Race, Representation, and Diversity in the American Association for Applied Linguistics

Abstract

Since its inception, the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) has advocated for diversity within the organization and in the discipline. This culminated in the passing of the resolution, ‘Affirming Commitment to Promoting Diversity’ (2013), hailing racial and other kinds of diversity as ‘an asset within our community and a source of learning and opportunity’. Despite this resolution, AAAL faces continuing challenges in realizing diversity in practice. This study turns the spotlight on the uneven professional mobility and visibility of scholars of color (SOCs) within AAAL, examining historical trends in the representation of SOCs in structures of power within AAAL as well as in recognition of meritorious scholarship. The data were mined from annual conference programs and official websites, and analyzed using computer software. Our analysis reveals stark disparity in the representation of SOCs across both metrics. We finally argue that cultivating greater racial diversity within AAAL is imperative for highlighting issues of race and inequality in applied linguistics; in expanding our epistemological field; and, ultimately, sustaining our vibrancy and strength as a discipline.

Introduction

Upon returning from the 2017 American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL) annual conference, an African-American graduate student noted to the first author, with deep disappointment: ‘I met the only other black guy there. And I went up to him because he was black. I thought “Oh my God there’s someone else here!”’ In addition to highlighting the work that remains to be done to recruit and retain racial minorities within AAAL, the phrasing ‘someone else’ in particular reveals just how acute the isolation can feel for minority scholars. That conversation, as well as others with various scholars of color (SOCs), spurred this inquiry on race, representation, and diversity within AAAL.

Our starting point was examining AAAL’s position on diversity, specifically the 2013 resolution ‘Affirming Commitment to Promoting Diversity in AAAL’. In addition to acknowledging AAAL’s racial diversity, the resolution averred that it was ‘committed to creating and maintaining an inclusive, respectful, equitable, and productive professional community for all its members’. Moreover, it framed diversity as an ‘asset…and a source of learning and opportunity’. Additionally, it acknowledged the need for ‘explicitly confirming its commitment to diversity’, suggesting that various wings of AAAL ‘make concerted efforts to promote diversity at all levels of the conference, the organization and in the field of applied linguistics’. Framing our project within these larger goals, we use Critical Race Theory to investigate the question: What are the historical trends in the representation of SOCs in the structures of power within the association as well as in recognition of meritorious scholarship? As a Forum piece, this research in progress raises certain themes that merit urgent consideration by the profession and will be expanded fully in future analysis.

Theoretical framework

While we employ a multidisciplinary theoretical approach, we focus primarily on certain central tenets of critical race theory (CRT), which entails ‘studying and transforming the relationship among race, racism, and power’ (Delgado and Stefancic 2017: 3). Specifically, we use CRT principles outlined by Solorzano (1998) by examining the predominant, interconnected nature of the relationship between race and racism, and the resistance to hegemonic discourses, and by adopting a social justice orientation. We consider how research and knowledge in applied linguistics may be shaped by social and contextual factors such as race, given that scientific enterprise has historically been shaped by dominant communities, especially white males (Nkomo 1992; Vaid and Geraci 2016). As Bernal and Villalpando (2002) have noted, the dominance of Eurocentric epistemological perspectives across disciplines can marginalize ‘the ways of knowing and understanding the world that faculty of color often bring to academia’ (171). How might these, we ask, impact AAAL and our field, when SOCs are marginalized? Further, we use Canagarajah’s (2014) work, who showed how in academic publishing, power inequalities in society are sustained by dominant ideologies activated through social institutions. Finally, we align ourselves to Kobayashi’s (2014) call, asserting that ‘we [should] not only engage in greater race scholarship but also examine the ways in which…[a] discipline itself reflects the human relations of which it is forged’ (1113). Taken together, these stances offer a critical lens to inquire about race, representation, and diversity within AAAL.

Method

For the purpose of this investigation, we had two major categories (with subcategories under each): first, leadership, which includes AAAL leadership members, presidents, Distinguished Scholarship and Service Award (DSSA) committees, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics (ARAL, the official journal of AAAL) editor-in-chiefs, ARAL editorial boards, and strand coordinators; and secondly, recognition of meritorious scholarship, which consists of plenary speakers, invited colloquia chairs, and recipients of the Book, First Book, Graduate Student, Dissertation, and DSS Awards. There are various reasons as to why we have different years of data for different categories, as Table 1 reveals. First, because of the time period in which data were collected, 2017 is not fully represented. Secondly, some categories were incredibly complex, containing different levels of hierarchies; we thus narrowed our scope in terms of time span and level to make data collection and analysis more manageable. Thirdly, there was little or no available data on some of the categories beyond a certain time frame (e.g. ARAL), so we were restricted to what data we could locate.

We explored the official webpages of AAAL and ARAL, which served as our primary data sources, in order to categorize the race and ethnicity of the scholars. Through online searches, we examined the official profiles, photos, biographies, and curriculum vitae of scholars within the categories under consideration. We next organized the data systematically, with our subjectively defined racial categories. Our conception of SOC drew on Bernal and Villalpando’s work; we focused on scholars who we perceived to belong to ‘non-Caucasian categories’. We acknowledge and understand the problematic nature of such accounting. We are cognizant, as Delgado and Stefancic (2017) noted, ‘race and races are products of social thought and relations. Not objective, inherent, or fixed, they correspond to no biological or genetic reality; rather, races are categories that society invents, manipulates, or retires when convenient’ (9). In fact, as Nobles (2000) noted, ‘counting by race is as much a political act as it is an enumerative one’ (1). However, we argue, as Krieger (2000) did elsewhere, that without this kind of crude, if systematic, counting, ‘we cannot monitor progress or setbacks in addressing racial/ethnic inequalities’ (1687–8). Therefore, in order to excavate these inequalities, we resort to important—if imprecise—reckoning.

After categorizing the racial/ethnic identities of the scholars, we used Microsoft Excel for data analysis. We counted the number of scholars based on race/ethnicity within each group, and then used tables and charts to present the numbers and proportions of each race/ethnicity in each category. Importantly, AAAL does not currently collect racial/ethnic data on members; therefore, it is impossible to assess how these numbers compare to the broader membership.

Data overview

Leadership

In examining the data, we found that from 2007 to 2017, 19.58 per cent of AAAL leadership members were SOCs. In fact, from 1978 to 2017, 7.5 per cent of presidents had been SOCs. In addition, from 2005 to 2017, some 8.33 per cent of DSSA committee members were SOCs. Additionally, from 2008 to 2017, none of the ARAL editors-in-chief were SOCs, and none of the 2017 ARAL editorial board members were SOCs. Moreover, from 1998 to 2017, 10.57 per cent of the total strand coordinators were SOCs.

Recognition of meritorious scholarship

We found that from 1998 to 2017, 15.52 per cent of the AAAL plenary speakers were SOCs. Relatedly, we found that between 1998 and 2017, 7.53 per cent of the invited colloquia chairs were SOCs. Notably, between 1996 and 2017, none of the DSSA recipients were SOCs (it was awarded to an SOC, the third author, in 2018, at the nomination of the first author as a result of this study). From 1996 to 2017, 36.54 per cent of the Graduate Student Award recipients were SOCs, and since 2016, 50 per cent of the Dissertation Award recipients have been SOCs. In terms of the book awards, in 2016, the inaugural Book Award recipient was an SOC and in 2017, the inaugural First Book Award recipient was not awarded to a SOC.

We also found that 38 per cent of the positions held by SOCs were taken up by 6 SOCs, and 62 per cent were shared by remaining 31 SOCs. Moreover, we found that Asian scholars tended to be more often recognized than scholars from other races. For instance, 78.38 per cent of the SOCs who were leadership members were Asian; 60 per cent of the SOCs who were DSSA committee members were Asian; 50 per cent of the SOCs who were invited as plenary speakers were Asian; and 63.64 per cent of the SOCs who were invited colloquia chairs were Asian.

Analysis: lack of parity

We now return to the research question that motivated our investigation. The study revealed that SOCs hold limited positions within the power structures of the association. In terms of meritorious scholarship, we also found that while SOCs have contributed tremendously to the development of the field in applied linguistics, they are significantly less likely to be recognized for their scholarship within the association.

Furthermore, the results revealed that there is limited diversity when it comes to the SOCs who are recognized or invited into structures of power. We further argue here that the invitation-only format of ARAL makes it yet more problematic that there were no SOCs within the ARAL editorial board (as of 2017), and that appeared to have remained the case at least for 10 years.

There are several important questions that arise from this study, such as how might the underrepresentation of SOCs influence: the kind of topics scholars engage at AAAL and within the field, the methods we employ in our investigations, what we consider data, and, the way we analyze data? We need to question, further, if this is leading to the reproduction of dominant voices in our intellectual endeavors. Moreover, while we narrowly focus in this investigation on SOCs within a US association context, we are cognizant that this is but part of the broader fabric of diversity, albeit a significant one. It is vital also to consider other aspects of diversity such as gender, sexual orientation, and national origin, among others, as well as issues of intersectionality within them, not just within AAAL but in other applied linguistics associations more widely.

Progress and recommendations

This investigation as well as a letter on diversity advocacy sent to the AAAL executive committee in 2017¹ has spurred AAAL to focus more closely on racial diversity and inclusion.² As new changes are instituted to accommodate greater diversity, this paper offers an important historical backdrop that offers a context and rationale for systematic change. We recommend, further, collecting data on the profession/association, targeted minority student and junior faculty recruitment and retention programs, mentorship, starting a strand specifically on race/diversity, reconsidering the invitation-only format of ARAL, and the availability of additional support and resources for minority scholars. Multiple organizations have already shown leadership on these issues in related fields (e.g. American Educational Research Association), and AAAL would be well advised to consider their models. We also want to encourage that in contemplating new directions in the quest for inclusivity, there be accountability and transparency. That is, in newly inviting minority scholars into structures of power, the organization should carefully consider who gets invited, why, and by whom. Otherwise, the danger of reproducing older hierarchies and systems will remain. Ultimately, for SOCs, ‘The real issue…is getting truly heard, rather than simply “added on”’ (Nkomo 1992: 488–9). We sincerely hope that this study motivates serious and urgent conversations within the organization, as well as in the wider field.

Footnotes

Editorial note. The journal invited AAAL to respond. Their open letter can be found on their association's webpage (aaal.org), the AAALetter (Jan., 2019), and in the 2019 Annual Review of Applied Linguistics.

Conflict of interest statement. None declared.

References