Writing
Pedagogies of Refusal in Qualitative Research

Question Description

In the analysis part, consider the relationship between the power& ethics and this artical.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Response paper 2 Due Date: March 22, 2019 What is Due: 2 page printed paper to be dropped off in my faculty mailbox – 2nd floor Dekalb Hall A copy of the edited and worked upon draft by a tutor at the writing center. For the second response paper we are focusing on providing a summary of ONE article, and then an analysis/response of the article on its own or in conversation with other articles. Reminder: the handouts on how to write response papers are on LMS. As we build on this paper together in class (on 3/6), also use the class time on March 20th (after spring break) to work on editing your final draft at the writing center. You must make an appointment with a tutor prior to spring break to work on the draft with you before the due date and with enough time to do the edits needed for the final response paper. For the summary, you must select ONE of the following articles: Hoagland, S. 2007. Denying Relationality: Epistemology and Ethics and Ignorance, in Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance. SUNY Press. Pp. 95-118 Ladson Billings, G. 2005. The Evolving role of Critical Race theory and Educational scholarship. Race Ethnicity and Education 8 (1): 115–119. Tuck, E., & Yang, K. 2014. Unbecoming claims: Pedagogies of refusal in qualitative research. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 811-818. In order to provide a summary of ONE of the articles listed above, you can utilize the handout on LMS on how to write a summary – I have listed some key points to keep in mind below. In addition to the paper, you MUST also provide a copy of the feedback on your draft from someone at the writing center. This means a copy of the draft with their notes and comments upon it. QUALITIES OF A SUMMARY A good summary should be comprehensive, concise, coherent, and independent. These qualities are explained below:   A summary must be comprehensive: You should isolate all the important points in the original passage and note them down in a list. Review all the ideas on your list, and include in your summary all the ones that are indispensable to the author's development of her/his thesis or main idea. A summary must be concise: Eliminate repetitions in your list, even if the author restates the same points. Your summary should be considerably shorter than the source. You are hoping to create an overview; therefore, you need not include every repetition of a point or every supporting detail.            A summary must be coherent: It should make sense as a piece of writing in its own right; it should not merely be taken directly from your list of notes or sound like a disjointed collection of points. A summary must be independent: You are not being asked to imitate the author of the text you are writing about. On the contrary, you are expected to maintain your own voice throughout the summary. Don't simply quote the author; instead use your own words to express your understanding of what you have read. After all, your summary is based on your interpretation of the writer's points or ideas. However, you should be careful not to create any misrepresentation or distortion by introducing comments or criticisms of your own. Summarizing Shorter Texts (ten pages or fewer) Write a one-sentence summary of each paragraph. Formulate a single sentence that summarizes the whole text. Write a paragraph (or more): begin with the overall summary sentence and follow it with the paragraph summary sentences. Rearrange and rewrite the paragraph to make it clear and concise, to eliminate repetition and relatively minor points, and to provide transitions. The final version should be a complete, unified, and coherent. Summarizing Longer Texts (more than ten pages) Outline the text. Break it down into its major sections—groups of paragraphs focused on a common topic—and list the main supporting points for each section. Write a one or two sentence summary of each section. Formulate a single sentence to summarize the whole text, looking at the author's thesis or topic sentences as a guide. Write a paragraph (or more): begin with the overall summary sentence and follow it with the section summary sentences. Rewrite and rearrange your paragraph(s) as needed to make your writing clear and concise, to eliminate relatively minor or repetitious points, and to provide transitions. Make sure your summary includes all the major supporting points of each idea. The final version should be a complete, unified, and coherent. Qualitative Inquiry http://qix.sagepub.com/ Unbecoming Claims: Pedagogies of Refusal in Qualitative Research Eve Tuck and K. Wayne Yang Qualitative Inquiry 2014 20: 811 originally published online 16 May 2014 DOI: 10.1177/1077800414530265 The online version of this article can be found at: http://qix.sagepub.com/content/20/6/811 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com Additional services and information for Qualitative Inquiry can be found at: Email Alerts: http://qix.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://qix.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://qix.sagepub.com/content/20/6/811.refs.html >> Version of Record - Jun 2, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 16, 2014 What is This? Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com by guest on June 3, 2014 530265 research-article2014 QIXXXX10.1177/1077800414530265Qualitative InquiryTuck and Yang Article Unbecoming Claims: Pedagogies of Refusal in Qualitative Research Qualitative Inquiry 2014, Vol. 20(6) 811­–818 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1077800414530265 qix.sagepub.com Eve Tuck1 and K. Wayne Yang2 Abstract This article discusses the role of refusal in the analysis and communication of qualitative data, that is, the role of refusal in the work of making claims. Refusal is not just a no, but a generative stance, situated in a critical understanding of settler colonialism and its regimes of representation. Refusals are needed to counter narratives and images arising (becomingclaims) in social science research that diminish personhood or sovereignty, or rehumiliate when circulated. Refusal, in this article, refers to a stance or an approach to analyzing data within a matrix of commitments, histories, allegiances, and resonances that inform what can be known within settler colonial research frames, and what must be kept out of reach. Keywords settler colonialism, refusal, coding, making claims, knowledge territories The fundamental thesis of the anthropologist is that people are objects for observation, people are then considered objects for experimentation, for manipulation, and for eventual extinction. The anthropologist thus furnishes the justification for treating Indian people like so many chessmen available for anyone to play with. —Vine Deloria (1988), Custer Died for Your Sins To act on the desire to be the opposite, the desire not to collaborate, is to object. —Fred Moten (2003), “Resistance of the Object” in In the Break (p. 239) Speak to any computer programmer, and she will tell you that coding is an art form, a glimpse into the systematizing of relationships that form the deep structure for the world that programmer is creating—code is the language that gives expression to what is felt by the programmer. Yet we observe a tendency in social science to reduce coding to a mechanical process (St. Pierre & Pillow, 2000)—an increasingly quantitative, increasingly positivist approach that masks the power relationships about who comes to know whom in the creation of knowledge. More importantly, coding, in the guise of objective science, expands the project of settler colonial knowledge production— inquiry as invasion is built into the normalized operations of the researcher. Coding, once it begins, has already surrendered to a theory of knowledge. We ask, what is the code that lies beneath the code? In this article, we theorize refusal to settler colonialism— the code beneath the code. This article begins with a recognition that some communities—particularly Indigenous, ghettoized, and Orientalized communities—are over-coded, that is, simultaneously hyper-surveilled and invisibilized/ made invisible by the state, by police, and by social science research (Tuck & Yang, 2014; see also Kelley, 1997; Said, 1978; Smith, 1999). In these communities, research can be a dirty word (Smith, 1999) and though people have been over-studied, the promised benefits of participating in social science research have been slow to accumulate (Tuck, 2009). Our emphasis here is how we have taught refusal to ourselves and to our students. This article unfolds in two sections. We start with a discussion of refusal as an analytic practice that addresses forms of inquiry as invasion. And because we cannot, will not, share certain accounts, we sometimes trace the perimeter of the refusal; other times, we use examples from art and literature to illustrate what we mean. We share some examples that we have used in our teaching to inform a critical response to the proliferation of damage-centered studies, rescue research, and pain tourism. The second section details 1 State University of New York at New Paltz, USA University of California–San Diego, La Jolla, USA 2 Corresponding Author: K. Wayne Yang, University of California–San Diego, Social Sciences Bldg. Room 222, 9500 Gilman Dr, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. Email: kwayne@ucsd.edu Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com by guest on June 3, 2014 812 Qualitative Inquiry 20(6) the practices and performativities of refusal, from our own work and works by other qualitative researchers. Refusal as Analytic Practice The regulatory ethical frames that now dominate the conversation about ethics in academe are only a recent provision, and they cannot do enough to ensure that social science research is deeply ethical, meaningful, or useful for the individual or community being researched (Tuck & Guishard, 2013). The stories that are considered most compelling, considered most authentic in social science research are stories of pain and humiliation. Reporting on that pain with detailed qualitative data and in people’s “real voices” is supposed to yield needed material or political resources; this is the prominent but unreliable theory of change in the academy. However, settler colonialism, other colonial configurations, White supremacy, heteropatriarchy, and the pursuit of wealth by some at the expense of others have indeed caused pain in the lives of real people, which deserves scrutiny and exposure. As we discuss in this article, analytic practices of refusal provide ways to negotiate how we as social science researchers can learn from experiences of dispossessed peoples—often painful, but also wise, full of desire and dissent—without serving up pain stories on a silver platter for the settler colonial academy, which hungers so ravenously for them. Analytic practices of refusal involve an active resistance to trading in pain and humiliation, and supply a rationale for blocking the settler colonial gaze that wants those stories. Refusal can comprise a resistance to making someone or something the subject of research; it is a form of objectless analysis, an analytic practice with nothing and no one to code. Analytic practices of refusal can help researchers and the people who prepare researchers to avoid building our/their careers upon the pain of others. As we describe in this article, refusal is a generative stance, not just a “no,” but a starting place for other qualitative analyses and interpretations of data. Refusing the colonizing code of research is an analysis that must come after, before, and beyond coding. It must precede, exceed, and intercede upon settler colonial knowledge production. Settler Colonialism as the Code Beneath the Code: Inquiry as Invasion Code is a word rarely interrogated in qualitative research outside of a few technical definitions. A code is a cipher, a system of signifiers that make words meaningful. To codify is to manage, to arrange in an order that is meaningful to the coder. Coding is something we do to objects. Codes stand in for objectified living things. Codes become objects themselves, to be treated objectively, in the way that the living things would not allow. Codes are not meant to object. After coding, the important decisions have already been made. Observations, when encoded, are governed by the concealed language of the code—what is meaningful derives from the code, not from what is observed. To refuse the colonizing code requires deconstructing power, not objective cataloging of observations. Indeed, “objectivity” is code for power. From a legal standpoint, code refers to rules and laws that comprise settler sovereignty—for example, the Black codes that restricted the movement, education, and personhood of Black people in the North and the South under slavery and then under Jim Crow. Settler codes express the putative right of the settler to know and thus to govern all the people, land, flora, fauna, customs, cultures, sexualities in his seized territory. To refuse settler sovereignty is to refuse the settler’s unquestioned right to know, and to resist the agenda to expand the knowledge territory of the settler colonial nation. Despite the almost ritualistic importance given to coding in the training of novice researchers, rarely examined is the code beneath the code. Who gets to know? Who gets known? Where is knowledge kept, and kept legitimated? What knowledge is desirable? Who profits? Who loses/ pays/gives something away? Who is coerced, empowered, appointed to give away knowledge? These are the analytic questions that drive beyond coding. In a sense, these are not open-ended questions, but ones that have already been answered for us. The academic codes that govern research, human subject protocols, and publishing already territorialize knowledge as property and researchers as claimstakers. Academic codes decide what stories are civilized (intellectual property) and what stories are natural, wild, and thus claimable under the doctrine of discovery. Human subject protocols establish that individuals must be protected, but not communities. Individuals are empowered to give away the community’s stories. Individuals may be compensated, but only lightly, with a small fee, a gift certificate to a university bookstore, a thank you note, a free meal, a string of beads. Settler colonial studies seek to understand the particular features of settler colonialism, and how its shapes and contours of domination (like that in the United States, the context from which we write but also Canada, New Zealand, Israel, Chinese Tibet, and Australia) differ from other forms of coloniality. Invasion is a structure, not (just) an event in time (Wolfe, 1999). In settler colonial contexts, land is the ultimate pursuit: Settlers arrive in a new (to them) place and claim it as theirs. They destroy and then later erase (via assimilation or cultural strangling) Indigenous peoples, and use weapons and policy to extinguish their/our claims to land. Settlement requires the labor of chattel slaves and guest workers, who must be kept landless and estranged from their homelands. The settlers locate themselves at the top and at the center of all typologies—as simultaneously most superior and most normal. Because land is the Downloaded from qix.sagepub.com by guest on June 3, 2014 813 Tuck and Yang ultimate pursuit, settler colonialism involves a daedal arrangement of justifications and unhistories to deny genocide and brutality. Settler colonialism must cover its tracks, and does so by making its structuring natural, inevitable, invisible, and immutable (Tuck & Yang, 2012; Veracini, 2011). Inquiry as invasion is a result of the imperative to produce settler colonial knowledge and to produce it for the academy. This invasion imperative is often disguised in universalist terms of producing “objective knowledge” for “the public.” It is a thin disguise, as most research rhetoric waxes the poetics of empire: to discover, to chart new terrain, to seek new frontiers, to explore, and so on. The academy’s unrelenting need to produce “original research” is what makes the inquiry an invading structure, not an event. Social science hunts for new objects of study, and its favored reaping grounds are Native, urban, poor, and Othered communities. In related writing, we presented three axioms of social science research that ground our analysis of the need for refusal to inquiry as invasion. The axioms are as follows: (I) The subaltern can speak, but is only invited to speak her/our pain. Drawing from bell hooks’ (1990) observation that the academy fetishizes stories of the violated, we note that what passes for subaltern “voice” in research is a commodified pain narrative: “No need to hear your voice. Only tell me about your pain. I want to know your story.” (p. 343) (II) There are some forms of knowledge that the academy doesn’t deserve. This axiom is the crux of refusal. The university is not universal; rather, it is a colonial collector of knowledge as another form of territory. There are stories and experiences that already have their own place, and placing them in the academy is removal, not respect. (III) Research may not be the intervention that is needed. This axiom challenges the latent theory of change that research— more academic knowing—will somehow innately contribute to the improvement of tribes, communities, youth, schools, etc. All three axioms gesture toward what lives beyond the paradigm of research—voice, knowledge, interventions— and ought to be kept out of reach. As researchers, when we overhear, uncover, are entrusted with narratives that we know will sell, do we stop the sale? How to See Refusal (and How to Not Get Disappointed About Refusal) Teaching the analytic practice of refusal is unsettling both because students may first consider refusal to be undesirable, as failure, and also because it can feel like explaining refusal requires exposing that which ought not to be exposed. In our classrooms, we turn toward images and narratives in art and literature that already resist becoming data, that resist domestication into settler stories. For example, the film Old Dog (Tseden, 2011) revolves around solicitations for the sale of an old Tibetan mastiff and an old Tibetan man’s refusals to sell. Dog trader: Will you sell me your dog? Akhu [herder]: Not selling. Not selling. ... Dog trader: If you don’t sell him to me, someone might steal him. The film’s premise is loosely based on contemporary events, that is, “a feverish appetite among China’s nouveau riche for the mastiffs owned by Tibetan nomads, such that recently a mastiff named Hong Dong sold in China for $1.5 million” (Shakya, 2011). Pema Tseden, hailed as “the first Tibetan filmmaker,” has remained strategically silent on the potential allegories embodied by his film, a strategy that some have speculated aided the film in passing through increased scrutiny by Chinese censorship committees (Lim, 2009). However, it takes little inference for students to see the critiques of Chinese settler colonialism in Tibet. “Sell it before someone steals it” is an ironic truism for Indigenous people in settler nations where land, rituals, and even Native identity are actively stolen and commodified. In this way, students begin to see refusal as resistance to plunder. Refusal also disputes the theories of change that tacitly endorse settler modernity. “Their life is much better in the mainland,” the dog trader offers as sympathetic rationale, to which the elderly nomad replies, “Who’s to know?” By engaging performative examples of refusal, such as Old Dog and other t ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

Was nice working with you. I’ll be around to help you if you need me. Don’t forget to invite me for future questions ✌

Surname 1
Student Name
Professor’s Name
Course
Date
Unbecoming Claims: Pedagogies of Refusal in Qualitative Research
Introduction
Generally, refusals are designated to counter images and narratives formed as the basis of
a certain claim. In this study, the aspect of refusal refers to the counter of on data analyzation
within a certain environment of commitment after circulation in areas where it humiliates,
diminishes personalities and sovereignty. This paper analyzes the aspects of refusal in the
communiqué of qualitative data in the article communicating the histories and allegiances within
the colonial exploration frame.
Summary
The regulatory moral frames are not fully equipped to ensure the usefulness and ...

Cornell University

Anonymous
I was on a very tight deadline but thanks to Studypool I was able to deliver my assignment on time.

Anonymous
The tutor was pretty knowledgeable, efficient and polite. Great service!

Anonymous
I did not know how to approach this question, Studypool helped me a lot.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4
Similar Questions
Related Tags

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors