The reason I say that is.... There was a book released a few years ago called Points of Entry: How Canada's Immigration Officers Decide Who Gets In. It was written by my Ph.D. supervisor. I read it because I had to, because he's my supervisor. However, I found a lot of flaws in his methodology and his regions. He was looking at visa officers around the world. He went there. He sat with immigration officers to determine whether or not bias and racism takes place in these departments. His aha at the end was that there was no racism.
When I read that book as a racialized researcher, there were a lot of things I was picking up on: Does he have the ability to see something that he has no experience with himself? This question of insider-outsider researchers has come up for years. Racialized researchers are always frustrated with the fact that we're not really given the funding to do research about our own communities and our own cultural backgrounds because of this question of objectivity—are we going to be objective?—which is offensive. We've been trained to be objective.
The point I'm trying to make is that white researchers come with a certain set of assumptions, ideas, a certain set of eyes and world views. I believe they are not capable of understanding a situation in its entirety in the way that maybe a racialized researcher would. That's why it is very important, from that critical race theory lens, to come in and produce that research.
Another point to make, because I'm a professor, is that I don't discard that research. All I'm saying is, let's have a balance of—