Racism and Denial of Racism: Dealing with the Academy and the Field
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We discuss our experiences of both racism and its denial in the context of our interactions with research participants, research teams, and academic communities. Greenhill questions scholarly traditions that insist upon objectivist methods and, in the process, side with researchers and research participants who refuse to acknowledge and expose White-identified, privileged social actions. Reflecting on decades of responses to her own research on the performance of race and gender in Morris dancing and Brommtopp, she concludes that both the denial and the performance of raced and marginalized others underscore deeply held views about Canadian homogeneity, diversity, and multiculturalism. Marshall focuses on responses to the anti-racist histories she has collected, and, more importantly, to the ethnographic ways that she has collected them. By straddling the boundaries between academic and non-academic life, she has used her work to reveal the histories of people who have often lived in the shadows of dominant cultures. Yet questions about methods, methodology, and theory have sought to erase the results of research on the level of systems of knowledge--to make it impossible not because of its content but because of its sources. We contend that diversity must be about the use of multiple methods, theories, and approaches that guard against the denial of racism. Defending, explaining, and fighting for anti-racist perspectives is eye-opening and sometimes exhausting, even for two White-identified, privileged academics like ourselves.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".