CRT-informed critical approach

In this section, I explain how and why critical approach has shaped this

research project. Critical research goes beyond the constructivist interpretivist approaches as it is linked to power relations and aims to “critique and

challenge, to transform and empower” (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015 p. 10). Engaging in critical research means more than just explaining the world but instead it involves challenging its assumptions, questioning how power is negotiated and what societal structures reinforce power relations (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015). In particular the critical approach adopted in this project draws on critical ‘race’ methodology, which has been argued to disrupt racist power

structures in order to promote social change within higher education (Solórzano and Yosso, 2015).

Critical ‘race’ methodology has been defined as an approach to research that (1) stresses the need for intercentricity of ‘race’ throughout the research process (2) challenges traditional research approaches by focusing on

experiential knowledge such as counter-narratives of people of colour and reflexivity, which draws attention to the role of the researcher in the investigative process, and (3) is dedicated to social justice by improving the understanding of lived experiences of people of colour and the oppressive structures of racism, sexism and classism impacting their lives (McCoy and Rodricks, 2015;

Solórzano and Yosso, 2015).

As I argued in the literature review chapter, research concentrating on BME students in PG education in the UK has been very limited. Apart from research on BME students in initial teaching training courses (Bhopal and Rhamie, 2014; Butt et al., 2010; Hoodless, 2004) the majority of these existing investigations took a quantitative approach, examining the numerical make-up of the student population or gathering information for recruitment purposes, like the likelihood of their return to study (d’Aguiar and Harrison, 2015; ECU, 2015; Wakeling, 2009). However, statistics cannot give full insight into the lived experiences of students. Moreover, the use of quantitative data has been argued to often replicate mainstream assumptions about the nature of social processes, which are categorised by a shallow understanding of racism (Gillborn, 2010). That is to say, quantitative data is just as socially constructed as qualitative data, through the assumptions made, for example, on the categorisations of groups and which groups to include in data sets, which variables to include for analysis and how to manipulate the data (Gillborn et al., 2018). Therefore, following critical research approach and critical ‘race’ methodology, both of which rely heavily on qualitative data (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015; Solórzano and Yosso, 2015), I felt that an approach, which foregrounds qualitative data was needed in the project, in order to provide an in-depth analysis of how intersecting

structures of racism, sexism and classism impact educational experience of students of colour in PG education.

Indeed, as long as 20 years ago there were voices in higher education which claimed that the lack of rich qualitative data on BME experiences could be symptomatic of racism within the industry (Wallace, 1999) and yet not much progress has been made in terms of providing more qualitative data which could help tackle racism in the HE field. This starts to paint the picture of the

Therefore, in this project the qualitative data from interviews and document analysis were used to respond to all four research questions:

1. What is the role of WP policy in improving BME access to and success in PG education?

2. What is the role of institutions in shaping the experiences of ‘home’ BME students in PG education, with a particular attention to STEM fields? 3. What are the experiences of ‘home’ BME students in PG education, with a

particular attention to STEM fields?

4. How do BME students negotiate their presence and success in the PG field?

However, quantitative data can also by useful. Solórzano and Yosso (2015) assert that while critical ‘race’ methodology has traditionally been qualitative- focused, “incorporating quantitative methodologies presents an additional method for scholars to extend their critical race praxis and their efforts for transformative scholarship, and to create socially just educational environment” (p.52). Moreover, as Gillborn and his colleagues (2018) assert, quantitative data with a caveat of being critically scrutinised, can indeed be helpful to support experiential knowledge (qualitative data). To this end, the quantitative data (survey responses), helped address mainly research questions 3 and 4.

However, the aim of the survey was not to achieve statistically significant results that can be generalisable for the entire country. Not only would this require a much more statistically rigorous sampling, but to do that would be to disregard the widely acknowledged drawbacks of this method, namely, that the relatively short time and small effort put by participants into surveys can hardly fully represent their lived experiences and perceptions (Robson and McCartan, 2015). Therefore, the survey data has been used as a triangulation tool (Robson and McCartan, 2015; Solórzano and Yosso, 2015) to test whether themes observed among BME students in STEM are also observable (or not) among non-STEM and/or non-BME students.

The research questions, therefore, were on the one hand driven by the paucity of data in literature on experiences of BME students in postgraduate education

and how these can be improved, while on the other hand, along with the critical ‘race’ methodology they drove the methods to be used in the study.

In accordance with the critical ‘race’ methodology the research also sought to amplify the voices of people of colour and centre them as the “legitimate,

appropriate and critical to understanding… racial subordination” (Solórzano and Yosso, 2015, p. 133). And although the data also includes voices of White university staff – these are interpreted having in mind that most White people are not aware of the CRT debates and are socialised to view the world through the majority lenses, informed by discourses of whiteness. While BME students are more likely to provide a non-majoritarian perspective on the majority-

constructed world of education, and therefore more likely to expose the deeply ingrained racism within, they cannot be assumed to be fully immune to the dangers of speaking the “master’s voice” (Delgado, 2011) and therefore none of the interview data is or can be taken at face value (Gunaratnam, 2003) and the analysis of all the interviews is an interpretation informed by the theoretical lens, rather than a statement of reality/truth. This raises questions of the ethics of a White researcher exercising power over interviewees of colour. Following

critical ‘race’ methodology, while recognising that it may be impossible to disrupt all racial power relations, these are dealt with by engaging in reflexivity, which is discussed towards the end of this chapter. The data generated by this research project (from multiple sources, details below) is used not only to describe the current situation but also to try to challenge and improve it by offering

recommendations for universities to change their institutional cultures and processes, particularly by answering research questions about the utility of widening participation work in that process. Through the analysis of the use of capitals to navigate the PG field this project also seeks to empower students of colour to exercise their agency. Such stance situates this methodology in the critical research realm.