Diane Hirshberg Dissertation

Chapter 1: Statement of the problem

In theory, policymakers make decisions using empirical research and information that is accurate. They use analytic tools that are appropriate to the issue under study; and they apply judgments based on the best interests of the policy target or client. This, however, is an overly rational view of the policy process, and assumes that policy decisions are based purely on an objective analysis of the best data available. In reality, policymakers, like all people, view the world through lenses and frames that reflect their understandings and meanings about the world. These lenses and frames also influence their policy actions and decisions. In the U.S., as in many heterogeneous cultures, these filters include perceptions of race and ethnicity (Carter & Goodwin, 1994).

Race is a phenomenon that mediates every aspect of our lives in the United States. It influences our economic and social class structures, socio-political relationships and our social and legal institutions, including education (Carter & Goodwin, 1994; Lopez, 1994). Race has been intertwined with schooling issues in the United States almost since the advent of public schooling. It has been one of the major focuses of education policymaking since the Brown decision in 1954. Race has also been a focus of much policy research, especially as analysts try to help policymakers remedy racial inequalities in access and achievement.

Despite all the attention to race, ideas about the meaning of race in the U.S., and how those meanings interact with policymaking, have been relatively unexplored in the field of education policy analysis. Sociologists and anthropologists in the past two decades have taken new approaches to the concepts of race and ethnicity, arguing that these are socially constructed phenomena whose meanings are historically and socially mediated (Figueroa, 1991; Lopez, 1994; Omi & Winant, 1994; Winant, 1994). Critical race theorists have also shown how race is an underlying construct in the U.S. legal system (Solarzano, 1998; Solorzano, 1997; Tate IV, 1997; Ladson-Billings & Tate IV, 1995; Taylor, 1998). Yet, policy analysts, rather than addressing race as a construct for debate or study, have instead often used it as a reified, constant, genetic fact, and as a fixed variable in quantitative equations (Ladson-Billings & IV, 1995; Lopez, 1994; Tate IV, 1997). For example, race is used as a categorical variable in many regression analyses of influences on student achievement, without regard to the meanings or limitations of the common racial categories.

I became particularly interested in how race interacts with education policymaking during a three-year study of detracking in racially mixed secondary schools across the United States. [1] While the primary focus of this research project was the process of change within the schools, we also sought to understand the broader social and political context affecting the reforms (see Wells, Hirshberg, Oakes, & Lipton, 1995). Consequently, we interviewed parents, local policymakers, district administrators and community leaders in addition to school staff and students. One of the sites we studied is located in Alaska, in a community where the population is approximately 12% Alaska Native, but the school population is closer to 25% Native. In this city, race seemed to be central to the educational and political context we were looking at, and yet, at the same time, there was only limited acknowledgment of its role as an influence or consideration in education policymaking and schooling.

In Alaska, Native students fail and drop out of school at considerably higher rates than non-Native students. In the 1992-1993 school year, Alaska Natives comprised 21 percent of the school population but 30 percent of the total dropouts (Alaska Department of Education, 1994). In urban areas, the problem is worse; in 1991 approximately 8 percent of the students in Anchorage were Alaska Native, but they represented 22 percent of the school dropouts. They also received close to three times as many failing grades in academic subjects as did white students (Kleinfeld, 1992). [2]

These same problems were evident in the Alaskan community we visited as part of our detracking study. The majority of the students on the “D” and “F” grade list for one middle school were Native, despite their comprising only 32% of the school population. In addition, the Native student dropout rate at the local high school was close to 60%. My colleagues and I asked parents, educators, policymakers, and community leaders, both Native and non-Native, to tell us what they saw as the underlying causes and potential solutions to Native student underachievement. There seemed to be little consensus.

During these interviews I was struck by what seemed to be a huge gulf between Natives’ views and beliefs and those of non-Natives. Natives talked about a legacy of exclusion and racism in the schools that continues today. Many of the non-Natives, in contrast, gave answers that sounded much like what I had heard in other parts of the country when white educators and policymakers discuss the underachievement of Latino and African-American students. Some non-Natives stated that Native parents were not involved or interested in their children’s education, or that they did not provide good learning environments at home. Most of these non-Native policymakers and educators were not originally from Alaska, and they talked about Native students as though these pupils were just like other "minority" students they had dealt with in the "lower 48." These divergent views struck me as problematic. I began to wonder how Natives and non-Natives could see such different causes for the same phenomena.

As I conducted these interviews, I realized that I had begun this research uninformed, not knowing anything about the Native peoples who lived in the community I had entered. Imagining that my experience was not unique, during my final visit to Alaska for the detracking study I began asking how non-Native educators and policymakers from the “lower 48” learned about Alaska’s indigenous peoples. There seemed to be few formal opportunities for acquiring this understanding; teachers took one or two multicultural education courses, but these didn’t provide an in-depth perspective of who the Native students are, nor delve into their history and the cultures and beliefs the students carry with them. I found that some teachers and education policymakers had picked up these understandings through prior experiences as teachers; but others, despite having lived in Alaska for a number of years, didn’t seem to have learned much about their Native neighbors at all.

I heard comments from Native people that confirmed this. One parent noted:

... they focus on a very small part of the Native culture, as if the totemic things, the potlatch things, were all we really did. They have not gone deeper, they haven't explored why it is that our children act differently, and react differently to teachers. They know nothing about the basis in the Native culture for respect, for lineage, for ties to family, or protocol. Those things are...it's like they don't exist, but those were the very best values of the Native community. Those things should be studied; they should be practiced.

It seemed to me that policymakers’ misunderstandings and misperceptions of Alaska Natives might be one factor in the underachievement of Native students. These affect not just classroom instruction but, more fundamentally, how the education system is structured, and whether it meets the needs of Alaska’s Native peoples. I decided to explore this hunch in the hopes that my findings might contribute to a broader understanding of the role that race plays in education policymaking

I started by looking at the literature on race and education, but found it inadequate for guiding my queries. There is a great deal of research on the interplay between race and education (e.g. Carter & Goodwin, 1994; Figueroa, 1991; McCarthy & Crichlow, 1993), but little seems to focus on the influence of racial attitudes and beliefs on education policymaking. I broadened my focus, looking more generally at the literature on the social construction of race (e.g. Lopez, 1994; Omi & Winant, 1994; Winant, 1994), on whiteness (e.g. Frankenberg, 1993; Fine, Powell, Weis, & Wong, 1997a; Kincheloe, Steinberg, Rodriguez, & Chennault, 1998) and on critical race theory (e.g. Tate, 1997, Solarzano, 1997). While useful for understanding how conceptions of race have been shaped over time, through social and legal process, and for uncovering the racist nature of legal institutions, these still do not address specifically how these constructions influence public policymaking.

Conversely, when I turned to research on policymaking in education, I found that there was little which addressed issues around the meanings of race and ethnicity, as opposed to structural aspects of race (e.g. segregation and tracking). I was not able to find works that examined how racial attitudes impacted the decisions made by policymakers, although there were numerous studies demonstrating how certain education policies and practices resulted in racial stratification. The field of education policy analysis has its roots in the positivist, rationalist and quantitative traditions of disciplines like political science, systems science and economics. It has typically not been informed as much by sociological research (Boyd, 1988; Ozga, 1987). Instead, much education policy research, as in other public policy analysis, has utilized race as a fixed variable in analysis, rather than as a mediating influence. Race has been factored into equations without questioning, as though it were a constant variable similar to income or years of education. It has been seen by some researchers as having an independent impact on students and their school success, rather than being looked at as a filter through which policymakers see the world and make choices.

Continuing my search for relevant theories, I looked to political science for research on influences on policymakers’ decisionmaking. I found an especially promising theory on the social construction of target populations (Schneider & Ingram, 1993), which argues that the characterization or image of persons or groups who are affected by public policy shapes both the policy agenda and the actual design of policy. While this theory seemed most likely to guide me in my investigation, I was surprised by its failure to address issues of race or racial attitudes.

It seemed that to really understand the impact of race on education policymaking, I needed to use theories from more than one discipline, and demonstrate how when combined they might guide my inquiry. I decided that extending Schneider and Ingram’s theory by incorporating ideas on the social construction of race would provide the best framework for my research and then set out to see if this theoretical framework could be explored empirically.

Research Questions

I chose my dissertation topic because I wanted to understand how race and ethnicity interact with education policymaking to affect policy decisions. Each theoretical area noted above contributed to my attempt to understand the phenomena in question. However, none alone provided the comprehensive view of race and policymaking in education or social policy in general which I am sought. I decided that to answer my question, these theories need to be combined. By merging sociological theories on the social construction of race with the political science theory arguing that policy targets are socially constructed, I posited that it was possible to uncover how perceptions about race influence educational policymaking in a profound way.

I used Alaskan education policymakers to investigate whether it is possible to uncover policymakers’ perceptions of their target populations as racial groups, and how these constructions are related to the education policy decisions they make. Specifically, using theories from sociology and political science, I asked:

1) How do education policymakers construct their target populations?

- Specifically, what are Alaskan education policymakers’ constructions of Alaska Natives as a target population? How do they define this group and their needs?

2) How do social constructions of race and ethnicity underlie these constructions?

- Specifically, what are Alaskan education policymakers’ constructions of Alaska Natives as racial or ethnic groups? Are these constructions part of how they define Natives as policy targets? Or even indistinguishable?

3) Are these constructions related to decisionmaking? Can this be identified?

- Specifically, do policymakers with different constructions make different decisions?

For this study, I used case study methodology. Case study is a method that is appropriate for building theory (Eisenhardt, 1989). It is also suitable for exploring education policymakers’ constructions of their target populations. In this study, uncovering these constructions required getting at policymakers’ beliefs about who Alaska Natives are, and what they feel are the best or most appropriate education policies for these peoples. Survey research methods or document analysis alone could not provide the rich, complex data necessary to conduct this study. Schneider and Ingram (1993) posit that policymakers' social constructions of target populations can be ascertained from interviews and surveys as well as through the study of texts, statutes, media, speeches and so on. In addition, interview material is a very rich source of information which can reveal complexities and contradictions in the internal structures of educational policy-making that macro-level studies miss or gloss over (Ozga, 1987). Darling-Hammond (1990) adds that case study methodology allows for in-depth study of policy decisions, and close scrutiny of how these decisions play out.

The population I used in this study were the non-Native members of the Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) committees in both houses of the Alaska State Legislature from the 1995-1996 legislative session. The data was gathered primarily through one-on-one interviews, with documents (e.g. written records of policy debates, legislation, newspapers) supplementing and triangulating the interview material. Interviews were conducted with all but one of the members of the HESS committees. In addition, members of the State Board of Education, top administrators in the State Department of Education, and Native leaders in the legislature, on the Board of Education and on the Governor’s staff were interviewed to gain perspective and aid in interpretation.

Importance of the study

There are two major areas in which this study is important; the first is in the realm of extending theory, while the second is in the possibility of influencing and improving the policymaking process. This study extends the theory of the social construction of target populations by incorporating a missing piece: theory on the role of race and social constructions of race and ethnicity. It also represents an early attempt at empirically identifying these constructions and their connections to actual policy decisions. In addition, this work offers a critical link between theories on the social constructions of race and ethnicity and education policy studies, providing one approach to understanding the way race influences education policymaking.

In terms of influencing policymaking, illuminating the important but generally overlooked effect of racial constructions this study may contribute to a better understanding of the education policy process, and, indeed, decision making in any public policy area. It can serve as a critical step in the effort to understand and potentially improve public education and other public policies affecting Alaska Natives, and all minority populations in the United States. Despite the civil rights gains of the last thirty years, the majority of public policy makers in the nation are white, and I believe that many of them fail to take a critical look at their own racial attitudes. Many theorists studying race, like bell hooks (1993), Nitza Hidalgo (1993), Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg (1998), and Ruth Frankenberg (1993), believe that whites need to deconstruct both their own attitudes and the concept of whiteness before they can understanding the diverse communities for whom they create programs and policies. This work may serve to inform this process, and hopefully create a model for further research into policymakers’ social constructions of other racial groups who are policy target populations.

Moreover research on influences on policy decisions can have a broader impact than what one might expect from studying what happened in a specific instance. Rist (1994) argues that policymaking is a multidimensional, multifaceted and iterative process, as opposed to the more traditional conception of decision-making as a discrete event. By acknowledging that policymaking employs an ongoing set of adjustments or changes, research does not have to be seen as influential only at specific times or on particular policy events. Indeed, Rist continues, research best serves an "enlightenment function" rather than an "engineering function." In other words, it is most useful when it helps create contextual understandings about issues, rather than just focusing on the specifics of individual policy initiatives. The study proposed here meets Rist’s criteria -- it sheds light on the social context that impacts policymaking on education and other issues affecting Alaska Natives specifically, and any racially defined target population in general.

This study also has specific relevance for the education of indigenous peoples in Alaska. By illuminating policymakers’ constructions and identifying how these were related to policy decisions, this research may create opportunities for Native peoples to identify policymakers’ ideas and beliefs which conflict with their own beliefs and identities. It could then open up opportunities for educating education policymakers.

This work can also have much broader implications in Alaska. While this dissertation focuses on education policymaking, the state policymakers I am studying also make decisions impacting Natives in numerous other areas. Hopefully, by illuminating these social constructions, I can help policymakers to examine their own attitudes about their policy targets, whether Native or defined in another way. It may also inform these decisionmakers’ understanding of the identities, beliefs, values and attitudes of the Natives on whose behalf they make decisions and create policy.

Chapter 2: the Social Construction of Race and of Target Populations: Reviewing the Literature

"Race will always be at the center of the American experience." So state Michael Omi and Howard Winant (1994, p. 5). Indeed, race has been a major area of concern and contention in education policy for as long as there has been public schooling in the United States. However, research on education policy formation has paid little attention to the influence of social constructions of race on this process. Tate (1997) argues that many education researchers use race only as a categorical variable in analyses, rather than as an analytical tool or theoretical lens. They place race as a category in regression analyses in an attempt to explain why students fail or who elected officials took specific policy positions, without trying to understand how race and racial attitudes have created the situations under study. Indeed, most education policy research that addresses race focuses on issues like desegregation, race relations in schools, or equity issues between racially defined groups. Almost none has questioned policymakers’ conceptions of race and ethnicity, and how these might influence the decisions made. As Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) note, in general, race remains untheorized in education scholarship.

Thus, the existing literature on education policymaking fails to provide sufficient guidance for my attempt to understand the intersection between social constructions of race and education policymaking. In order to conduct my research, a transdisciplinary approach is needed, in which theories from sociology and political science are merged with education research. The broader literature from sociology on the social construction of race offers clues for understanding how race influences decisions, but is highly theoretical, and offers little specific guidance for analyzing policy decisionmaking. One political science theory offers an approach to understanding how decisionmakers define their policy targets, but excludes consideration of what happens when that population is racially defined. By merging these theories across the disciplines, however, I can make the necessary theoretical links to guide my inquiry. While my particular theoretical framework is unique, this transdisciplinary approach is not. Indeed, as I will discuss later, it fits in with an emerging field--education policy sociology.

In this chapter, I review some literature on the social construction of race, research on race and education policymaking, and the theory of the social construction of target populations, in light of my research question. I will discuss how, when combined, these theoretical areas both guide my research and place me within the emerging discipline of education policy sociology.

Social Construction of Race

In American society, conceptions of race, especially those held by Whites, are often essentialist and reductionist. Many people view racial groups as stable, homogeneous, and as having innate and invariant characteristics that distinguish them from one another (McCarthy & Crichlow, 1993). They cling to common racial categories--White, African-American, Asian, Latino and American Indian--which deny the relational, variable character of racial identity and meaning, and exclude many peoples like those from East Asia or the Middle East (Omi & Winant, 1993). The groupings are based on false assumptions including that a) people can be placed into clear-cut categories in a manner such that everyone fits into only one group, and b) each of these categories tells something of meaning about the members which distinguishes them from those in other categories (Ferrante & Prince Brown, 1998b). By defining people according to skin color, Whites, as well as members of other "racial groups," can categorize unfamiliar peoples without acknowledging their diversity or individuality. Moreover, these classifications become tied to assumptions about individuals’ place in society; class and race are often conflated (Carter & Goodwin, 1994).

Recently, sociologists have begun examining and deconstructing ideas about race. These theorists oppose reifying race, and instead argue that race is a socially constructed phenomenon, shaped by history, and closely intertwined with political and economic institutions, events and processes (Ferrante & Prince Brown, 1998a; Lopez, 1994; McCarthy & Crichlow, 1993; Omi & Winant, 1994; Ragin & Hein, 1993). Constructed through human interaction and interpretation, the meaning and salience of race are continually reconstituted in the present (Lopez, 1994; Omi & Winant, 1993). The work of these sociologists is supported by research in genetics, which has found that there is more variation within "races" than between groups of people commonly defined as being different racially (Begley, 1995; Hotz, 1995; Lopez, 1994).

Two of the leading researchers on the social construction of race are Michael Omi and Howard Winant. In Racial Formation in the United States (1994), these sociologists argue that concepts of race shape the structure of the state and society in the United States, and are subject to continual political contestation. They insist "that race be understood as a fundamental dimension of social organization and cultural meaning in the U.S." (p. viii), adding that "From the very inception of the Republic to the present moment, race has been a profound determinant of one's political rights, one's location in the labor market, and indeed one's sense of "identity" (p. 1). [3] This has resulted in each racially defined minority being confronted with some form of degradation and depotism.

Despite this history, Omi and Winant note that most mainstream researchers have seen race as a "problem" of social engineering or policy, and therefore have not looked at issues of changing racial identities and meanings, nor at the effect of race on politics. Indeed, as noted earlier, in my search of the literature on race and education policy I found a similar gap. Omi and Winant argue for recognizing that "the concept of race continues to play a fundamental role in structuring and representing the social world. The task for theory is to explain this situation" (p. 55).

Omi and Winant oppose viewing race as something to go beyond (e.g., the creation of a “color-blind” society). Instead, race should be thought of "as an element of social structure rather than as an irregularity within it; we should see race as a dimension of human representation rather than an illusion" (p. 55). At the micro-social level, race is part of how people define each other. This, however, depends on preconceived notions of race and the racialized social structure; we expect people to act a certain way according to race. This also shapes how people relate within the larger social structure; race is used to explain social differences. Thus, race is too embedded in the social structure to ignore it.

As a result, Omi and Winant maintain, race cannot be represented without being placed it in the social and historical context. Moreover, it is not possible to alter or maintain social structures without either implicitly or explicitly addressing racial issues.

They contend that through the acknowledgement of race as a social construct, racial conflicts or controversies are now framed correctly as political issues. In short, “race is now a preeminently political phenomenon” (p. 65). This in no way resolves problems of injustice and conflict, but instead points to the need for a analysis of racial conflicts as fundamentally political issues that require political solutions.

Understanding the history of racial formation is critical to understanding the present. Omi and Winant argue that essentially, for most of its history, the US has been a "racial dictatorship." This has had three major consequences: the defining of “American” identity as white; the rendering of the color line as the fundamental division in U.S. society; and the consolidation of an oppositional racial consciousness, which Omi and Winant believe created new "native" and "black" identities, as opposed to the identities held by the individual tribes and peoples that existed prior to conquest and enslavement. With this history, discrimination became not just an individual belief or action, but was manifested and systematized in the structure of U.S. society.

Omi and Winant contend that from colonial times, within the United States a racial order has linked power in the political system with racial classifications of groups and individuals. This linkage has impacted all of the major institutions and social relationships with U.S. society, including politics, the economic structure, religion, culture, community housing patterns, and so forth. For example, despite being the indigenous inhabitants of the U.S., American Indians, including Alaska Natives, were not granted citizenship, and all its attendant rights, until 1924 (Morehouse, 1992).

In their work, Omi and Winant analyze political trends and events throughout U.S. history, demonstrating how different racial attitudes influence the political landscape. Unfortunately, this discussion remains primarily at the macro level. There’s not any mention of how individual policymakers’ racial constructions influence the broader political spectrum. Although they do discuss public leaders’ racial attitudes and policies, via public actions and pronouncements, Omi and Winant focus on these mainly as examples of large political movements (e.g., neoconservatism or the “far right”). They don’t offer direction for tying constructions to specific policy decisions. However, I believe that this is part of what needs to be done in order to change policy.

Winant, in a solo piece (1994), disputes William Julius Wilson’s contention that race is declining in significance. Despite the fact that race is not a biological phenomenon, it "remains a fundamental organizing principle, a way of knowing and interpreting the social world...race is a significant dimension of hegemony, that it is deeply fused with the power, order, and indeed the meaning systems of every society in which it operates" (p. 2). In the U.S., racial constructs are deeply imbedded in every institution and social relationship. He argues:

…race is a condition of individual and collective identity, a permanent, though tremendously flexible, element of social structure. Race is a means of knowing and organizing the social world; it is subject to continual contestation and reinterpretation, but it is no more likely to disappear than other forms of human inequality and difference (p. xiii).

Therefore, "...the 'solution' to the race 'problem' is not transcendence but recognition, not denial of difference but respect for it, not coercion but democracy: more of it, better varieties of it, and the further extension of it into every realm of cultural economic and political life" (p. xiii). Race must be accepted as an integral part of American society because identity is color-coded, the social structure is racialized, and race is socialized, despite the fact that "a clear racial identity does not, and cannot, exist" (p. 3).

In his 1994 book, and in a later piece in 1997 on whiteness and racial politics (a fuller discussion of research on whiteness starts on page 13), Winant lays out differences he sees in racial attitudes amongst adherents of different political philosophies. He uses the concept of a “racial project,” which is “simultaneously an interpretation, representation, or explanation of racial dynamics and an effort to organize and distribute resources along particular racial lines” (Winant, 1994, p. 24, italics in original). Racial projects are inherently political. Winant (1994, 1997) describes contemporary U.S. racial projects that span the political continuum from left to right. Those adhering to the far right racial project, he contends, see race as a natural characteristic, view equality as a subversion of the “natural order,” and promote white rights. Members of the New Right racial project see racial mobilizing as threat, but embrace mainstream political activity and some measure of “color-blindness.” The Neoconservative racial project denies the importance of racial differences, and argues for a meritocratic system based on individualism. The Pragmatic Liberal (in his 1994 work) or Neoliberal racial project (1997) discourse attempts to limit white advantages via the denial of racial differences, but also accepts cultural pluralism, and the development of transracial political agenda. Finally, the Radical Democracy (1994) or New Abolitionist (1997) racial project recognizes race and “whiteness” as central to U.S. politics and culture, in addition to accepting and celebrating racial difference and seeking redistribution of control over the state with the goal of social equality and racial justice.

Winant’s arguments point out the importance of bringing issues of race in policy and politics back into a public dialogue. He points out that “making race consciousness explicit and central to class politics means recognizing the irreducibility of race in U.S. political and cultural life and thinking about class, inequality, and redistribution in ways that take racial divisions and conflicts into primary account” (p. 33). Even so, as in his work with Omi, he leaves this analysis at a macro-social level, and doesn’t give guidance for uncovering individual constructions of race or seeing how these affect individual decision making processes.

Ian F. Haney Lopez (1994) extends the work of sociologists by adding a legal perspective on race and the social construction of race. He too argues that race mediates every aspect of life in the U.S., and adds that the law has played a significant role in reifying racial identities. Race is a confounding problem in society, and confounding the problem of race is that most people don't know what it is. Race must be understood as a “social phenomenon in which contested systems of meaning connect physical features, races and personal characteristics” (p. 7). As opposed to being a fixed object, race is an ongoing, contradictory, self-reinforcing process subject to the macro forces of social and political struggle and the micro effects of daily decisions. He uses terms like Black and Asian as social groups, not as genetically distinct branches of humankind.

Lopez points out that the meaning of race for particular groups has changed significantly during the history of the United States. For example, in the 19th century, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans were legally categorized at different times as black or white; at present, they are generally considered part of a distinct group called “Hispanic” or “Latino.” Likewise, Alaska Natives were not considered “Indians” by early political leaders, while now American Indian/Alaska Native is considered a “racial” classification. Thus, race must be viewed as a social construction, in which human interaction rather than natural differentiation is the source and continuing basis for racial categorization. Humans, as opposed to abstract biological forces, produce races; the meaning-systems surrounding race change rapidly; and races are constructed relationally and comparatively, not in isolation. White identity, likewise, is a product of social history. Even as historical forces led to the development of conceptions of race, race is still subject to those dynamics today. Thus, while biological race is an illusion, “social” race is not.

Lopez argues that there are three factors influencing the social construction of race: chance, context and choice. Chance involves the physiological, morphological characteristics a person is born with, e.g. how light or dark a person's skin is, as well as their facial characteristics and hair type. This is only part of the equation, however, in that the context--the social setting within which races are recognized, constructed and contested--also mediates racial constructions. In addition, Lopez argues that choice and agency are crucial ingredients in the construction of racial identities and the fabrication of race. Persons can, in part, depending on chance and context, "choose" their race. The clearest illustration of this is "passing"--the ability of certain individuals, like light-skinned Blacks or blond, blue-eyed Mexican Americans, to change race. Similarly, we had a woman who was part Filipino and part-Tlingit (the Natives of the Juneau area) describe “choosing” to be Filipino rather than Tlingit:

I didn’t grow up as a Tlingit. Because it wasn’t good to be Tlingit. It was better to be a Philipino, and that’s another minority group. But it was a minority group that was well respected in this community because Philipinos are labeled as very hard worker, you know, very dependable, very studious people. So we grew up as Philipinos, we didn’t grow up as Tlingit.

Moreover, while social context constrains the choices people make, choices also can influence the social context. The existence of agency also indicates some complicity in racial oppression, as people in part choose to accept or embody the stereotypes ascribed to their particular group.

Lopez believes that society is unwilling to fully relinquish attachment to notions of biological race. It remains a powerful social phenomenon, constructed along cultural, political and economic lines. Even as people begin to question the common conceptions of it, the centrality of race cannot be denied. Race is a major component of our experiences and identities as Americans. Like Omi and Winant, he contends that instead of dismissing race because it is not a biological reality, we must understand the socially constructed nature of this phenomenon, and how it impacts our legal, social, and cultural institutions.

Critical Race Theorists extend these ideas, arguing that race and racism are deeply engrained in the legal institutions and structure of the United States. As Taylor points out, CRT recognizes that “the assumptions of white superiority are so engrained in the political and legal structures as to be almost unrecognizable.” (p. 122)(Taylor, 1998) Critical Race Theory incorporates five central concepts:

1) Race and racism are central and endemic in U.S. society;

2) An interdisciplinary approach to theory is needed in order to analyze this;

3) A challenge to the dominant ideology, in particular to the ideas of neutrality, objectivity and color-blindness in the legal system;

4) Commitment to social justice; and

5) Recognition of the experiential knowledge of people of color (Solorzano, 1997; Solarzano, 1998; Tate IV, 1997; Taylor, 1998).

Several researchers, including Solarzano (1997, 1998, 2000), Tate (1997), and Ladson Billings & Tate (1995) have looked at how Critical Race Theory (CRT) can be applied to education research. My research fits somewhat within the practices they describe, but yet heads in a different direction. Tate (1997) notes that “Critical race theorists recognize that the way public problems are defined can influence how laws and policies are constructed and interpreted” (p. 218). In a similar light, I’m trying to explicate how public problems related to Alaska Native education are defined by policymakers specifically.

Solarzano (1998) writes “Specifically, a critical race theory in education challenges the dominant discourse on race and racism as they relate to education by examining how educational theory, policy, and practice are used to subordinate certain racial and ethnic groups” (p. 122). While I am indeed looking at how educational policy is related to the subordination of a specific ethnic group in Alaska, Alaska Natives, I am doing this by deconstructing the attitudes of whites, rather than by presenting the stories of people of color.

Solarzano (1997) also notes that in public discourse, racist stereotypes are rarely used or condoned. However, he argues that these manifest themselves in private discourse. He proposes that it may be useful for researchers to examine the private conversations of Whites in situations where People of Color are absent, and Whites feel safe expressing their feelings about People of Color. As a white researcher looking at white legislators, I am engaging in this process, as I had access to legislators in private settings one-on-one.

Tate (1997) argues that there is:

…a need for theoretical perspectives that move beyond the traditional paradigmatic boundaries of educational research to provide a more cogent analysis of ‘raced’ people and move discussions of race and racism from the margins of scholarly activity to the fore of educational discourse (Tate IV, 1997, p. 196).

Tate notes that CRT focuses on stories of the “oppressed”, but I am trying to deconstruct stories of those in power – CRT focuses on the stories of people of color, not whites. CRT theorists posit that stories by people of color can counter those of the oppressor. I am instead deconstructing the stories of the oppressors. Thus, while Critical Race Theory offers insights into the problems I have identified, it does not give direct guidance for the analyses I am conducting.

The emerging area of the study of Whiteness offers more insight into my work. Much of the research on race and multiculturalism has been silent on the issue of whiteness, and its role as a race, privilege and social construction (Fine, Powell, Weis, & Wong, 1997b). Researchers in education have been as complicit in this as those in other fields. Fine et al. (1997) critique the approaches taken to studying race in the fields of psychology and education. They write:

…through these two fields, whiteness has come to be more than itself; it embodies objectivity, normality, truth, knowledge, merit, motivation, achievement, and trustworthiness; it accumulates invisible supports that contribute unacknowledged to the already accumulated and bolstered capital of whiteness. Rarely, however, is it acknowledged that whiteness demands and constitutes hierarchy, exclusion, and deprivation (Fine et al., 1997b, p. viii, italics in original).

One of the early researchers to study whiteness is Ruth Frankenberg (1993). She argues for recognizing a set of linked dimensions to whiteness, “First, whiteness is a location of structural advantage, of race privilege. Second, it is a “standpoint,” a place from which white people look at ourselves, at others, and at society. Third, “whiteness” refers to a set of cultural practices that are usually unmarked and unnamed” (Frankenberg, 1993, p. 1).

Kincheloe and Steinberg (1998) expand on these ideas. They contend that individuals cannot separate what they perceive from where they stand in terms of "reality." This lays the basis for the concept of "positionality," which means that as "our understanding of the world and ourselves is socially constructed, we must devote special attention to the different ways individuals from diverse social backgrounds construct knowledge and make meaning." They add that critical multiculturalists are "fervently concerned with white positionality in their attempt to understand the power relations that give rise to race, class, and gender inequality...[and] are concerned with the ways power has operated historically and contemporaneously to legitimate social/educational categories and hierarchical divisions" (Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1998, p. 1).

Thus it is important that researchers make whiteness visible, and to explicitly link this to race privilege (Rodriguez, 2000). My research is an attempt to make explicit the views and attitudes of white policymakers about race, which is a first stop toward understanding how whiteness contributes to education policymaking. While I did not set out to study whiteness, in order to understand fully how the social construction of race impacts education policymaking, I must understand the role of whiteness in the social construction of race.

Part of understanding how race is socially constructed includes identifying how racial categories are created. Espiritu (1992) describes this process. She calls the lumping of members from different ethnic groups and distinct nationalities into one racial category "panethnicity." For instance, "Asian" is a panethnicity, lumping together culturally distinct groups like Japanese Americans, Korean Americans, and Pilipinos. “Alaska Native” also is a panethnic term--as will be discussed later, there are many diverse peoples lumped into this commonly used category.

Espiritu contends that panethnic boundaries are shaped and reshaped through continuous interactions between external and internal forces. Although they are externally imposed, panethnic labels have been accepted by groups like "Native Americans" and used as a political resource to facilitate organizing for social and economic power, as well as a means for interacting with others in the larger society. However, panethnicity remains a problematic, loaded phenomenon, allowing outsiders to make gross judgments about members of the groups. It can lead to misunderstandings about the variations in cultural norms and values between various peoples comprising panethnic groups, e.g. assumptions that all "Asians" are bookworms or all "Latinos" speak Spanish, despite the very real diversity between and amongst the groups comprising these broad categories.

Espiritu elaborates on categorization of races or racial lumping, noting how excessive categorization is fundamental to racism in that it allows whites to order groups of unfamiliar peoples without acknowledging their diversity or individuality. This "panethnicity," while externally imposed, is also now a political resource for members of these groups, a basis for political mobilization. Panethnic boundaries are shaped and reshaped through continuous interaction between both external and internal forces. Most contemporary ethnic groups are fundamentally new, and culture is less a prerequisite for identity than a socially constructed boundary for defining a group. Ethnic groups are thus formed and altered via interactions among groups. They often accept ascribed panethnic labels in order to allow for meaningful interaction with those in the larger society, accepting identifications intelligible to these outsiders. Panethnic groups, though generally constructed externally, can, through increasing interaction and communication among members, produce and transform panethnic culture and consciousness. This culture building promotes group consciousness and consolidates ethnic boundaries.

The theorists cited above agree that race is central in U.S. society, and that it is a socially constructed phenomenon. However, none elaborate on how these constructions impact policymaking on a micro level. Moreover, they don’t tackle specific policy areas or policymakers in order to make these connections, as I wish to do with education policymaking. Thus, I looked for this approach in education policy research.

Race and Education

Despite the significant amount of research pointing to the importance of social constructions of race in America society, there is little research on how these constructions affect education. I was unable to find any which addressed specifically how to investigate policymakers’ constructions and their possible influence on policy decisions. Still, several pieces on race and education do address racial constructs and a couple mention policy, thus offering some insight into my inquiry.

One of the few theorists explicitly trying to explain social construction of race in education is Figueroa (1991). However, after a highly theoretical discussion on race and its role in society (in particular in Britain), Figueroa turns his focus to school practice, and doesn’t address policymaking processes. Like Lopez (1994), he contends that people perceive not "race" but rather phenotypical differences which they then order into racial classifications; race is a social construction or a category. Race has no scientific validity, and only has social significance in systems of thought and social relations that are racist. Racial boundaries arise through social processes of definition, allocation and interaction, both inter and intra-group.

Figueroa argues that "All action and choice -- instrumental or not, reflective or 'spontaneous', rational or non-rational - take place within the context of values, symbolic systems, beliefs and assumptions, all of which in effect positively define the possibilities and set the limits" (p. 16). Thus, in order to understand all influences on policy, it is important to include examination of policymakers’ beliefs, values and assumptions, what he terms “frames of reference.” Figueroa defines frames of reference as sets of assumptions that inform, orient, and determine the selection of actions. These frames "guide and inform social action, and are themselves socially generated, learned, sustained and modified" (p. 28). Among these are their social constructions of race.

Central to social constructions of race and ethnicity, in Figueroa’s view, are "certain largely taken-for-granted understandings - which are shared by the in-group members, are closely associated with group identity, and provide as it were a basic 'backdrop' to perception, knowledge, judgment and action " (p. 30). He refers to these as the 'racist frame of reference' and the 'ethnicist frame of reference'.

He notes that "Racism is not just a matter of an individual's beliefs or prejudices, but has to do with the way a group (at least implicitly) defines itself in counter-distinction to what it defines as 'out groups', and the way these ‘groups' relate to each other" (p. 31). He points to stereotypes the English typically hold about West Indians, that they are good at music or games “by nature” but poor at scholastic subjects as an example of this. In addition to interpersonal racism, Figueroa identifies institutional racism as the means by which society disadvantages certain groups, and structural racism as how society is articulated or structured according to race.

In defining the concept of social reality, Figueroa contends that people act on the basis of how they see situations, or how they define these situations. What matters is not the objective view of a situation, but instead what people believe is true. Moreover, social reality is constructed by actors through interaction with others, and within the parameters of the given. These frames of reference are maps of knowledge and or experiences that orient actors, and serve as part of the interpretational systems. These frames are inherent to social interaction, through which they are constructed.

Figueroa contends that "the myths and assumptions that serve in the modern world... in defining and structuring particular situations in terms of 'race' are the racist frames of reference” (p. 35). In his view, these help define boundaries along which power is distributed, how social relations are patterned, how social interactions are accomplished, and the way the interpretive process occurs. He adds that these racist frames of reference are:

...a socially constructed and socially reproduced and learned way of orienting with and towards others and the world, involving ultimately tacit assumptions, such as: there do actually exist objectively different 'races'; these share 'by nature' (or genetically or inherently) certain common characteristics, including (or closely linked with) certain social characteristics; the different 'races' are mutually exclusive if not hierarchically ordered; each person belongs to one (and only one) such 'race', thereby possessing certain physical and cultural characteristics and typically occupying a certain social location (p. 35).

Race as a concept is thus generated via racist frames of references as well as through social relations.

Figueroa’s definition of the racist frame of reference above provides specific examples of beliefs that may be pieces of an individual’s social construction of race. However, racist frames of reference are not determined solely at the individual level. In addition, he notes, "...the 'big event', 'public figures of prominence' and 'strong interest groups' play particularly important roles in determining and diffusing the racist frames of reference" (p. 36). In Alaska, one of the “big events” that changed racist frames of reference was the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1991 (ANCSA). ANCSA was an agreement between Natives and the U.S. Government that gave Native tribes in Alaska money and land, but via a system of state-chartered corporations rather than reservations (Morehouse, 1992). Described in more detail in Chapter 4, ANCSA has become a central event in Native – non-Native relations in Alaska, with many non-Natives perceiving Natives as having great wealth and power from the settlement, and resenting Natives for this.

In explaining how a racist frame of reference works, Figueroa states that it:

...permits the categorization, managing and ordering of the experienced world, and provides a simple, stable explanation of various social phenomena. It thus also provides a simple basis for action, incorporating as it does a view of the world that is both a way of accounting and a value position. It contributes significantly to the 'definition' of group identity and self-identity (p. 38).

In this manner, a racist frame of reference helps define boundaries by which people within a society are divided and separated.

These frames of reference affect society’s structure, providing "... a rationale for the existing order of institutionalized racism, and a simple justification for 'racially' exploitative social practices and arrangements” (p. 39). Therefore, he adds, it serves to maintain unequal structures and so “serves the interests of the privileged classes, of those who hold power. It serves to produce and reproduce inequality, thus enhancing the freedom of some and limiting that of others" (ibid.). There is for the most part a circular, mutually reinforcing relationship between the racist power structure and racist frames of reference. The racist frame of reference both emerges from and underpins certain forms of social relations. While Figueroa provides a useful overview of how race impacts social relationships, he doesn’t directly address policymaking issues. He critiques a major educational policy report from Britain, but does not discuss the process by which decisions included in it were made.

Carter and Goodwin (1994) review literature on race and racial identity theory in education. They argue that racial identity attitudes can affect how programs are devised to foster the educational achievement of students. These attitudes are the “thoughts, feelings, and behaviors toward oneself as a member of a racial group and toward members of (another) racial group” (p. 308). They posit that the major social scientific paradigms shaping education for non-White children have, in part, been influenced by the racial identity development of White educators themselves.

Carter and Goodwin define three paradigms regarding race that have shaped social interactions and educational policies for members of racial and ethnic groups: inferiority, cultural deprivation, and cultural difference paradigms. These have changed over time as conceptions of race have evolved.

The inferiority paradigm is based on the assumption that racial and ethnic minorities are genetically inferior as compared to whites. Although such genetic arguments were dismissed by scientists long ago, this paradigm continues to resurface --witness The Bell Curve (Herrnstein & Murray, 1994). The cultural deprivation paradigm adds a sociological meaning to race, again comparing racial and ethnic minorities to Whites in order to demonstrate the ways in which they are deviant or deprived, assumption of superiority of white, middle-class culture. Programs like Head Start, Chapter 1 were designed in this paradigm, to compensate for the "deficiency" of minority cultures.

The cultural difference paradigm is supposed to get away from negative connotations of deprivation or inferiority. It is based on the idea that racial, cultural and language differences have a profound impact on the schooling experiences of minority children and on interracial interactions. This paradigm has served as the basis for the development of multicultural education and culturally responsive pedagogy. However, Carter and Goodwin note, this paradigm still has its roots in the assumption that white is the dominant culture, and the burden of change continues to rest on those who are racial and ethnic minorities. In fact, some educators view racial and cultural difference as a problem to be overcome, and that these differences are based solely within the culture of the minority. Moreover, the cultural difference perspective tends to define the cultures of racial and ethnic groups as monolithic.

Carter and Goodwin argue that humans each understand the world from our own level of racial identification and perspective--human behavior occurs through psychological filter of racial identity. They note that the implications of this are significant for education, both in terms of behavior and the decisions that are made. In their one reference to policy, they posit that the racial identity development of policymakers may influence the decisions they make. Using unequal distribution of funding as an example, Carter and Goodwin suggest that if these policymakers have low levels of development (meaning they haven’t confronted their own racism), then they may perceive non-White children as inferior and educationally deficient, and therefore as undeserving of more resources. However, they fail to propose how this hypothesis might be investigated.

Like Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995), McCarthy and Critchlow (1993) contend that there is a tendency to under-theorize race; many conceptions of racial inequality are essentialist and reductionist, eliminating the complexity of the multidimensionality, historical variability and subjectivity from explanations of racial difference in education. These are essentialist because of the tendency to treat racial groups as stable or homogeneous, and as possessing innate, invariant set of characteristics distinguishing them from each other and whites. They are also reductionist because they often locate the source of racial differences in schooling in a single variable or cause, leading to linear, monocausal models or explanations that omit political, cultural and economic contexts within which racial groups exist in schools and society.

McCarthy and Critchlow contend that examination of the institutional and social context is critical to understanding how racial inequality operates in education. However, they don’t extend their discussion to the policymaking arena. Unless we look beyond the boundaries of schools and address policy formation and analysis, schools will be hampered by policies that turn a blind eye to racial issues.

The Social Construction of Target Populations

I looked to political science literature to try to make this connection. A promising theory is one recently proposed by Schneider and Ingram (1993), the “social construction of target populations.” Schneider and Ingram posit that the characterization or image of policy targets--those persons or groups whose behavior and well-being are affected by public policy--is socially constructed and correlated with the kinds of policies created. Schneider and Ingram argue that the social construction of target populations has a powerful influence on public officials, shaping both the policy agenda and the actual design of policy. These constructions are held both by policy makers and by the general public, and they affect not only policy formulation but also how the public responds to policy decisions--whether they approve or disapprove. Schneider and Ingram divide these constructions into four categories in a matrix, depending on whether the groups are viewed positively or negatively and whether they are powerful--economically, socially or politically--or weak.

Figure 1

Social Constructions and Political Power: Types of Target Populations [4]

CONSTRUCTIONS

	Positive	Negative
	*Advantaged*	*Contenders*
Strong	The elderly Business Veterans Scientists	The rich Big unions Minorities Cultural elites Moral majority
POWER
	*Dependents*	*Deviants*
Weak	Children Mothers Disabled	Criminals Drug addicts Communists Flag burners Gangs

For example, K-12 students are viewed positively, but have little or no political power, while unions may be viewed negatively, but are perceived as having a lot of power. Convicted criminals are viewed negatively and lack political power. Schneider and Ingram posit that some elements of design, in particular the policy tools used and the policy rationales offered, will differ depending on the social construction and the political power of the target population. For positively constructed target groups, then, policymakers face public pressure and are inclined themselves to provide beneficial policies, e.g. financial incentives and rewards, while for groups that are negatively constructed, external pressures and personal inclinations lean toward devising punitive, punishment-oriented policies. Policy tools for dependent groups, like children in poverty, will differ from those for advantaged groups, like businesses. The former may be given subsidies, but suffer from eligibility requirements that result in the labeling and stigmatizing of recipients, as well as paternalistic policies, while the latter is approached with policy tools emphasizing capacity building, inducements and entitlements.

The social constructions held by individuals and the public at large can remain constant, but are also subject to debate and manipulation. For example, they point out that people with HIV were once constructed as socially deviant gay men being punished for choosing a different lifestyle. However, with the identification of many diverse people who are HIV positive, including children and celebrities, general perceptions have changed. At the same time constructions of gay people in general have shifted towards greater acceptance, although much bias and discrimination remains.

Indeed, social constructions often conflict and are subject to contention. For instance, poor persons may be simultaneously viewed sympathetically, and as deserving of assistance, and negatively, and as personally responsible for their economic conditions, depending on the political and social perspective of the "constructor".

Political expediency plays a role in the development of policymakers’ social constructions of target populations. Schneider and Ingram contend that "Officials develop maps of target populations based on both the stereotypes they themselves hold and those they believe to prevail among that segment of the public likely to become important to them" (p. 336). For example, in the current political climate, policymakers changed their constructions of single parents on welfare from positive but weak to negative and weak. This resulted in their no longer supporting policies that enable a single mother to stay at home with a young child , and instead mandating that all parents who were on AFDC (now TANF) work, regardless of the child’s age. This would enable them to retain the support of a public that now perceives public aid recipients negatively.

Schneider and Ingram offer one example of how the social construction of target populations overlaps directly with the social construction of race. They note that there are persons who view minorities as members of oppressed populations who are deserving of policies appropriate to helping them improve their position, whereas others portray minorities as being powerful special interests who are undeserving of government aid. In fact, these distinctions mirror those I found among Alaskans legislators. The authors do not, however, tie their example to policymakers’ social constructions of race; my research represents an effort to do this.

Combining the Theories

Schneider and Ingram argue that social constructions of target populations are measurable, empirical phenomena which can be ascertained from interviews and surveys as well as through the study of texts, statutes, media, speeches and so on. Indeed, they note that “there has been no research on the social constructions of target populations from the perspective of elected officials” (p. 336). This gap needs to be filled.

Often, racially defined groups and policy target populations overlap, especially in education. Many policies are explicitly designed to address racial issues, as in desegregation efforts and multicultural education. However, Schneider and Ingram fail to address how racial constructs interact with policymakers' social constructions of target populations. I propose that when a policy target group is defined in part as a racial group, policymakers' social construction of race is central to their social construction of the target population. Thus, it follows that understanding policymakers’ social constructions of race should be part of any effort to analyze policy decisionmaking.

Schneider and Ingram’s failure to address racial attitudes and constructions explicitly is not surprising, given the current political climate. Like Winant (1994), Prager (1987) argues that the issue of race is not a central or explicit concern in American political discourse. It has been in the past, during times such as the Civil War and abolition movement, and the Civil Rights movement. Each time the "racial' problem" has arisen, it has been the focus for a debate on the meaning of the American community and the community's values. The current silence on race, he argues, is a response both to the achievements of the Civil Rights movement and also to what the public views as its excesses. A result of the Civil Rights movement, public life could no longer be organized around ascriptive categories of race. While it is hard to determine whether personal attitudes have really changed, or just public convention, the result has been that "...race, as a category of public analysis - even as talk among friends - becomes suspect... Efforts to comprehend and to explain the world, where possible, are now done though social categories other than racial ones" (p. 65). He argues that this restraint is not due to a lack of awareness of race and racial division, but rather to the lack of an appropriate public language with which the issue can be openly discussed.

Like the sociologists reviewed earlier, Prager argues that race is a "collective" or "social representation." He notes that "the shifting meaning of race is a function of its negotiated and contingent public character..." and adds "The specific historical meaning of race cannot be understood without referring to the dominant political-cultural tradition though which race is viewed and expressed and through which racial policy is formulated" (p. 77).

This dissertation explicitly discusses the role of race and racial attitudes in policy analysis and decisionmaking on a micro level. It also pays attention to context, examining the social and historical influences on social constructions of racially defined target populations in education policymaking. To inform this work, I have taken a transdisciplinary approach, merging theories across sociology and political science to create a framework for my research.

Education Policy Sociology

By using theories from multiple disciplines and qualitative research, the research presented here falls into the realm of “policy sociology,” which Ozga (1987) argues can bridge the gap between often a-theoretical research on education administration and policy and the more abstract, theoretical nature of educational sociology. The field of education policy research was inhabited mostly by non-sociologists until the 1970s. Prior to this time, it was comprised mostly of specialists in educational administration and social policy (Ozga, 1987). Moreover, education was not a central topic of study among political scientists and policy studies specialists until recently. At the same time, the narrow focus of education research specialists resulted in these scholars missing many of the new theories and methods arising in general policy studies (Raab, 1994).

In the last two decades there has been an attack on technocratic methods of policy analysis, and increased agreement on the need for value-critical methods in the field that carefully scrutinize the value implications of the basic assumptions and concepts held by decisionmakers (Boyd, 1988; Ozga, 1987; Raab, 1994; Marshall, 1997). The emerging field of education policy sociology, as described by Raab (1994) attempts this:

Although methods and subjects vary, policy sociologists examine the relationship between process and product, and between motive and action. In each case, however, knowledge of the former is to be gained empirically and not on the basis of inference from the latter or by deduction from grand theory. Hence the importance of going beyond the public pronouncements of 'policy makers' and actually talking to them, for meanings and 'assumptive worlds' are essential parts of the policy process and require to be understood if action itself is to be understood (p. 24).

Raab argues that social science, ethnography, statistical and historical analysis and macro-political theorizing have complementary values - researchers now are interested "by getting inside institutions, relationships and discourses in order to understand the exercise of power" (p. 21). It is within this micro level that I am working, in an attempt to expand understandings of the influence of social constructions of race and of racially identified target populations on the decisions made by those in power.

Marshall (1997) argues that new approaches to policy analysis are needed, given that positivism has been abandoned, it has been recognized both that policymaking is not rational deliberation and that reality is socially constructed. She argues that “If policymaking is embedded with values conflicts and ethical and philosophical debates, we need policy analysis that identifies interpretations, that clarifies values stances and the modes of access and action in policy communities” (Marshall, 1997, p. 8). She further contends that policy researchers “must identify the value-laden and various interpretations of …insiders, studying politics from the inside, uncovering evaluative presumptions and policymakers’ theoretical premises and actions” (p. 10). My research represents an effort to undertake these new approaches.

Conclusion

In this chapter, I laid out the theories that inform my dissertation, as well as where these works fail to guide me. In the next chapter, I describe my research methodology. My research is centered on talking with policymakers to uncover their meanings and assumptions--their social constructions of racially defined target populations.

Chapter 3: Methods and Setting

This study investigates the role of race in policymakers’ social constructions of target populations, and the impact of these constructions on the policy decisions. It extends the theory of the social construction of target populations by arguing that social constructions of race or ethnicity are central to these constructions. Specifically, I examined whether it is possible to a) uncover non-Native education policymakers’ social constructions of Alaska Natives, including their attitudes and beliefs about race and ethnicity; and b) identify connections between these constructions and policy decisions. In this chapter, I discuss methodological issues, first describing the case I chose, and then the population I studied. I also include a discussion of difficulties in the data collection process.

The Case is the Constructions

The case in my study is the social constructions of Alaska Natives as target populations held by non-Native education policymakers in the Alaska State Legislature. The boundaries of the case are the boundaries of the constructions, as are defined further in later chapters. The population of policymakers I am using in my study includes the members of the Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) committees of the Alaska State House of Representatives and the State Senate. As I will describe later, this population is not meant to be representative of all persons who fall under the moniker of state education policymakers. However, this group fits the requirements of this particular study.

Why Case Study

Case study is appropriate here, since it is a method for building theory as well as for looking at the particular phenomenon in which I am interested (Eisenhardt, 1989). Uncovering social constructions requires getting at policymakers’ beliefs about who Alaska Natives are, and what they feel are the best or most appropriate education policies for these peoples. However, while this seems like a task that might be accomplished via some sort of survey instrument, it is far more complex and tricky. Attitudes can’t be understood without being placed in a socio-historical context; as several of the theorists cited previously noted, social constructions of race are highly contextual and evolve over time. Accessing this context requires investigation into the social and political history of Alaska, as well as use of multiple resources from different academic disciplines, including anthropology, history, political science and sociology.

Yin (1989) defines the case study as an empirical inquiry investigating a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; having boundaries between phenomenon and context that are not clear; and using multiple sources of evidence. Certainly, this is a study of a contemporary issue, with the phenomenon being influenced by context, and with multiple sources of evidence--interviews, document and policy analysis, and historical works--being utilized. Survey research methods or document analysis alone would not provide the rich, complex data necessary to conduct this study. Darling-Hammond (1990) adds that case study methodology allows for in-depth study of policy decisions, and close scrutiny of how these decisions play out at the local level. While I did not conduct a detailed study of specific policy decisions, I did look for relationships between policymakers’ positions on educational policies and their constructions of Native peoples as target populations.

Ragin (1992) argues that “a case may be theoretical or empirical or both; it may be a relatively bounded object or a process; and it may be generic or universal or specific in some way” (p. 3). Using his conceptual map for defining a case, I contend that this study is both empirical and theoretical; it is an attempt to identify empirically what has to this point only been a theoretical construct. In other words, Schneider and Ingram (Schneider & Ingram, 1993) have proposed the existence of policymakers’ social constructions of target populations, but note that these constructions have not been empirically documented or analyzed. This is what I have done. Thus, I fit into Ragin’s “Cases are Made” category, which he describes as follows:

...researchers in this [category] see cases as specific theoretical constructs which coalesce in the course of the research. Neither empirical nor given, they are gradually imposed on empirical evidence as they take shape in the course of the research... Interaction between ideas and evidence results in a progressive refinement of the case conceived as a theoretical construct... Constructing cases does not entail determining their empirical limits...but rather pinpointing and then demonstrating their theoretical significance (p. 10).

The research was conducted primarily through one-on-one interviews, enhanced by document analysis (e.g. written records of policy debates, legislation, newspapers). It is important to use interviews and discussions because, as Desimone (1993) points out, language is an important factor in the development of racial constructs. How people talk about race can indicate their attitudes, prejudices and socialization toward racial issues. Schneider and Ingram (1993), in fact, posit that policymakers' social constructions of target populations can be ascertained from interviews and surveys as well as through the study of texts, statutes, media, speeches and so on. Moreover, interview material is very rich source of information which can reveal complexities and contradictions in the internal structures of educational policy-making that macro-level studies miss or gloss over (Ozga, 1987). Finally, as Wolcott (1992) notes, "Through informant interviewing, we learn about institutionalized norms and statuses" (p. 21). These norms certainly influence policymakers’ constructions.

Ball (1994), reflecting on interviews with policymakers, argues that data collected this way is polyvocal. First, it presents the stories or accounts of what happened, or the ‘how’ of policymaking. Second, the data is discourse: “...as ways of talking about and conceptualizing policy, the discourses which speak policy and speak the actors...the assertions, judgments, axioms and interpretations of actors are central here...” (p. 109). He calls this the ‘why’ of policy, which illuminates the knowledge that provides justification or explanation for the choice of certain policy solutions over others. In this “why” I am hoping to find the influence of social constructions. Ball also offers a third voice of the data, the interest representation. It illuminates the structural and relational constraints and influences within and on the policymaking process, the 'because' of policymaking. This is another way of describing the contemporary context within which policymakers make decisions. These circumstances influence social constructions, including public perceptions.

Ball thus argues for using interviews with policymakers, as these "can clearly illuminate the ways in which 'possibilities' are framed and articulated in relation to specific areas of policy" (p. 118). He also cautions against ignoring the context framing these decisions, e.g., economic forces and dominant modes of political rationality. Thus such research needs to be contextualized... "It is the interplay between figure and landscape that is important theoretically and empirically" (p. 118). I have situated my research in the historical and political context, incorporating references to key political events and prior examples of policymaker constructions.

Wieviorka (1992) argues that historical and sociological approaches can be combined in one case, and can complement each other. However, he cautions that the two approaches should be combined without being confused. In my case study, the sociological analysis has no meaning if it is not placed in a historical context. The social constructions held by policymakers, as noted before, are mediated and influenced by changing conceptions in the broader population, which are in part affected by political events (Schneider & Ingram, 1993). Moreover, constructions change over time, in response to many factors, as do racial constructions (Lopez, 1994; Omi & Winant, 1994).

The Sample and the Setting

As noted previously, I selected state legislators on the Health, Education and Social Services (HESS) committees of the Alaska State House and Senate as the population whose constructions I wished to study. State education policymakers can include a broad range of people, including state board of education members, state department of education staff, and the governor. However, in focusing on legislators, I looked at people whose primary focus is not program implementation, but rather the framing and adoption of policies. Moreover, in Alaska, the State Board of Education and Commissioner of Education are appointed by the Governor, and are thus directly accountable to the Governor as opposed to the public. Legislators, in contrast, are elected representatives. Thus, if I wanted to explore Schneider and Ingram’s contention that policymakers’ constructions are influenced in part by the public at large, it was more appropriate to look at people who are allegedly accountable to and representative of the public.

My selection of t

List of Figures

VITA

PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION