Takeaways from Reviewing Proposals across Disciplines for AERA
Aaron J. Griffen, PhD @DrAaronJGriffen
@DrAaronJGriffen
For the 2020 AERA Annual conference, I decided to expand my range outside of my SIG and areas of focus by delving into areas I normally do not publish or write very much on. I like seeing what the possible new research is (or may not be) in order to gain a 360 view of educational research. By having the opportunity to review research on similar concepts, contents, and contexts but across multiple disciplines and methodologies I have six takeaways for early and emerging scholars, for scholar-practitioners, for practitioner scholars in P-12, and for doctoral students.
Takeaways
1) If you say your proposal is a research study, be sure you have actually conducted a research study with participants, a methodology, a theoretical framework, and findings/results that link back to the research questions, hypothesis, and a literature review. Otherwise, it is an essay about other people's research. There are papers that state, “This is a research study” and yet have no research participants or methods that were studied. What the paper has is a review of other research or concepts the paper is using to make claims. It is either an essay or a review of literature – not a research study.
2) If your proposal is conceptual, such as a concept paper, say “This is a concept paper” or “This paper provides a conceptual framework…” and have a conceptual framework supported by a review of the literature in the area of focus for the paper. Your conceptual framework comes from a literature review on those concepts you are promoting and/or introducing. Recommendations should include a link back to the literature review.
3) In any paper you are proposing, your literature review should have the majority of your citations (as much as possible) from within the last 1 to 3 years, some within the last 5 years, and only a few in the last 7 to 10 years. If you are using older citations, they should be from original studies. This means reviewing your literature’s reference pages and seeking out the seminal studies being cited (See Takeaway #6). I reviewed papers with literature reviews with the majority of citations well over 10 years old with only 1 within the last 3 years. These papers are already outdated.
4) If you are going to argue or state a claim, be sure you have the originator cited in addition to the new research. Do your research to find out who is the originator of a theory, method, framework and/or concept. Just because a new author is “hot” right now does not mean they are the full authority on the topic. They are simply the contemporary choice because the originator may not be in circulation on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Remember there was research before online searches. They are called card catalogues, microfiche, and paper copies. There are several senior scholars such as Donna Y. Ford, Chance W. Lewis, Fred Bonner, Malik Henfield, Lucian Yates, Gwendolyn Webb-Hasan, and Norvella P. Carter, to name a few who have been at this for a minute. This is the problem in hip hop right now. New folks not paying homage to the people who laid the ground work. For example, I have been called out during development sessions for teachers and administrators for using “outdated” references instead of a current author they studied during their preparation program. I typically reply, “The author you are referring to, learned their framework from Bell, Freire, hooks, Ladson-Billings, Gay, and/or Crenshaw”. However, I have since begun to balance the original with the new to be for inclusive of my diverse audiences. I find it important to recognize those who paved the way while recognizing the current approaches to the work in our field.
5) Have recommendations for future research. As a reader and writer, it is nice to know that you know how your research is going to be significant in the future. Build your work on previous studies by mentioning a connection to a previous study either you or a colleague has conducted and to possible future studies (Ford & Tyson, 2018). That way you are building a consistent linkage and base for your work. This also means citing your previous work(s), citing colleagues’ work(s), and using common language (not plagiarism) but common language – like a heading – that connects your work. For example, if you are going to build on the current work, then the next work should have in the title one of your recommendations. Or, the title could be one of the previous study’s subheadings. Simply cite it in the abstract or introduction, “This study builds on a previous study where….” Also, if you are going to build on a colleague’s work, consider having them co-author. Spread the wealth, and reciprocate.
6) Stand up against the "color-blind" research. I read multiple studies where teacher training, classroom management, and policy studies were conducted from a "color-blind" lens. No, there was no mentioning that “This is a color-blind study”, but when there is no consideration for race, class, ethnicity, abilities, and gender considered in the findings, in the limitations, or in the recommendations for future study, this is color blind. For example, for my dissertation on African American educational lobbyists (Griffen, 2015), I found a seminal study on lobbyists from 1963. By reviewing the reference pages of contemporary authors on lobbying, I eventually found The Washington Lobbyists, which was cited across multiple studies. This study on Washington lobbyists indicated that a limitation to the findings/results was that there were no lobbyists of color who participated in the study (Milbrath, 1963). The author recognized this to be a limitation, especially due to the timing of the study. When the papers I reviewed substantiated their findings, I pushed on how the study would pan out once they considered the mitigating factors on WHY students and staff of color responded the way they did or did not.
Conclusions and Recommendations
When writing and/or conducting a study, be sure to not exclude those who have been historically marginalized and oppressed. Too many studies still do this in the name of objective research and science, yet as Toldson (2019) was informed in his latest book No BS, “I bet if you ran the analysis ‘this way’ instead of ‘that’ way, you’d find what you’re looking for” (p. 24). We cannot continue to allow research about marginalized and oppressed groups to perpetuate an already heightened and believed narrative that aims to support the power of the few over the many. There can be no objective research about me when the research only seeks to support my “permanent minority” status. Therefore, be sure to call out careless exclusionary methods that keep groups invisible and then claim that their findings are objective.
Be unapologetic in your “colorful research and work”. Take care when studies about marginalized and oppressed groups, for example about Black and Brown people do not cite Black and Brown scholars – especially the originator (See Take Away #4). We cannot allow this implicit and explicit bias in research go unchecked. It makes us complicit and results in confirmation biases as these studies will continue to perpetuate a narrative the keeps groups “othered”. In every space, argue against this. Review outside of your SIG, outside of SIGs for scholars of color, outside of your discipline, and outside of your areas of focus. Get the 360 view. Since our "colorful research" will not get accepted in some of these SIGs or Divisions, we should not accept "color blind" research either.
References
Ford, D. Y. & Tyson, C. (2018 August 18). Publish not perish [Webinar]. In R.A.C.E
Mentoring Webinar Series.
Griffen, A. J. (2015). Hearing the Voices of African American Educational Lobbyists and Their
Role in Lobbying for Education [Dissertation]. Office of Professional and Graduate
Studies. Texas A&M University.
Milbrath, L. W. (1963). The Washington lobbyist. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Toldson, I. A. (2019). No bs (bad stats): Black people need people who believe in Black people
not to believe everything they hear about Black people. Boston, MA: Brill/Sense
Takeaways
1) If you say your proposal is a research study, be sure you have actually conducted a research study with participants, a methodology, a theoretical framework, and findings/results that link back to the research questions, hypothesis, and a literature review. Otherwise, it is an essay about other people's research. There are papers that state, “This is a research study” and yet have no research participants or methods that were studied. What the paper has is a review of other research or concepts the paper is using to make claims. It is either an essay or a review of literature – not a research study.
2) If your proposal is conceptual, such as a concept paper, say “This is a concept paper” or “This paper provides a conceptual framework…” and have a conceptual framework supported by a review of the literature in the area of focus for the paper. Your conceptual framework comes from a literature review on those concepts you are promoting and/or introducing. Recommendations should include a link back to the literature review.
3) In any paper you are proposing, your literature review should have the majority of your citations (as much as possible) from within the last 1 to 3 years, some within the last 5 years, and only a few in the last 7 to 10 years. If you are using older citations, they should be from original studies. This means reviewing your literature’s reference pages and seeking out the seminal studies being cited (See Takeaway #6). I reviewed papers with literature reviews with the majority of citations well over 10 years old with only 1 within the last 3 years. These papers are already outdated.
4) If you are going to argue or state a claim, be sure you have the originator cited in addition to the new research. Do your research to find out who is the originator of a theory, method, framework and/or concept. Just because a new author is “hot” right now does not mean they are the full authority on the topic. They are simply the contemporary choice because the originator may not be in circulation on Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Remember there was research before online searches. They are called card catalogues, microfiche, and paper copies. There are several senior scholars such as Donna Y. Ford, Chance W. Lewis, Fred Bonner, Malik Henfield, Lucian Yates, Gwendolyn Webb-Hasan, and Norvella P. Carter, to name a few who have been at this for a minute. This is the problem in hip hop right now. New folks not paying homage to the people who laid the ground work. For example, I have been called out during development sessions for teachers and administrators for using “outdated” references instead of a current author they studied during their preparation program. I typically reply, “The author you are referring to, learned their framework from Bell, Freire, hooks, Ladson-Billings, Gay, and/or Crenshaw”. However, I have since begun to balance the original with the new to be for inclusive of my diverse audiences. I find it important to recognize those who paved the way while recognizing the current approaches to the work in our field.
5) Have recommendations for future research. As a reader and writer, it is nice to know that you know how your research is going to be significant in the future. Build your work on previous studies by mentioning a connection to a previous study either you or a colleague has conducted and to possible future studies (Ford & Tyson, 2018). That way you are building a consistent linkage and base for your work. This also means citing your previous work(s), citing colleagues’ work(s), and using common language (not plagiarism) but common language – like a heading – that connects your work. For example, if you are going to build on the current work, then the next work should have in the title one of your recommendations. Or, the title could be one of the previous study’s subheadings. Simply cite it in the abstract or introduction, “This study builds on a previous study where….” Also, if you are going to build on a colleague’s work, consider having them co-author. Spread the wealth, and reciprocate.
6) Stand up against the "color-blind" research. I read multiple studies where teacher training, classroom management, and policy studies were conducted from a "color-blind" lens. No, there was no mentioning that “This is a color-blind study”, but when there is no consideration for race, class, ethnicity, abilities, and gender considered in the findings, in the limitations, or in the recommendations for future study, this is color blind. For example, for my dissertation on African American educational lobbyists (Griffen, 2015), I found a seminal study on lobbyists from 1963. By reviewing the reference pages of contemporary authors on lobbying, I eventually found The Washington Lobbyists, which was cited across multiple studies. This study on Washington lobbyists indicated that a limitation to the findings/results was that there were no lobbyists of color who participated in the study (Milbrath, 1963). The author recognized this to be a limitation, especially due to the timing of the study. When the papers I reviewed substantiated their findings, I pushed on how the study would pan out once they considered the mitigating factors on WHY students and staff of color responded the way they did or did not.
Conclusions and Recommendations
When writing and/or conducting a study, be sure to not exclude those who have been historically marginalized and oppressed. Too many studies still do this in the name of objective research and science, yet as Toldson (2019) was informed in his latest book No BS, “I bet if you ran the analysis ‘this way’ instead of ‘that’ way, you’d find what you’re looking for” (p. 24). We cannot continue to allow research about marginalized and oppressed groups to perpetuate an already heightened and believed narrative that aims to support the power of the few over the many. There can be no objective research about me when the research only seeks to support my “permanent minority” status. Therefore, be sure to call out careless exclusionary methods that keep groups invisible and then claim that their findings are objective.
Be unapologetic in your “colorful research and work”. Take care when studies about marginalized and oppressed groups, for example about Black and Brown people do not cite Black and Brown scholars – especially the originator (See Take Away #4). We cannot allow this implicit and explicit bias in research go unchecked. It makes us complicit and results in confirmation biases as these studies will continue to perpetuate a narrative the keeps groups “othered”. In every space, argue against this. Review outside of your SIG, outside of SIGs for scholars of color, outside of your discipline, and outside of your areas of focus. Get the 360 view. Since our "colorful research" will not get accepted in some of these SIGs or Divisions, we should not accept "color blind" research either.
References
Ford, D. Y. & Tyson, C. (2018 August 18). Publish not perish [Webinar]. In R.A.C.E
Mentoring Webinar Series.
Griffen, A. J. (2015). Hearing the Voices of African American Educational Lobbyists and Their
Role in Lobbying for Education [Dissertation]. Office of Professional and Graduate
Studies. Texas A&M University.
Milbrath, L. W. (1963). The Washington lobbyist. Albany, NY: SUNY Press
Toldson, I. A. (2019). No bs (bad stats): Black people need people who believe in Black people
not to believe everything they hear about Black people. Boston, MA: Brill/Sense