A tale of two reviews: examining the content and ideology of two single-blind reviews

Abstract

As part of my work as an educator, I see the need to surface for discussion what might indeed be considered as acts of oppression on the part of peer reviewers when certain aspects of knowing and meaning are misrecognized, obscured, or suppressed. Drawing on observations concerning coercive and oppressive relational and educational practices found in Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed as well as scholarly works in Critical Discourse Analysis critiquing inequitable practices within academic and social domains, I argue that a more academically (and socially) accountable, conscionable and humanizing alternative is one which engenders greater openness to questions concerning: (1) who it might be that gets to determine what counts as (publishable) knowledge; and (2) how such formulations of knowledge may be tied to powerful or ideologized ways of knowing and meaning making. This article is also an appeal for greater awareness that acts which work directly or indirectly to silence earnest attempts to highlight inequitable and/or dehumanizing educational beliefs and practices are also acts which will disadvantage, marginalize, or silence people directly or indirectly involved, including parents and children who may be placed at the receiving end of such inequities and inhumanities.