Unpacking Strategic Equity
Critical Race Theory, Leadership and Practices That Enable (and/or Obstruct) Diversity, Inclusion and Justice for All
“Vulnerability sounds like truth and feels like courage. Truth and courage aren’t always comfortable but they are never weakness.” -Dr. Brené Brown
Doing strategic equity leadership work, is hard. It is hard because it requires folks to be able to see the invisible systems and structures that create conditions for successes and failures. The successes, when they happen, are categorically positive and generative. And the failures, when they happen, are categorically failures. But there is another part that goes unseen or under-recorded. That is the facets of success stories that contain hints of failures along the way and the facets of failure stories that contains many generative and positive successes.
This is my truth and it takes courage. It may not be comfortable for some, but I am making peace with my combination of successes and failures and sharing some of them with you.
I have a particular audience in mind when I wrote this and I have some intentions with my writing as well, and so I will share those first. My intent is to engage in a public manner, in the unpacking of strategic equity from a leadership and organizational development standpoint. My audiences are many, but to name a few out loud, it is for all Strategic Equity Leaders (with and without positional authority), it is also for scholars exploring or actively utilizing Critical Race Theory and it is for folks doing equity work inside and outside of the academy, for the nonprofits and others working on issues related to racial justice, economic justice, reproductive justice and information equity, and for the tech field and start-ups wanting to diversify and do better.
And it is also intended to tell a story, a particular kind of story. A counter narrative that I have been holding on to and am ready to unfold before your very eyes.
It is for you and it is also for me. It is created with the intent of healing self and sharing my truths with you and if these truths in part or in whole resonate with your truths, my intent is that my words can offer hope.
My hope is that together we may continue to do what is within our power to build a more sustainable just society for all.
And then this happened:
A scenario / a narrative and counter-narrative:
CONTEXT: I submit a proposal to an international conference for the field of Information Science. It gets rejected and recommended for a poster. I reach out via email to a member of our faculty, that I know has attended this particular conference before.
REQUEST: “Here is the information I was so excited about that I would like to discuss as I move forward with preparing the poster and handout (I love this idea).
This week, I am available tomorrow morning or after 1pm, Wednesday any time before 4 for a face to face meeting OR Thursday/Friday via Skype as I’ll be in the east of the state visiting libraries.
Let me know if any of these work for you, or what works for you next week.”
REPLY: “Here are my comments. I am afraid I do not see much information science in this. Perhaps you can make it more explicit? I have made comments throughout the abstract. See you there!”
MY INITIAL EMOTIONAL RESPONSES:
I FELT — Confused, Unsure, Self-Doubt, Like an Imposter, Alone — [DOUBT]
I WONDERED — Do I belong in Library and Information Science? [RESPECT]
I THOUGHT — How does this help lift up the iSchool? [RESPONSIBILITY]
What is their role to themselves, to me, to our school? [RESPONSIBILITY]
What is the interdependence of our roles and positionalities in relation to self, each other and the system of knowledge production? [RESPONSIBILITY & RECIPROCITY]
MY SECONDARY RESPONSES:
I THOUGHT — IS THIS WHAT I ASKED FOR?
Examining what I did wrong? I re-read my request, to see if I had been clear in my communication:
Here is the information I was so excited about that I would like to discuss as I move forward with [CAN YOU MAKE TIME TO TALK TO ME?] preparing the poster and handout (I love this idea). [EXCITED ABOUT POSSIBILITIES]
This week, I am available tomorrow morning or after 1pm,Wednesday any time before 4 for a face to face meeting [OPTIONS] OR Thursday/Friday via skype as I’ll be in the east of the state visiting libraries. [CONTEXT OF MY SCHEDULE]
Let me know if any of these work for you, or [CURIOUS] what works for you next week.” [OPEN ENDED]
MY TERTIARY RESPONSES:
What game is being played? Who wins? [WHAT ECONOMIC SYSTEM IS AT PLAY]
What are the ethics of information and marginality? [POWER]
Critical Race Theory allows us to see systems through a particular cross section of information. Dr. H. Richard Milner IV, (also known as Rich) is the Helen Faison Endowed Chair of Urban Education, with courtesy appointments in Social Work, Sociology, and Africana Studies and serves as the Director of the Center for Urban Education at the University of Pittsburgh. Professor Milner’s research, teaching and policy examines social context of education utilizing Critical Race Theory (CRT). He is the author of ‘Starting where you are but don’t stay there’ — a book whose namesake influenced Latina Tech: Starting where we are.
Milner and others have taught me to see systems, utilizing Critical Race Theory. I engage in direct conversation with Rich here, by using one of the pivotal articles he wrote, that informs my uses of CRT, and adding to it.
Bold, strikeouts and CAPS emphasis and [ ] are added and my own contributions.
BUILDING ON RICHARD MILNER’S PAPER, excerpts below:
Ingrained Nature of Race and Racism:
One tenet of critical race theory is the postulation that race and racism are endemic, pervasive, widespread, and ingrained in society and thus in education [and knowledge production writ large]. From a critical race theory perspective, race and racism are so ingrained in the fabric (Ladson-Billings, 1998) of society that they become normalized [and become potential sites of violence or instances of culturally sanctioned violence]. Individuals from various racial and ethnic, [gendered, classed, varying abilities and strengths, political stances and technological] backgrounds may find it difficult to even recognize the salience, permanence, effects, and outcomes of racism because race and racism are so deeply rooted and embedded in our ways and systems of knowing and experiencing life.
Importance of Narrative and Counter-Narrative
A second tenet of critical race theory in education is the importance and centrality of narratives and counter-narratives, or stories — particularly stories “told by people of color” (Lopez, 2003, p. 84). From critical race theory perspectives, knowledge can and should be generated through the narratives and counter-narratives that emerge from and with people of color. Critical race theorists argue that narrative and counter-narrative should be captured by the researcher, experienced by the research participants, and told by people of color.
Similarly, Ladson-Billings (1998) wrote that “the use of voice or ‘naming your reality’ is a way that critical race theory links form and substance [italics added] in scholarship” (p. 12). Indeed, the stories of those considered by the dominant culture (and others) to be at the bottom — in many instances, students of color and researchers of color — “illustrate how race and racism continue to dominate our society” (Bell, 1992, p. 144). Such narratives need to be told but often have been dismissed, trivialized, or misrepresented in education research [and the knowledge production process at large].
A third tenet of critical race theory in education is interest convergence. According to Donnor (2005), interest convergence is “an analytical construct that considers the motivating factors . . . to eradicate racial discrimination or provide remedies for racial injustice” (pp. 57–58). Bell (1980) insisted that “Whites may agree in the abstract that blacks [and other people of color] are citizens and are entitled to constitutional protection and that racial segregation is much more than a series of quaint customs” (p. 522) yet still believe that injustice can be “remedied effectively without altering the status of whites” (p. 522). People in power are often, in discourse [what about in practice?], supportive of research, policies, and practices that do not oppress and discriminate against others as long as they — those in power — do not have to alter their own systems of privilege; they may not want to give up their own interests to fight against racism, confront injustice, or shed light on hegemony.
[“when a system of oppression has become institutionalized it is unnecessary for individuals to be oppressive.” Florynce Kennedy]
Power and interests are connected. Delpit (1995) explained that “those with power are frequently least aware of — or least willing to acknowledge — its existence. Those with less power are often most aware of its existence” (p. 24). Quite often, those in power are not interested in having to negotiate or question their own privilege to provide opportunities to empower people of color or to “level the playing field.” Ladson-Billings (2006) maintained that it is unfair and inconceivable to expect all students to finish their education in the same place (at the same performance level) because some students — such as African American and Latino/a students and students from lower SES backgrounds — do not begin their education in the same place. In other words, HOW can society, and educators [faculty and administrators] expect students to arrive at the same place when they do not begin their education at the same place? [Nor might they all want to arrive at the same destination at the end of their processes. HOW do we help them learn and grow, while also creating a space for us to each learn and grow? HOW can we help them progress in learning the systems WHILE ALSO supporting them to challenge the similar processes that that violate their presence in institutions that do not SEE them as whole?]
The sacrifice that is necessary for real social change is to take place is often painful. Taking serious strides toward racial, social, and economic [and technological] justice is often too difficult for people in power in our country (and possibly the world) because it means that they may have to give up something of interest to them: their systems of privilege and their experience of life (Bell, 1980; Ladson-Billings, 2000). The problem is that many worry about how change can threaten their own interests, position, status, and privilege (Bell, 1980) and perhaps the systems of privilege and interests that their children, grandchildren, and future generations may reap in the future [even if we are unconscious of it].
It is in these three tenets of critical race theory and in the research and theory about race and culture [information AND knowledge production] that I have situated seen, unseen, and unforeseen dangers in conducting education research [and in supporting researchers of color and others who have been marginalized and/or othered in some way, shape or form via any combination of racial, social, and economic injustices]. Such dangers arise particularly when researchers do not consider, negotiate, balance, and attend to the complex nature of race and culture in their research [and mentorship]. With discussions of these two bodies of theory and research established, I now shift to a discussion of examples of racialized and cultural dangers that can show up in conducting education research.
· A seen danger in teaching and researching about race and culture in teacher education is teachers’ resistance (Tatum, 1992) and silence in the face of important information about racism, injustice, and inequity. For instance, seen dangers may be teachers’ silence in discussions of racism in the P–12 classroom [and higher education settings], especially when the teachers believe they are being forced to think in a certain way (cf. Ellsworth, 1989).
· An unseen danger is the perpetuation of negative stereotypes about certain groups of students and their situations by [educators and] education researchers. Reifying and solidifying negative stereotypes about certain groups of students is a danger, one that is often unseen by teacher educators and researchers (Milner, 2007b). [Educators] may exhibit racist behaviors in their classrooms [and settings] based on their “learned” beliefs and assumptions (B. Cross, 2003) about P–12 that they actually learn in the teacher education classroom through instruction that has the best of intentions. Teacher education [Educators and] researchers cannot see the racist beliefs, but they are there; these beliefs may manifest themselves in the teachers’ actions [of the educators] in their P–12 [classrooms and in higher education settings] with their students [and colleagues].
· Unforeseen dangers in teacher education teaching and research [professional development through formal and informal education] may surface when teachers people misinterpret the needs and patterns of culturally and racially diverse students, [staff and faculty] and conclude that the students, [colleagues or mentees] are incapable of learning or that the students’ parents do not care about their children. Teacher educators do not foresee these misinterpretations when they develop the goals and expectations for the course, nor are they necessarily able to study these matters in order to address them.
[All of the above can be adapted/framed to include in higher education and the academy writ large.]
A Framework of Researcher Racial and Cultural Positionality [Milner’s brilliant guide]
Researching the Self
· What is my racial and cultural heritage? How do I know?
· In what ways do my racial and cultural backgrounds influence how I experience the world, what I emphasize in my research, and how I evaluate and interpret others and their experiences? How do I know?
· How do I negotiate and balance my racial and cultural selves in society and in my research? How do I know?
· What do I believe about race and culture in society and education, and how do I attend to my own convictions and beliefs about race and culture in my research? Why? How do I know?
· What is the historical landscape of my racial and cultural identity and heritage? How do I know?
· What are and have been the contextual nuances and realities that help shape my racial and cultural ways of knowing, both past and present? How do I know?
· What racialized and cultural experiences have shaped my research decisions, practices, approaches, epistemologies, and agendas?
Researching the Self in Relation to Others
· What are the cultural and racial heritage and the historical landscape of the participants in the study? How do I know?
· In what ways do my research participants’ racial and cultural backgrounds influence how they experience the world? How do I know?
· What do my participants believe about race and culture in society and education, and how do they and I attend to the tensions inherent in my and their convictions and beliefs about race and culture in the research process? Why? How do I know?
· How do I negotiate and balance my own interests and research agendas with those of my research participants, which may be inconsistent with or diverge from mine? How do I know?
· What are and have been some social, political, historical, and contextual nuances and realities that have shaped my research participants’ racial and cultural ways or systems of knowing, both past and present? How consistent and inconsistent are these realities with mine? How do I know?
Truth, or what is real and thus meaningful and “right,” for researchers and participants, depends on how they have experienced the world. Researchers can acquire evidential truth in research when they value and listen to the self, to others (Nieto, 1994), and to the self in relation to others (Milner, 2007a).
Engaged Reflection and Representation
A third feature of this framework is what I call engaged reflection and representation: researchers and participants engage in reflection together to think through what is happening in a particular research community, with race and culture placed at the core. From a critical race theory perspective, narratives and counter-narratives actually can contribute to policy, research, and theory (Ladson-Billings, 2004; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995; Morris, 2004; Parker, 1998; Solorzano & Yosso, 2001, Bayo Urban, 2017). Moreover, from a critical race theory perspective, interests can be negotiated, validated, and understood in this feature of the framework. What is most central to this feature are representation and shared perspectives. In terms of representation, both researchers’ and research participants’ voices, perspectives, narratives, and counter-narratives are represented in the interpretation and findings of a study. In this sense, one voice or narrative is not privileged over another. In cases of disagreement as to the interpretation of what is occurring in a research study, researchers’ and [multiple perspectives and voices on the research team and] participants’ narratives are both presented as point and counterpoint or narrative and counter-narrative.
Such an approach can be essential in the study of people and communities of color because it prevents the researcher’s voice from overshadowing the voice of the researched, and vice versa. Indeed, the conflicting interpretations between a researcher’s system of knowing and the participant’s way of knowing can be an asset: There are lessons grounded in the different ways in which the teacher and researcher interpret the situation. The tensions in the interpretation and explanation are forms of data in themselves and can be beneficial and useful to consumers of the research. Readers learn something about how different people understand, interpret, live, function, and are represented in society. Engaged reflection and representation are connected to what Lorde (1984) declared as “learning how to take our differences and make them strengths” (p. 112).
Shifting From Self to System
A fourth feature of this framework is the suggestion that researchers contextualize and ground their personal or individualistic, new and expanded consciousness to take into consideration historic, political, social, economic, racial, and cultural [and technological] realities on a broader scale.
[Before we can shift from the self to the system it is important to start with organizational values. I will come back to values once I introduce the 4 Toltec Agreements and integrate a case.]
Thus several questions can prove helpful as researchers shift from the self to the system:
· What is the contextual nature of race, racism, and culture in this study? In other words, what do race, racism, and culture mean in the community under study and in the broader community? How do I know?
· What is known socially, institutionally, and historically about the community and people under study? In other words, what does the research literature reveal about the community and people under study? And in particular, what do people from the indigenous racial and cultural group write about the community and people under study? Why? How do I know?
· What systemic and organizational barriers and structures shape the community and people’s experiences, locally and more broadly? How do I know?
[NOW, LET US SHIFT AGAIN FROM ADDING TO MILNER’S WORK, TO MY OWN POSITIONALITY AND CONTEXT]
In terms of mentoring of students with diverse background and identities it to begs us to examine dangers seen, unseen and unforeseen (Bayo Urban, 2017):
WHAT are the roles and responsibilities of faculty, staff and peer mentors and who do they belong to?
HOW are we able to see DIVERSITY in all its beauty, messiness and
HOW can we examine ways to be better EVERYDAY ALLIES and ADVOCATES?
HOW DO MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS FIT INTO THIS PERSPECTIVE?
“Maslow (1943, 1954) stated that people are motivated to achieve certain needs and that some needs take precedence over others. Our most basic need is for physical survival, and this will be the first thing that motivates our behavior. Once that level is fulfilled the next level up is what motivates us, and so on.”
People whose socially defined identities, in relation to systems of power ,are undervalued, are more likely to find themselves in situations of not having their basic needs meet. When thinking about social and technical systems, we must regard economic injustices and the internal support systems [complete with checks and balances] that institutions and organizations create to enable and support diversity, as failure to provide the adequate strategic leadership in all aspects, may contribute to obstructing the path to self-actualization in the very systems, that at least in theory, are created to support them (Bayo Urban, 2017). These several questions can prove helpful to leaders working on strategic equity initiatives:
· What are the checks and balances in relation to power and hierarchy?
· How do they check and balance each other?
· What identities and positionalities are invited to the table?
· Is there an adequate balance of freedom for all and mutual accountability?
WHAT CAN I DO, YOU ASK? LET ME GUIDE YOU.
Imagine the opportunities that Indigenous Systems of Knowledge and Cross Cultural Approaches to Leadership practices can offer. I begin with inviting you to blend and practice Toltec wisdom together with strategic leadership. Let me elaborate.
Integrate and Practice Totlec Wisdom by Don Miguel Ruiz
Leadership to Practice with Emphasis on Strategic Equity
I am highlighting the Five Leadership Practices used by Kouzes and Posner (1995), not because I believe you should buy into them exclusively or specifically — but to illustrate how ANY character based leadership model could be applied to Strategic Equity IF the focus is on equity.
The point is to practice finding opportunities in the day-to-day (Bayo Urban, 2017):
1) to reflect and thus lead self
2) build others up
3) challenge processes from where we are
4) use what you have at your disposal
These four practices are a necessary part of using your degrees of freedom in the direction of Strategic Equity Leadership for your department, organization, and/or institution to apply and challenge the status quo — in relation to racial, gendered, social, economic and technological biases that exist.
Definition of Leadership According to Kouzes and Posner
“The art of mobilizing others to want to struggle for shared aspirations.”
(Personal notes from IMT 580, Autumn 2017)
- Model the way — Lead by example
- Inspire a shared vision — breathe life into goals, greater than own benefit
- Challenge the process — question the status quo
- Enable others to act — Provide right support for team to experiment (without punishment)
- Encourage the heart — reward in ways that are understanding and meaningful to them.
FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT LEADERSHIP INCLUDE:
· Leadership is everyone’s business
· Leadership is a relationship
· Leadership development is self-development
o Important to be aware of tendencies, identify areas for improvement and use your strengths
· The best leaders are the best learners (Covey, Senge, Kouzes and Posner)
· Leadership development is an ongoing process (continuous development)
· Leadership development takes deliberate practice.
· Leadership is an aspiration and a choice. (in a consistent way — align behaviors w values)
· Leaders make a difference.
COMING FULL CIRCLE to STRATEGIC EQUITY
Combining Race, Culture and Positionality With Totlec Wisdom and Leadership
Institutions have many layers of strategic direction and values. Given my positionality, I am using the University of Washington as an example to exemplify the kinds of opportunities we, and individuals and leaders, always have, when we start within and act with our degrees of freedom to prioritize people and focus on EQUITY FOR ALL.
I care about Strategic Equity because I care about envisioning a future that is possible as a team and true collaboration. I want to imagine the exciting and ennobling possibilities that whatever the contexts or scenario(s), we can uphold our values at every step of the process from the top to individual interactions with anyone connected with the University of Washington system.
My hope is that experiences that feel transactional, become fewer and that no one ever has to experience or wonder IF they fit, or IF they belong — my hope is that this never happen for anyone connected with the University of Washington systems.
Similarly, the Information School also has clearly articulated mission, vision, foundation, values and strategic direction.
Now let us revisit the scenario / a combination of narrative and counter-narrative at the beginning. I provided one counter narrative. The reason I chose that example is because as I revisit the last 7 years of my dissertation journey, I can see the direct links of mentorship, exposure, collaboration and peer mentorship in my field because I attended that one conference.
Everything stemming from attending that conference, and connecting with a senior scholar who took time to meet with me where I was and to listen, learn and to share and to lift me up. When I received the email reply stating that they did not see Information Science there — I was bursting with self-doubt.
And now as I prepare to finalize my journey, I am able to see the direct links of belonging that happened when an insider/outsider invested time with me to help me see what I was unable to see for myself.
I met Dr. Lynne Howarth at that very same International conference and we connected and talked over my poster and then she took the time to meet with me. We went for a lovely walk at Beacon Hill Park and we talked. Iulian Vamaru was also at that conference, but our paths did not cross there. No, it was Dr. Howarth who introduced me to Dr. Iulian Vamaru, now an Assistant Professor at the University of Iowa, formerly finishing his doctorate at Rutgers. And for months we collaborated on a joint proposal with Dr. Howarth, which eventually led to the workshop we facilitated at the ASIST Conference in 2014 titled ‘Mediating Connections through Materiality: Cultures and Communities’.
It was at that ASIST Conference that Dr. Howarth connected us with Jamila Ghaddar, PhD Student at the University of Toronto.
From there I can name at least eight (8) distinct collaborators and co-presenters and 16 additional conferences, that are connected across time, space, institutions, conferences and fields, that I had the opportunity to attend because of my ability to attend that one conference and the intangibles associated with those culminating positive experiences. Additionally, 13 out of the 16 conferences I attended, after that international Information Science conference, I’ve been bringing my situated perspectives of Information Science in collaboration with others, centering on Information Equity, Ethics and Marginality. Together, I have taken Information Science on a road show, to venues like the Shepard Symposium on Social Justice, The Borderlands conference, Engaged Scholarship Consortium, Cultural Studies Association Conference, and National Women Studies Association — as opportunities to reflect and teach, which in turn informs and refines my understandings of the social and technical systems at play — on the ground — what I call ‘Information Science in practice’.
I would like to call attention to an observation, in reviewing the archive of my email — despite the initial, secondary and tertiary responses I had when I responded to the faculty member– then (and even now) I respond with integrity. Despite the open wounds I felt, I replied and thanked them for taking the time to offer feedback. I told them that I appreciated their comments on my paper and I wrote that I looked forward to seeing them there.
And all those things where true– just like the truth that I was also thankful that I our paths did not cross while at the conference because I felt both — disappointed and like a disappointment. I was confused and the feelings I had of being an imposter grew exponentially for the hours, days, months that followed. It became my little gremlin, my inner voice of self-doubt — saying ‘you don’t fit in’.
Therefore, it leads me to wonder: How many have not been so lucky?
What have been the casualties? How many before me? How many didn’t have the right language? The right framing? The right angle? The right mentorship? The right advice? The right degree? Or didn’t fit neatly into the prescribed boxes?
Or perhaps how many times before, and still now, are we not able to recognize the very thing staring at us in the face as essential for strategic and transformative leadership in relation to diversity, inclusion and equity in the academy?
Just like my scenario, I have also witnessed similar scenarios at the iConference, where whole areas of study are undervalued and thus marginalized in our own field. I personally experienced this when I was working on Project VIEW2 as part of the team working with Dr. Eliza Dresang.
And while the scenarios of exclusion or questions of relevance may be similar, the discrepancies in power are not. As a student interested in issues of ethics, marginality, equity and information — I had less resources at my disposal than the late Dr. Eliza Dresang had as the Clearly Endowed Professor of Children and Youth Services.
Dr. Megan Bang is a professor at the University of Washington in the programs of Learning Sciences and Human Development, Science Education, Teacher Education and an Affiliate faculty of Education, Equity and Society and of American Indian Studies. I first met her at an event at the University of Washington campus several years ago– she asked: “What does smart look like?, What does it sound like?, and How do you know?”
Those three questions posed by Dr. Bang, have forever changed my view as an educator. In fact, they have strengthened the way that I approach critical conversations in feminism and technology — as a framing and reframing of power and technology. I am mindful of my role in contextualizing technological environment, while embracing peoples lived experiences- focusing on people’s day to day experiences with technology in terms of privacy, security, identities, self-representation and archives.
In every scenario, context and interaction — there will be multiple perspectives. Additionally, narratives and counter-narratives will also exist from different positionalities and perspectives.
“When people show you who they are, believe them.”
What a Critical Race Theorist and a Strategic Equity Leader have in common is that they both triangulate multiple perspectives and narratives, while researching self, transitioning to systems and utilizing many diverse data points, in order to ensure quality control, rigor, procedural justice and equity for all.
We cannot know, what we do not measure or are not able or willing to see. Thus, the tenets of Critical Race Theory (CRT) provide a crucial lens by which to approach equity. CRT provides a lens that begins with race–and is also one that does not end there, but aims to view the master and counter narratives together to tell different kinds of stories all kinds of diversity — in relation to gender, race, class, cognitive, neurological, psychological, visual, religious, and values. Additionally, the tenets of CRT may also help us dialogue with and consider differences in key livelihood strategies, relationship to nature, notions of family and kinship, and how all of these interrelated with privacy, security, identities, self-representation and archives. It is these stories that center on identities with the least amount of power, position and privilege in education and knowledge production- directly — such as higher education institutions and indirectly — the technologies these institutions adopt, implement and make requisite.
WHAT are the checks and balances? HOW do they check and balance each other? What identities and positionalities are invited to the table? HOW do we gain multiple perspectives in ways that honor the integrity of all identities and processes? In WHAT ways can diversity exist without being asked to assimilate? WHAT processes do we have to ensure success via the interconnected lenses that the ACE Framework can offer? HOW can we assess the systems’ structures and flexibilities for differing identities while looking at 3 interconnected dimensions of systems? 1)Access(es), 2)Capacit(ies), and 3)Environment(s): in the a) social and b) technical systems.
In some sort of chronological order in my relation to them and in relation to this document.
Race, Culture, and Researcher Positionality: Working Through Dangers Seen, Unseen, and Unforeseen by H. Richard Milner IV (2007)
The 4 Toltec Agreements by Don Miguel Ruiz (2001)
Five Leadership Practices by Kouzes and Pozner
Coming Full Circle: A Personal Journey by Ivette Bayo Urban (2017)
Dear Stories of Self and Solidarity by Ivette Bayo Urban (2017)
Personal Notes from IMT 580 Strategic Information Leadership Lecture from Professor Annabi on 11/7/2017 & 11/14/2017
ACE Framework by Ricardo Gomez
Elfreda Chaptman —The Impoverished Life-World of Outsiders
Patricia Hill Collins — Learning from the Outsider Within
ACE Framework [Access(es), Capacit(ies), Environment(s)] remixed and adapted by Ivette Bayo Urban — in this document as a way to explore social and technical structures and flexibilities for Diversity and Equity Leadership [in practice].
 I borrow these terms to directly connect these ideas to Piaget’s Cognitive Stages. I feel that as a Critical Born Digital Scholar, I began my cognitive stages again through the lens of seeing [social and technical] systems together with my raced, classed and gendered experiences in the academy. Initial response phase I equate with self-soothing. Secondary response is laughter and community and doing what I can within my means, GO-MAP and Women of Color Collective supported this phase. And my tertiary response was discovery and experimentation. Through my social connections including many and with FemTechNet — I was able to partake in a supported and collaborative discovery and experimentation — which led to Latina Tech, Critical Conversations in Feminism and Technology and finally the Critical Pedagogy Summit are my pedagogical and systemic experimentation. I could also see connections opportunities to explore to Erickson’s stages of psycho-social development, but I will leave that for someone else to explore and crosswalk.