The Sociopolitical Turn in
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Over the past decade, the mathematics education research community has incorpo-
rated more sociocultural perspectives into its ways of understanding and examining
teaching and learning. However, researchers who have a long history of addressing
anti-racism and social justice issues in mathematics have moved beyond this socio-
cultural view to espouse sociopolitical concepts and theories, highlighting identity
and power at play. This article highlights some promising conceptual tools from
critical theory (including critical race theory/Latcrit theory) and post-structuralism
and makes an argument for why taking the sociopolitical turn is important for both
researchers and practitioners. Potential benefits and challenges of this turn are also
Key words: Equity/diversity; Race/ethnicity; SES; Social and cultural issues
We are at a moment in history when it is both very easy and very hard to attend
to identity and power issues in society. For many mathematics education
researchers, an emphasis on the social has already begun, causing us to rethink
such common terms as “learning.” This shift in thinking lays the foundation for
sociopolitical perspectives to inform education, to imagine new possibilities for
relationships between people, mathematics, and the globe (Gutiérrez, 2002). At
the same time, however, the research methodologies preferred in awarding grants
and the publication outlets used to evaluate tenure/promotion of faculty continue
to work against researchers taking risks in this arena. That is, focusing on issues
of identity and power do not easily translate into large-scale policy recommenda-
tions or prescriptions for practices in the classroom. Similarly, for educators, the
effects of a global society (e.g., the flow of goods and information) are present in
the learners who arrive in our mathematics classrooms every day. Who can ignore
the influence of media and technology on today’s youth? And yet, the standardiza-
tion of the curriculum and the focus on high stakes tests (at least in the United
States) leave teachers with little room to reflect upon how such students are
constructing themselves and being constructed with respect to mathematics. The
rush to move onto the next mathematical concept (or response to intervention
procedure) almost ensures we will not ask why this concept? Who benefits from
students learning this concept? What is missing from the mathematics classroom
because I am required to cover this concept? How are students’ identities implicated
in this focus? Indeed, we are at a moment in history where we have ready excuses
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
2013, Vol. 44, No. 1, 37–68
Copyright © 2013 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc., www.nctm.org. All rights
reserved. This material may not be copied or distributed electronically or in other formats without written
permission from NCTM.
38 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
not to attend to issues of identity and power in mathematics education—after all,
what does power have to do with a rational, universal field like mathematics? Yet,
we are also at a time when not attending to identity and power means we are at best
fooling ourselves about future prospects and at worst likely to ensure that mathe-
matics education will be unable to realize its full potential for the 21st century.
It is undeniable that “talk” of equity has become more mainstream in the math-
ematics education community. A look at the programs for the annual meetings of
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Association of Mathematics
Teacher Educators, National Council of Supervisors of Mathematics, and even the
International Study Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education shows a
surge in themes and number of sessions devoted to understanding and promoting
increased participation and achievement in students who historically have been
marginalized by the school system. Moreover, the general public is firmly aware
of an “achievement gap” as the media has cashed in on headline-worthy findings
from the plethora of studies and related writings produced on the topic by indi-
viduals within and outside of mathematics education. Although the theoretical
framings of equity in mainstream mathematics education tend to reflect equality
rather than justice, static identities of teachers and students rather than multiple or
contradictory ones, and schooling rather than education (Gutiérrez, 2008a;
Gutiérrez & Dixon-Román, in press), the increased attention to equity-related
issues is palpable.
Alongside this heightened interest in equity is a parallel trend of wanting to
understand the social nature of teaching and learning. Sociocultural theories, once
seen as on the fringe of a mainly cognitive field, now take their place squarely
within mainstream mathematics education journals like JRME. Concepts such as
“communities of practice,” “learning as participation/belonging,” and “out-of-
school mathematics” are being used by researchers who do not necessarily identify
with an equity stance or concern for social justice/transformation. A shift toward
focusing on social issues has allowed us to uncover the importance of students and
teachers needing to belong to something larger and for changes in one’s identity to
serve as evidence of learning. That is, the concern for the individual (and related
cognitive functioning) no longer is the central point of learning or teaching under
a sociocultural lens. As such, it has opened doors for researchers to study classroom
culture, participation structures, socialization processes, and teacher professional
development in whole new ways. Today, meaning, thinking, and reasoning are seen
as products of social activity (Lerman, 2000). Teachers who long ago saw beyond
the utility of outside “experts” entering schools for a 1-day workshop on improving
student learning without first trying to understand the local context of teachers’
work can attest to the shift in thinking that now has the potential to position teachers
as internal experts who, in part, can professionally develop each other.
Even so, many researchers who have dedicated their work to understanding and
advocating for anti-racism, social justice, and transformation have moved beyond
using the kinds of sociocultural tools that draw primarily from cultural psychology
to highlighting identity in social interactions; they privilege the voices of subordi-
nated groups and forefront the politics and power dynamics that arise from sites of
interaction. In this work, a shift has occurred from examining school structures and
institutions to examining discourses and social interactions. This is not just about
understanding students’ identities in some kind of developmental, linear trajectory,
or deterministic manner. It is about how identities are (re)constructed in spaces and
moments. In this work, questions shift from what do American Indian students
know/learn in mathematics to what forms of power and authority are enacted in
determining what American Indian students learn and from whose perspective do
American Indian students learn.
Just as a shift to sociocultural theories has led to new framings of persistent prob-
lems (and therefore potential solutions),1 so, too, do critical perspectives offer new
insights for researchers and practitioners. For example, research by feminist scholars
in the 1970s and 1980s highlighted the ways in which studying the problem of girls
engaging in mathematics needed to be turned on its head. It used to be common
practice that researchers concerned with gender inequities in mathematics education
would focus their efforts on such things as documenting the differences in achieve-
ment and learning strategies between boys and girls, exploring the cognitive strate-
gies that helped boys successfully negotiate the math classroom and the mathemat-
ical tasks they were presented, and describing the different levels and nature of
“confidence” between the genders. Such framings of the “problem” and associated
research methodologies produced findings and policies that basically amounted to
trying to get girls to become more like boys—something most people could now
recognize as far from equity. And yet, similar framings of the “problem” exist today
in mathematics education’s preoccupation with the achievement gap, indicating
much more work could benefit from adopting a sociopolitical perspective.
The purpose of this article is not to do an exhaustive review of the work that has
been done on identity and power issues in mathematics education.2 Rather, I intend
to highlight with selections what this sociopolitical turn means for mathematics
education and why taking such a turn might be fruitful for the field. I argue that it
is from the views of subordinated individuals and communities that we will learn
how to rethink mathematics education. Along the way, I will identify some of the
advantages and difficulties in adopting a sociopolitical frame of mind.
1See Ellis and Berry (2005) for an argument about how moving from a procedural–formalist para-
digm to a cognitive-cultural paradigm has inﬂuenced our understanding of reform mathematics—shift-
ing from questions of whether reforms work to what might such reforms entail?
2 For thorough reviews of the treatment of race, culture, and power in mathematics education, see
for example Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Learning and Teaching (2007), Gutiérrez
(2002), Martin (2009), Mellin-Olsen (1987), Nasir, Hand, and Taylor (2008), Stinson (2008) and for
discussion and for examples of post-structuralism/postmodernism in mathematics education, see
Brown (1994), Brown and McNamara (2005), Ernest (1994, 2004), Stinson (2006, 2008, 2013), and
Walshaw (2001, 2004, 2007, 2013).
40 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
WHAT IS THE SOCIOPOLITICAL TURN IN
A shift in view to include sociocultural theories is partly what Stephen Lerman
(2000) was referring to in his argument that mathematics education has made the
social turn. Lerman suggests that the origins of this social turn are in three general
fields outside of mathematics education—anthropology (from, e.g., Lave), soci-
ology (from, e.g., Walkerdine), and cultural psychology (from Nuñes; Crawford).
For these researchers, knowledge and identity are intricately linked and situated in
At the time, Lerman’s meaning of the term “social” went beyond the layman’s
definition of involving social beings and interactions and included the conse-
quences for addressing hegemony in society. However, not all projects drawing on
sociocultural concepts today address issues of power.3 In fact, several scholars have
clearly demarcated research that is sociocultural (with underlying goals of encul-
turation) from that which is political (with underlying goals of emancipation).4
Regardless of the focus of a research project, the fact that mathematics is a human
practice means it is inherently political, rife with issues of domination and power,
just like any other human practice. So, while many mathematics educators are
comfortable with including social and cultural aspects in their work, most are not
so willing to acknowledge that teaching and learning mathematics are not politi-
cally neutral activities.
I use the term sociopolitical turn to reference a growing body of researchers and
practitioners who seek to foreground the political and to engage in the tensions that
surround that work. The sociopolitical turn signals the shift in theoretical perspec-
tives that see knowledge, power, and identity as interwoven and arising from (and
constituted within) social discourses. Adopting such a stance means uncovering the
taken-for-granted rules and ways of operating that privilege some individuals and
exclude others. Those who have taken the sociopolitical turn seek not just to better
understand mathematics education in all of its social forms but to transform math-
ematics education in ways that privilege more socially just practices.
A variety of perspectives can be considered part of the sociopolitical turn. Here
I discuss three that have garnered greater attention in mathematics education in the
past decade. Regardless of whether researchers name these theoretical perspectives
as such, it is in adopting the stance that politics are always present that is key.
CRITICAL MATHEMATICS EDUCATION
Critical theory, with its roots in the Frankfurt School, has influenced greatly the
development of critical pedagogy and resulting forms in mathematics education:
3For example, Atweh et al. (2001) cluster psychological, political, and social perspectives in one
4See, for example, Greer, Mukhopadhyay, Powell, and Nelson-Barber (2009), Mukhopadhyay and
Greer (2001), Valero (2004), and Walshaw (2007).
critical mathematics education (Frankenstein, 1989, 1990, 1995, 2009; Powell &
Brantlinger, 2008; Skovsmose, 1994, 2004) and social justice mathematics educa-
tion (Gutstein, 2003; 2006). Two of the main goals of critical mathematics are to
(1) develop within learners “conscientizacao” (a kind of political awareness) that
allows an individual to recognize her or his position in society and as a part of
history (Freire, 1987) and (2) motivate individuals to action. Conscientizacao is
produced through one’s ability to analyze society from a political point of view,
incorporating that view into one’s identity, and being able to identify injustices in
the world. In mathematics, this has translated into learners being able to make sense
of data in ways that help them see the humanity behind the numbers and to use
mathematics as a tool for exposing and analyzing injustices in society and as a
means for convincing others of a particular (often nondominant) point of view.
In this line of work, the meanings that students make of quantitative data are
partly influenced by the forms of quantitative data presented (Frankenstein, 2007).
Learners as active inquirers and participants in a problem-posing dialogue are
important parts of critical mathematics education. Through dialogue, learners are
given opportunities to express themselves and act on their knowledge. In this way,
students are offered a greater number of choices in how they can interact as citizens.
Much has been written in this area in mathematics education lately, especially as
it pertains to curricular reform (e.g., social justice mathematics projects), however,
the field continues to evolve to consider broader notions of pedagogy and stance
(Gregson, 2007, 2008; Gutstein, 2006; Powell & Brantlinger, 2008). Moreover,
practitioners and researchers who seek to understand their place both in society and
history and aim to challenge the status quo reflect the growing field of critical
CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND LATCRIT THEORY
Although many forms of hegemony exist in our global society, racism is a
particularly prominent form in the United States, with a long history of positioning
African Americans, Latin@s,5 and American Indians as inferior and/or deviant.6
As such, some scholars have found an explicit focus on race/racism/racialization
(not just social justice) important to their research endeavors, applying conceptual
tools from critical race theory (CRT) (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) and critical
studies. Education scholars outside mathematics have long highlighted the ways
in which racism operates at many levels: individual, institutional, societal, and
5 I use the @ sign to indicate both an “a” and “o” ending (Latina and Latino). The presence of both
an “a” and “o” ending decenters the patriarchal nature of the Spanish language where is it customary
for groups of males (Latinos) and females (Latinas) to be written in the form that denotes only males
(Latinos). The term is written Latin@ with the “a” and “o” intertwined, as opposed to Latina/Latino,
as a sign of solidarity with individuals who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning,
and queer (LGBTQ).
6 Latin@s now outnumber African Americans as the largest “minority” group in the United States
(US Census Bureau, 2010); the growing number of mixed-race individuals is shifting the dialogue on
the relationship between race and identity.
42 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
global/epistemological (Scheurich & Young, 1997). Drawing from Matsuda et al.
(1993), Dixon and Rousseau (2006) offer some central tenets of CRT, including
recognizing that racism is endemic to American life; rejecting dominant legal
claims of neutrality, meritocracy, and objectivity; maintaining an interdisciplinary
grounding; requiring a contextual/historical analysis; assuming racism contributes
to the construction of dis/advantage that people experience in society; attending to
the experiential knowledge that people of color have; and seeking to end racism.
CRT seeks to privilege the voices of scholars of color and the experiences of
students and teachers and to work against popular discourses that suggest such
experiences are subjective, illegitimate, or biased. As such, common conceptual
tools are counter-narratives and storytelling. In 2005, Dixon and Rousseau
suggested that even 10 years after the introduction of CRT into education, efforts
to operationalize the conceptual tools for understanding and deconstructing race
in society are only slowly developing. Yet, over the past few years, a growing interest
in mathematics education has emerged.7
Latin@ critical theory, also known as LatCrit theory, is similar to critical race
theory in its goals of transformational resistance. However, LatCrit theory also
focuses squarely on the relationships between racism and other forms of subordina-
tion: through sexuality, language, immigration status, and phenotype (Solórzano &
Delgado Bernal, 2001; Bernal, 2002; López, 2006). In LatCrit theory, transforma-
tional resistance can occur in the form of big acts, such as protests that create soli-
darity in a movement or in small acts that help validate one’s worth and dignity when
feeling oppressed (e.g., speaking out at a public meeting, telling oneself that an
administrator does not speak for you or some “natural” order of things). A key aspect
here is that resistance does not necessarily mean a person acts in a way that is visible
or that presumes a lack of participation in schooling (Davidson, 1997; Fernández,
2002; Flores & Garcia, 2009). For those using LatCrit theory, social activism is an
important part of education and testimonios form the basis of the stories that people
tell about themselves. Similar approaches considering other intersections include
Femcrit, Tribalcrit, Asiancrit, and Whitecrit. In all of these CRT forms, there is
acknowledgement that ranking the oppressions is not the goal (Yosso, 2005).
Although a plethora of writings have not been produced within mathematics
education using a CRT framework, those who do draw on a CRT or LatCrit frame-
work in education offer convincing claims about the value of deconstructing race/
racism in particular as a means to highlight whiteness as property and its relation
to “normality,” to value the strategies and strengths of people of color, to highlight
community wealth, and to challenge commonly held beliefs about a racial hierarchy
or a neutral society.
7For a more comprehensive look at the causes, consequences and manifestations of race, racism, in-
equity, and the dynamics of power and privilege in schooling, see Dixon and Rousseau (2006); Parker
(1999); and Taylor, Gillborn, and Ladson-Billings. (2009)For speciﬁc connections to mathematics
using a CRT framework, see for example, Berry (2008), Martin (2009), Rousseau and Tate (2003),
and Stinson (2008).
Although many mathematics educators have heard of critical and social justice
mathematics and possibly critical race theories, fewer are likely to be familiar with
post-structuralism. Yet, post-structuralism offers additional theoretical tools for
those who have adopted a sociopolitical stance. Aligned with sociocultural theories,
a post-structuralist view considers the individual not as the source of his or her own
meaning, reasoning, knowledge, and action, but rather, as a product of discourses
(Foucault, 1977, 1980; Peters & Burbules, 2004; Walshaw, 2007). That is, the mean-
ings that people make of themselves and of their world are the result of the political
struggles they undergo as they negotiate discourses. Here, discourses mean much
more than talking and words. Discourses include institutions, actions, words, and
taken-for-granted ways of interacting and operating. So, in some ways, discourses
can be thought of more like paradigms in which we operate. Discourses reflect a
particular point in history, including specific relationships between people, knowl-
edge, and agency; they come to define what we think of as “normal.” For example,
the achievement gap is one kind of discourse that is prominent in U.S. mathematics
education today. It is what people take as the normal state of things because it has
been repeated and reported upon in so many ways.
The importance of understanding discourses in this way is that they produce
“truths.” They do not just reflect some natural order of the world; rather they
structure the world. Take, for example, the notion of “success” that is used in
reference to students. Most mathematics education researchers and practitioners
would agree that one driving force in our work is for students to be successful. Yet,
what constitutes success is largely driven by discourses of achievement and profi-
ciency on standardized exams, tangible outcomes that can be measured in some
way. A post-structuralist view works against singular meanings and truths such
that concepts like “success,” “proficiency,” “achievement gap,” even “mathe-
matics” are now open for debate. Unless learners and practitioners have the means
to challenge these discourses or re-inscribe them with other meanings, they can
come to believe they are successful or unsuccessful based on the discourses that
operate in schooling practices. As such, they may evaluate themselves (often
unconsciously), perhaps even rein in particular behaviors so as to be in line with
what we think of as habits of successful learners or practitioners (a form of internal
surveillance) (Foucault, 1977). Rarely do our definitions of success include self-
actualization—the idea that we should be allowed to become better people by our
own definitions, not just those prescribed by schooling. That is partly why discus-
sions of identity and power are so important—because the goals we have for
students may be disconnected from the ways in which they see themselves now or
in the future. And, yet, even in constructing and privileging certain truths over
other possible ones, discourses are malleable—subject to outright rejection or
(re)inscription (Butler, 1999).
That is, teachers who have adopted a sociopolitical stance may decide not to judge
their success only on whether they close the achievement gap (Gutiérrez, 2009) but
also look for ways in which students are being creative and imaginative when doing
44 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
mathematics or for when students see a more positive relationship between them-
selves, mathematics, and their futures. One difference in the way discourse is
interpreted by Foucault is that unlike other theories that imply an overarching
metanarrative, where people are oppressed by the narrative, post-structuralism
ascribes more agency to individuals in recreating or shifting meanings of the
From a post-structuralist point of view, knowledge and power are inextricably
linked. That is, because the production of knowledge reflects the society in which
it is created, it brings with it the power relations that are part of society. What counts
as knowledge, how we come to “know” things, and who is privileged in the process
are all part and parcel of issues of power. Here, power is not a possession but is
circulated in and through discourses. Educational practices allow for particular
forms of knowledge to be produced, thereby determining legitimate participation.8
For example, when schools demarcate which algorithms are valid when learners
are asked to show their work, the practice can lead to immigrant students discounting
the knowledge of their parents who have learned mathematics in other countries,
even if those “foreign” algorithms are correct.
SOCIOPOLITICAL CONCEPTIONS OF IDENTITY AND POWER
One might ask: why the fuss about identity and power if those terms are already
starting to be used in mainstream mathematics education? Don’t all teachers want
to empower their students and doesn’t that require at some point attending to their
identities? The answer lies partly in who defines these terms, how these terms are
being used, and for what purposes. That is, these terms mean different things to
different people, partly because people have different reasons for including them
in their research and everyday work.
The term identity in mainstream mathematics education research often is used
to mean a cultural marker of students or teachers. Many mathematics education
researchers like to describe a study as taking place in a context that has some
meaning because of the learners who are served. They might say something like,
“This project is a case study of one teacher’s approach to engaging her Filipino
students in reform mathematics.” However, in many cases, what it means to be
Filipin@; how students’ interpret the data or make meaning of classroom practices;
how students are positioned in mathematical practices; and how this teacher and
her students fit into a broader discourse about the politics of language, racism,
sexism, and teaching and learning at this particular point in history are issues that
are never discussed.9 Instead, researchers might move on to examine the specific
8For a good introduction to post-structuralist accounts of mathematics education, see Walkerdine
(1988), and Walshaw (2004, 2007).
practices the teacher uses to teach and perhaps the meanings those practices hold
for that teacher, offering findings and potential implications for future research and
If the teacher is “successful” and students learn the requisite mathematical
concepts, the authors of such research might conclude that these particular teaching
practices are useful for other teachers of Filipino students. If the teacher is unsuc-
cessful, the authors might focus on the injustice of such practices, the subordination
of students in the process of schooling, and students’ unfair access to “high-quality”
teachers. For those who embody a sociopolitical stance, both of these major claims
may have some merit but also reflect several flaws in research, particularly seeing
identity as a fixed, overarching metanarrative, owned by the individual.
The important point is that a sociopolitical perspective challenges whether the
identities presented in the research project align with the ways in which educators
and/or learners who are participants in the project would choose to describe them-
selves. In different contexts and at different moments, Filipin@ learners and their
teachers may find other features of their identities more salient to their work or
interactions with others.
As previously mentioned, these terms, once introduced, can end up serving as
nothing more than a classification system, a common trend in research that employs
an achievement gap lens (William, 2003). More often than not, these dividing
practices make it difficult to see points of solidarity. What is hidden in using
ethnicity to signify identity is who gets to decide how identity is being defined and
employed. Moreover, by continuing to use static cultural markers, many mathe-
matics education researchers are complicit in the practice of constructing brown
and black bodies in a deficit and overly simplistic manner.
In contrast to this view, researchers and practitioners who espouse a sociopolitical
frame of mind (in particular post-structuralists) see identity as something you do,
not something you are. This kind of performativity (Butler, 1999) occurs because
all learning and knowledge is situated in social interaction. That is, an individual’s
identity is partly in his or her control and partly in the hands of others who seek to
define/create/act themselves. As an individual, I can project a particular image of
myself by the things I say (to myself and others) and the ways I interact, but others
also participate in my identity by interpreting (through their own lenses) the mean-
ings of my words and actions.
Within mathematics education, Sfard and Prusak (2005) make distinctions
between actual and designated selves, suggesting that the goal in learning should
be to narrow the gap between these two selves. Yet, to the uncareful reader, the term
“actual” self can imply a kind of truth about the self. In fact, the “self ” and “other”
are co-constitutive (Anzaldúa, 1987; Buber, 1970). I find the work in Latin@
studies to be more useful in this arena.
9The question of what it means to be Filipin@ is important. In México, the mix of Spanish and in-
digenous blood is considered Mestizo while that same mixture of Spanish and indigenous blood in the
Philippines is considered Asian (Rodriguez, 2003, p. 15).
46 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
Norma Alarcón (1996) refers to the “subject in process” to capture how margin-
alized people reject a determined/predictable identity. For Alarcón, an individual
is always in development, but not in a linear or unidirectional way. There is no
beginning or end. For Chela Sandoval (1991) these “tactical subjectivities,” where
Mestizas negotiate between and amongst the different narratives that are being
written about them, create a “differential consciousness”—a shattering of the
unitary self, a space that maintains contradictions and ambiguity, thereby allowing
a mobile form of identity to take hold. Similarly, for Anzaldúa (1987), the “herencia
de Coatlicue” (ongoing state/process of breaking free from the old boundaries of
oneself to develop new ones) is an important process in the creation of self. That
is, groups need to constantly highlight the differences between themselves and
others to create collectivity while also bridging those differences so as to avoid
further oppression. In mathematics education we recognize that learners, practitio-
ners, and researchers are constantly creating themselves—writing themselves into
the space of education and society as well as drawing upon and reacting to those
Because individuals participate in varying communities and discourses over time,
identity is necessarily dynamic, multivocal, even occasionally contradictory. The
self, therefore, is a collection of interconnected identities constituted in practices
such that any given practice positions an individual through and in race, class,
ethnicity, sexuality, gender, religion, language, and so forth. For example, I am a
Chicana10 researcher, mother of three children in the public schools, wife, daughter,
vegetarian, bilingual citizen, yoga enthusiast, teacher-educator, activist, and so on.
None of these identities are mutually exclusive or completely overlapping. Even
given this multivocality, a person’s sense of self is tied up in the discourses that he
or she participates in (historically and in present day), a kind of amalgamation in
an ongoing process. So, things that have occurred in a person’s past are not discon-
nected from the present or the imagined future.
The importance of all of these views is that the individual is both greatly influ-
enced by and greatly influences the taken-for-granted rules and institutions in
mathematics education. In terms of broader politics, identity does not just happen,
it happens for a reason. As mathematics education researchers, we need to ask:
under what circumstances are identities (e.g., of learners, educators, families,
communities) constructed, and whose interests do those identities serve?
Just as identity has taken on many meanings in mathematics education, so, too,
has power. For many in mainstream mathematics education, power is related to one
of two major constructs: (1) the power of mathematics or (2) the power associated
with being successful in mathematics. The first of these two ideas, the utilitarian
10 The term Chicana reﬂects a political stance and refers to persons of indigenous origin who claim
their homeland (Aztlán) in the southwest United States and northern part of México before the U.S./
Mexico border was constructed. I did not cross the border; the border crossed me.
view of mathematics, is implied in many policy documents and curricular text-
books. The argument goes something like this: mathematics, as a rational,
universal, and logical discipline is located in a unique position to be the ultimate
arbiter of truth. Its ability to model the real world and to maintain a kind of internal
certainty gives evidence of this privileged and earned position. Something proven
with mathematics is seen to have final say. This concept of power is the foundation
of assertions that learning mathematics gives students power in society (Malloy,
2002). It is as if mathematics carries with it something separate from humans that
can be conveyed to individuals, thereby affording them a more powerful view of
Because mathematics has been constructed in society as a valued, high-status
field, arguments that are not mathematizable are easily dismissed. Such arguments
are said to be charged with politics, ideologies, and personal interests. Yet, those
who have adopted a sociopolitical stance in their work recognize that it is this
mathematical formatting (Christensen, Skovsmose, & Yasukawa, 2008; Skovsmose,
2004), reducing a phenomenon to its primary (measurable) characteristics, that
erases part of reality, leaving it a fiction. This fiction then becomes the means for
domination. Elsewhere I have argued that rather than perpetuating the idea that
mathematics has an intrinsic power, we might want citizens to develop the ability
to discern for themselves which kinds of questions can be answered using mathe-
matics and which cannot (Gutiérrez & Dixon-Román, in press). By thinking criti-
cally about the benefits of and drawbacks to formatting realities with mathematics,
we might be more deliberate in how and when we want to use/create mathematics
in our everyday lives.
Another version of power often used in mathematics education research relates
to the status conferred on those who are successful at mathematics. That is, just as
mathematics is often perceived as an arbiter of truth, it follows that an individual
who masters the discipline should be imbued with a sense of higher esteem, intel-
ligence, and, for recent immigrants, even “insider” status (Sfard & Prusak, 2005).
With the ability myth strong in the United States, most citizens who do not meet
with success in mathematics early in their lives assume they just are not smart
enough to have mastered it. Schooling tends to perpetuate the discourse that some
people are good at mathematics while others are not by tracking students into
particular forms of mathematical practices based upon perceived ability and high-
lighting the winners of the system as evidence that the system works. This gate-
keeping view of mathematics is present in the many forms of testing and creden-
tialing that are used in further schooling and work. An individual who is interested
in pursuing graduate work in the arts and humanities must take an exam that
evaluates analytic and quantitative reasoning skills in addition to reading compre-
hension. High scores on the analytic and quantitative portions of an exam can confer
11I do not mean to imply that learning mathematics does not offer a different view of the world.
However, that view is partly tied up in the practices and meanings that are associated with doing math-
ematics for any given individual. There is no “absolute” form of mathematics that can be transferred
48 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
intelligence, even if not seen to relate to an individual’s f ield of study. And yet,
those in mathematics-related fields are not required to show the same levels of
competence in fields like English or reading comprehension.
In both of these definitions of power, it is a tangible thing that is conveyed to an
individual through a process, often learning. The fact that mathematics in these two
definitions is all positive and unchanging is never questioned in many projects
involving mathematics education. Teachers are often unknowingly complicit in this
arrangement that assumes mathematics provides a useful tool that all students should
want (or need) to learn. Although some educators may claim there is inherent beauty
in mathematics, for example making things in the world visible that without math-
ematics are not, students do not always see that mathematics is beautiful in this way.
More often than not, school mathematics serves to obscure things that otherwise
were previously visible to them. Even projects that focus squarely on equity issues
in mathematics education often have an underlying deficit perspective in terms of
trying to get more (and different kinds of) students to learn mathematics. Elsewhere,
I have referred to this perspective as “people need math” and have countered that
claim by suggesting that, in fact, “math needs people” (Gutiérrez, 2002, 2008b).12
However, a sociopolitical frame of mind challenges these two (and other) popular
definitions of power in mathematics education. Researchers concerned with the
philosophy and sociology of mathematics have made convincing arguments against
a rational, universal logic that allows mathematics to operate outside of individuals,
morals, or power relations (Clarke, 2001; Ernest, 1994, 2004; Fitzsimmons, 2002;
Restivo, 1992, 2007). Even mathematicians, when asked, offer a multitude of defi-
nitions of mathematics, including definitions that recognize human nature in its
creation (Burton & Morgan, 2000). By highlighting the fact that mathematics as a
research field is constantly changing and allows for contradictions (e.g., catastrophe
and chaos theory, undecidability, uncertainty, and fuzzy logic) researchers in this
area have started to raise questions about the very nature of mathematics (not just
mathematics education) and its relation to power.13
Moreover, those who espouse sociopolitical perspectives tend to move beyond
Marxist views of power operating from above, power as the possession of specific
individuals or groups (Yosso, 2005), or power as controlling individuals in some
kind of predetermined manner (McCarthy, Crichlow, Dimitriadis, & Dolby, 2005).
In fact, because power relations are part of our everyday lives, we participate in the
construction and circulation of power.
These sociopolitical definitions of identity and power offer an important move
against the kinds of binary categories that have proven problematic in the past. It
is overly simplistic to conclude that either students learn or are alienated; either
12 See also Walkerdine (1988) for how this perspective relates to rationality and the subordination
13 See for example, Borba and Skovsmose (1997) as well as Skovsmose and Valero (2001) for a good
discussion of this underlying myth of a utilitarian mathematics and D’Ambrosio (1990, 2006), Powell
and Frankenstein (1998), and Gutiérrez (2002) for a discussion of a more humanizing mathematics.
teachers are complicit in the racist practices of schooling or they are not. For
example, in recognizing that identity is produced through power relations, that it is
an ongoing act of cultural production, and that power is not the sole property of
one group opens up opportunities for us to see how learners and educators
constantly shape shift, how they come to define mathematics teaching and learning,
and how they can adopt lines of solidarity and responsibility for one another. The
intention of creating solidarity can be carried out without ignoring the material
realities of society and a schooling system based on capitalism. For example,
because the process of racialization is relational (i.e., one is always positioned with
respect to others), research that investigates the ways that African American,
Latin@, and American Indian students are raced/positioned opens the door for us
to see that all students are raced/positioned. As such, a focus on identity and power
is appropriate for understanding and improving the conditions not just for margin-
alized students, but for all students.
So, a study of African American preservice mathematics teachers learning to
teach social justice curriculum projects does not address identity because these
teachers are introduced as African American. Naming these teachers as African
American presents the danger of reinscribing static categories. For identity to be
taken seriously, we must also see some analysis with respect to how they are posi-
tioned in doing this work, how they position themselves in doing this work, and
what meanings they ascribe to the work that they do. That is, how is being African
American and teaching social justice mathematics for these particular teachers
different from other teachers engaged in similar activities? How do their students’
identities interact with and inform the teachers’ identities and practices? How does
teaching as an African American educator at this point in history inform and make
salient particular aspects of one’s identity?
Furthermore, the fact that these teachers are learning to teach social justice
projects (a practice that theoretically seeks to transform) does not automatically
mean this study is addressing power. Again, some level of investigation must be
taken to unveil how power operates in this setting. If the teachers are learning this
curriculum in an uncritical manner; if their definitions or interpretations of social
justice are merely content-oriented and fail to privilege the voices of their students
or result in different interactions between students in the classroom; if local
contexts are not investigated or reflected in the work; if learners are positioned as
“consumers” of the social justice projects or the teacher’s ideology; then power
may be operating in the study as little more than an empty signifier, a place holder
for later recommendations, not being created discursively through practices.
A more fluid notion of identity allows for me, as a Chicana at this point in
history, to use my Spanish language as a public act, as a form of opposition to the
English-only movement in the United States, even while fully recognizing that
Spanish was the language used to colonize my Raramuri-speaking, Tarahumara
great-grandparents. Clear lines of “oppressor” and “oppressed” are blurred if power
is not something that is owned by a particular group or enforced from above. The
very language that was once wielded against my ancestors I now use to challenge
the politics of language. Again, it is possible for individuals to play the game while
50 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
also changing it; learners and practitioners do it all the time.
Three useful concepts are brought forward from critical studies when one adopts
a sociopolitical stance: transparency, subjectivity, and agency/voice. Transparency
refers to the process of making the familiar seem strange, deconstructing the
operating paradigms, and making the taken-for-granted rules of the game more
explicit. Making dominant discourses more apparent is a necessary step toward
both recognizing how those discourses dis/advantage individuals and in chal-
lenging those discourses and their associated practices so as to put new ones into
place. For example, deconstructing the notion of “empowering students” to show
that it relies on a definition of raising test scores, not self-actualization, means
being able to recognize that there may be a space for educators to incorporate into
their goals definitions of futures that students envision for themselves. In this
sense, deconstruction is a useful process, as it highlights the ways in which current
realities are not necessarily the only, or the most natural, of those that could be
constructed (e.g., we could have a very different evaluation system in place for
students, teachers, and researchers). Similarly, by highlighting that society is set
up with whiteness as a norm, it offers greater perspective for understanding how
whites, without doing anything, are privileged and can feel normal in their
everyday practices while people of color are disadvantaged. Deconstructing social
discourses like “whiteness as normal” or “whiteness as neutral” also highlights
the fact that negotiating whiteness for people of color (beyond learning how to
“pass”) requires additional skills/strengths/sensibilities, practices that often are
not seen or valued. The same could be said around issues of gender/sexuality,
religion, (dis)ability, and language.
Subjectivity is also an important concept for many who adopt a sociopolitical
stance, highlighting the idea that individuals are not fixed, that they defy catego-
ries. Recognizing that individuals are constantly in the making, internally multi-
vocal, and contradictory is necessary for seeing the collection of identities that
they bring to bear on the enterprise of mathematics education. This complexity is
useful if we are to move beyond the kinds of list-generating and dividing practices
that are tempting in education. Such lists (e.g., of effective teaching of English
learners) work against the professionalization of teachers and the dignity of
students in a global society. No two students are identical; the same could be said
of teachers. In fact, individuals are positioned within practices that construct them.
When teachers are expected to follow a prescribed way of interacting with students
because they fit a particular category of identity, in essence they are under surveil-
lance (Foucault, 1980), a kind of external and internal monitoring that goes against
their ability to remain sensitive to the needs of particular students and the relation-
ships they create with them. That is not to say that researchers and practitioners
cannot learn from previous research that has been conducted where students like
theirs have excelled. It is only to say that this kind of knowledge must be tempered
by their successful experiences and their deep connections with students.
A third useful concept, agency/voice, arises for those who espouse a sociopo-
litical viewpoint in their work within mathematics education. When individuals
are seen as enacting their identities and actively negotiating schooling, we are able
to view the mathematics classroom as more than a site for enculturation or social
reproduction. That is, while researchers and practitioners have their own agendas,
these agendas are constantly in negotiation with the needs of others and the mean-
ings they place on circulating discourses. Any teacher who has attempted to imple-
ment a reform-oriented curriculum can tell you that students do not simply follow
along because the teacher is the authority in the classroom. Similarly, while policy
documents can promote a particular discourse in mathematics education, alone
they are not capable of determining the meanings or actions that will ensue. If
parents, teachers, administrators, and researchers did not have agency, the
Principles and Standards for School Mathematics as put forth by the governing
professional organization (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics) would
be followed in every U.S. school. That simply is not the case. So, where power
arises in discourses, it also serves as a site for resistance.
WHAT DO WE GAIN BY TAKING THE SOCIOPOLITICAL TURN?
Just as adopting sociocultural views helped us challenge widely held notions of
“learning” and “participation,” adopting sociopolitical views offers the ability to
rethink terms such as “mathematics,” “who is good in mathematics,” “the role of
resistance in relation to dominant circles,” and “quality teachers.” The process of
deconstruction is particularly useful to expose current practices/knowledges/
categories as socially constructed in a particular point in history. Doing so opens
up new possibilities—new views on learners and educators, new arrangements
within/beyond school upon which we can act. Although many gains are offered
by taking on a sociopolitical stance, I focus on a few here in hopes of further
grounding my argument.
It is important to highlight the features of practice that coincide with certain kinds
of students engaging/succeeding in school mathematics (and this form is much
more productive than focusing on failure and/or disengagement). However, a socio-
political lens helps us recognize the danger of perpetuating the view that students
that share home language, nation of origin, gender/sexuality, ethnicity, or other
features of culture are basically all the same.
Essentialization, reducing a group to a single characteristic that seeks to convey
the essence of that group, goes against the very idea of creating meaningful bonds
with students through shared interaction. Yet many well-meaning teachers and
administrators who seek to connect with their students unknowingly rely upon
distilled versions of a culture or background.
Let me be clear. I do not mean to imply that reading about successful teaching
practices with population X is not useful for helping practitioners begin to develop
a better appreciation for the ways in which they can support such students. However,
because identity is fluid, complex, multivocal, and contradictory, researchers and
52 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
practitioners who adopt a sociopolitical stance also recognize that a research study
can offer only one representation in a particular point in time and in a particular
context. Researchers employing a sociopolitical lens who advocate for English
learners, students with disabilities, or recent immigrants generally acknowledge
the tensions of creating knowledge that builds upon previous work and informs the
field while also not implicitly conveying that all English learners, students with
disabilities, or immigrant students are the same.
The position of the researcher, the research methodologies employed, along with
the kinds of questions asked highly influence the nature of “findings” that any study
can produce. Without the voices of marginalized people commenting on their
interpretations of the mathematical practices in which they are engaged, we are
unlikely to fully understand the possibilities of other arrangements in mathematics
education. Equally important, recognizing that identity is something that an indi-
vidual does, not is, opens the door for learners and educators to (re)produce,
(re)signify, and (re)use the operating paradigm for their own purposes.
If power is not something that is wielded against people by other individuals,
but rather institutionalized in discourses, then students who have been marginal-
ized by society have the ability to construct a counter narrative (either through
voice or actions) that justifies their position and affirms their self-worth. We have
to remember that learners, like educators, are fairly sophisticated. They do not
merely succumb to the framings that others cast upon them. All individuals
(students, teachers, administrators, family members) negotiate the education
context; some are merely more effective/resourceful at it than others, given their
intentions. So, while we should be concerned that students could be forced to
assimilate into a particular way of interacting in a classroom in order to participate,
a sociopolitical perspective can also show us that just because a student is partic-
ipating in ways that we ascribe to “successful students” does not necessarily mean
that student buys into deficit notions of kids who do not participate in the same
manner. Nor do students necessarily define themselves based solely on how well
their behaviors or grades correlate with discourses on the achievement gap
(McGee, 2009; Stinson, 2010).
Resistance is often thought of as fairly one-dimensional. That is, when school is
seen as the site of social and political struggle, students who resist authority and the
reproductive role of schooling in a capitalist society end up sacrificing participation
in learning (Willis, 1981). Unfortunately, this is the kind of thinking that leads people
to buy into such discourses as “the burden of acting white.” Yet we learn from
conceptual tools like counter narratives, subversion, testimonios, and resignification
that resistance exists in forms that are not easily unearthed in interviews or classroom
observations and, perhaps more important, that exercising agency does not neces-
sarily mean choosing to fail. Students can knowingly play the game without letting
the game define them. They do not do this individually, but rather as part of a larger
group of people who are (re)writing society and education.
Educators who take a sociopolitical stance recognize that mathematics education
is identity work. Learners are always positioning themselves with respect to the
doing of mathematics, their peers, their sense of themselves and their communities,
and their futures. So, when an astute teacher sees that a student is not doing what
is expected in the mathematics classroom, the teacher can recognize that the reason
for this unexpected activity is connected to identity-in-the-making: resisting narra-
tives that position the student as inferior, unworthy, abnormal, or on the margins of
the local (e.g., classroom) culture. Savvy teachers can then use this understanding
to think about how to be empathetic toward students who are doing this self-
protective work and to think about how to better support students negotiating the
mathematics classroom (e.g., opening up the range of identities), without
prescribing the kinds of identities that are seen as valid.
Challenges Common Notions of Teacher Quality
As American researchers and policy makers race to close the “achievement gap,”
greater emphasis on mathematical knowledge for teaching has taken hold (Ball,
Thames, & Phelps, 2008; Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005; Hill, Sleep, Lewis, & Ball,
2007). School districts and teacher education programs are investing in profes-
sional development of teachers, the underlying theory being that the main problem
with student learning is that their teachers do not know their mathematics in deep
enough or flexible enough ways. What is lacking in these approaches is a model
of teacher development that includes giving teachers the skills to form a deep
connection to students and political knowledge: negotiating the world of high-
stakes testing and standardization, connecting with and explaining mathematics
to community members and district officials, and buffering themselves, rein-
venting, or subverting the system to be an advocate for their students (Gutiérrez,
I recently gave a talk to a large audience of researchers and practitioners on the
dangers of using an achievement gap lens in mathematics education. One
gentleman in the audience, an administrator, talked about a number of things he
had tried in his district to improve mathematics scores over the years and eventu-
ally decided it was time to focus on some diversity training, rather than more
mathematics professional development. I would argue that he was on the right
track. Too often, we develop categories of “effective mathematics teachers” or
“high-quality mathematics teachers” strictly around lines of mathematics or
narrow versions of pedagogy, failing to fully capture the dispositions, social inter-
actions, and commitments to advocacy that go hand in hand with the very practices
necessary for supporting marginalized students in mathematics—challenging
discourses such as “doing well in school requires acting White” and/or “Whites
and Asians are good at math.” By recognizing that students’ identities are not first
and foremost about mathematics (even in the mathematics classroom), we begin
to see how “highly qualified teacher” is not a category that can be dismissed from
the kinds of students one teaches, the interactions in which one engages, or broader
power relations in society. The very practices that are taken up in the classroom
54 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
and the meaning of doing mathematics are inextricably tied to the constellation of
other identities that students bring to the classroom. Such an acknowledgement
opens the doors for us to see that holding an equity stance means recognizing that
as a mathematics teacher, one teaches mathematics and so much more than math-
ematics that influences students’ development (Gutiérrez, 2008c, 2009).
Challenges Racial Hierarchy
Recognizing that the identities of individuals are constructed partly through the
discourses that operate in mathematics education, we can begin to see how ability
is socially constructed. The achievement gap is a perfect example. Although
mainly concerned with the well-being of marginalized students (defined here as
African American, Latin@, American Indian/indigenous, working class students,
and English learners), mathematics education researchers who focus on the
achievement gap support practices that often are against the best interests of those
students. In fact, “gap gazing” offers little more than a static picture of inequities,
supports deficit thinking and negative narratives about marginalized students,
accepts a static notion of student identity, relies upon Whites as a comparison
group, divides and categorizes students, ignores the largely overlapping distribu-
tions of student achievement, offers a “safe” proxy for talking about students of
color without naming them, relies upon narrow definitions of learning and equity,
and perpetuates the myth that the problem (and therefore solution) is technical in
nature (Gutiérrez, 2008a).
Regardless of whether one operates in a setting that explicitly articulates an
achievement gap focus, it is the gaze, along with the power of repeating this focus
that gives authority to a particular discourse about equity, thereby allowing for
only certain “truths” to arise—that African American and Latin@ students are
inferior to Whites. By providing the categories by which teachers and students see
themselves (e.g., gap closer, bubble kids), the gaze can further serve to regulate
bodies in ways that shut down other possible discourses and practices within
school. This regulation occurs because schools produce mechanisms for shaping,
monitoring, and disciplining the knowledges, modes of operating, and positionings
of teachers. Every teacher wants to be “normal,” or seen as professional. The idea
that others will be judging you to see how your students measure up on standard-
ized tests causes many teachers to go against their better judgments of focusing
on relationships and broader notions of learning to focusing on test preparation.
The mere threat of surveillance is enough to affect the practices seen to be valid.
Engaging issues of identity and power helps unveil the problems with framing
equity from an achievement gap perspective. It highlights how a focus that
purports to be in the best interest of students of color reduces them to little more
than a test score, with little regard for how mathematics may be meaningful or
useful in their lives. It also makes possible other goals in mathematics education.
“Excellence” as defined by marginalized students is one such example (Gutiérrez,
2008a; Hilliard, 2003; Matthews, 2008).
Challenges (School) Mathematics
A final way in which a sociopolitical turn can help mathematics education is
that it opens the door for mathematics itself to be deconstructed and examined so
that we are more conscious of the discourses and practices that we reinforce and/
or challenge. If mathematics is not something out there (rational, universal,
innately useful), separate from humans, then researchers and practitioners can
learn from students and communities (both inside and outside of school) the
various meanings that can be ascribed to doing/creating mathematics. Some
research suggests that, in fact, holding a view of mathematics where truth is
historically located, connected to the knower, and mutable may be an important
component of being a critical mathematics educator (Povey, 2002).
This process of learning from students and communities does not mean a kind
of appropriation or exploitation of meanings or practices separate from that which
is negotiated by and with individuals. That is, we would not expect to import tasks
that involve basketball or dominoes into the classroom merely because they have
meaning for some African American students outside of school (Nasir, 2000,
2013). The meaning of a mathematical concept (e.g., What is slope?) cannot be
extracted from the meaning of the mathematical task that is presented to and
interpreted by students. However, being open to the multiple meanings that
students place on mathematical practices and offering an educational setting where
those meanings can be valued and built upon is a step in the right direction.
It is important to pay attention to the views of subordinated peoples, as they
offer a critique of what has been normalized in school. In this way, we open the
possibility not just for teaching mathematics in more equitable ways (as it relates
to oppressed peoples), but also for a radical revolution in mathematics (Bueno,
2007). This move to challenge what counts as mathematics is driven not from a
perspective that assumes certain students cannot be motivated by abstract versions
of mathematics (Dowling, 1998) or that all mathematical practices should relate
to the “real world” in a concrete sense, but rather from a perspective that assumes
that mathematics as a human practice can become more just.
CHALLENGES TO ADOPTING A SOCIOPOLITICAL STANCE
I have outlined some of the potential benefits of taking the sociopolitical turn
in mathematics education. However, understanding some of the difficulties in this
work may be just as important. First, post-structuralism has been faulted for an
overemphasis on deconstruction to the point where everything can be seen as
relative (Hill, 2001). That is, breaking something down into its parts is necessary
if we are to reconstruct something more equitable. However, an overemphasis on
deconstruction can reduce social interactions to the point where economics, values
and morals disappear, where justice becomes a moving target depending upon
whose view is taken. Similarly, in focusing on how individuals are raced, we must
work hard to connect such analyses with how people are gendered, how the politics
56 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
of language operate, economic positioning, and other areas related to identity.
As mathematics educators, we also must not ascribe too much agency to indi-
viduals. That is, just because I can deconstruct the politics of language and can
use a counter narrative (e.g., seeing monolingualism as a deficit position to
bilingualism or multilingualism) or can resignify the meanings of the English-only
discourse (as a position of fear, leaving those who speak other languages with
more power) does not mean that others will value or acknowledge those framings.
Others still might view me as inferior. So the danger is in thinking that because
students and teachers are sophisticated and are capable of negotiating complex
power relations that they should have to do so, that they are never victims of insti-
tutional structures and practices, or that the mathematical practices in school
should not change.
In the same way that I highlighted the importance of not focusing too strictly
on mathematics so that social relations and advocacy disappear, we must also be
cautious of not focusing on discourse to the point where mathematics disappears
(Sierpinska, 2005). Mathematics has been constructed in particular ways
throughout history that have allowed for particular meanings and “truths” to arise,
positioning some individuals as inferior or illegitimate. While connections
between mathematics and other human practices is critical, we should not lose the
perspective provided by those who employ a philosophical, sociological, or anthro-
pological view of mathematics who have invested time in thinking about how
mathematical practices in particular are constructed by, through, and in individ-
uals. Too many research projects pass up this opportunity.
Finally, we must also not fall into the trap of analyzing power and identity for
its own sake. Taking the sociopolitical turn means deconstructing the taken-for-
granted rules and modes of operating and making the familiar seem strange, not
as a kind of intellectual exercise, but as a means to open up possibilities for some-
thing new—new forms of operating, new strengths to be valued, new arrangements
in schooling practices, new meanings of mathematics education, new connections
between mathematics education and the world. It is easy to philosophize about
what mathematics is or can be. But, ultimately, we care about how mathematical
practices connect with the identities, futures, and lived consequences for indi-
viduals in society.
WHY HASN’T THE SOCIOPOLITICAL TURN HAPPENED SOONER?
If making the sociopolitical turn offers so much promise, you may be asking,
why haven’t these theories and conceptual tools become more prominent in main-
stream mathematics education? The reasons are complex. Partly, the field is still
somewhat in its infancy. Ethnomathematics, which seeks to decenter Western
mathematics and highlight the mathematical practices of people throughout the
world, was created in the 1980s; critical and social justice mathematics has flour-
ished just in the last 2 decades; critical race theory, LatCrit theory, and science
and technology studies only gained momentum in the mid-1990s, and
post-structuralism and postmodernism have been embraced in mathematics educa-
tion only recently.
In addition, conducting research that highlights the dynamic nature of identity
and the production of power in social interactions requires knowing multiple
literatures outside the field of mathematics education and finding appropriate
ways to draw upon them. Opportunities to learn these bodies of literature as part
of one’s formal preparation in mathematics education are rare. Although educa-
tional fields like literacy already seem to have embraced the sociopolitical turn,
and many fields have moved on from the purely political to emphasize the spiritual
(Anzaldúa & Keating, 2002), mathematics still is largely regarded as a discipline
devoid of human influence. As mentioned previously, the strides in challenging
this view have come from researchers with one foot in mathematics and the other
in philosophy, sociology, science studies, or anthropology. Yet, the broader math-
ematics education community has not taken full advantage of the products of such
Researchers concerned with a liberatory aspect of mathematics education as
related to oppressed peoples tend to embrace interdisciplinarity and draw from
cultural studies and critical theory to explain and attempt to intervene in the
production of hegemonic practices. Again, doing so requires staying abreast of
several quickly moving fields. In the United States, the development of researchers
who are capable of doing this complex work means not only large grants that will
support such research endeavors (as seen in centers of learning and teaching such
as CEMELA, DiME, and to some extent MetroMath14), but also senior scholars
who can mentor students into this work in meaningful and sophisticated ways,
along with institutional practices that value interdisciplinarity and commitment to
research for the public good. Just as teaching from an equity stance is much more
than knowing the latest findings on effective teaching in marginalized populations
(Gutiérrez, 2008c, 2009), enacting research that focuses on identity and power is
not as simple as being able to manipulate the various literatures in a technical
sense. The researcher must in some way embody the tenets of an emancipatory
framework. For some, that means drawing heavily on lived experiences as a
marginalized person. For others, it means applying and (re)writing theories and
frameworks that give voice to others.15 So, while “equity” has become a hot topic
in mathematics education, the theoretical underpinnings, epistemologies, and
methodologies employed still lag far behind other disciplines. Any resistance to
the sociopolitical turn is a form of hegemony.
From the point of view of regular JRME readers, opportunities to engage in
14 The Center for Mathematics Education of Latinos/Latinas (CEMELA), Diversity in Mathematics
Education (DiME), and MetroMath were all National Science Foundation funded centers that brought
together faculty from universities across the United States and sought to develop researchers who
could better attend to the complexity of equity issues in mathematics education.
15 For excellent discussions of research methodologies as they relate to sociopolitical dimensions
and power speciﬁcally, see Bernal (2001, 2002), Kaomea (2003), Lather (1991), Lomawaima (2000),
Lopez (2001), Sandoval (2000), Solórzano and Yosso (2002), Smith (1999), St. Pierre and Pillow
(2000), Valero and Zevenbergen (2004), and Villenas (1996).
58 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
these issues have been limited by the number of research articles that have
embraced critical perspectives on mathematics education. As recently as 1994,
Elizabeth Fennema and Laurie Hart completed a review of research on gender in
JRME and concluded
It is clear that some types and areas of scholarship dealing with gender and mathe-
matics have not been represented in the pages of the JRME. Undoubtedly, this has
occurred for a variety of reasons: Articles of publication-quality have not been
submitted, reviewers and editors have not thought work within certain areas appro-
priate for JRME publication, or there just have not been any studies representing the
area submitted for review. (p. 651)
All three of these reasons are plausible. If the aim of research is viewed as
uncovering “truths” and “knowledge” in absolute terms, then gender studies that
draw upon feminist theory (aiming not just to understand within the current para-
digm, but also to liberate girls) is easily construed as not “publication-quality.” It
is very likely that the image of JRME (its focus on cognitive issues and truths)
prevented researchers who drew upon feminist theory from ever submitting their
A decade ago, Lubienski and Bowen (2000) did a review of mathematics educa-
tion articles in a number of journals, including JRME. In their review of articles
from 1982 to 1998, only 5% addressed issues related to race, ethnicity, or social
class. More specifically, they found that
In comparison with research on ethnicity, class, and disability, research on gender
was more prevalent and integrated into mainstream U.S. mathematics education
research. Overall, the majority of research seemed to focus on student cognition and
outcomes, with less attention to contextual or cultural issues. (p. 626)
Today, that same statement could be made with respect to sociocultural views
being more present in mainstream mathematics education research than sociopo-
litical views. A review of JRME articles from 1999 through 2008 reveals a similar
trend. Ignoring book reviews, 17 research articles out of 124 address issues of
race, class, gender, language, or equity broadly related.16 Of those articles, only
five frame these issues in political terms, as related to racism, classism, language
politics, or gendered lives. Interestingly, Walshaw drew on the early work of
Walkerdine and postmodernism to develop an article on gender issues that
appeared in JRME in 2001, but it was not embraced by the mathematics education
community at large in the United States. However, she continued her work and
helped usher in (along with many others) an international line of thinking that
draws on post-structuralist and postmodernist perspectives in mathematics educa-
tion (Brown, 1994, 2005; Fitzsimmons, 2002; Puig, 1998; Stinson, 2013;
Tymoczko, 1994; Vass, 1994; Walkerdine, 1988, 1994; Walshaw, 2001, 2004;
Although reviews of journal articles suggest the sociopolitical turn is not occur-
16 During this time frame, two short articles by the Research Advisory Committee of JRME and a
trio of short research commentary pieces related to equity were also published.
ring within JRME, it certainly has been happening elsewhere in mathematics
education. Evidence of this turn has arisen in such forms as the handbook chapter
by the Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Teaching and Learning
(2007), U.S. education journals without a mathematics focus (see for example,
Ellis, 2008; Gutiérrez, 2009; Martin, 2009; Stinson, 2006; 2008), international
mathematics education journals (two Mathematical Teaching and Learning special
issues—vol. 4, 2 & 3, and vol. 8, 3; a special issue in Educational Studies in
Mathematics—vol. 64; as well as in Mathematics Education Research Journal),
international books and series (e.g., Atweh, Graven, Secada, & Valero, in press;
Brown & McNamara, 2005; Ernest, 1994; Skovsmose & Valero, 2002; Walshaw,
2004, 2007; the Falmer Press series Studies in Mathematics Education, as well as
the Springer series), international study groups and conferences (e.g., ICMI,
ISGEM, MES, MERGA, RadicalMath.org), and to a certain extent in newly started
electronic journals in the United States (e.g., Journal of Urban Mathematics
Education). This collection of articles seeks to further highlight the voices and
perspectives of researchers, learners, and educators who are grappling with what
it means to (re)construct themselves and mathematics in ways that are more just.
In doing so, it offers JRME readers and other researchers ways of embracing not
just the social, but also the political.
On the one hand, special issues of journals and single handbook chapters dedi-
cated to issues of equity run the risk of reifying a marginalized position in the
mathematics education community. The Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education has had two such special equity issues. The first, published in 1984,
was chaired by Westina Matthews and focused on “minorities in mathematics.”
The second was published in 1997, chaired by Bill Tate and Bia D’Ambrosio, and
focused on culturally relevant pedagogy and opportunities to learn. So, in some
ways it is not surprising that a decade later, JRME is prepared to offer a special
issue related to equity. Some could discount this special issue, seeing it as further
ghettoization of the ideas, as not really leaving an impact on JRME or its readers.
In fact, by creating special issues on equity topics, JRME has positioned its readers
to easily “ignore” or “distance” themselves on the issues. On the other hand, it
also marks a particular point in our history and creates a sense of energy/synergy
to have so many articles, from an international group of authors, positioned
together and offering a critique of the status quo within mathematics education.
As such, this issue has the opportunity to provide the very counter narrative that
is needed in mathematics education, opening a space for dialogue among those
who have taken the sociopolitical turn and others who share their views as well as
those who are new to these ideas.
It is from within the margins that new sites of cultural production arise. That is,
because mathematical practices are inherently social and there exist a variety of
social groups that will embed their own meanings and purposes onto and through
such practices, there will always be subgroups that will challenge the current order
of things. Considering these alternate spaces of cultural production as legitimate
critiques of schooling (McCarthy et al., 2005) opens up new lines of research and
60 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
new ways of imagining mathematics education. Without these critiques, mathe-
matics education as a field is in danger of stagnation, unable to address the reali-
ties of global citizens. Even so, education is always going on in life (e.g., street
corners, churches, families, while standing in line). We are fooling ourselves if we
believe that schooling is the main vehicle by which people learn (mathematics).
As such, we need to better understand how subaltern groups negotiate the spaces
outside of schooling and how they make sense of their surroundings if we are to
develop a fuller picture of how mathematics education operates. In that sense,
taking the sociopolitical turn is a necessary chapter in mathematics education, as
it is from the views of such groups that mathematics education will continue to
grow and evolve (in ways that allow schooling to appropriately supplement what
goes on elsewhere). With new conceptual tools in mind, we can begin to investigate
such questions as these:17
tions of African American, Latin@, American Indian, poor, English learners,
LGBTQ, and other marginalized learners? And, what are the ways in which
such learners accommodate, resist, subvert, (re)signify, (re)produce, and
transgress those constructions?
•How and why do mathematics educators develop an understanding of the
politics and values involved in knowledge creation? How and why do they
develop the commitment/power to challenge the conventional wisdom of what
counts as mathematics and who is good at it?
tice of teaching with their learners’ development as critical citizens? What are
some common tensions in this work?
the mathematics classroom and education as a broader social practice so that
they maintain their cultural identities and fare well on standardized measures
of (school) success? How can educators support these strategies of negotia-
education? What is the role of the construction of difference and/or solidarity
in this reframing?
about how learners are positioned and how they position themselves when they
use their cultural/linguistic resources across multiple settings, both in and out
17These research questions were developed in part with members of the Editorial Panel, includ-
ing Beatriz D’Ambrosio, Marilyn Frankenstein, Signe Kastberg, Danny Martin, Judit Moschkovich,
Edd Taylor, and Dave Barnes (NCTM liaison).
mathematical identities within raced, gendered, and other subaltern learner and
mentation of mathematics curricula or pedagogical embodiments?
in the institutional practices that perpetuate inequities and unnecessarily
constrict the identities that learners and teachers are able to enact around
•In what way(s)can thinking about education more comprehensively (e.g.,
recognizing that education occurs in all facets of one’s life—including street
corners, doctors’ offices, families, religion, even standing in line) help us
better unite philosophers, sociologists, and cultural anthropologists of math-
ematics with those who educate broadly?
I have outlined a number of useful concepts and tools we can (re)use from
critical theories and post-structuralist thought. I have suggested that these concep-
tual tools offer a different perspective on issues of identity and power than are
traditionally embraced by the mathematics education community at large. While
these concepts and tools are not necessarily new, it is the purposeful collection of
them (by way of this special issue) and the analysis of their contributions that offers
promise to mathematics education.
It is time to apply these sociopolitical tools in strategic ways so as to move
beyond binary positions, make transparent that current realities are only one of
many possible, and more effectively subvert the power dynamics at play in math-
ematics education. To be sure, the articles in this issue will expand on the theo-
retical concepts I have presented in this article. Moreover, they will highlight the
usefulness of such tools through specific mathematical practices so that we might
better understand our potential for different arrangements in school mathematics
and how to improve mathematics education overall.
If the field of mathematics education is to support practitioners to engage in
issues of identity and power, it must provide incentives for them to see that learning
and teaching mathematics are not neutral activities. In fact, because teachers are
knowledge brokers, they need support in recognizing the extra/hidden work that
learners do around mathematics as it relates to their identities. Only then can
teachers become experts at supporting learners to maintain a sense of wholeness
while doing mathematics, a key aspect of equity. At a basic level, this requires
teacher education and ongoing professional development that helps educators (and
their learners) see mathematics classrooms as part of larger social and political
histories. The field of mathematics education must also be prepared to support
educators to position themselves in their work (e.g., tying their fate to the fate of
their students) thereby broadening their goals to include student actualization.
62 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
Moreover, educators need support to identify and challenge discourses that further
ingrain inequities and/or privilege test scores as sole measures for learning. This
means helping teachers develop not just knowledge of mathematics, pedagogy,
and learners, but also the political knowledge and experiences necessary to nego-
tiate the system (e.g., learning how to use creative insubordination to buffer
themselves from mandates that are not in the best interest of their students) and
develop working networks with other educators who share their emancipatory
visions. Developing a language for this broadened version of professionalism
would be of utmost concern.
Similarly, if mathematics education is to clearly benefit from the untapped
potential of researchers who have embraced the sociopolitical turn, the field needs
to recognize that all research projects are political. To engage with the political,
the field needs to value and encourage researchers to position themselves within
their work (e.g., articulating those aspects of their identities and ideologies that
inform their choice of research projects, the design of such projects, the kinds of
questions asked, and findings produced), as seen in this special issue. The field
also needs to expose oppressions and revive the histories of marginalized peoples
(e.g., students, families, scholars who have not published in mainstream mathe-
matics education research). Moreover, mathematics education must recognize and
challenge discourses that equate “science” with doing quantitative work while also
learning from other disciplines that have longer histories of exploring identity and
power issues. As part of our everyday work, mathematics education researchers
need to resist becoming pawns in the current climate of universities seeking to
make more money. More specifically, the field of mathematics education needs
to challenge the ideology of academia that privileges knowledge production for
other academics and encourages researchers to make themselves marketable.
Current options for publishing mathematics education research offer little room
for researchers to position themselves in their work, to focus on research for the
public good, or to explain other disciplinary fields. We must change these trends.
I stated in the opening of this article that it is both very easy and very hard to
attend to identity and power issues in today’s society. Yet I believe we are up for
the challenge. Many mathematics education researchers recognize the benefits we
have gained from including sociocultural perspectives in our work. The sociopo-
litical turn offers an additional layer that highlights issues of power at play in these
interactions, thereby helping us better reflect and contribute to the complexity in
our society. Today, we have various theoretical tools that lend themselves to the
analysis of teaching and learning as it is related to the relationship between knowl-
edge and power. Without an explicit focus on issues of identity and power, we are
unlikely to do more than tinker with the arrangements in school that contribute to
theproduction of inequities in the lived experiences of learners and educators. We
must be willing and able to embrace the sociopolitical turn. Such embracing will
help us better understand the current situation in its moment in history as it has
been constructed so we can open the door for other possible arrangements. If, as
a field, we are not willing to recognize the political nature of mathematics educa-
tion or the fact that teaching and learning are negotiated practices that implicate
our identities, we might as well give up on all of this “talk” about equity.
Alcarón, N. (1996). Conjugating subjects in the age of multiculturalism. In A. F. Gordon & C. New-
ﬁeld (Eds.), Mapping multiculturalism (pp. 127−148). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La Frontera: The new mestiza. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
Anzaldúa, G., & Keating, A. L. (2002). This bridge we call home: Radical visions for transformation.
New York: Routledge.
Atweh, B., Forgasz, H., and Nebres, B. (2001). Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An
international perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Atweh, B., Barton, A. C., Borba, M. C., Gough, N., Keitel, C., Vistro-Yu, C., & Vithal, R. (Eds).
(2008). Internationalisation and globalisation in mathematics and science education. Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Springer.
Atweh, B., Graven, M., Secada, W., and Valero, P. (Eds.). (in press). Mapping equity and quality in
mathematics education. Springer.
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it
special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389−407.
Bernal, D. D. (2001). Learning and living pedagogies of the home: The Mestiza consciousness of
Chicana students. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14(5), 623−639.
Bernal, D. D. (2002). Critical race theory, Latino critical theory, and critical raced-gendered epis-
temologies: Recognizing students of color as holders and creators of knowledge. Qualitative In-
quiry, 8(1), 105−126.
Berry, R. Q. III. (2008). Access to upper-level mathematics: The stories of successful African Ameri-
can middle school boys. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(5), 464−488.
Bishop, A. (2002). What values do you teach when you teach mathematics? In P. Gates (Ed.), Issues
in mathematics teaching (pp. 93−104). Cambridge, MA: Routledge.
Borba, M., & Skovsmose, O. (1997). The ideology of certainty in mathematics education. For the
Learning of Mathematics, 17(3), 17−23.
Brown, T. (1994). Describing the mathematics you are part of: A post-structuralist account of math-
ematical learning. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education and philosophy: An international
perspective (pp. 154−161). Bristol, PA: Falmer Press.
Brown, T., & McNamara, O. (2005). New teacher identity and regulative government: The discursive
formation of primary mathematics teacher education. New York: Springer.
Buber, M. (1970). I and thou. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Bueno, O. (2007). Incommensurability in mathematics. In B. van Kerkhove & J. P. van Bendegem
(Eds.), Perspectives on mathematical practices: Bringing together philosophy of mathematics,
sociology of mathematics, and mathematics education (pp. 83−106). Dordrecht, the Netherlands:
Burton, L., & Morgan, C. (2000). Mathematicians writing. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 31(4), 429−453.
Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble. New York: Routledge.
Christensen, O. R., Skovsmose, O., and Yasukawa, K. (2008). The mathematical state of the world—
Explorations into the characteristics of mathematical descriptions. ALEXANDRIA Revista de Edu-
cação em Ciência e Tecnologia, 1(1), 77−90.
Clarke, D. (2001). Untangling uncertainty, negotiation and intersubjectivity. In D. Clarke (Ed.), Per-
spectives on practice and meaning in mathematics and science classrooms (pp. 33−52). Norwell,
D’Ambrosio, U. (1990). The role of mathematics education in building a democratic and just society.
For the Learning of Mathematics, 10, 20−23.
64 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
D’Ambrosio, U. (2006). Ethnomathematics: Link between traditions and modernity. Rotterdam, the
Netherlands: Sense Publishing.
Davidson, A. L. (1997). Marbella Sanchez: On marginalization and silencing. In M. Seller & L.
Weis (Eds.), Beyond black and white: New faces and voices in U.S. schools (pp. 15−44). Albany:
Diversity in Mathematics Education Center for Learning and Teaching. (2007). Culture, race, power,
and mathematics education. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics
teaching and learning (pp. 405−433). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Dixon, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2005). And we are still not saved: critical race theory in education
ten years later. Race ethnicity and education, 8(1), 7−27.
Dixon, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2006). Critical race theory in education: All god’s children got a
song. New York: Routledge.
Dowling, P. (1998). The sociology of mathematics education: Pedagogic texts. Bristol, PA: Falmer
Ellis, M. (2008). None too far ahead: Ensuring (in)equity in mathematics education through the sci-
ence of measurement and instruction. Teachers College Record, 110(6), 1330−1356.
Ellis, M., & Berry, R. Q. (2005). The paradigm shift in mathematics education: Explanations and im-
plications of reforming conceptions of teaching and learning. The Mathematics Educator, 15(1),
Ernest, P. (1994). Mathematics, education and philosophy: An international perspective. Bristol, PA:
Ernest, P. (2004). Postmodernism and the subject of mathematics. In M. Walshaw (Ed.), Mathematics
education within the postmodern (pp. 15−33). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
Fennema, E., & Hart, L. (1994). Gender and the JRME. Journal for Research in Mathematics Educa-
tion, 25(6), 648−659.
Fernández, L. (2002). Telling stories about school: Using critical race and Latino critical theories to
document Latina/Latino education and resistance. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 45−65.
Fitzsimmons, G. (2002). What counts as mathematics: Technologies of power in adult and vocational
education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Flores, J., & Garcia, S. (2009). Latina testimonios: A reﬂective critical analysis of “Latina space” at
a predominantly White campus. Race Ethnicity & Education, 12(2), 155–172.
Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the person (Trans: A. Sheridan). Harmond-
sworth, UK: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (Trans: C.
Gordon et al.) New York: Pantheon.
Frankenstein, M. (1989). Relearning mathematics: A different third R—Radical math. London, UK:
Free Association Books.
Frankenstein, M. (1990). Incorporating race, gender, and class issues into a critical mathematical
literacy curriculum. Journal of Negro Education, 59, 336–347.
Frankenstein, M. (1995). Equity in mathematics education: Class in the world outside the class. In W.
G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics educa-
tion (pp. 165–190). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Frankenstein, M. (2007). Quantitative form in arguments. In D. Gabbard (Ed.), Knowledge and
power in the global economy: The effects of school reform in a neoliberal/neoconservative age (pp.
525−541). New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Frankenstein, M. (2009). Using real real-life problems in teaching critical mathematical literacy. In
L. Verschaffel, B. Greer, W. Van Dooren, & S. Mukhopadhyay, (Eds.) Words and worlds: Modeling
verbal descriptions of situations. Rotterdam: The Netherlands: Sense Publications.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder.
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York: Routledge.
Gregson, S. (2007). The equity practice of a mathematics teacher in a secondary school committed
to college preparation, community connection, and social justice. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Gregson, S. (2008). We’re gonna roll through this together: Beals community school creating a con-
text for critical scholarship, organizing, and equitable teacher practice. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Gutiérrez, R. (in preparation). When professional development is not enough: Mathematics teachers,
professional communities, and the politics of implementing an equity-based reform. Journal of
Urban Mathematics Education.
Gutiérrez, R. (2002). Enabling the practice of mathematics teachers in context: Towards a new equity
research agenda. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 4(2 & 3), 145–187.
Gutiérrez, R. (2008a). A “gap gazing” fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on
the achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 357–364.
Gutiérrez, R. (2008b, Fall/Winter). Realizing the potential of Chicanas/os and Native Americans:
Engaging identity and power issues in teaching students mathematics and science. SACNAS News.
Gutiérrez, R. (2008c) What is “Nepantla” and how can it help physics education researchers concep-
tualize knowledge for teaching? In M. Sabella (Ed.). Proceedings of the 2008 annual meeting of
the Physics Education Research Conference, Edmonton, Canada.
Gutiérrez, R. (2009). Embracing the inherent tensions in teaching mathematics from an equity stance.
Democracy and Education, 18(3), 9–16.
Gutiérrez, R., & Dixon-Román, E. (in press). Beyond gap gazing: Can supplementary and compre-
hensive education help us better understand and promote excellence? In B. Atweh, M. Graven, W.
Secada, & P. Valero (Eds.), Mapping equity and quality in mathematics education.
Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 37–73.
Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and writing the world with mathematics: Toward a pedagogy for social
justice. New York: Routledge.
Hill, D. (2001). State theory and the neo-liberal reconstruction of schooling and teacher education: A
structuralist neo-Marxist critique of postmodernist, quasi postmodernist, and cultural neo-Marxist
theory. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 22(1), 135-155.
Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teach-
ing on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.
Hill, H. C., Sleep, L., Lewis, J. M., & Ball, D. L. (2007). Assessing teachers’ mathematical knowl-
edge: What knowledge matters and what evidence counts? In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook
of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 111–155). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
Hilliard, A. G. (2003). No mystery: Closing the achievement gap between Africans and excellence.
In T. Perry, C. Steele, and A. Hilliard III, Young, gifted, and black: Promoting high achievement
among African-American students (pp. 131−166). Boston: Beacon Press.
Kaomea, J. (2003). Reading erasures and making the familiar strange: Defamiliarizing methods for
research in formerly colonized and historically oppressed communities. Educational Researcher,
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995) Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers College
Record, 97, 47–68.
Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy within the postmodern. New York:
Lerman, S. (2000). The social turn in mathematics education research. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple
perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 19–44). Westport, CT: Ablex.
Lomawaima, K. (2000). Reframing research in American Indian Education. Harvard Educational
Review, 70(1), 1–21.
Lopez, G. (2001). Re-visiting White racism in educational research: Critical race theory and the
problem of method. Educational Researcher, 30(1), 29–35.
López, I. H. (2006). White by law: The legal construction of race. New York: New York University
Lubienski, S. T., & Bowen, A. (2000). Who’s Counting? A Survey of Mathematics Education Re-
search 1982-1998. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(5), 626-633.
66 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
Malloy, C. (2002). Democratic access to mathematics through democratic education: An introduc-
tion. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp.
17−25). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Martin, D. (2009). Researching race in mathematics education. Teachers College Press, 111(2),
Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R. III, Delgado, R., & Crenshaw, K. W. (Eds). (1993). Words that
wound: Critical race theory, assaultive speech and the ﬁrst amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview
Matthews, L. (2008). Illuminating urban excellence: A movement of change within mathematics
education. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 1(1), 1–4.
McCarthy, C., Crichlow, W., Dimitriadis, G., & Dolby, N. (2005). Race, identity, and representation
in education (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
McGee, E. (2009, April). A model of mathematical resilience: Black college students negotiating
success in mathematics and engineering. Paper presented at the presession of the annual meeting
of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Washington, DC.
Mellin-Olsen, S. (1987). The politics of mathematics education. Norwell, MA: Kluwer Academic.
Mukhopadhyay, S., & Greer, B. (2001) Modeling with a purpose: Mathematics as a critical tool. In
B. Atweh, H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An
international perspective (pp. 295–311). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nasir, N. S. (2000). Points ain’t everything: Emergent goals and average and percent understanding
in the play of basketball among African American students. Anthropology & Education Quarterly,
Nasir, N. S., & McKinney de Royston, M. (2013). Power, identity, and mathematical practices outside
and inside of school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 264–287.
Nasir, N. S., Hand, V., & Taylor, E. (2008). Culture and mathematics in school: Boundaries between
“cultural” and “domain” knowledge in the mathematics classroom and beyond. Review of Re-
search in Education, 32, 187–240.
Parker, L. (1999). Race is, race ain’t: Critical race theory and qualitative studies in education. Boul-
der: Westview Press.
Peters, M., & Burbules, N. C. (2004). Poststructuralism and educational research. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littleﬁeld.
Povey, H. (2002). Promoting social justice in and through the mathematics curriculum: Exploring
the connections with epistemologies of mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal,
Powell, A. B., & Brantlinger, A. (2008). A pluralistic view of critical mathematics. In J. F. Matos,
P. Valero, & K. Yasukawa (Eds.), Proceedings of the ﬁfth international Mathematics Education
and Society conference. Lisbon, Portugal: Centro de Investigacao em Educacao, Universisdade de
Lisboa, and Department of Education, Learning and Philosophy, Aalborg University, Denmark.
Powell, A. B., & Frankenstein, M. (1998). Ethnomathematics: Challenging Eurocentrism in math-
ematics education. New York: SUNY Press.
Puig, L. (1998). La didáctica de las matemáticas como tarea investigadora. In L. Puig (Ed.), Investi-
gar y enseñar: Variedades de la educación matemática (pp. 63–75). Bogotá: una empresa docente.
Restivo, S. (1992). Mathematics in society and history. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Restivo, S. (2007). Theory of mind, social science, and mathematical practice. In B. van Kerkhove &
J. P. van Bendegem (Eds.), Perspectives on mathematical practices: Bringing together philosophy
of mathematics, sociology of mathematics, and mathematics education (pp. 83–106). Dordrecht,
the Netherlands: Springer.
Rodriguez, J. M. (2003). Queer latinidad: Identity practices, discursive spaces. New York: New York
Rousseau, C. K., & Tate, W. F. (2003). No time like the present: Reﬂecting on equity in school math-
ematics. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 210–216.
Sandoval, C. (1991). U.S. third world feminism: The theory and method of oppositional conscious-
ness in the postmodern world. Genders, 10(1), 1−24.
Sandoval, C. (2000). Methodology of the oppressed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Scheurich, J. J., & Young, M. D. (1997). Coloring epistemologies: Are our research epistemologies
racially biased? Educational Researcher, 26(4), 4–16.
Sfard, A. & Prusak, A. (2005). Telling identities: In search of an analytic tool for investigating learn-
ing as culturally shaped activity. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 14–22.
Sierpinska, A. (2005). Discoursing mathematics away. In J. Kilpatrick, C. Hoyles, & O. Skovsmose
(Eds.), Meaning in mathematics education (pp. 205–230). New York: Springer.
Skovsmose, O. (1994). Towards a philosophy of critical mathematics education. Mathematics educa-
tion library, vol. 15. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.
Skovsmose, O. (2004). Critical mathematics education for the future. Retrieved March 26, 2007,
Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2001). Democratic access to powerful mathematical ideas. In B. Atweh,
H. Forgasz, & B. Nebres (Eds.), Sociocultural research on mathematics education: An interna-
tional perspective (pp. 383−407). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Skovsmose, O., & Valero, P. (2002). Breaking political neutrality. In L. English (Ed.), International
Handbook on Mathematics Teaching and Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. New York: Zed
Solórzano, D., & Delgado Bernal, D. (2001). Examining transformational resistance through a criti-
cal race and Latcrit theory framework: Chicana and Chicano students in an urban context. Urban
Education, 36(3), 308−342.
Solórzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter-storytelling as an analyti-
cal framework for education research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8(1), 23–44.
Stinson, D. (2006). African American male adolescents, schooling (and mathematics): Deﬁciency,
rejection, and achievement. Review of Educational Research, 76(4), 477-506.
Stinson, D. (2008). Negotiating sociocultural discourses: The counter-storytelling of academically
(and mathematically) successful African American male students. American Educational Re-
search Journal, 45(4), 975–1010.
Stinson, D. (2013). Negotiating the “white male math myth”: African American male students and
success in school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 69−99.
St. Pierre, E., & Pillow, W. S. (2000). Working the ruins: Feminist poststructural research and prac-
tice in education. New York: Routledge.
Taylor, E., Gillborn, D., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2009). Foundations of critical race theory in educa-
tion. New York: Routledge.
Tymoczko, T. (1994). Structuralism and post-modernism in the philosophy of mathematics. In P.
Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education, and philosophy: An international perspective (pp. 49−55).
Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Valero, P. (2004). Sociopolitical perspectives on mathematics education. In P. Valero & R. Zevenber-
gen (Eds.), Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics education: Issues of power
in theory and methodology (pp. 5−24). Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Valero, P., & Zevenbergen, R. (2004). Researching the socio-political dimensions of mathematics
education: Issues of power in theory and methodology. Norwell, MA: Kluwer.
Vass, J. (1994). The dominance of structure in “post-structural” critiques of mathematics educa-
tion. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education and philosophy: An international perspective (pp.
143–153). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
Villenas, S. (1996). The colonizer/colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity, marginalization, and
co-optation in the ﬁeld. Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 711–731.
Walkerdine, V. (1988). The mastery of reason: Cognitive development and production of rationality.
Walkerdine, V. (1994). Reasoning in a post-modern age. In P. Ernest (Ed.), Mathematics, education
and philosophy: An international perspective (pp. 61–75). Bristol, PA: Falmer.
68 The Sociopolitical Turn in Mathematics Education
Walshaw, M. (2001). A Foucauldian gaze on gender research: What do you do when confronted with
the tunnel at the end of the light? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 471−492.
Walshaw, M. (2004). Mathematics education within the postmodern. Greenwich, CT: Information
Walshaw, M. (2007). Working with Foucault in education. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense.
Walshaw, M. (2013). Post-structualism and ethical practical action: Issues of identity and power.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 100−118.
William, D. (2003). Constructing difference: Assessment in mathematics education. In L. Burton
(Ed.), Which way social justice in mathematics education? (pp. 189–208). Westport, CT: Green-
Willis, P. (1981). Learning to labor: How working class kids get working class jobs. New York: Co-
lumbia University Press.
Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cul-
tural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.
Rochelle Gutiérrez, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Curriculum and
Instruction, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820; email@example.com