Deconstructing Macroaggressions and Microaggressions: A Conceptual Model Promoting Sense-Making in Education Free

Although the United States has made some political and legal progress for gay/lesbian/ bisexual/transgender/queer (LGBTQ) rights; people with disabilities; discrimination on the basis of sex; if we consider the myriad of social injustices facing other marginalized populations (i.e., people of color, immigrants), there is little to no advancement (i.e., Black-White achievement gap, people of color and access to higher education, income inequality). For example, the Black-White wealth and household gaps continue to widen (Pew Research Center, 2013). According to Saez (2013), the retreat of institutions such as unions, progressive tax policies, unions, pay inequality, and corporate health and retirement provisions continue to influence inequities faced by marginalized populations who are often at the hands of powerful large-scale social structures and institutions. Therefore, when considering the push-back from neoliberal government movements, who often cling to beliefs that markets matter more than people, there is a need to examine, consider, and address these issues that matter to its citizens and promote democratic ideals (Dahl & Soss, 2014).

Building on the work of intercultural and multicultural education theory and practice, in this article, we present a conceptual model that incorporates the influence of social structures and macro/microaggressions on contemporary learning theory to revolutionize social justice pedagogies to address how people understand these inequities. This conceptual model (see Figure 1) provides an understanding regarding the extent social and political institutions set the context for individual and group behaviors, beliefs and attitudes; and in many ways, the way in which these larger social structures influence intercultural exchanges and understanding, especially for those from disenfranchised populations. The model is a call for democratically inclusive values of social justice, which we contend, should undergird all educational contexts (see Counts, 1932; Dewey, 1932; Freire, 1972).

In this article, we identify unjust structural forces and divisions as macroaggressions, and further examine the interconnection between macro- and microaggressions by addressing how these divisive practices contribute to discrimination, educational disparities, and inadequate employment. More importantly, we promote a conceptual model regarding how larger social structures, extent learning theory, intercultural education, sense-making and social justice pedagogies play a role in responding to oppressive realities facing disenfranchised populations. The conceptual model explicates the interconnectivity among these larger social structures, macroaggressions, microaggressions, learning theory, social justice pedagogies, and sense-making. First, we undergird this conceptual model using seminal ideas of deficit thinking, microaggressions from Pierce (1970) as well as microassualts, microinsults, and microinvalidations from Sue et al. (2007). Next, we anchor our conceptualization of macro- and microaggressions (Pierce, 1970; Sue et al. 2007) within contemporary learning theories (see Gardner, 1983; Illeris, 2007; Ziehe, 1975) by examining the social justice pedagogies (Furman, 2012; Furman & Gruenewald, 2004; Furman & Shields, 2005) and connections with extant literature on sense-making (Boske, 2011b; Gershon, 2011). Finally, we explore imaginative possibilities for social justice oriented work through sensemaking by moving beyond schools, into communities, and across larger social structures and societies.

Again, we identify unjust structural forces and divisions as macroaggressions. Larger social structures influence intercultural relationships. The way in which we interact and understand the influence of personal bias, intersectionality of identity in decision-making, and negotiating differences including our beliefs, values, expectations, as well as social/cultural codes are all influenced by dominant norms and values established within larger social structures. Therefore, these norms and values often shape the extent to which people bridge cultural divides, create barriers to prohibit individuals or groups from gaining access to the same resources, communicate with people across cultural groups, and participate in oppressive practices. Because social structures often promote dominant norms and values upon groups of people, especially marginalized populations, people who are members of a dominant cultural group may engage in deficit-laden behaviors and practices. These beliefs and attitudes are readily apparent in society, and yet other times, these practices may be more insidious. Thus, it is more difficult to measure their impact on those who endure these interactions.

For the purposes of this work, deficit-laden behaviors and practices include approaches based upon a child’s weakness versus their strengths. Valencia (2010) defines the notion of deficit thinking as an internal explanation for the academic failure of low socioeconomic status students of color (i.e., African American, Mexican American, Puerto Rican, and other racial minorities). He puts forth assumed internal deficits (such as the limited intellectual abilities, the lack of motivation, language issues, family structure) are the cause of academic failure among low-socioeconomic status students. It is “the process of blaming the victim” (p. xiv). This arcane dominant way of thinking is rooted in historical racist discourses. These dominant beliefs assert oppressive conditions are created and recreated, because those impacted by such conditions (both positively and negatively) actively engage in their own domination and oppression. Therefore, society may embrace an overarching set of beliefs aligned with the dominant culture’s beliefs, which help to perpetuate oppressive practices and policies (Gramsci, 1971).

Valencia (1997) warns deficit thinking is a pseudoscience in which ideology is embedded with science. He points out deficit thinking is supported by research that lacks scientific rigor: unsound assumptions, psychometrically weak instruments, data collection in defective manners, absence of control of important independent variables, and omission of rival hypothesis. In his 1997 work, Valencia stated:

These perspectives often deteriorate an educator’s expectations for children and weaken an educator’s capacity to recognize gifts, talents, and extraordinary abilities in diverse forms (Ford & Grantham, 2003). Deficit-laden thinking surfaces when differences, specifically differences between those deemed as “other” and ourselves, are seen as deficits. Deficit-laden behaviors and practices may be identified as microaggressions and macroaggressions. They act in tandem with one another as they perpetuate oppressive, dominating behaviors and practices. These aggressive intercultural interactions may be experienced on a one-to-one personal level as well as operationalized as larger structures within society, such as corporations or educational institutions. Over the years, a critical discourse challenging deficit perspectives continues to emerge (see Nieto & Bode, 2008) and unfortunately, the discourse rarely focuses or addresses the ideologies or conditions that often perpetuate deficit-laden perspectives, their impact on how we make sense of these experiences (see Boske, 2011b; Duffy, 1995; Weick, 1995), and how these understandings influence beliefs and decision-making.

We refer to the work of Pierce (1970), Sue (2010), and Gorski (2014) to examine the interrelatedness of microaggressions and macroaggressions in the educational sphere. To do so, we explain the singular notion of each and then their interrelatedness. Pierce, Carew, Pierce-Gonzalez, and Wills (1978) put forth “the chief vehicle for pro-racist behaviors are microaggressions. These are subtle, stunning, often automatic, and nonverbal exchanges which are ‘put downs’ of Blacks by offenders” (p. 66). Microaggressions can be difficult to depict. These aggressive behaviors may not be overtly physically violent; however, they do create social/cultural conditions in which people may not feel as safe as members of a dominant cultural group. Furthermore, Pierce (1974) recognized that:

In this same vein, Davis (1989) defined microaggressions as “stunning, automatic acts of disregard that stem from unconscious attitudes of White superiority and constitute a verification of Black inferiority” (p. 1576). Kennedy (1989) put forth the notion that “although overt forms of racial domination described thus far were enormously destructive, covert color bars have been, in a certain sense, even more insidious” (p. 1752). Microaggressions are exemplified by dismissive and often innocuous comments, behaviors, or beliefs that minimize, exclude, or render insignificant. For instance, “you are really smart for a girl,” or “I am surprised you speak English so well; I thought you wouldn’t because of your name.” Research (see Pearson, Dovidio, & Gaertner, 2009) suggests the uncertainty of microaggressions on individuals is quite distressing and uncertain, especially for members of marginalized populations. These current transgressions are classified as actual manifestations of aversive and subversive intercultural behaviors and illuminate the personal experiences of people impacted by microaggressions.

It is important to note, racial transgressions may also include microaggressions, microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations. For example, when someone yells, “Dyke! Gross … you make me sick … you are definitely going to hell!,” this is an example of a microassault (DeAngelis, 2009). This transgression is a verbal or nonverbal interaction including name-calling and/or avoidant behavior, such as crossing the street or walking around someone. A second example, “That’s so gay!” is considered a microassault or microinsult (DeAngelis, 2009), because the interaction is hurtful toward someone based on race, ethnicity, gender, or in this case, sexual orientation. These may be more difficult to identify. Another microaggression example includes, “You don’t seem anxious. I think it’s all in your head. Just step out of it.” This interaction suggests a microinvalidation (DeAngelis, 2009), which contradicts, negates, or devalues a person’s emotional or psychological experiences by invalidating them.

Although the term “micro” suggests something miniscule or small, these oppressive intercultural behaviors are neither minor nor insignificant. Microaggressions create sometimes subtle, and sometimes not so subtle, but real and damaging social interactions. When a person experiences an onslaught of derogatory comments, invalidations, avoidance behaviors, and deficit-laden comments, the experiences may weigh heavy on an individual’s spirit, self-worth, and sense of self.

People who tend to engage in microaggressions are often people who are members of culturally dominant groups. For those who endure microaggressions, they are often members of disenfranchised populations and many, if not most, experience daily feelings of dis-ease, feeling unwelcome, being in danger, discomfort, and otherwise, being at odds with their surrounding cultural contexts. This dis-ease may occur especially when there is no evidence of people interrupting these microaggressions or counteracting these interactions with culturally responsive behaviors.

Sue et al. (2007) distinguished three types of microaggressions. They are: microassaults; microinsults; and microinvalidations. This research team describes a microassault as: “an explicit racial derogation characterized primarily by a verbal or nonverbal attack meant to hurt the intended victim through name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions” (p. 274). Microassaults are described simply as “good old-fashioned racism” (p. 274). While explicit, overt, and deliberate, they are deemed “micro” because they are often conducted on an individual or private level. Due to fact they are spoken in these “limited” settings, they provide the attacker with a semblance of anonymity.

In contrast, microinsults are characterized as:

Last, microinvalidations are described as: “communications that exclude, negate, or nullify the psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality of a person of color (p. 274). This can be exemplified by color-blind racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2009), which refers to the notion of “not seeing color” or seeing all people as “humans.” These sorts of comments invalidate the particularism that is associated with ethnic group identification, family heritage, and culture. For example, when an educator ignores the historical trauma associated with the experiences of Native Americans in the United States in favor of solely teaching and celebrating Columbus Day it invalidates the experiences, reality, and history of that particular group. Giving “everyone” a voice often silences or mutes minority voices.

Within this conceptual model, we differentiate structural racism from macroaggressions. According to Lawrence and Keleher (2004), structural racism in the United States is:

The difference between structural racism and macroaggressions is macroaggressions are purposeful, deliberate, and blatantly damaging acts that make an impact at the individual level.

Structural racism is integral to everyday, ordinary interactions. Those who engage in these oppressive practices speak as though there is one vision of the ideal society; however, such elitism, with one group determining what is “right,” suggests exerting power and promise offers ways to leverage efforts to perpetuate oppressive practices and policies. Efforts to pursue politically guided practices that address the nature of oppression, lived social realities, and a vision of social justice coincide with Freire’s (1985) conscientization:

This conscientization must be pursued to combat structural racism as one ideal of anything is oppressive in and of itself. As we move forward in this discussion, focusing with intention on microagressions allows readers to understand how aggressive behaviors, whether subtle or not, are dangerous as they are driven by beliefs of members of dominant cultural groups.

Denigrating aggressive exchanges have the capacity to influence individual or group membership by considering and reconsidering what is deemed “normal” or “acceptable.” Although microaggressions happen often, people may not realize the impact of these aggressive intercultural interactions. They are dangerous because, more often than not, they are not easily discerned. This in part is due to societal and individually held beliefs that often drive intercultural behaviors. These behaviors, furthermore, are part of larger societal systems that perpetuates dominant cultural beliefs, practices, and policies. Often, these intercultural exchanges place one party in a more powerful social or cultural position. These positions suggest those who are members of the dominant cultural group are not in positions in which they are expected to reflect on the impact of their behaviors; therefore, people with less power are expected to change their interactions to align with, adjust to, and or tolerate harmful intercultural interchanges. For those who are marginalized, their realities go unnoticed and they are often rendered invisible, yet these dominant beliefs are embedded throughout intercultural communication, beliefs, interactions, and policy.

Microaggressions may involve wellintended members from dominant cultural groups engaging in aggressive intercultural behaviors; however, these same dominant cultural members may also engage in overt, deliberate acts of bigotry toward marginalized populations due to race, class, gender, family structure, sexual orientation, native language, immigration status, gender expression, ability (social, emotional, physical, cognitive), beliefs/faith/religion, age, and other dimensions of cultural diversity. For those who identify as members of dominant cultural groups, they have the capacity and responsibility to minimize real intercultural conflict by coming to terms with personal bias, and countering aggressive exchanges against individuals or marginalized groups by being committed to having crucial conversations and holding all members of groups accountable to their language and actions.

Within the last 5 years, the field of psychology embarked in understanding the influence of negative stereotypes and the extent to which individuals respond to what is called stereotype threats (Steele, 2010). Stereotype threats have the capacity to influence the extent individuals identify with negative beliefs aligned with specific aspects of personal identity. Dominant cultural norms influence not only structural and local sociocultural interactions, but promote judgment, criticism, and stereotypes aligned with both dominant and marginalized groups. According to Steele (2010), these judgments or stereotype threats provide sociocultural cues or circumstances influencing how people understand the intersectionality of their identity and its influence on intercultural interactions. Therefore, dominant cultural norms influence not only broader societal and local contexts, but also influence the extent by which people internalize judgment and criticism. This, in turn, influences how people make sense of their world. Their sensemaking impacts an individual’s beliefs, ideas, and responses. Furthermore, because we are interested in understanding the influence of micro- and macroaggressions in K-16 educational institutions, we offer that educators who serve specific school contexts need to consider how they make sense of the intersectionality of their membership with dominant intercultural groups, and how these intersections influence their ways of knowing and responses within school communities.

The extent to which educators adhere to the notion of conformity within school contexts influences not only their intercultural interactions, but how they make sense of their experiences; specifically, how they understand their relationship of self to those who are marginalized. As such, the intensity of local microaggressions and stereotype threats have the capacity to challenge an individual’s belongingness to an identity, intercultural interactions, and ultimately, their sense-making. And for those who serve K-16 educational institutions, how they make sense of macro- and microaggressions, stereotype threats, and the extent to which they conform to local dominant values and norms may influence how they understand their capacity to serve/lead within diverse school contexts; specifically, having the capacity to interrupt, promote, and sustain justice-oriented work to empower underserved populations. Leaders must be willing to ask questions such as, “Who benefits from the ways in which we currently do things and who doesn’t?” as well as promote the practice of equity over equality. Their work must be undergirded by compassion and understanding of each community/group and a valuing of differing group cultural practices. Crucial conversations must be held in classrooms to interrupt aggressive practices and promote community.

These oppressive intercultural interactions reinforce the call for a theory regarding connections among dominant values and norms, macroaggressions, microaggressions, stereotype threats, identity, sociocultural interactions, and sense-making. Essentially, the purpose of this model is to: find connections among these concepts, which has the capacity to undergird what it means for people to interrupt local aggressive intercultural interactions often facing marginalized populations across diverse contexts and utilize their sense-making to actively engage in justice-oriented work. Because power structures and current discourse regarding aggressive intercultural interactions in the field of educational leadership may not be deemed as worthy within mainstream leadership texts, there is a need to consider how dominant cultural norms, macroaggressions, microaggressions, and stereotype threats influence justice-oriented work in K-16 educational institutions.

Over the last 20 years, how people learn has not only become a significant topic in education, psychology, and pedagogy, but also within economic and political contexts. One reason for this urgent call is to better understand the influence of education, skills of nations, and a globalized market and knowledge on society. Learning is a complex matter, and a great number of learning theories are being developed, examined, and critiqued to explore new possibilities and ways of thinking. Although learning is traditionally understood as an acquisition of knowledge, this new conceptual model considers a much larger field including dimensions of societal dominance, social justice, and sense-making.

Our conceptualization of what it means to learn stems from Illeris (2007), who suggests learning is any process that leads living organisms to a permanent capacity to change. Although this is an open and modern understanding of learning, the definition provides us with a much broader understandings of learning versus traditional conceptions that often focus on the acquisition of knowledge. This is critical to our conceptual model, because this is in line with important modern understandings of learning, which encompass multiple approaches to understanding (Gardner, 1983) as well as underlying cultural convictions (Ziehe, 1975). Furthermore, when considering contemporary learning theories within the context of intercultural and multicultural education and communication, we examined several concepts including experiential learning (Kolb 1984; Kolb & Fry, 1975; Weil & McGill, 1989), single loop and double loop (Argyis & Schön, 1978), reflective practice (Schön, 1983), transformative learning (Mezirow, 1978), the evolving concept of self (Kegan, 1982), multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), learning in contexts (Jarvis, 1987), and knowledge as desire (Furth, 1987).

The basis of contemporary learning theories, which focus on areas of knowledge and ways of knowing, can be viewed as the underlying development of this comprehensive conceptual model. These intercultural knowledge areas consider the influence of several conditions: social; psychological; and biological. Within these contexts, including processes and dimensions within larger social, political, and economic contexts, are central elements of understanding and learning. Therefore, the way in which external conditions (i.e., cultural dominance and values) influence ways of understanding and responding to the world, directly involve how we learn.

The intersections of learner and an individual’s social, cultural, interpersonal, and material environment do not consider all of the ways in which people learn; however, they draw attention to the intersections of external processes and how processes are actively involved when learning takes place. This interconnection is illustrated in the conceptual model by identifying external cultural processes within a larger societal context through the influence of dominant norms and values, which places intercultural communication and education at the center of this process.

What is learned is what is understood. Learning is often described as knowledge and skills, but for this conceptual model, we include other things such as dominant norms and values, insights, meaning making, values, responses, methods, strategies, behaviors, and opinions. The way in which people learn, therefore, is constructivist in nature, suggesting the learner actively builds, construes, and makes sense of their experiences. As people become aware of something through experience, in fractions of a second, they develop new ways of knowing, increasing awareness (i.e., a person, a problem, a topic), and, subjectively (usually unconsciously) define their new knowledge as learning. These new ways of knowing influence how people understand, react, and interact. And perhaps, with slightly different experiences, individuals’ ways of knowing may influence their attitudes, understandings, and responses. Within this model, the influence of the dominant norms and values may impact a person’s capacity to consider other ways of knowing and responding, in addition to applying their new knowledge to cultural contexts (see Illeris, 2007).

The intersections of the larger dominant norms and values contribute to the intercultural understanding and communication of the learner. The endeavor of the learner, therefore, is to construct meaning, ways of knowing, and responses, influencing an individual’s overall personal intercultural development. This suggests learning is transcendent, offering an individual’s way of understanding transforms the ways in which they respond to new situations and experiences, and utilize the way in which they make sense to transcend or transform their responses to new intercultural experiences, including communication. Therefore, how people make sense of their learning, of their experiences, is recalled and applied in a myriad of forms as well as intercultural contexts. These new ways of knowing are experienced, understood, and internalized.

Unfortunately, questions regarding the definition of social justice create confusion. This confusion is often aligned with understanding the nature of social justice and education as well as considering its purpose, process, and outcomes (see Bogotch, 2002, 2008, 2014). Therefore, for the purpose of this article, social justice pedagogies encourage using social justice as a critical lens (Marshall & Oliva, 2010) by rethinking program and course content including social justice awareness, critical reflection, learning theories, reconsidering personal worldviews, and policy practice (see Brown, 2004); implementing an assessment framework for teaching social justice (Capper, Theoharis, & Sebastian, 2006); reconceptualizing what schools do to create a more socially just society by examining larger socioeconomic arenas (English, 2008); and promoting tenets of transformative leadership (Shields, 2014).

Other authors suggest social justice pedagogies focus on deepening understanding regarding K-12 students’ identities, beliefs, and experiences (see English 2008); provide those who want to engage in social justice work with the capacity to move beyond their fears, frustration, and hopelessness and take action in and beyond schools (Bogotch, 2012; Boske & McEnery, 2010); focus on an individual’s knowledge and skills as central to promoting social justice (Ryan, 2010); and illustrate the need to create opportunities for social justice leaders to learn how to disrupt oppressive systems (Boske, 2012; Theoharis, 2010). Conceptualizing what defines social justice pedagogies ranges from how it is defined; exploring content areas (i.e., policy, curriculum, pedagogy, law, finance, leadership theory); and drawing upon specific areas of study such as critical theory (Foster, 1986), multiculturalism (McCray & Beachum, 2014), and culturally responsive pedagogy (Gay, 2010), and culturally responsive leadership (Gooden & Dantley, 2005).

Social justice pedagogies are imperative to understanding how to contextualize injustice; reconceptualize, and deconstruct the influence of macro- and microaggressions; actively move beyond local schools and neighborhoods; and authentically reach communities across societies. Although there is a significant increase in social justice dialogue across universities (Brown, 2004; Cambron-McCabe & McCarthy, 2005), the inclusion of these concepts within programs is much slower, and often rhetoric at best. Those who engage social justice-oriented work are increasingly called upon to work with culturally diverse student populations (see Osterman & Hafner, 2009). However, those expected to authentically engage within this work often fail, because they were not prepared to serve culturally diverse environments (Levine, 2005), much less the influence of dominant institutional norms and values (Boske, 2010) as well as macro- and microaggressions.

Because we are storytelling organisms, how we make sense of dominant values and norms, micro- and macroaggressions, and conformity influence how we understand the world. Making sense, therefore, is how individuals understand their world in relation to self and others, immediate and less local ecologies, and themselves. However, sense-making involves understanding the influence dominant norms and values have on intercultural exchanges, and how these exchanges influence the extent to which people conform to dominant cultural values and norms. Sense-making urges us to look for explanations and answers regarding how people understand their world rather than structures or systems (Weick, 1995); therefore, an individual’s experiences influence his/her way of thinking (see Figure 2). This approach to thinking about and understanding an individual’s way of knowing and understanding the world is grounded in identity construction suggesting sense-making is in the eye of the beholder. And although the sense-maker is an individual, the sense-maker is comprised of many identities (see Boske, 2012; Weick 1995). Because sense-making is a social process, the way in which we think and interact as people and our social functioning are essential aspects to how we understand and respond to the world (Resnick, Levine, & Teasly, 1991). As people continue to make meaning from these experiences, such experiences may serve as catalysts, which may become indicators of personal transformation (see Boske, 2011a, 2011b; Lather, 1986). Therefore, in making sense of the world both figuratively and literally, people make meaning predicated on local, broad norms, and values. Meanings are deeply personal, ideological, and political. Therefore, one’s sense of self, which is ultimately unique to that individual, is dependent on the sociocultural contexts, personal preference, and bias.

What a person does may depend on another; and therefore, direct influence of these experiences, interactions, and new ways of knowing may be unclear. Sense-making encourages us to pay closer attention to sufficient cues, stereotypes, communication, and roles and recognizes this is an ongoing process. These connections play a critical role in understanding people’s everyday experience of making sense of aggressive intercultural communications, which often constitute experiences of marginalized populations in K-16 educational contexts across the United States. These intersections, therefore, provide a lens for understanding how meaning is constructed and often resonates across sociocultural contexts (see Erlmann, 2004).

In regard to K-16 schools, dominant cultural norms and values create spaces for people (i.e., students, educators, teachers, and/or administrators) to conform to dominant cultural norms. As people encounter and experience these norms those who are marginalized may experience aggressive intercultural communication. For those who are members of a dominant cultural group, they may consider the extent to which they conform to participating in perpetuating aggressive intercultural exchanges. As people experience these intercultural exchanges, they draw meaning or make sense from their experiences. Throughout this sense-making process, people question their experiences of sensation (i.e., the senses), make meaning from their experiences (i.e., emergent experiences), and respond to their experiences (i.e., intercultural exchanges in understanding self in relation to others as well as understanding self). Therefore, making sense of the influence of micro- and macroaggressions within dominant cultural values and norms becomes integral to understanding human experience. Kumashiro (2008) reminds us that these common sense understandings reflect dominant norms and values, which may perpetuate the marginalization of othered populations and individuals. Teaching social justice-oriented pedagogies disrupts students’ common sense notions about people, ideas, and ideals. How people understand and make sense of the impact of aversive aggressive intercultural communications is therefore shaped by nested layers of sociocultural contexts through which an individual’s experiences and understanding are mediated, especially when considering how to reduce bias, promote social responsibility, and engage in justice-oriented actions (Boske, 2011a; Dewey, 1929; Gershon, 2011; Howes, 2009).

For those interested in making social structural changes to influence dominant norms and values such as politics and institutional change, there is a need to consider the impact of large-scale social change. People in positions of power are often favorable of social structures and institutional practices that favor the system and role preservations; therefore, perpetuating the status quo. Although structural changes may be quite limited, in part, because those who are in positions of power are often members of dominant cultural groups invited to participate in the decision-making processes. When reform efforts are perceived to play a significant role in social structural payoffs, systemic change may occur. However, social structural changes on dominant values and norms is usually uncertain. And knowing people are storyteller organisms making sense of their experiences within larger social structures and institutions, this conceptual model calls for social justice pedagogies that provide spaces for educators to examine macro- and microaggressions, address their influence, and disrupt their capacity to promote injustices.

For educators to engage in authentic social justice-oriented work, there is a need to push past falsely static boundaries of microaggressions to initiate, advocate for, and produce a critical mass of knowledge with regard to a holistic and more meaningful understanding of the interconnectedness and influence of micro- and macroaggressions on people, especially those from marginalized populations.

Important to this research is the notion of educational information sharing and promoting reciprocal academic vulnerability, because, as hooks (1994) emphasizes, academic vulnerability is not only aimed at personal academic development, but can also be a pedagogical tool to engage and empower others. hooks stated: “Engaged pedagogy emphasizes well-being. That means that teachers must be actively involved committed to a process of self-actualization that promotes their own well-being if they are to teach in a manner that empowers [others]” (1994, p. 15). This being said, it is an imperative to understand and promulgate recommendations that stem from aspects of culturally relevant leadership. This acute awareness and instructive sensitivity to sociocultural and political climates are essential to engaging in social justice-oriented work, especially when considering the significance of intercultural, holistic, and multicultural education (Osanloo, 2012).

In order to chart new pathways and pedagogies for disrupting contemporary forms of oppression, prospective leaders must move beyond theoretical notions of social justice and minimize the binary of knowledge and action by facilitating more advocacy scholarship (James, 1996). According to James, to fully understand social justice work, students must to learn how to “live, learn, and teach without elitist assumptions by doing activities that confront and diminish oppression” (p. 191). In order to facilitate crucial changes in schools that challenge oppressive structures, including macro- and microaggressions, leadership preparation programs must help leaders develop the skills to counter oppression and “transform silence into language and action” (Lorde, 1984, p. 43) in schools. Harris and Alford (2005) found that students reported social justice issues as important and believed that increasing their awareness of equity issues led to the formation of more socially just actions. Though social justice scholarship has increased in (McKenzie, Skrla, & Scheurich, 2006), the inclusion of related concepts in teacher and leader preparation programs has been scant. According to McKenzie et al, 2008), preparation programs must focus on daily practice and concrete strategies to engage school environments in critical consciousness and inclusive practices.

According to Asher (2007), teachers and leaders must learn and practice with intersections of race, culture, and gender through courageous, but critical, dialogue and personal reflection. Cambron-McCabe and McCarthy (2005) encourage school leaders to question assumptions that drive policies and practices. Moore, Gallagher, and Bagin (2012) advocate that leaders conduct sociological inventories that explore populations, characteristics, and social groups of communities surrounding schools. Skrla, McKenzie, and Scheurich (2009) teach prospective leaders how to conduct equity audits to highlight awareness of inequities. Brunner (2008) proposed the use of movies as reflection tools to examine how issues of power and privilege impact leadership practice and Boske (2009) and Mansfield, Newcomb, and King (2013) advocated for the use of artistic expression to capture prospective leaders’ ideas about inequities across communities. Furthermore, prospective leaders should be taught to focus on solving problems of practice through problem-based learning and the use of case studies. Students often need concrete examples of social justice action because they lack the appropriate frames of understanding (Schmidt, 2009). According to Rusch and Horsford (2008),

Therefore, learning to become a socially just leader means to engage actively with valueladen issues (Rusch, 2004).

This conceptual model (see Figure 2) illustrates dialogue around social justice cannot be separate from the dailiness of an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors (Bogotch, 2005). Although some people may engage in social justice dialogues, this is simply not enough. Espoused theories on social justice must find a visible presence within systemwide practices to prepare people to disrupt injustices, lead with a commitment to equity: raise student achievement; enhance staff capacity; strengthen school culture (Theoharis, 2007). For those involved or interested in this social justice oriented work, there is an urgency to examine the influence of larger systems on those served, to actively resist deficit thinking, and to make schools safe places for all children (Boske & Osanloo, 2015; Mansfield, 2013).

The conceptual model urges us to consider how we prepare social justice oriented people to counter oppression and respond to macro- and microaggressions. We need to “retool teaching and courses to address issues of power and privilege—to weave social justice into the fabric of educational leadership curriculum, pedagogy, programs, and policies” (Brown, 2004, p. 78). According to Newcomb and Mansfield (2014), we must help leadership students become responsible for their own learning, help them assess their own assumptions and beliefs, and encourage them to reflect, and, sometimes, change. The conceptual model is a call for paradigmatic shifts in understanding the interconnectedness of large social structures and institutions, dominant norms and values, macro- and microaggressions, deficit-laden ideologies, learning theories, sense-making, social justice pedagogies, and how this process influences our capacity to engage in social justice oriented work.