Our disciplinary canon holds the body of core texts, theories, and knowledge considered essential and authoritative in our field. These texts, and our continued citation of them, shape what ideas and authors get recognized in academic spaces. In this session, we will explore how traditional citation practices shape disciplinary knowledge and perpetuate systemic inequities. Drawing on examples from education research (Shim & Perez, 2018; Harackiewicz et al, 2016), Indigenous feminist (Tuck 2009; Tuck and Yang, 2014), and queer feminist theory (Ahmed, 2013), we will examine the impacts of damage-centred research, the politics of citation, and the importance of diversifying intellectual genealogies. Attendees will also be given examples of practical strategies to foster inclusive scholarship and how to reimagine their own teaching practices.

Works cited: 

Ahmed, S. (2013). “Making Feminist Points.” Feministkilljoys. Accessed April 22, 2015. http://feministkilljoys.com/2013/09/11/making-feminist-points/Ahmed 2013

Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class. Journal of personality and social psychology, 111(5), 745.

Shim, W. J., & Perez, R. J. (2018). A multi-level examination of first-year students’ openness to diversity and challenge. The Journal of Higher Education, 89(4), 453-477.

Tuck, E., & Yang, K. W. (2014). R-words: Refusing research. Humanizing research: Decolonizing qualitative inquiry with youth and communities, 223, 248.

Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409-428.