The “outsider-within” position (Collins 1986) that is currently the norm for scholars of color in social work presents both opportunities and bar-riers to being fully realized, fi rst, as academics, and then, as activists. Because social work scholarship has been dominated by white men and women, the presence of women of color in academia is itself a rupture of usual practice. At present, even in urban centers, there are few university professors from any discipline representing the so-called visible minori-ties in Canada (Rushowy 2000). For women of color, the energy required to pursue and secure academic opportunities requires vigorous commit-ment to political goals of representation and challenge to the status quo. At this point in history, however, this challenge comes from a position of extreme vulnerability. Moreover, the lack of representation of other women and racialized people who do not have access to opportunity and audience is a tremendous burden for the developing scholar. Despite a liberal discourse around increasing the representativeness of academia, scholars of color, often low-status players in university settings, are obliged to fi t in, and are regularly disciplined to suppress the experiences that reveal barriers in place for those outside the mainstream academic culture (Blair, Brown, and Baxter 1994).This article draws on my early experience as a scholar to develop some hypotheses about the meta-experience of academic women of color who attempt activism. The practice of autoethnography (Crawford 1996) is an opportunity to probe human experience by using personal life experience as a source of data. Engaging in autoethnography is a direct challenge to post-positivist assumptions about the nature of knowledge and how it can be advanced (Nicotera 1999). The post-positivist framework has postulated a sharp division between subject and object that is being chal-lenged on several fronts. First, this subject-object division is based on essentialized assumptions about agency and passivity that are no longer accepted without question (Davies 1992; Fine 1994b). Second, it fails to recognize that the subject-object position shifts depending on context and the particular discourse in place (Nicotera 1999). Third, it evokes a modernist hierarchical categorization that would privilege expert knowl-edge over knowledge arising from lived experience or emotional response (Houle 1995). Finally, it does not account for the position of marginalized people who must negotiate the subject-object boundary on a daily basis, especially if they are engaged in anti-oppressive work that evokes issues
Read full abstract