

main source of data rather than the surveys. For instance,

Torres (2006) examined issues of college retention for

Latino/a students. She wanted to create a model to better

understand the retention of Latino/a commuter students. To

do so, she conducted a survey with 542 Latino/a students

that guided her interviewing of 31 participants. Her analysis

of the qualitative data resulted in the creation of a model of

Latino/a student retention. It was the model created by the

qualitative data that was most essential to her study rather

than the quantitative data.

Race-Focused and Race-Reimaged Constructs

In addition to utilizing race-focused or race-reimaged meth-

odologies, it is important for educational psychologists to

study specific race-focused and race-reimaged constructs.

Some specific constructs that have the potential to broaden

our understanding of social and motivational issues that

impact the teaching–learning process include racial/ethnic

identity development, racial socialization, racial discrimina-

tion, and racial microaggressions, to name a few. For educa-

tional psychologists, it would be informative to examine the

multiple ways that race impacts student–teacher–parent

interactions, peer relationships, approaches to teaching, and

achievement. It is important to add that educational psychol-

ogists are conducting research on race, including in the

aforementioned areas. For example, using a race-focused

approach, Okagaki (2001) attempted to understand the

achievement and underachievement of children of color. To

do so, she created a model called the triarchic model of

minority children’s school achievement that focused on

three components: the function of schools, the family and

school expectations, and the characteristics of the child. All

three components must be addressed to understand the

achievement of minority students. Embedded in these three

areas were issues of race. Examining schools involved

exploring racial disparities within education, examining

families included exploring families’ racial and cultural

experiences, and examining the characteristics of the child

included racial identity and experiences with racial discrimi-

nation. Race remained a core component within all aspects

of the model and the research. Similarly using a race-reim-

aged approach, Taylor and Graham (2007) used peer nomi-

nation procedures to examine the relationship between

achievement values and perceptions of barriers of low socio-

economic status (SES) African American and Latino/a stu-

dents across three grade levels—second, fourth, and seventh

grades. They found that African American and Latina girls

tended to nominate average to high-achieving girls as class-

mates they admired across grade levels. They found a similar

trend for second- and fourth-grade African American and

Latino boys in that they nominated average to high-achiev-

ing boys. However, seventh-grade African American and

Latino boys both tended to nominate low-achieving boys as

valued classmates. The authors then interpreted the findings

using culturally relevant research such as research on racial

socialization. In the case of this study, the authors focused

on a traditional construct of peer relationships but engaged

in race-reimaging by analyzing it within a sociocultural

framework.

Despite the described research, little of such research has

been published in educational psychology journals (see

Tables 1–5). The majority of such work has been published

in general education journals (e.g., American Educational

Research Journal, Teachers College Record, Harvard Edu-

cational Review, etc.) or journals that focus on issues of

diversity (e.g., Urban Education, Journal of Diversity in

Higher Education, Equity & Excellence in Education, etc.).

It is also important to expand the nomological network

of race-focused and race-reimaged constructs (Cronbach &

Meehl, 1955). By exploring the interrelationships between

race-focused and race-reimaged constructs, researchers can

develop a better understanding of their differences (e.g.,

race focused are based upon racial theories, whereas race-

reimaged constructs are traditional constructs viewed from

a sociocultural perspective) and similarities (e.g., sociocul-

tural influences). It is also important to make connections

between race-focused, race-reimaged, and other constructs

such as self-regulation, academic achievement, and stu-

dent-teacher relationships, among others. Ultimately, mak-

ing these connections will help to demonstrate how issues

of race can potentially influence a variety of educational

constructs by providing both stronger theoretical and

empirical claims. Also, as connections continue to be made

between race-focused constructs and other educational con-

structs, researchers will become more exposed to sociocul-

tural interpretations of educational research. In turn, this

will provide researchers with more opportunities to apply

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 255

sociocultural theories to their work and develop more race-

reimaged constructs. For instance, researchers in the area of

stereotype threat have already begun to explore its nomo-

logical network, such as in the work of Cromley et al.

(2013), who examined the relationships between stereotype

threat, achievement, cognition, and motivation. Such an

approach goes beyond treating race as a variable in that it

focuses on stereotype threat, a race-focused construct, and

examines how it relates with other educational constructs.

Culturally Relevant Measurement

Expanding our methodological approaches and utilizing

race-focused and race-reimaged constructs also requires the

incorporation of culturally sensitive approaches to measure-

ment. The cultural characteristics of the population being

studied must be taken into consideration during all aspects

of the measurement process (Tran, 2009). First, when devel-

oping or refining a theory, it is necessary to consider the vari-

ous groups that are potentially involved with or will be

impacted by the theory. Specifically, when creating theories

that pertain to communities of color, the impact of race

should be considered. Next, when a theory is operational-

ized, it is also necessary to norm all items using a representa-

tive sample. If a group was not included in the norming

sample, the resulting measure/instrument may not be rele-

vant to those groups not included in the norming sample.

Unfortunately, in education research as well as many other

fields, measures/instruments that were not normed using

people of color tend to be used to make assertions regarding

people of color (Knight, Roosa, & Umana-Taylor, 2009).

Third, it is also important to consider cultural relevance

when interpreting findings. It is necessary to use more socio-

culturally relevant theories (e.g., CRT and culturally rele-

vant pedagogy, particularly race-focused and race-reimaged

theories) to help explain the trends in the data. This will help

to avoid viewing of communities of color from deficit per-

spectives by promoting strength-based approaches. For

instance, in an article by Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001),

they described that to improve schooling and achievement

within a diverse context, it is necessary to understand the

impact of culture on students. In the article they argued that

researchers should focus on cultural settings and cultural

models in order to create change. They specifically sug-

gested that when addressing the underachievement of Span-

ish-speaking children, teachers should draw upon the culture

resources and strengths that children bring to school rather

than focusing on the skills that they lack.

Given the sociohistorical nature as described earlier, it is

also important for researchers to continue to develop socio-

culturally relevant theoretical frameworks to inform the

development of their research questions, data collection,

and interpretations of their research findings (e.g., CRT).

As indicated, many of the dominant theoretical frameworks

currently at the forefront of research in educational

psychology are somewhat silent when it comes to race and

racial identity. Therefore, it will be important for individual

researchers who are informed by those dominant theories to

additionally explore socioculturally relevant approaches to

issues of race in order to expand or reorganize existing

dominant theories.

IMPLICATIONS FOR INVESTIGATING RACE- FOCUSED AND RACE-REIMAGED CONSTRUCTS

It is our contention that the concept of race and its continual

social historical construction has been, and will continue to

be, a key factor in how educational contexts are developed,

organized, and experienced. From this perspective, the con-

tinual social historical construction and reconstruction of

race will continue to influence educational outcomes. We,

therefore, suggest that investigating issues such as race and

racial identity has the potential to be useful in our efforts to

improve educational outcomes. As such, we end this article

with some preliminary guidelines for exploring race-

focused race-reimaged constructs.

Assumptions Regarding Race

In an effort to develop guidelines for investigating race as a

sociohistorical construct, we begin by stating what we

believe there to be three important assumptions (Fullilove,

1998; Kaplan & Bennett, 2004; McKenzie & Crowcroft,

1996). First, at the societal level, as indicated, the nature of

how we define race and who are members of particular

racial groups has changed in the past, and we expect it will

continue to change in the future (e.g., the continual chang-

ing U.S. Census classification). As such, researchers will

have to take the historical context into consideration when

attempting to understand the experiences of a group during

a particular period. Second, at the intraindividual level, it is

also important to keep in mind that individuals’ racial iden-

tifications also have the potential to change over their life-

times (e.g., a biracial person identifying monoracially may

begin to identify biracially). This issue is particularly rele-

vant for researchers that are engaged in longitudinal work.

Third, the treatment of a particular racial group has the

potential to change depending upon the social, cultural, and

political context (e.g., post-911 anti-Muslim/Arabic senti-

ments). This suggests that researchers should be aware of

current events and their potential impacts on society. As

indicated, these three assumptions indicate that both at the

social historical as well as the individual identity level—

race and racial identity tend to be fluid. Therefore, it seems

clear that individuals’ racial identities will not be easily

sorted into mutually exclusive valid and reliable groups,

suggesting a need for the development and continual revi-

sion of guidelines for investigating issues of race.

256 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

Understanding Racial Identification

As indicated, as well as because of the ever-changing

sociohistorical nature of race, efforts should be made to

study people according to their perceived racial identi-

ties. With that in mind, there are a number of potential

options. One way is to collect self-reported racial identi-

fication information with open-ended responses. The

strength of this method is that the participants are able to

state how they currently and specifically identify with

the current array of potential sociohistorical constructed

labels. However, a potential weakness is that some indi-

viduals may provide descriptions that, although useful to

them, may be somewhat unique or useful for only a small

group of individuals (e.g., identifying as Hmong or bira-

cial Hmong and African American). These specific dis-

tinctions create challenges for some quantitative data

analysis strategies; however, they also provide opportuni-

ties for the use of mixed-method strategies to explore

emerging and complex identities.

A related approach would be the self-reported measures

with closed response categories such as the system used for

the U.S. Census classification. In this case, at least for the

participants who choose to respond, you may end up with

everyone in a particular category. However, it is very diffi-

cult to construct a closed-response measure that captures all

of the potential variability in racial or ethnic identities. For

example, the closed-response category may be Asian—but

not allow for the possibility to select Korean, Vietnamese,

or Japanese. So even though you end up with everyone

with a group category, for some of the participants, that

group may not match how they actually see themselves.

This is important because there is great variation in the

experiences of ethnic groups. For example, Asian Ameri-

cans are considered to be “model minorities” and are often

treated more positively than other racial groups. However,

research has demonstrated that Hmong, Filipino, and Viet-

namese American students often perceive experiencing

more negative treatment in schools than Chinese American

students (Teranishi, 2002, 2004). Researchers will need to

challenge their assumptions that racial groups are mono-

lithic and embrace a more nuanced approach to exploring

the experiences of a racial group.

An additional issue here is that in some places, such

as school districts or state departments of education,

there may already be a closed response system, which

has the potential to restrict your options as a researcher.

This basically means that however you collect the data,

it is important to explicate specifically how the data were

collected, what potential options were available to the

participants, and any potential limitations those options

may have created for the researchers. It would also be

important that researchers, when citing other research,

specify how racial/ethnic data were defined and collected

in those studies.

In addition to the race and racial identification data, it

would be useful to collect as many other related constructs

that may be relevant to the research questions being investi-

gated. Some potential related constructs might be ancestry,

language (and dialect), religion, migration history, housing

and employment patterns, age, or educational attainment

level. Considering issues of intersectionality (the overlap-

ping of identities), as well as when this additional data are

collected and used, should provide the opportunity to make

interpretations and findings more useful (Fullilove, 1998;

Kaplan & Bennett, 2004; McKenzie & Crowcroft, 1996).

CONCLUSIONS

As schools in the United States become more racially/ethni-

cally diverse, it is imperative that educational psychologists

begin to investigate “race” as a sociohistorical construct.

We need to move beyond using race as a background vari-

able that is included only in the Methods section to describe

the sample or population. Instead, we should begin fore-

grounding issues of race and consider them central to the

research questions being investigated. If educational psy-

chologists want to be able to better explore the experiences

of 21st-century students, we need to continue to develop

more useful ways of talking about race within the sociohis-

torical context.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Clark Chinn, Sonja Lanehart, and

the external reviewers for their comments on the manu-

script. It is clearly a better article because of their efforts.

REFERENCES

*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies

included in Tables 1 through 5.

Alridge, D. P. (2008). The educational thought of WEB Du Bois: An intel-

lectual history. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Division Profiles by Divi-

sion: Division 15 2011. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/

division/div15-2011.aspx

Anderson, J. (1988). The education of Blacks in the South, 1860–1935.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

*Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & Mac Iver, D. J. (2007). Preventing student dis-

engagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban mid-

dle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions.

Educational Psychologist, 42, 223–235.

Bell, D. A. (1980). Brown v. Board of Education and the interest-convergence

dilemma. Harvard Law Review, 93, 518–533.

Bell, D. (1992). Racial realism. Connecticut Law Review, 24, 363–379.

Berry, J. W., Poortinga, Y. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2002). Cross-

cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge,

England: Cambridge University Press.

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 257

Bonilla-Silva, E. (2009). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and

the persistence of racial inequality in America. New York, NY: Row-

man & Littlefield.

Brayboy, B. M. J. (2005). Toward a tribal critical race theory in education.

The Urban Review, 37, 425–446.

Carbado, D. W. & Gulati, M. (2001). The fifth Black woman. Contempo-

rary Legal Issues, 11, 701–729.

Chang, R. S. (1993). Toward an Asian American legal scholarship: Critical

race theory, poststructuralism, and narrative space. California Law

Review, 81, 1243–1323.

Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1939). The development of consciousness of

self and the emergence of racial identification in Negro preschool chil-

dren. Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 591–599.

Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1940). Skin color as a factor in racial identifi-

cation of Negro preschool children. Journal of Social Psychology, 11,

159–169.

Clark, K. B., & Clark, M. K. (1947). Racial identification and preference in

Negro children. In T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in

social psychology (pp. 169–178). New York, NY: Holt.

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A

Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory

and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, pp. 139–167.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting

mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cromley, J. G., Perez, T., Wills, T. W., Tanaka, J. C., Horvat, E. M., &

Agbenyega, E. T. (2013). Changes in race and sex stereotype threat

among diverse STEM students: Relation to grades and retention in the

majors. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 247–258.

Cronbach, L. J. & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psycho-

logical tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.

Cross, D. I., & Hong, J. Y. (2012). An ecological examination of

teachers’ emotions in the school context. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 28, 957–967.

Davis, F. J. (1991). Who is Black?: One nation’s definition. University

Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

DeCuir, J. T., & Dixson, A. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that

surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of

race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33, 26–31.

DeCuir-Gunby, J. T., & Williams, M. R. (2007). The impact of race and

racism on students’ emotions: A critical race analysis. In P. Schutz, &

R. Peckrun (Eds.), Emotions in education (pp. 205–219). New York,

NY: Elsevier.

Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for oppositionists and others: A plea

for narrative. Michigan Law Review, 87, 2411–2441.

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduc-

tion (2nd ed.). New York: New York University Press.

*den Brok, P., van Tartwijk, J., & Wubbels, T. (2010). The differential

effect of the teacher–student interpersonal relationship on student out-

comes for students with different ethnic backgrounds. British Journal of

Educational Psychology, 80, 199–221.

Dixson, A. D. (2003). “ Let’s do this!” Black women teachers’ politics and

pedagogy. Urban Education, 38, 217–235.

Fields, B. (1982). Ideology and race in American history. In M. J. Morgan

& J. M. McPherson (Eds.), Region, race and reconstruction: Essays in

honor of C. Vann Woodward (pp. 143–177). Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Franklin, J. H. (1976). Racial equality in America. Chicago, IL: University

of Chicago Press.

Fullilove M. T. 1998. Comment: Abandoning “race” as a variable in public

health research—An idea whose time has come. American Journal of

Public Health, 88, 1297–1298.

*Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and

settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement

research. Educational Psychologist, 36, 45–56.

Genes, drugs and race [Editorial]. (2001). Natural Genetics, 29, 239–240.

Giscomb�e, C. L., & Lobel, L. (2005). Explaining disproportionately high

rates of adverse birth outcomes among African Americans: The impact

of stress, racism, and related factors in pregnancy. Psychological Bulle-

tin, 131, 662–683.

Gomez, L. E. (1992). The birth of the “Hispanic” generation: Attitudes of

Mexican–American political elites toward the Hispanic label. Latin

American Perspectives, 19(4), 45–58.

*Good, T. L., & Nichols, S. L. (2001). Expectancy effects in the classroom:

A special focus on improving the reading performance of minority stu-

dents in first-grade classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 36, 113–126.

Gotanda, N. (1991). A critique of “Our constitution is color-blind.” Stan-

ford Law Review, 44, 1–68.

*Gutman, L. M. (2006). How student and parent goal orientations and

classroom goal structures influence the math achievement of Africa

Americans during the high school transitions. Contemporary Educa-

tional Psychology, 31, 44–63.

Haney Lopez, I. F. (1997). Race, ethnicity, erasure: The salience of race to Lat-

Crit theory. California Law Review, 85, 1143–1211.

Haney Lopez, I. (2006). White by law 10th anniversary edition: The legal

construction of race. New York: New York University Press.

*Harber, K. D., Gorman, J. L, Gengaro, F. P., Butisingh, S. T., & Oullette,

R. (2012). Students’ race and teachers’ social support affect the positive

feedback bias in public schools. Journal of Educational Psychology,

104, 1149–1161.

Harris, C. (1993). Whiteness as property. Harvard Law Review, 106, 1707–

1791.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Urdan, T. (Eds.) (2012). APA educational

psychology handbook: Individual differences, cultural, and contextual

factors in educational psychology (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Helms, J. (1990). Black and White racial identity: Theory, research, and

practice. New York, NY: Greenwood.

Helms, J., Jernigan, M., & Mascher, J. (2005). The meaning of race in psy-

chology and how to change it: A methodological perspective. American

Psychologist, 60, 27–36.

Helms, J., & Talleyrand, R. (1997). Race is not ethnicity. American Psy-

chologist, 52, 1246–1247.

Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (1954).

Hesse-Biber, S. (2010). Qualitative approaches to mixed methods practice.

Qualitative Inquiry, 16, 455–468.

*Hudley, C., Graham, S., & Taylor, A. (2007). Reducing aggressive behav-

ior and increasing motivation in school: The evolution of an intervention

to strengthen school adjustment. Educational Psychologist, 42, 251–

260.

Hummer, R. A., Benjamins, M., & Rogers, R. G. (2004). Race/ethnic dis-

parities in health and mortality among the elderly: A documentation and

examination of social factors. In N. Anderson, R. Bulatao, & B. Cohen

(Eds.), Critical perspectives on racial and ethnic differences in health in

late life (pp. 53–94). Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Hutchinson, J., & Smith, A. D. (1996). Ethnicity. Oxford, England: Oxford

University Press.

Jorde, B. L. & Wooding, S. P. (2004). Genetic variation, classification and

‘race’. Nature Genetics, 36, 528–533.

Kaplan, J. B., & Bennett, T. (2004). Use of race and ethnicity in biomedi-

cal publication. Journal of the American Medical Association, 292,

2709–2716.

Kennedy, D. (2000). The roots of child study: Philosophy, history, and reli-

gion. Teachers College Record, 102, 514–538.

Knight, G. P., Roosa, M. W., & Umana-Taylor, A. J. (2009). Studying eth-

nic minority and economically disadvantaged populations: Methodolog-

ical challenges and best practices. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association.

Kulikoff, A. (1986). Tobacco and slaves: The development of southern cul-

tures in the Chesapeake. 1680–1800. Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press.

258 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of

education. Teachers College Record, 97, 47–67.

LaVeist, T. A. (1996). Why we should continue to study race . . . but do a

better job: An essay on race, racism and health. Ethnicity & Disease, 6,

21–29.

Lee, C. D. (1995). A culturally based cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching

African American high school students skills in literary interpretation.

Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 608–631.

Lehrman, S. (2003). The reality of race. Scientific American, 288, 32.

Lewis, A. E. (2001). There is no “race” in the schoolyard: Color-blind ide-

ology in an (almost) all-White school. American Educational Research

Journal, 38, 781–811.

*Logel, C. R., Walton, G. M., Spencer, S. J., Peach, J., & Mark, Z. P.

(2012). Unleashing latent ability: Implications for stereotype threat for

college admissions. Educational Psychologist, 47, 42–50.

Love, B. J. (2004). Brown plus 50 counter-storytelling: A critical race the-

ory analysis of the “majoritarian achievement gap”. Equity & Excellence

in Education, 37, 227–246.

Lynn, M., & Dixson, A. D. (Eds.). (2013). Handbook of critical race the-

ory in education. New York, NY: Routledge.

Markus, H. R. (2008). Pride, prejudice, and ambivalence: Toward a

unified theory of race and ethnicity. American Psychologist, 63,

651–670.

Massey, D. S. (2007). Categorically unequal: The American stratification

system. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mays, V. M., Ponce, N. A., Washington, D. L., & Cochran, S. D. (2003).

Classification of race and ethnicity: Implications for public health.

Annual Review of Public Health, 24, 83–110.

McKenzie K., & Crowcroft, N. S. (1996). Describing race, ethnicity, and

culture in medical research. British Medical Journal, 312, 1054.

*McKown, C. (2005). Applying ecological theory to advance the science and

practice of school-based prejudice reduction interventions. Educational Psy-

chologist, 40, 177–189.

*Meece, J. L., & Kurtz-Costes, B. (2001). Introduction: The schooling of

ethnic minority children. Educational Psychologist, 36, 1–7.

Morgan, E. (2003). American slavery, American freedom: The ordeal of

Colonial Virginia. New York, NY: Norton.

Nasir, N. I. S. (2005). Individual cognitive structuring and the sociocultural

context: Strategy shifts in the game of dominoes. The Journal of the

Learning Sciences, 14, 5–34.

*Okagaki, L. (2001). Triarchic model of minority children’s school

achievement. Educational Psychologist, 36, 9–20.

Omi, M., & Winant, H. (1994). Racial formation in the United States:

From the 1960’s to the 1990’s (2nd ed.). New York, NY:

Routledge.

Oppenheimer, G. M. (2001). Paradigm lost: Race, ethnicity, and the search

for a new population taxonomy. American Journal of Public Health, 91,

1049–1055.

*Osborne, J. W. (2001). Testing stereotype threat: Does anxiety explain

race and sex differences in achievement? Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 26, 291–310.

Ossorio, P., & Duster, T. (2005). Race and genetics: Controversies in bio-

medical, behavioral, and forensic sciences. American Psychologist, 60,

115–128.

Padilla, A. M. (2003). The origins of the Hispanic Journal of Behavioral

Sciences: A personal memoir. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences,

25, 3–12.

Parker, L. (1998). Race is . . . race ain’t: An exploration of the utility of

Critical Race Theory in qualitative research in education. International

Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 11, 7–24.

Peller, G. (1990). Race-consciousness. Duke Law Journal, pp. 758–847.

Perea, J. F., Delgado, R., Harris, A. P, & Wildman, S. M. (2000). Race and

races: Cases and resources for a diverse America. St. Paul, MN: West

Group.

*Phalet, K., Andriessen, I., & Lens, W. (2004). How future goals enhance

motivation and learning in multicultural classrooms. Educational

Psychology Review, 16, 59–89.

Philog�ene, G. (Ed.). (2004). Racial identity in context: The legacy of Kenneth B. Clark. Washington, DC: American Psychological

Association.

Phinney, J. S. (1996). When we talk about American ethnic groups, what do

we mean? American Psychologist, 51, 918–927.

*Pressley, M. Raphael, L., Gallagher, J. D., & DiBella, J. (2004). Provi-

dence–St. Mel School: How a school that works for African American stu-

dents work. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 216–235.

*Rodgers, K. A. & Summers, J. J. (2008). African American students at

predominantly White institutions: A motivational and self-systems

approach to understanding retention. Educational Psychology Review,

20, 171–190.

Roediger, D. R. (2010). How race survived US history: From settlement

and slavery to the Obama phenomenon. Brooklyn, NY: Verso.

Roediger, D. R. (2005). Working towards Whiteness: How America’s

immigrants became White. The strange journey from Ellis Island to the

suburbs. New York, NY: Perseus.

*Rubie-Davies, C., Hattie, J., & Hamilton, R. (2006). Expecting the best

for students: Teacher expectations and academic outcomes. British Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology, 76, 429–444.

*Ryan, K. E., & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological processes underlying

stereotype threat and standardized math test performance. Educational

Psychologist, 40, 53–63.

Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).

*Slaughter-Defoe, D. T., & Rubin, H. H. (2001). A longitudinal case study

of head start eligible children: Implications for urban education. Educa-

tional Psychologist, 36, 31–44.

Smedley, A., & Smedley, B. D. (2005). Race as biology is fiction, racism

as a social problem is real. American Psychologist, 60, 16–26.

*Smith, J. L. (2004). Understanding the process of stereotype threat: A review of

mediational variables and new performance goal directions. Educational Psy-

chology Review, 16, 177–206.

Sol�orzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology:

Counter-story-telling as ananalytical framework for educational

research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8, 23–44.

*Spencer, M. B., Noll, E., Soltzfus, J., & Harpalani, V. (2001). Identity and

school adjustment: Revisiting the “acting White” assumption. Educa-

tional Psychologist, 36, 21–30.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual

identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

*Taylor, A. Z., & Graham, S. (2007). An examination of the relationship

between achievement values and perceptions of barriers among low-SES

African American and Latino students. Journal of Educational Psychology,

99, 52–64.

*Tenenbaum, H. R., & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations dif-

ferent for racial minority than European American students? A meta-

analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 253–273.

Teranishi, R. T. (2002). Asian Pacific Americans and critical race theory:

An examination of school racial climate. Equity & Excellence in Educa-

tion, 35, 144–154.

Teranishi, R. T. (2004). Yellow and brown: Emerging Asian American

immigrant populations and residential segregation. Equity & Excellence

in Education, 37, 255–263.

Thomas, O. N., Caldwell, C. H., Faison, N., & Jackson, J. S. (2009). Promoting

academic achievement: The role of racial identity in buffering perceptions of

teacher discrimination on academic achievement among African American

and Caribbean Black adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101,

420–431.

Torres, V. (2006). A mixed method study testing data-model fit of a

retention model for Latino/a students at urban universities. Journal

of College Student Development, 47, 299–318.

RESEARCHING RACE WITHIN EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY CONTEXTS 259

Tran, T. V. (2009). Developing cross-cultural measurement. New York,

NY: Oxford University Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). The statistical abstract. Retrieved from http://

www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012edition.html

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). Asians fastest growing race or ethnic group in

2012. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/

archives/population/cb13-112.html

U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2006). National

and state estimations. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/

StateNationalEstimations/Projections_2006

Vega, W. A., & Amaro, H. (1994). Latino outlook: Good health, uncertain

prognosis. Annual Review of Public Health, 1539–1567.

*Verkuyten, M., & Thijs, J. (2004). Psychological disidentification with

the academic domain among ethnic minority adolescents in The Nether-

lands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 109–125.

Wing, A. K. (2003). Critical race feminism. New York: New York Univer-

sity Press.

*Wong, C. A., & Rowley, S. J. (2001). The schooling of ethnic minority

children: Commentary. Educational Psychologist, 36, 57–66.

*Xiang, P., Lee, A., & Shen, J. (2001). Conceptions of ability and

achievement goals in physical education: Comparisons of American

and Chinese students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26,

348–365.

Yee, A. H. (1983). Ethnicity and race: Psychological perspectives. Educa-

tional Psychologist, 1(18), 14–24.

Yee, A. H., Fairchild, H. H., Weizmann, F., & Wyatt, G. E. (1993).

Addressing psychology’s problem with race. American Psychologist,

48, 1132–1140.

*Zusho, A., & Barnett, P. A. (2011). Personal and contextual determinants

of ethnically diverse female high school students’ patterns of academic

help seeking and help avoidance in English and mathematics. Contem-

porary Educational Psychology, 36, 152–164.

Zusho, A., & Clayton, K. (2011). Culturalizing achievement goal theory

and research. Educational Psychologist, 46, 239–260.

260 DECUIR-GUNBY AND SCHUTZ

Copyright of Educational Psychologist is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.