Dr. Donna Y. FordNow more than ever, race has become salient in politics, higher education, P-12, and the workforce, especially in this anti-DEI era. It is not uncommon for Black and other minoritized individuals to have feelings of anxiety about discussions around race, particularly for families (e.g., parents, caregivers, guardians, etc.). Having “the talk” about racism and bias has been a rite of passage for many Black children and youth in which their parents/caregivers have to discuss the intersection of race and U.S. societal issues such as how to interact with law enforcement because navigating these circumstances can easily lead to imprisonment or a life-or-death situation. Trauma is undeniable.
Keeping “the talk” at the forefront of this op-ed, it is imperative that families have the resources to properly discuss, show, and engage their children in active conversation about race relations so Black and other minoritized youth and families can respond appropriately, particularly in proactive ways. Moreover, families must continue to instill confidence and pride in racial identity. To set the tone, we are eager to share this Sesame Street video “Elijah Explains Race to His Son, Wes, and Elmo.”
Children are Ready, Caregivers (and Educators) Must Be Too
Here is an overview from Traci Baxley. Research shows that children form race-related ideas long before they can verbalize about race and racism. It may surprise readers to know that racial awareness begins in infancy. Regardless of their age, all children get clues from their experiences (inside and outside of home) to make sense of the world. Therefore, early, intentional/proactive, honest, and age-appropriate conversations are important for promoting racial identity and pride. Here is a developmental look at children’s understanding.
•Infants show a preference for the faces of people from their own racial group as early as six months. Babies gaze longer and show happy expressions more frequently with people who look like them. Start early by introducing children to people who don’t look like them, and let children see pictures of people with a variety of skin tones and facial features.
•Toddlers use social cues such as body language and facial expressions to make sense of their world. They watch the way adults respond to differences in people and mimic our attitudes and racial biases without us even realizing it. As young as three, toddlers associate some racial groups with negative traits and use these associations to develop their own understanding about the world/environment around them. As caregivers, we need to be aware of our own biases and reactions to people whose skin color is different. Using books, videos, and music that highlight and celebrate differences.
•Preschoolers become even more aware of differences such as skin color and hair texture. They are increasingly observant of how others are similar and different from them. Toddlers compare and group/categorize people by race. Note that some children also begin to show a “pro-white” bias. Thus, they may begin to include or exclude playmates on the basis of race. Furthermore, minoritized children may associate White with wealth, power, and/or beauty.
Dr. Erik M. Hines•Kindergartners and first graders are beginning to notice that race is often a taboo topic – the proverbial elephant in the room. They may continue to include and exclude peers based on race. They are more aware of disturbing news, and they often ask questions about it. This is a timely opportunity to have meaningful conversations about race and racism.
In summary, as soon as children can ask race-based questions and make comments, support their natural curiosity by answering them, even the most difficult ones. Let them know that it’s fine/not wrong to notice skin color and to talk about race. We concur with Baxley that “the idea is to make differences normal and good!” We are uncomfortable and not prepared, our children will notice, and experience discomfort. It will be difficult to promote racial understanding and pride, which is so needed for minoritized children in these turbulent times.
A Final Word
We are staunch advocates of appreciating Black culture and its legacy of innovation, education, and significant contributions to the history of the United States. Broaching race with children is imperative to ensure that they have the confidence and belief in themselves with no limitations to their talents, creativity, brilliance and genius. These conversations around race not only prepares our youth to thrive but it also normalizes how conversations on race can be proactive as opposed to reactive.
Dr. Donna Y. Ford is Distinguished Professor of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University.
Dr. Erik M. Hines is Professor of Counseling in the College of Education and Human Development at George Mason University.
Dr. Tanya J. Middleton is a Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Educational Studies at The Ohio State University.
There has been growing interest in the potential of arts-based research (ABR) methods to enrich educational inquiry (Everley, 2021). However, minimal attention has been given to how accessible or relevant ABR is for practice-based researchers (including lecturers and teachers), who undertake the professional doctorate in education (EdD) pathway. We believe that this lack of attention is significant, partly because institutional frameworks for doctoral programmes are often informed by traditional models of PhD research, which may constrain the creative possibilities of practice-based study (Vaughan, 2021), and partly due to the nature and ‘uniqueness’ of the EdD as a research degree (Dennis, Chandler & Punthil, 2023).
We have previously argued that ABR potentially holds particular promise for EdD research due to its alignment with the programme’s highly relational and contextual nature and its engagement with diverse audiences. In our 2024 paper, which was part of a special issue of Teaching in Higher Education, we mapped the theoretical similarities in understandings of ABR and the EdD, exploring this alignment across aspects including practice, audience and reflexivity (Dobson & Clark, 2024). Our paper called for colleagues to ‘embrace hybridity’ and provide permission for creativity in EdD research and we attempted to illustrate this within the paper itself, entangling examples of creative nonfiction writing with a traditional scoping review to embody our theorisation. However, we also concluded with a realisation that maximising the potential of ABR requires careful attention to how design, practice and regulations support students’ identity development and agency (Savva & Nygaard, 2021).
To build on this, throughout 2024 we have been working with a group of nine EdD students studying at our respective institutions, who are all exploring the potential of ABR for their work. These students span professional roles from early childhood through to higher education, and disciplines including the arts, business and science. Following initial narrative interviews with each student, we developed an online cross-institution action learning set (Revans, 1982) to facilitate dialogue and learning relating to some of the key problems and opportunities students were experiencing in relation to their engagement with ABR. As a group we met 6 times, each time agreeing an area of focus, and providing opportunities for individuals to present and group members to ask clarifying and open-ended coaching style questions. This process culminated in creative analysis, where we collaboratively analysed and reflected on the learning that had taken place, and each student presented a creative interpretation of their learning to the group. We are currently working with a group of these EdD students to co-author a paper which captures and illustrates this learning and shares these creative outputs.
Alongside this, the second paper from our project (Clark & Dobson, forthcoming) explores some of the key learning arising from the initial interview phase – in particular the idea of ABR as a form of ‘resistance’ involving potentially either a deliberate, or more hesitant, decision to ‘go against the grain’. Using Glăveanu’s 5A’s theory (actors, actions, artifacts, audiences and affordances) to understand creativity as embedded in social relations, we developed the interview transcripts into vignettes for each student and identified three key strands of the students’ perceptions of their experiences – many of which continued to be key areas of focus as we worked through the action learning set process. The process highlighted the students’ understanding of how methodological expectations were reflected through key audiences and structures, how methodological choices aligned with their sense of self and identity and the role of ABR in promoting action and agency. The vignettes offered a nuanced illustration of the tensions in these areas, which we feel offers wider value due to the fact that, unlike any previous work we had identified in this area, the understandings related to students both with and without previous artist identities, backgrounds or experiences.
The focus on audience and structures highlighted the numerous audiences which exist for students’ EdD research, often spanning academic, professional and community spaces and how these can create tensions in terms of expectations of what research ‘should’ look like. Some students talked of an ongoing battle to justify and ensure their ABR projects were taken seriously, whilst others positioned their decision to use ABR as an active decision to resist academic or managerial structures they perceived had been unhelpfully imposed on them. This also highlighted that whilst valuing creativity in research within the micro context of an EdD programme itself (through teaching and supervision) was significant and built confidence, students also needed support to consider how to frame their work in wider contexts, including through institutional processes (such as those for ethics approval) and professional and academic communities. One student, for example, highlighted feeling ‘junior’ and ‘a bit insecure’ about engaging in wider university processes designed for what they felt was understood as more ‘serious research’.
In relation to identities and self, we explored a complex and nuanced understanding of students’ perceptions of the need for ongoing negotiation of the entanglement between professional, researcher, and in some cases, artist identities. Where students identified pre-existing artist identities, for some this created an obvious alignment with their research, but for others they identified tensions, including feeling ‘nervous’ about bringing this identity into their research and apprehensive of their relevance to an academic audience. Where students had no prior expertise or experience in the arts, they often expressed hesitance regarding using ABR, but strong feelings about its potential to align with aspects of their professional identity and values. For example, they appreciated ABR’s affordances in ensuring research was accessible to wider communities and supporting children’s voices to be heard.
This also connected with the final strand, action and agency, where ABR was positioned by the students as having the potential to facilitate an emancipatory process in education, promote agency and in some cases play a role in research as a form of activism. This was often associated with ideas of social justice, with one student, for example, talking of ABR as providing agency for him to ‘push back against’ an education system that marginalises certain groups. Alongside this, another highlighted ABR as having stronger potential to be participatory and action based, maximising the benefits of the research process itself on her participants who were also her students.
As we continue our work on this project, the learning it has generated allows us to begin to reflect on its implications: implications that are both within individual EdD programs, where teaching and supervision have strong potential to offer spaces to explore, and reflect on, the potential value of ABR within EdD research, and at an institutional level, where regulations need to continue to respond to growing focus on the social and professional relevance of doctoral research and the range of models, and methodologies, they encompass. A key part of the action learning sets has also been their role in highlighting the value of facilitating methodological dialogue and creating a community of doctoral researchers exploring ABR. As one of the students reflected, this has helped with their sense of ‘validation’ for their work and provided a space to navigate some of the key tensions.
Dr Timothy Clark is Director of Research and Enterprise for the School of Education at the University of the West of England, Bristol. His research focuses on aspects of doctoral pedagogy and researcher development, particularly in relation to academic writing and methodological decision making on the professional Doctorate in Education (EdD).https://www.linkedin.com/in/drtimothyclark/
Dr. Erik M. Hines
