CHAPTER 5

 THE RESEARCH ON

MINORITY ACADEMIC UNDERACHIEVEMENT

Introduction

            As I have argued in the previous chapter, little information is available on the educational underachievement of Luso-Canadian children. The scholarly general sources on the Portuguese and the research studies on the education of Luso-Canadian children have offered only scattered information, or have focussed mostly on school practices. These works have generally failed to address the ways in which the Portuguese in Canada view their roles, or their social and economic position within this country, or how these may affect the education of their children. None has also consulted widely or directly with the community-at-large, in order to research these issues from the latter’s point of view.   

            Yet, as my personal story has suggested, the important educational decisions of Portuguese-Canadian students and parents are rarely taken without strong considerations about family economic, role and identity concerns. Furthermore, as my review of the history of the problem of academic underachievement in the Toronto community also illustrates (Chapter 3 - “Significance..”), it is difficult - if not impossible - to alter school practices without first providing community members with the means to collectively examine their places and roles within the dominant society (ex. the publication of Board reports and subsequent community debates) and then mobilizing them to effect change.

            As I will attempt to show in the present chapter, those scholars who study the issue of minority academic underachievement have also moved from studying the effects of  cultural and language differences within the classroom on the academic performance of minority students to placing a greater emphasis on understanding the social, economic and historical context in which their group is situated and upon how this affects academic achievement. In particular, one of the leading theories on academic underachievement, the “Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance” (Ogbu & Simons, 1998) focusses a great deal of importance upon the manner in which group members view themselves, and their positions, in relation to mainstream society.

The Debate on Minority Academic Underachievement

            A number of researchers have reviewed the debate on minority school failure, (Cummins, 1984, chap. 5; Erickson, 1987; Foley, 1991; Ogbu, 1987; Trueba, 1988). The most recent and extensive of these, provided by Foley (1991), described how in the last few decades, the work of educational anthropologists and sociologists has dichotomized into two camps: The first was coined by Ogbu (1987, pp. 313–314) as "improvement research", consisting of "microethnography" and "intervention ethnographic studies"; the second he described as "explanatory research," consisting of "comparative analysis of ethnographic studies" and "comparative ethnographic research."

            Those who practice "improvement research" or "microethnography" concentrate on describing how subtle differences in behavioural style, between students and teachers, and between minority students and their mainstream peers create the conditions for minority school failure.

            "Explanatory" or "comparative research," on the other hand, focusses on a more holistic, historical and ecological view of the problem. The issue of minority academic underachievement is viewed as being rooted in a cultural dynamic, having historical, economic, and political determinants.

            Although recognizing the different streams dealing with this issue, Foley (1991, p. 63) simplified these various research tendencies into the two camps of "micro–" and "macroethnography". Since it is not the aim of our paper to conduct a detailed comparative analysis of the distinguishing characteristics of these branches, nor of entering into an extended discussion of the merits of dichotomizing past research in such a fashion, we will accept Foley's generalizations and limit ourselves to providing a brief examination of the development of the field, from its beginnings rooted in "microethnographic" approaches to the current state of divergency in research focus.

The "Microethnographies"

            Up until the late 1960's, scholars basically regarded the problem of the academic failure of minorities as one of "cultural deficit", (Foley, 1991; Ogbu, 1987). In other words, many pundits held the opinion that minority children failed disproportionately in school because they pervened from home cultures which were underdeveloped in intellectual terms. These children were regarded as "deprived" of the skills in abstract – and sometimes moral – reasoning, which characterized the perceived "sophistication" of the middle–class, mainstream society that directed their schooling.

            This perspective on academic difficulties was quite obviously based on a highly subjective and personalized valuing of cultural differences; one which sometimes took on ethnocentric and even racist proportions. As Erickson described it,

As the anthropology of education became a distinct field in the mid–1960's, its members were generally appalled by the ethnocentrism of the cultural deficit explanation. It was not literally racist, in the sense of a genetic explanation. Yet it seemed culturally biased. The poor were still being characterized invidiously as not only deprived but depraved. (Erickson, 1987, p. 335)

            Related to the "cultural deficit" explanation were the views reviewed by Cummins (1984), that bilingualism or lack of exposure to the language of the school were factors which impaired children's thinking processes and prevented them from becoming "good" and "moral" citizens. According to Cummins, both of these ideas have been refuted by empirical evidence, yet are still popular amongst many teachers and parents.

            As a consequence of the inadequacies of these theories, in the late 1960's some anthropologists began to counter the belief of "cultural deprivation" by developing an alternative explanation, which relied on the notion of "cultural difference", (Cummins, 1984, chap. 5; Erickson, 1987; Foley, 1991; Ogbu, 1987; Trueba, 1988). In this point of view, minority school failure was seen to derive not from any inherent inferiority of minority cultures, but rather from differences in communication style between students' cultures and those of the mainstream.

            This "cultural difference" perspective characterized the so–called "microethnography", and was epitomized by studies which adopted a sociolinguistic approach, (Cazden, John & Hymes, 1972; Gumperz & Hymes, 1972; Heath, 1983; Hymes, 1974; Philips, 1983). These researchers intensively explored ethnic group differences and minority school failure as a consequence of subtle differences in speech styles, between minority students and their educators. Cultural conflicts and incongruencies that resulted in different treatments from teachers were seen to be generated by different kinesic and proxemic styles, as well as by different communicative competences in turn–taking, question–asking and answering, story–telling, literacy and speech style.

            Perhaps the most persuasive evidence for the "cultural difference" position was provided by the results of the Kamehameha Early (or Elementary) Education Program, (Au & Jordan, 1981; Vogt, Jordan & Tharp, 1987). This research project, located in an experimental school in Honolulu, saw the generation of dramatic improvements in the reading scores of native Hawaiian children enrolled in the programme, when changes were made to bring instructional practices, classroom organization and motivation management in line with culturally appropriate practices for Hawaiians. In specific, reading lessons were structured to conform to a major speech event in Hawaiian culture called "Talk Story," characterized by rapid interactions between children and teachers and by children complementing and building upon one another's responses. Significantly, when the same classroom structures were applied to a school in the Rough Rock community, in the heart of a Navajo reservation, the practices which had been culturally compatible and educationally effective for Hawaiian children were found to be both ineffective and often disruptive in the teaching of Navajo children, (Vogt, Jordan & Tharp, 1987).

Sociological Research

            In the field of Sociology, during the 1950's and 60's, the mainstream regarded minority school failure as an issue which revolved around the unequal distribution of power in society, and of the yielding of such power as a means of social control, dominance and, ultimately, the perpetuation of the capitalist system, (Apple 1979; Sharp & Green, 1975). Mainstream sociology held mostly a "macroanalytic" perspective on the issue; one which was heavily influenced by the neo–Marxist work of Bowles and Gintis, (1976).

            The field of "ethnomethodology" was another method of "microethnography", which also arose at this time to describe how the institutionalized communicative practices of school authorities served to socially construct the educational failure of minority students (Foley, 1991). Researchers who adopted this approach, (many of whom worked from the fields of educational sociology), illustrated that minority youth were distinguished from their peers by being given less counselling, attention in class and leeway to answer standardized tests and by examining the way in which the instructional organization of schools disadvantaged students, (Cicourel, et al., 1974; Mehan, Hertwick, & Meihls, et al., 1986; Whitty, 1985).  

Critique of Microethnographic Approaches

            Research approaches which relied on examinations of the cultural differences of specific groups, in specific settings, succeeded in providing an explanation for minority school failure which, superficially at least, did not appear to place a value judgment on the cultural attributes of minority children.[1] However, although few researchers disputed the existence and the importance of such "cultural differences", disagreement surfaced amongst anthropologists and sociologists over the perceived limitations of "microethnographic" explanations and their lack of usefulness in framing an adequate universal theory of minority school failure.

            The approach of "microethnography" was criticized for its behaviouristic, deterministic tendencies, (Erikson, 1987, p. 342; Foley, 1991). Foley (1991) lamented,

The ethnographies that this culture concept produces leaves out any rational, autonomous actors with guiding motivations and interests other than their rules of speech. (Foley, 1991, p. 68).

            Another problem attributed to "microethnographies" was the narrowness and decontextualized nature of their focus. A number of critiques of these ethnographic methods, have argued that cultural and linguistic practices must not be studied outside of the context of social history (Marcus & Fischer, 1986, Wolfe, 1982)

            In the same vein, Foley (1991) also criticized the "limited notion of cultural tradition" provided by constructivist or ethnomethodological accounts. According to Foley, ethnomethodology "...does not study people as members of cultural and societal traditions." and "Constructivists do not usually study how these lived traditions are part of the practical reasoning that constructs reality or school failure."(Foley, 1991, p. 68)

            Foley further mentioned how there is no grand theory guiding microethnographic studies and that, therefore, these studies cannot provide a universalistic explanation of minority school failure. 

            The Anthropologist, John Ogbu (1987) echoed the criticism of those who saw "microethnography" as too narrow in focus. He critiqued the "microethnographers" for attempting to "explain" why minority children failed in school, (i.e.. attempting the formulation of general theory), while using only the results of "intervention" or "improvement" studies (Ogbu, 1987, p. 314). Such studies, claims Ogbu, are not designed to "explain" why minority children fail or succeed, in that they are not theoretically sophisticated or comparative. He added,

Intervention ethnography or ethnographic research in search of 'cultural solutions' or 'cultural compatibility' is not and cannot be about why minority children succeed or fail in school; the orientation is toward discovering 'what works' and, perhaps, 'what works best for whom?' (Ogbu 1987, p. 314)

            This researcher also provided what has since become, by far, the most effective argument against "microethnography". Both Ogbu (1987) as well as Erickson (1987) argued that, "microethnography" did not adequately explain why some ethnic youth who were culturally and linguistically very distinct from the mainstream (ex. Chinese, Punjabi) had none of the school problems that other minorities experience. If school failure was, indeed, the result of linguistic and cultural dissimilarities then, these groups should display the same academic difficulties as groups such as blacks and Hispanics.

            Ogbu further criticized "microethnography" for not adequately explaining intragroup variability, (Ogbu, 1987, p. 314). "Microethnographers" could not account for why some black, Native Indian and Chicano children succeeded in the very same environments in which their ethnic peers failed.

            Ogbu went on to offer an alternative explanation of minority school failure, which was based on comparative ethnographic research; one which eventually came to exemplify the "macroethnographic" or "explanatory" approach, (Foley, 1991).

The "Macro" Approach: John Ogbu’s “Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance”

(or, “Caste” Theory)

            While Ogbu (1987) believes that all minorities encounter adjustment and academic problems, resulting from differences with the majority culture in communication style, he feels that the question which researchers must answer is why some minorities succeed despite these barriers, and why others do not.

            According to Ogbu, the important factor in determining academic success or failure is not this difference in communication style between groups, but rather, the social, historical and economic context of oppression in which minority youth are located, as well as the nature of their group's response to such treatment, (Ogbu 1987). For Ogbu, the cultural differences between minority students and the mainstream, which "microethnographers" have recorded, only become salient under these specific historical conditions of oppression and inequality.

            Ogbu presented this social and historical perspective of minority school failure in the form of his "Caste Theory", (Ogbu,1974, 1978, 1982, 1987; Ogbu & Matute–Bianchi, 1986; Ogbu & Simons, 1998).[2] Under this theory, Ogbu postulated that a system of social stratification, or "castelike" grouping, exists in industrial societies – including that of the United States – which works at preventing some minorities from achieving equality with the mainstream (Le Grand, 1981; Ogbu, 1987). Membership in any one particular "castelike" group is determined at birth, in accordance with such factors as skin colour or ethnic group membership. At birth, all members of a "castelike" minority also inherit a legacy of community forces which act upon one's group to maintain the caste; forces which also directly impact on academic success and employment.

            Ogbu's "Caste Theory" is characterized by two related parts: In the first, Ogbu discusses the various community forces which work to create and perpetuate a subordinate minority underclass.

Community Forces Acting Upon Minority Groups

            Ogbu (1987) identifies these community forces as those originating from society at large, from schools and classrooms and from the minority community itself.

            Social forces affecting "caste" grouping and minority achievement include the imposition of a "job ceiling" on minority group members. Such ceilings, characterized by the existence of consistent pressures and obstacles that selectively relegate minorities to lower–status and lower–income employment, serve to perpetuate the "caste". (Le Grand, 1981; Ogbu, 1978, 1987).

            A further social force is the presence of discriminatory educational practices and policies, such as inferior and segregated schools, which prevent minorities from having access to a good education (Ogbu, 1987). As a result of discriminatory educational practices, many minorities are discouraged from investing in education, as a means of achieving success. In this manner, a tradition of poor academic performance is also developed.

            Forces at work in schools and classrooms are also identified as contributors to the academic failure of minorities and the perpetuation of "castes". Ogbu (1987) listed such factors as lowered teacher's expectations of minority students, the labelling of minority youth with academic problems as "handicapped", the denigration of minority cultures, the presence of pervading beliefs held by the majority in the inferiority of the minority culture and the cultural differences between students and teachers, as being the elements in schools and classrooms which contribute to minority school failure.

            Lastly, Ogbu (1987) cited the response of each ethnic community to discriminatory mainstream social forces as the final factor determining the academic success or failure of minority youth. Minority groups may perceive the barriers erected by the mainstream as either temporary difficulties to be overcome on the road to eventual success and assimilation, or as agents of a permanent policy of limitation and exclusion. The prevailing interpretation will then determine the manner in which parents and students respond to the demands of the academic environment (Ogbu, 1987).

"Autonomous", "Voluntary" and "Castelike" Minorities

            Having presented the idea that these disadvantaging forces act to perpetuate the social differentiation of minorities, Ogbu's theory then attempts to explain the different responses of the various minority communities to these forces.

            In this second part of his analysis, Ogbu looked to the different historical relationships between minority groups and the mainstream and to the varying responses to disadvantaging social forces, which these have developed. From this historical analysis, he saw common patterns which allowed him to divide these groups into three distinct typologies, (Ogbu, 1987).

            The first group of minorities, Ogbu (1987) has termed "autonomous" minorities. These are people who have maintained a long–standing, distinct identity in a society, yet who are not subordinated. This group would be typified in the United States by the Jews or the Mormons.

            The second group he described as "immigrant" or "voluntary" minorities. Typically, these would be people who had voluntarily moved to their new society, and would find themselves in the process of adapting to a new language, and a new culture. Ogbu mentioned that this group would not experience lingering, disproportionate school failure, (Ogbu, 1987, p. 321).

            The third group Ogbu called "involuntary", or "castelike" minorities. These are people whose ancestors would have been brought involuntarily to a new society through slavery, conquest or colonization and who comprise the "castelike" groupings that form the focal point of "Caste Theory", (Ogbu, 1987, p. 321). Blacks, Native Indians and "Mexicanos", (i.e.. the descendants of Mexicans in the Southern United States), would typically be considered "involuntary" minorities. These groups are characterized by the fact that they are relegated to menial positions and normally experience many more academic difficulties than either of the other two, or the mainstream, (Ogbu, 1987, p. 321). "Involuntary" minorities also perceive the racial barriers which they confront and their lack of opportunity quite differently than "voluntary" minorities. For this reason, involuntary minorities have accepted the negative views of their place in society, and thus do poorly in school (Ogbu, 1974; 1978; Suarez–Orozco, 1987).

Differences Between "Voluntary” and "Involuntary" Minorities

            According to Ogbu, these different historical origins of the three groups have led to substantial dissimilarities between them, with regards to the nature of their cultural difference from the mainstream, their social and collective identity, their folk theories of success and in their level of trust of mainstream institutions.

            In terms of cultural difference, while both groups possess cultural differences from the mainstream, Ogbu (1987) postulates that "immigrant" and "involuntary" minorities differ in the quality of the cultural differences between themselves and that mainstream. He sees "immigrant" minorities as displaying "primary cultural differences", or, differences which already existed prior to a group's contact with a dominant mainstream; while "involuntary" minorities display "secondary cultural differences", or, cultural differences which arise as a response to the situation of contact between the minority group and a dominant mainstream. This idea of a difference based on the situation of response to mainstream culture is central to the second branch of Ogbu's theory.

            Secondary differences, says Ogbu (1987, p. 323), are not primarily based on a distinct "homeland" culture for their point of reference but rather, are characterized by the alteration and "cultural inversion" of mainstream cultural features. In other words, while "immigrant" minorities utilize the culture of their homeland as the frame of reference for their cultural markers, "involuntary" minorities define their appropriate cultural markers in opposition to those of the majority. Typical of secondary differences are, for example, the creation of different styles of the English language. In this fashion, members of "involuntary" minority groups can also regard certain forms of mainstream behaviour as improper for them since, to act in that manner may be to take on the attributes normally attributed to the dominant group. Thus, for example, blacks in the inner–city could regard success in school as attempting to act "white". In those environments, failure in school could presumably become a cultural marker for blacks.

            The social or collective identity of "involuntary" minorities is also characterized by this secondary and oppositional character. While "immigrant" groups have the opportunity to define themselves in relation to the culture of their nation of origin and to mold their social identity apart from that of the dominant culture, "involuntary" minorities invariably define themselves in opposition to the dominant group, (Ogbu, 1987). In this fashion, "oppositional cultures" are created.

            In light of "job ceilings" and the lack of the sense of the possibility of advancement through the formal education system, these "oppositional cultures" provide the minority youth of "involuntary" groups with alternative role models, valuing and folk theories of success. Ogbu (1987) states that, while "immigrant" minorities often regard barriers to advancement as temporary or inevitable realities to be endured by newcomers and invariably compare their situation with their often inferior or more blatantly socially restricted opportunities back home, "involuntary" minorities, have no point of reference other than the memories of the historical domination of their group by mainstream society. They perceive the obstacles with regards to schooling and employment which are placed in front of them as being permanent, or as not easily removed. They may create alternative models of success, often based on what is commonly termed as "street–culture", where the successful individual may be the wealthy drug–dealer, admired and emulated by the neighbourhood youngster for the success which he has forged for himself within his limiting environment. They may also witness that, for their groups, success most often comes in other areas where the prevailing political or socio–economic mainstream hierarchy is not threatened, (ex. sports, the entertainment industry). In time, this "oppositional culture", and the alternative models of success may come to define the essence of the group, for many of its members. Foley (1991) summarizes the issue in this way.

Given the logic of cultural inversion, voluntary minorities come to understand being successful in school as acting white and adopting a white style of speech and cultural expression. This sort of oppositional logic dictates that they must choose between being occupationally successful (white) and culturally successful (black). Quite ironically, the battle to preserve their ethnic culture becomes the very thing that dooms Castelike minorities of color to academic failure.(Foley 1991, p. 66)

            Finally, Ogbu (1987) concluded that the differing historical perceptions between "voluntary" and "involuntary" minorities also cause the two groups to differ with regards to the relations which they hold with mainstream institutions. Since "immigrant" minorities do not perceive discrimination as being permanent or as institutionalized and they often contrast the more open and egalitarian relationship which American schools hold with parents and students, with the more closed and hierarchical association in their homeland, they are more optimistic about the future and have more success in schools and in the work force than "involuntary" minorities. For example, according to Ogbu & Matute–Bianchi (1986), "voluntary" groups, such as the Chinese, do not perceive the racial barriers and the lack of opportunity of American society to the same extent as blacks. On the other hand, "involuntary" minorities hold a deep distrust of the motives of mainstream institutions, and the people who are there employed.

Consequences of Different Styles of Cultural Differences

            In concluding his theory, Ogbu discussed how these contrasting cultural differences that "voluntary" and "involuntary" minorities bring to the school act upon the two groups to result in dissimilar problems in the classroom.

            Ogbu (1987) detailed how "immigrant" minorities face difficulties which are rooted in the nature of their primary cultural difference. These may include: difference in styles of nonverbal behaviour; the lack of certain concepts in their culture, which are necessary for such subjects as mathematics; different styles of learning, ex. rote; and the lack of language skills.

            Yet, Ogbu (1987) mentioned how "voluntary" minorities eventually triumph in school despite these barriers since, they perceive that their problems in school can be easily reduced to ones of problems of adaptation; they come to feel that their cultural differences are what need to be overcome in order for success to be achieved. Furthermore, they are willing to assimilate in the classroom since they feel that their cultural attributes do not need to be maintained as markers of identity. Their identity is linked to a distant homeland and its culture. The culture of the school is regarded as additive to their home culture, which has the social norms in their country of origin as a point of reference. Immigrants don't expect schools to teach them their own culture and tend to adopt the dominant folk theories of success.

            Their relationships with the schools follow a similar pattern. They appreciate what they perceive as an education which is better and more sensitively delivered, than what would normally be available to them in their homeland. They also feel that, they must follow school rules and attitudes, since they are merely "guests" in their new countries.

            On the other hand, "involuntary" minorities are guided by the oppositional nature of their culture. Since their comparative frame of reference is "white", mainstream culture, they may equate the culture of academic success, and the cultural/linguistic compromises that students have to make, with "becoming white", (Ogbu, 1987). They sense much more clearly the institutionalized discrimination which exists for all minorities and therefore distrust the institution and its motives. Because of this, they do not interpret school rules of behaviour the same way as "immigrant" minorities. They may feel that school rules only exist to impose "white culture" on their group. The fact that schools often react paternalistically and defensively in the face of their opposition only adds to their suspicions. In light of this situation, they develop alternative strategies of "getting ahead", which do not include the schools.

            Finally, Ogbu (1987) described how the strategies which  "involuntary" minority parents have developed in dealing with schools and school–related matters often do not help their children to overcome these difficulties. These parents may have little or no involvement with their children's education, besides providing verbal encouragement. When they become involved, their participation may take the form of active confrontation of teachers and educators. They may stress collective struggle over the individual achievement of their children. They unconsciously teach their children ambivalent attitudes about education. Finally, they instil weak socialization of the use of time and of academic work habits into their children.

            In essence, the relationships which minority students have with the adult world teach them that economic and general success in life, for their ethnic group, will not be achieved through formal schooling. The parents of some minority groups then adopt the pessimism of the mainstream regarding their children and cause the perpetuation of the notion of failure (Ogbu, 1974).

            Finally, the schools' response to these factors and the extent of development of this cultural curriculum in minority children are the remaining factors that will determine the extent to which minority children succeed in school, (Ogbu, 1987).

The Responses of "Microethnographers" and Other Researchers  

             According to Foley (1991), Ogbu's "Caste Theory" is more comprehensive and systematic in interpreting minority school failure than the "Cultural Difference" explanations. Foley also  believes that Ogbu has successfully shown that only under certain historical conditions of forced assimilation and racism, do small cultural differences become large ones, which inevitably lead to school failure.

            Yet, despite its popularity, Ogbu's theory has drawn criticism from a number of researchers, both from the camps of "microethnography", as well as others.

            According to some, Ogbu's theory is overly deterministic in cultural and economic terms and contains overwhelming generalizations that are contaminated by neo–Marxist and psychoanalytic biases, (Erickson, 1987; Trueba, 1988).

            In particular, Ogbu has been pilloried for the vagueness of the criteria used to define his caste and immigrant taxonomies,(Cummins, 1984, p. 122; Trueba, 1988).

            Another, and more damaging criticism, is the observation that these taxonomies have no basis in empirical support, and that the causal relationships which Obgu's theory posits are merely asserted, not demonstrated directly, (Erickson, 1987; Trueba, 1988).[3] According to Trueba, (1988, p. 91), sociolinguistics can explain the differential response of minorities, as well as "caste theory".[4] In relation to this, Trueba (1988) also voiced the opinion that in Ogbu's theory, the cultural response to societal forces becomes the true basis for taxonomic differences, and not the historical background of the various groups.[5]

            Ogbu's theory has also been criticized for not explaining the success of some "involuntary" or domestic minorities, such as Jews, (Cummins, 1984, p. 122), and for ignoring the growing class variability in some domestic minority communities (Erickson, 1987; Foley, 1991; Trueba, 1988). For example, Foley felt that Ogbu has not been able to explain how some minority individuals, such as Mexicans in South Texas, can enter the middle–class and maintain their oppositional culture as a positive, viable culture. In this fashion, Foley believed that Ogbu underestimated the capacity of oppositional cultures to empower minority individuals.

            Related to this was the criticism that Ogbu applied a "value–laden" dichotomy to culture, which sees the culture of origin of minority groups as "positive" and their adaptive oppositional cultures as "negative", (Foley, 1991). According to Foley, Ogbu appears not to hold a very high opinion of minority adaptive cultures. Foley (1991) also lamented Ogbu's "excessive" emphasis on the negative legacy of racial oppression and on the apparent lack of ability of domestic minority groups to overcome it. Foley (1991) summarizes,

Put simply, Ogbu focusses so much on racial dominance and develops such a strong argument for the legacy of racism, he hardly explores the survival strategy he calls 'collective action.' In the politicized ethnic community we studied, his model of racial oppression greatly overstates how negative and dysfunctional ethnic oppositional cultures are. (Foley, 1991, p. 82)

Attempts to Unify the Field

            Despite these strong criticisms, a number of researchers have seen the need for a synthesis of the two camps. According to Foley (1991), "microethnographers" have ultimately responded to Ogbu's ideas and criticisms by incorporating a greater historical and contextualized perspective into their ethnographies, (ex. Heath, 1983; Mehan, et al., 1986). Others have also shifted their examination from groups which fail in school, to those which succeed, (Trueba, 1987; Trueba & Delgado–Gaitan, 1988). Still others have turned the question around, by examining the success or failure of schools in educating minorities, (McLaren, 1986; Tomlinson, 1991).

            However, in a reply to Foley's (1991) article, Trueba (1991) disagreed with the perpetuation of the view that the field is still today dichotomized into two methodologically distinct camps. He mentioned how, since the early 1980's, most educational anthropologists had already understood the need for a greater social, economic and political context, and how most regard the use of sociolinguistic methods as complementary and vital to the more contextualized methods practised by Ogbu.

            Cummins (1984, chap. 5) illustrates this synthesis of approaches. In his examination of the issue, he concluded that no one cause of minority failure can be singled out; rather, minority failure has a multi variate origin composed of a combination of historical reasons explained by "Caste theory," as well as by other factors including the ambivalence of minority groups regarding their cultural allegiances, the interruption of cultural transmission – characterized by Feuerstein's (1979 cited in Cummins, 1984, chap. 5, pp. 124–125) notion of "cultural deprivation" – differences in quality of educational treatment and subtle mismatches in social interaction between minority children and their educators.

            Also in response to the ongoing debate, Cummins (1994; 1996, p. 19) has formulated a model of underachievement which attempts to encompass both macro- and micro-ethnographic approaches. His “Socioacademic Achievement Model,” describes how coercive or collaborative relations of power in the wider society promote academic success or failure, by influencing educator roles and educational structures, which in turn determine the micro-interactions between teachers and students. According to Cummins:

[these micro-interactions] not only reflect the relations of culture and power in the society, they constitute these relations and thereby embody a transformative potential. (Cummins 1994, p. 13)(his italics)

For this reason, these have the potential of either disempowering or generating power through the relationship between educators and minority students.

            Trueba (1988; 1991) also discussed how the arbitrary "pigeonholing" of researchers into the labels of "basic" and "applied", and "macro" and "micro" ethnography creates artificial boundaries which are ultimately damaging to the aims of research in minority failure. Trueba, (1988) cited Mehan, et al. (1986) as an example of how, in the field of sociology, many researchers are also moving away from the "macro" versus "micro" and "basic" versus "applied" dichotomies, and are freely moving from one methodological extreme to the other.  

The Call for More Interdisciplinary, Ethnographic and Community-based Research

            In clarifying the issue of minority failure, Trueba (1988; 1991, p. 88) and Erickson, (cited in Trueba, 1988) call on the advances which more interdisciplinary work can provide in providing a better understanding of the relationship between field–based research and theory–building efforts, and between the building of empirical data bases and the construction of better explanatory models of human behaviour. Trueba (1991) states:

...many of the difficult problems studied in minority education are so complex that they require more than a single discipline. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to me that the broader theoretical context for the discussion of minority achievement can also be drawn from other disciplines, such as psychology and sociology, and from branches of these disciplines that explore universal theories of learning and cognitive development across cultures. (Trueba, 1991, p.88)

Ogbu, himself, described the need for this issue to be approached from a broad, ethnographic and community-based approach; one which could describe the social realities of minority groups, from their own points of view:

...conventional explanations have given insufficient attention to understanding why minorities behave the way they do from the point of view of the minorities themselves; instead, they have evaluated the behaviors of minorities from the perspective of the dominant group’s perceptions of their own social reality or from the perceptions and interpretations that the dominant group members have of the social reality of minorities. Consequently, current explanations of the variability in the school performance of minority students have usually been constructed without the benefit of what the minorities themselves think, and, from my point of view, these theories cannot adequately account for the variability in the school performance of minorities who are members of the same social class as dominant group peers or who are from different social classes. Nor can they explain adequately the variability in the school performance of children from minority groups who experience cultural and language differences or conflicts in school, nor the performance variability among members of the same minority group either from the same social class or from different social classes. To construct a more adequate explanation of the variability in the school success of minority children, it is necessary to incorporate the perceptions and understanding that the minorities have of their social realities and of their schooling. (Ogbu, 1991)           

Summary

            As I have attempted to illustrate, those scholars studying minority academic underachievement have generally moved away from “microethnographic” approaches -which postulate that differential patterns of academic success between minority groups are attributable to cultural language differences within the classroom - to examine the social and economic context in which a minority community exists and the responses of its members to that environment. In particular John Ogbu’s “Cultural-Ecological Theory of School Performance” attempts to explain the academic failure of “involuntary” minorities, by seeing these as adaptations to a history of discriminatory practices on the part of dominant society. Ogbu’s theory places a great deal of importance both on the manner in which a group has come to live within a dominant society, as well as on the “community forces” (perceptions and responses) which have arisen to interpret and negotiate their problems. For this reason, Ogbu and number of other researchers have also called for more community-based research, of the type exemplified by the present study, in order for these interpretations to be better understood. The fact that Ogbu’s model does not seem to apply to the case of the Portuguese-Canadians - a topic which I will analyze in the discussion section of this study - serve to validate Ogbu’s calls for this kind of research.