About this session

Thursday, 10:00 AM - 11:30 AM

Resisting white supremacy in developmental research: Studying whiteness and white youth through a critical lens

Whiteness and white supremacy are two of the most dominant, interlocking systems shaping all facets of human development and also the field of developmental psychology. Whiteness is a system that affords advantages and power to individuals racialized as white (Leonardo, 2009). White supremacy is the political, economic, and cultural system of domination that protects and maintains whiteness (Ansley, 1989; Leonardo, 2004). Within these systems, youth of color are perpetually adapting to systematic dehumanization, while white youth experience the benefits of occupying institutionalized ‘position[s] of unjust power’ (Paris, 2021). These differential impacts are visible in racial disparities (e.g., wealth, interactions with the justice system), upheld by cultural normalization of whiteness as the standard, and perpetuated via socialization that prioritizes white innocence over Black and Brown humanity (e.g., intergenerational white silence). Although the impacts of whiteness and white supremacy vary, they are key developmental contexts for all youth and therefore need to be interrogated in our research questions, methodological approaches, and findings interpretations (e.g., Moffitt & Rogers, 2022).

There is an enduring legacy of racially marginalized communities naming, interrogating, and resisting whiteness and white supremacy (hooks, 1997). The academic discipline of psychology, however, has historically and predominantly operated to uphold the hegemony of whiteness. Since the inception of the discipline, this was an explicit aim. In more recent decades, whiteness has become the unnamed norm against which all else is othered and perceived as inferior (Rogers et al., 2024). Amidst this, some developmental researchers, led by scholars of color, have named and interrogated how whiteness and white supremacy shape development–centering youth of color and naming inequitable systems and structures (e.g., García Coll et al., 1996; Rogers et al., 2021; Spencer et al., 1997). Although the consequences of white supremacy for youth of color have been well documented, the impact of whiteness and white supremacy on white youth development and, more importantly, the role that white folks play in upholding or resisting the system of white racial domination, remains under-scrutinized, especially in developmental science.

Without research specifically interrogating how white youth, and the field as a whole, are shaped by and either uphold or dismantle white supremacy, the current racial hierarchy is reinforced. In challenging this harmful norm, multiple scholars have called for more critical research on white supremacy as a context of white youth development, including the ways in which white youth operate as racial actors within this system (e.g., Seaton et al., 2017). It is also critical to acknowledge the ways in which whiteness influences how research is conducted and, as a consequence, the results that are produced. Therefore, a central question for panel discussion will surround methodological considerations that support or resist hegemonic whiteness in the field.
This roundtable intentionally brings together scholars from across disciplinary backgrounds, self-identities, focal participant samples, and geographic locations to discuss how the critical study of whiteness and white youth fits into developmental anti-racism research. Dr. Ursula Moffitt will serve as moderator, with expertise in critical, qualitative research on white racial identity development. Dr. Kerry-Ann Escayg will serve as a panelist with expertise in qualitative approaches to supporting the well-being of Black and racialized children in oppressive spaces (i.e., education). Dr. Lisa Spanierman will serve as a panelist with expertise in white racial attitudes, microaggressions, and allyship as well as in developing quantitative measures (e.g., psychosocial costs of racism to whites). Dr. Onnie Rogers will serve as a panelist with expertise in critical, qualitative research on Black racial identity. And Dr. Megan Underhill will serve as the final panelist with expertise on white racial socialization, issues of racial and class inequality, and qualitative methods.

The conversation roundtable questions will center on four general topics:

Background: White youth have been centered as normative in developmental research since its inception, often without explicit reflection on race or whiteness. However, there does exist a long history of naming and critiquing whiteness among communities and scholars of color. All panelists will be asked to share what they consider important history in the critical study of whiteness, including examples outside of developmental psychology and academia.

Methods: Quantitative and comparative models have long dominated developmental psychology, with the consequence of reinforcing whiteness as the norm and white youth as the reference group (Zuberi & Bonilla-Silva, 2008). In a recent American Psychologist call for papers on equitable methodological innovations, the editors note a need to translate antiracist frameworks for psychological science to applied methods, such as observational paradigms. All panelists will speak to how they have pushed back against hegemonic whiteness in methodology.
Drs. Escayg, Underhill, and Rogers will discuss how qualitative research can provide a counterbalance to the harm of quantitative and comparative approaches. Drs. Spanierman and Underhill will discuss their thoughts on engaging in studies with white participants (and white researchers) without reifying the white normativity of theory, literature, and methodology.

Ethnicity vs. Race: In their foundational 2014 paper, Umaña-Taylor et al. argued for the merging of ethnic and racial identity. Helms (e.g., 2021) has consistently argued against this practice when studying white folks. Panelists will discuss some of the reasons for or against this merging. Dr. Rogers will share thoughts on why the racialization of ethnicity functions differently across racial groups due to white supremacy, and the importance of considering that in studying youth development.

Moving Forward: Following the racial justice protests of 2020, there was a spike in interest in anti-racism, which included an increase in folks doing research on whiteness and white youth. However, there has been immense backlash to this, including lawsuits, budget and program cuts, and policy changes that curtail and even eliminate possibilities at public institutions. All panelists will share their thoughts on how to sustain the critical study of whiteness in this current socio-political moment. All panelists will also offer their insights into what is needed (e.g., theoretically, methodologically, institutionally) for the future of this scholarship. Drs. Escayg and Spanierman will specifically comment on navigating this in a state with heightened backlash.

The consequences of whiteness and white supremacy for youth of color have been well documented. However, the impact on white youth development more generally remains under-scrutinized, especially in developmental science. Ignoring the context of white supremacy in child development is not without consequence. Within research on white youth, we must ask: How does the lack of attention to whiteness, conceptually and methodologically, impact what we know about white youth development? Despite the necessity of more research critically evaluating white youth in the study of how whiteness and white supremacy shape development, a sole focus on white youth also reproduces harm– neglecting the ways in which youth of color co-develop in the same spaces, communities, and culture. Therefore, this roundtable not only focuses on how to critically consider white youth in the study of how whiteness and white supremacy shape development, but also intentionally addresses that this conversation cannot and should not focus exclusively on white people as voices in the conversation or as research populations. Additionally, it is critical to acknowledge the ways in which whiteness also influences how research is conducted and, as a consequence, the results that are produced. Therefore, a central question for panel discussion will surround methodological considerations that support or resist hegemonic whiteness in the field. The discussion will conclude with reflections on moving this research forward, especially considering the cultural backlash being faced in the United States. The consequences of whiteness and white supremacy for youth of color have been well documented. However, the impact on white youth development more generally remains under-scrutinized, especially in developmental science. Ignoring the context of white supremacy in child development is not without consequence. Within research on white youth, we must ask: How does the lack of attention to whiteness, conceptually and methodologically, impact what we know about white youth development? Despite the necessity of more research critically evaluating white youth in the study of how whiteness and white supremacy shape development, a sole focus on white youth also reproduces harm– neglecting the ways in which youth of color co-develop in the same spaces, communities, and culture. Therefore, this roundtable not only focuses on how to critically consider white youth in the study of how whiteness and white supremacy shape development, but also intentionally addresses that this conversation cannot and should not focus exclusively on white people as voices in the conversation or as research populations. Additionally, it is critical to acknowledge the ways in which whiteness also influences how research is conducted and, as a consequence, the results that are produced. Therefore, a central question for panel discussion will surround methodological considerations that support or resist hegemonic whiteness in the field. The discussion will conclude with reflections on moving this research forward, especially considering the cultural backlash being faced in the United States.

Session moderator
Dr. Ursula Moffitt, Ph.D., University of New Mexico Department of Individual, Family, and Community Education in the College of Education and Human Sciences, United States

Panelists
Dr. Kerry-Ann Escayg, Ph.D., University of Nebraska - Omaha , United States
Megan Underhill, University of North Carolina, Asheville , United States
Eleanor Seaton, University of Illinois-Urbana Champagne , United States

⇦ Back to schedule