Chapter 1 Re-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity- Examining Positionality and Building Validity Through Reconstructive Horizon Analysis.pdf

Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education Edited by Kamden K. Strunk · Leslie Ann Locke Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education Kamden K. Strunk Leslie Ann Locke Editors Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education Editors Kamden K. Strunk...

Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education Edited by Kamden K. Strunk · Leslie Ann Locke Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education Kamden K. Strunk Leslie Ann Locke Editors Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education Editors Kamden K. Strunk Leslie Ann Locke Educational Psychology and Educational Policy and Research Methodologies Leadership Studies Auburn University University of Iowa Auburn, AL, USA Iowa City, IA, USA ISBN 978-3-030-05899-9    ISBN 978-3-030-05900-2 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05900-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019930472 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: © Paul Viant / Photographer’s Choice RF / gettyimages This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Contents Part I Theoretical and Philosophical Issues 1  e-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity: Examining R Positionality and Building Validity Through Reconstructive Horizon Analysis   3 Meagan Call-Cummings and Karen Ross 2  onsidering Positionality: The Ethics of Conducting Research C with Marginalized Groups 15 Laura Parson 3 Flipping the Paradigm: Studying Up and Research for Social Justice 33 Elena Aydarova 4  raming Critical Race Theory and Methodologies 45 F Kenzo K. Sung and Natoya Coleman 5  isentangling the Complexities of Queer Theory and D Intersectionality Theory: Research Paradigms and Insights for Social Justice 59 Christian D. Chan, Sam Steen, Lionel C. Howard, and Arshad I. Ali 6  sing Critical Theory in Educational Research 71 U Kamden K. Strunk and Jasmine S. Betties 7  iewing Research for Social Justice and Equity Through the Lens V of Zygmunt Bauman’s Theory of Liquid Modernity 81 Danielle T. Ligocki 8  hinking Critically About “Social Justice Methods”: Methods as T “Contingent Foundations” 91 Lucy E. Bailey v vi Contents 9 Institutional Review Boards: Purposes and Applications for Students 109 Leslie Ann Locke Part II Approaches to Data Collection and Analysis 10 Typical Areas of Confusion for Students New to Qualitative Research 117 Leslie Ann Locke 11  outh Participatory Action Research: The Nuts and Bolts as well as Y the Roses and Thorns 125 Shiv R. Desai 12  dvancing Social Justice with Policy Discourse Analysis 137 A Elizabeth J. Allan and Aaron R. Tolbert 13  hrough Their Eyes, in Their Words: Using Photo-Elicitation to T Amplify Student Voice in Policy and School Improvement Research 151 Jeff Walls and Samantha E. Holquist 14  sing Photovoice to Resist Colonial Research Paradigms  163 U Susan Cridland-Hughes, McKenzie Brittain, and S. Megan Che 15  e-introducing Life History Methodology: An Equitable Social R Justice Approach to Research in Education 177 James S. Wright 16  uantitative Methods for Social Justice and Equity: Theoretical Q and Practical Considerations 191 Kamden K. Strunk and Payton D. Hoover 17  arge-Scale Datasets and Social Justice: Measuring Inequality in L Opportunities to Learn 203 Heather E. Price 18  Marks the Spot: Engaging Campus Maps to Explore Sense of X Belonging Experiences of Student Activists 217 Carli Rosati, David J. Nguyen, and Rose M. Troyer 19  ropensity Score Methodology in the Study of Student P Classification: The Case of Racial/Ethnic Disproportionality in Mild Disability Identification and Labeling 227 Argun Saatcioglu and Thomas M. Skrtic 20  ransformative Mixed Methods: A Missed Opportunity 241 T Carey E. Andrzejewski, Benjamin Arnberg, and Hannah Carson Baggett Contents vii Part III Developing a Research Agenda 21  riting, Race, and Creative Democracy  255 W Timothy J. Lensmire 22  eyond White: The Emotional Complexion of Critical B Research on Race  263 Cheryl E. Matias 23 I Pulled Up a Seat at the Table: My Journey Engaging in Critical Quantitative Inquiry 275 Lolita A. Tabron 24  orking with Intention and in Tension: Evolving W as a Scholar-Activist 283 Kristen A. Renn 25  ollaboration, Community, and Collectives: Research C for and by the People  289 Erica R. Dávila Terminology 295 Index 305 Notes on Contributors Arshad I. Ali, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Educational Research at The George Washington University. Ali is an interdisciplinary scholar who studies youth cul- ture, identity, and political engagement. His research engages questions of decolo- niality, race, religion, and political liberalism. He is co-editor of Education at War: The Fight for Students of Color in America’s Public Schools as well as numerous research articles on Muslim youth identities and politics. Elizabeth J. Allan, PhD, is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Maine. Her scholarship on campus cultures and climates includes qualitative and mixed methods studies about teaching, equity, student engagement, and student hazing and its prevention. Drawing on critical theories and feminist poststructural- ism, she developed policy discourse analysis as a hybrid methodology for both unthinking policy and advancing social justice. Carey E. Andrzejewski, PhD, is a former mathematics teacher with a research and outreach agenda focused on equity and reform in schools. She is an associate professor in the College of Education at Auburn University. She joined the faculty there after completing her PhD in Teacher Education from Ohio State University. Benjamin Arnberg is a PhD candidate in Higher Education Administration at Auburn University. His research uses queer and feminist theories to address campus climate, inclusion policy and practice, and research methodology in higher educa- tion research. Elena Aydarova is Assistant Professor of Social Foundations at Auburn University in Auburn, Alabama. Her interdisciplinary research examines the interactions between global social change and the work of teachers, teaching, and teacher educa- tion through the lens of equity and social justice. Her projects have explored teacher education reforms in Russia and the US, education privatization and commodifica- tion, as well as internationalization of education. She has written about conducting ethnographic research in elite settings and in postsocialist contexts. ix x Notes on Contributors Hannah Carson Baggett, PhD, is a former high school teacher and current assis- tant professor in the College of Education at Auburn University. Her research inter- ests include critical theories, race and education, and educator beliefs. She holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction from North Carolina State University. Lucy E. Bailey, PhD, is Associate Professor of Social Foundations and Qualitative Inquiry and the Director of Gender and Women’s Studies at Oklahoma State University. She teaches a variety of qualitative methodology and diversity courses. Recent research has focused on family methodology and body politics in education. Jasmine S. Betties is a doctoral student in Educational Psychology at Auburn University. Her research interests include social justice, democratic and alternative approaches to schooling, and education policy. McKenzie Brittain is a doctoral student in Curriculum and Instruction at Clemson University where she focuses on Secondary Mathematics Education. Her research interests include single-sex education, photovoice methodology, and teacher sup- port of argumentation in the mathematics classroom. Meagan Call-Cummings is Assistant Professor of Qualitative Methods at George Mason University’s Graduate School of Education. She writes on critical, participa- tory, and feminist qualitative methodology, with a specific focus on how validity and ethics are conceptualized. Her most recent work has taken youth participatory action research forms. Christian D. Chan, PhD, NCC, is Assistant Professor of Counseling at Idaho State University. His interests revolve around intersectionality; multiculturalism in counseling, supervision, and counselor education; social justice; career develop- ment; critical research methods; acculturative stress; intergenerational conflict; and cultural factors in identity development and socialization. S. Megan Che is Associate Professor of Mathematics Education at Clemson University. Her research foci include humanizing pedagogies in mathematics teach- ing and learning, and the roles of social context in student mathematical thinking. Natoya Coleman is a PhD student in Urban Education at Rowan University where she focuses on decolonizing curriculum and instruction in urban and diverse learn- ing environments. Her research interests include mentorship among black women in higher education, feminist pedagogy, critical literacy, and equity-based pedagogical practices in secondary English classrooms. Susan Cridland-Hughes is Assistant Professor of Secondary English Education at Clemson University. Her research centers on the intersection of critical literacy and pedagogy, specifically exploring how critical literacy is taught and enacted both in schools and outside of schools. Notes on Contributors xi Erica R. Dávila, PhD, is Associate Professor in Educational Leadership in the College of Education at Lewis University outside of Chicago. Her research interests are educational policy, critical race theory, sustainability, and Puerto Rican studies. Dávila holds her doctorate in Educational Policy from the University of Illinois Champaign Urbana. Shiv R. Desai is an assistant professor in the Department of Teacher Education, Education Leadership, and Policy in the College of Education at the University of New Mexico. Desai is currently working with system-involved youth where he is helping them conduct a youth participatory action research (YPAR) project that examines the school-to-prison pipeline as well as how YPAR can be utilized to inform new policies to shape a more socially just juvenile justice system. Samantha E. Holquist is a doctoral candidate in Organizational Leadership, Policy, and Development at the University of Minnesota. She also advises Oregon Student Voice, a student-led organization that empowers students to be authentic partners with education decision-makers. Her research interests include the incor- poration of student voice into education policymaking. Payton D. Hoover is a PhD student in the Educational Psychology program at Auburn University. She earned a BA in Psychology from Hanover College. Her research interests include community-based participatory research, specifically with schools and after-school programs. Lionel C. Howard, EdD, is Associate Professor of Educational Research at The George Washington University, in Washington DC. Howard’s research interests include, broadly, racial and gender development and socialization, motivation and academic achievement, and qualitative research methodology. Timothy J. Lensmire is Professor of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Minnesota, where he teaches courses in race, literacy, and critical pedagogy. His current work examines how white people learn to be white, as part of a larger effort to develop more effective antiracist pedagogies. Danielle T. Ligocki is Assistant Professor of Education in the Department of Teacher Development and Educational Studies at Oakland University in Rochester, Michigan. She spent 11 years teaching junior high school in a high-needs area before making the move to higher education. Leslie Ann Locke is Assistant Professor of Educational Policy and Leadership Studies at the University of Iowa. She received her PhD from Texas A&M University in 2011. Her research interests include leadership for social justice, schooling for students from marginalized groups, equity-oriented education policy, and qualita- tive methodologies. xii Notes on Contributors Cheryl E. Matias is an associate professor in the School of Education and Human Development (SEHD) at the University of Colorado Denver. She is the faculty founder of Research Advocacy in Critical Education (R.A.C.E.). Her research focuses on race and ethnic studies in education, critical race theory, critical white- ness studies, critical pedagogy, and feminism of color. David J. Nguyen is Assistant Professor of Higher Education and Student Affairs at Ohio University. He holds his PhD in Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education from Michigan State University. He incorporates visual research tools when studying his research interests, which focus on access and equity issues facing underserved and underrepresented college students. Laura Parson is an assistant professor in the Higher Education Administration Program at Auburn University. Her research interests focus on identifying the insti- tutional practices, processes, and discourses that coordinate the experiences of women and underrepresented groups in higher education, explored through a criti- cal lens. Heather E. Price, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Leadership Studies doctoral program at Marian University. Her research focuses on sociology and educational pol- icy. Price previously worked as a senior analyst at the University of Notre Dame and the private educational policy sector, and taught for years in the Milwaukee District. Kristen A. Renn, PhD, is Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education at Michigan State University, where she also serves as Associate Dean of Undergraduate Studies for Student Success Research. She studies student identities, learning, and success with particular focus on students who are minoritized in higher education by their race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, socioeconomic class, or first-generation college student status. Carli Rosati is Assistant Director for Student Success Initiatives at Rice University. She holds a BA in Political Science and Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and an MEd in College Student Personnel, both from Ohio University. Her research interests center on student activism and feminist theory. Karen Ross is Assistant Professor of Conflict Resolution at the University of Massachusetts-Boston, where her work focuses on conceptual and methodological issues at the nexus of peace-building, education, and sociopolitical activism. She is also a dialogue practitioner and trainer. Argun Saatcioglu, PhD, is Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies and (by courtesy) Sociology at the University of Kansas. He studies educational inequality and school organization. His recent work has appeared in Teachers College Record, Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, and Sociological Inquiry. Notes on Contributors xiii Thomas M. Skrtic, PhD, is Williamson Family Distinguished Professor of Special Education at the University of Kansas. His interests include disability policy and politics and critical policy inquiry. He has published his work in several books and in journals such as Harvard Educational Review and Disability Studies Quarterly. Sam Steen, PhD, is Director of the Counseling Program at the University of Arizona, Associate Professor, and a practitioner-researcher. He served as a school counselor for ten years before entering academia and has spent approximately eight years consulting, collaborating, and conducting school-based research within public schools in Washington, DC. Kamden K. Strunk, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Educational Research at Auburn University, where he teaches quantitative methods coursework. He holds his PhD in Educational Psychology from Oklahoma State University. His research focuses on intersections of sexual, gender, and racial identities in higher education, and broadly on social justice and equity in education. Kenzo K. Sung, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Urban Education and Education Foundations, and affiliated faculty with Africana Studies and American Studies, at Rowan University. His research areas include urban education and policy, ethnic studies, critical race theory, history of education, political economy, and social movements and reforms. Lolita A. Tabron, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies in the Morgridge College of Education at the University of Denver. Through critical policy analyses and critical quantitative inquiries, she studies how systemic racism and other forms of oppression are perpetuated and sustained through policies, politics, and statistical data. Aaron R. Tolbert, PhD, currently serves as the Dean of Liberal Arts at SUNY Schenectady County Community College. He also serves as the college co-chair for the Achieving the Dream Core Team. He holds a PhD in Higher Education from the University of Maine, and an MA in English from the University of Vermont. Tolbert’s research interests are highly varied, including discourse, policy analysis, agency, access to higher education, and equity in higher education. Rose M. Troyer is a Community Coordinator at Denison University. She holds a BS in Journalism and an MEd in College Student Personnel, both from Ohio University. Her research interests focus on student activism and civil discourse within the academy. Jeff Walls is Assistant Professor of Educational Foundations and Leadership at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette. His research interests include caring school environments, school-level policy implementation, and how school leaders and teachers collaborate in their efforts to produce more equitable schools. xiv Notes on Contributors James S. Wright, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at San Diego State University. His research agenda is highlighted by the ways in which educational administration and leadership are positioned to rewrite historical ineq- uities across the educational landscape. He holds a master’s degree in Business Administration (MBA), which he leverages to broaden understandings of organiza- tion and economic currents that impact schooling and educational reform. List of Figures Fig. 14.1 “Discipline from the teachers can be difficult because sometimes the guys (or girls) in the class don’t want to listen” 170 Fig. 14.2 “Students seem more focused and on-task” 172 Fig. 14.3 “In a unisex class, we always thought that we were bigger than each other. Our egos were high” 172 Fig. 17.1 Within-group student shutoff along the Advanced Placement curriculum pipeline. Source: Civil Rights Data Collection, pooled school years of 2011–12 and 2013–14 210 xv List of Tables Table 1.1 Validity horizon for Example 1    7 Table 1.2 Validity horizon for Example 2    8 Table 1.3 Validity horizon for Example 3   10 Table 1.4 Validity horizon for Example 4   11 Table 17.1 HHI scores along the Advanced Placement curriculum pipeline 211 Table 19.1 PSR-adjusted multinomial estimates for odds of mild disability labels 234 xvii Introduction Typical instruction in research methods in education can be detached from real issues and real problems in education; it often focuses on the nuts and bolts of research processes, and sometimes with examples that are less than substantive. Similarly, students often progress through their research methods coursework with no real sense of how those methods can contribute to moves toward (or away from) equity. Our goal with this book is to provide theoretical, methodological, and practi- cal information on how to mobilize educational research and research methods for social justice and equity in education. Our experiences teaching similar content have guided our decisions about the structure of the text. We have observed that students often come to these classes with very static and uncritical ideas about research methodologies. They often think of those methodologies as set, natural, and unquestionable. So, we open the text with chapters that challenge those assumptions, and push students to think critically about the nature of the methodologies they are already familiar with and how those could be adapted for the purposes of social justice and equity. Further, we firmly believe that research must always be theoretical, and that without theory, research becomes reduc- tive and meaningless. Because of that, the text next highlights several central and commonly used theoretical frameworks in research for social justice an equity. In introductory methods courses, students usually next arrive at questions around the practicalities of getting approval for this kind of research, collecting data for social justice and equity ends, and how they can analyze those data. So, the second section of the textbook includes chapters addressing these very practical, procedural ques- tions about the conduct of social-justice-oriented and equity-oriented research. Finally, as students usually then want to understand how to apply those theoretical perspec- tives and research procedures to various areas of content, the culminating section of the book includes narratives from scholars articulating their research agenda and how they have worked with various methodologies in service of that research agenda. They also describe how they found a place and made careers as scholar-activists. The three sections of the textbook are titled, Philosophical and Theoretical Issues: Liberating Frameworks and Methodologies; Collecting and Analyzing Data for Social Justice and Equity; and Approaches to Social Justice and Equity in Educational Research. xix xx Introduction We hope this textbook helps to guide students and researchers through the most typical sequence of questions they generate while exploring research for social jus- tice and equity. In addition, the rationale for and structure of this book is guided in part by focus group interviews with current and former students. We have both taught these courses and debriefed with students the kinds of materials they would have found most helpful in the course. Thus, our goal was to create a textbook struc- ture that meets most of those needs. There are also a number of instructional supplements included in the text. One such supplement is that most authors have suggested further readings related to their chapters. A book like this is, necessarily, more of a survey text, and will not fully explore the depths of any theory or methodology. But we suggest that students who find they resonate with a particular approach that is introduced in this text take the next step of exploring the suggestions for further reading. These authors have thoughtfully selected readings that would help someone learn more and go deeper with their content. In addition to those suggestions for further reading, we have also collaborated with the chapter authors to produce a terminology section, found at the end of this text. That terminology section defines many terms and we hope provides some clarity on commonly misunderstood terms. Finally, we provide an index at the end of the text. We hope that is helpful in cross-referencing the ways that different approaches take up the same kinds of issues and problems. We appreciate the time and thought that the authors included in this textbook have taken to explain their approaches to research for social justice and equity in education. Below we provide a brief synopsis of each chapter. Meagan Call-Cummings and Karen Ross explore how researchers might engage in reflexivity. The authors engage in reconstructive horizon analysis (RHA), which is an approach for examining taken-for-granted claims made by ourselves and our research participants. They find that by engaging in RHA, we build moments for dialogue and communication into the research process that allow assumptions, structures, and roles to be made explicit. Laura Parson outlines the ethical concerns and potential methodological obsta- cles that can occur when conducting research with underrepresented, marginalized, or minoritized groups. Prioritizing the implications of conducting this research as a member of a dominant group and/or with privileged outsider status, she describes key methodological strategies to use when conducting social-justice-oriented research to address or mitigate ethical concerns and methodological obstacles. Elena Aydarova notes that social justice research most often focuses on the voices, experiences, and practices of underserved and marginalized groups. While this focus produces important insights, it disregards the actions of those in power who create and maintain systems of inequality and injustice in the first place. To address this gap, she examines methodological approaches for studying up or researching the powerful. It describes the challenges faced by researchers who study those in power, such as problems of access, interview pitfalls, dangers in data analysis and interpretation, ethical concerns, and dissemination of findings. She also provides suggestions for how researchers can address those challenges. Introduction xxi Kenzo K. Sung and Natoya Coleman note that critical race theory (CRT) is now a prominent framework for critical scholarship on race and racism in the field of education. They trace CRT’s trajectory in educational research and analyzing the significance of its legacy, and provide an alternative framework to analyze how rac- ism is institutionalized through research-based or legalized “truths” that too often continue to perpetuate the oppression of minoritized communities. Further, they illuminate the significance of critical race analysis in educational research and the implications to reframe current discussions regarding the relation of research and the struggle for social justice. Christian D. Chan, Sam Steen, Lionel C. Howard, and Arshad I. Ali explore the complexities of queer theory and how it might integrate with and diverge from intersectionality. They suggest ways in which to use both theoretical approaches in educational research, as well as implications for studying genders and sexualities in education. Kamden K. Strunk and Jasmine S. Betties provide an introductory overview of critical theory. They particularly work to differentiate this theoretical approach from other similarly named approaches such as critical race theory. They explain some of the basic concepts of critical theory and how those might be applied in educational research. Danielle T. Ligocki notes that understanding the power that research holds to advance the need for social justice and equity is a crucial step in making real societal, institutional, and educational change. In her chapter, she sought to explain Zygmunt Bauman’s theory of liquid modernity and provide a new understanding regarding how this theory works to frame and explain this current historical moment and how all areas of society have been impacted, but specifically the work of the researcher. Lucy E. Bailey offers reflections on emancipatory research methods and exam- ples of maneuvers in feminist qualitative methodology that are oriented toward social justice, crystallizing in the specific space, time, and moment of inquiry. She casts a critical eye on “social justice methods,” and argues that all researchers are subject to shifting forms of normalization and that we should work toward keeping methods as contingent and dynamic, to serve educational projects with varied alle- giances and aims. Leslie Ann Locke has two chapters in this volume. In the first chapter, based on her experiences teaching introductory qualitative methods courses, she highlights some of the questions students who are new to qualitative methods struggle with in her courses. Specifically, she identifies ideas around objectivity and multiple truths, generalizability, positionality, and ambiguity as particular areas where students are challenged. In the second chapter, she details human subjects review and its pur- pose, some of the processes associated with applying for institutional review board (IRB) approval for research studies involving human subjects, and the main ele- ments required of an IRB application. Shiv R. Desai discusses youth participatory action research (YPAR) to chal- lenge traditional social science research as it teaches young people how to inquire about complex power relations, histories of struggle, and the consequences of oppression directly related to their lives. Additionally, Desai explains the central xxii Introduction critiques of YPAR and provides insights and challenges from a YPAR study with system-­involved youth. Elizabeth J. Allan and Aaron R. Tolbert discuss policy discourse analysis (PDA) which draws from critical and poststructural theories to provide researchers with an approach to identifying dominant discourses shaping policy problems and solutions. They define PDA, describe the conceptual principles of the approach, and detail the research methods for implementation of a PDA study. Examples of studies employing PDA are used to illustrate the utility of the approach. Jeff Walls and Samantha E. Holquist highlight the promise of photo elicitation-­ based data collection to authentically leverage student voice in research on policy and school improvement in ways that promote equity and critical social justice. These authors highlight methodological choices researchers must make in utilizing photo elicitation, and how these choices bear on the equity implications of this method. Susan Cridland-Hughes, McKenzie Brittain, and S. Megan Che explore a critical version of photovoice to describe a study of single-sex middle school class- rooms in a small school in the Southeast (a term used by the school district). They share a critical analysis of the implementation of photovoice and their imperfect research process. Their analysis is guided by recommendations by members of his- torically marginalized communities for reframing research to be collaborative and responsive to community needs. James S. Wright argues that life history methodology can be used as a counter to traditional research methodologies and provides space to collect and analyze data in a way that counters past traditions. He notes that life history provides real oppor- tunities for educational researchers to develop new knowledge by listening to and validating the experiences of the most vulnerable populations. Life history chal- lenges the idea of a universal truth—stemming from Eurocentric positionalities. Kamden K. Strunk and Payton D. Hoover note that quantitative methods, both in their historical and contemporary use, have been mobilized from hegemonic, positivist perspectives with implicit assumptions of whiteness and cisheteropatriar- chy. In their chapter, they highlight some of the historical, theoretical, and practical challenges in using quantitative methods in equity-oriented scholarship and suggest practical ways to humanize those methods. Heather E. Price argues that large-scale datasets allow for the tracking of per- sistent patterns of inequality and inequity in education. In her chapter, she demon- strates how inequality in students’ learning opportunities compound in high schools through the use of the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) of Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) curricula to demonstrate how a four-part chain of events in curriculum opportunities exacerbate inequality of education in the US. She works to move forward the educational opportunity and tracking d­ iscussions in the twenty-first century to understand the nested spaces of opportunity along cur- ricular pipelines. Carli Rosati, David J. Nguyen, and Rose M. Troyer demonstrate how campus maps tend to illustrate places and spaces, and also hold stories and experiences that may alienate students. They share how pairing campus maps with a semi-structured interview protocol can yield new insights into campus life. Introduction xxiii Argun Saatcioglu and Thomas M. Skrtic illustrate a “propensity score” proce- dure as a research alternative. Their chapter focuses on disproportionate racial/eth- nic representation in mild disability labeling, using a large federal dataset. They discuss testing labeling differences and find evidence of strong racial/ethnic dispro- portionality, which varies by grade and disability type. Other potential applications of this approach are highlighted. Carey E. Andrzejewski, Benjamin Arnberg, and Hannah Carson Baggett explore the applications of mixed methods approaches to social justice and equity-­ oriented research. They describe some of the common ways of thinking about mixed methods, as well as ways to integrate this work with social justice paradigms. They also offer illustrative cases of “missed opportunities” in educational research and mixed methods. Timothy J. Lensmire traces how his critical teaching and scholarship has sought to contribute to what John Dewey called creative democracy. He explores how the teaching of writing might serve radical democratic ends, and discusses his examina- tion of the complexities and conflicts of Whiteness and White racial identities. He also notes his connection to the works of Mikhail Bakhtin and W.E.B. Du Bois (among many others) as well as how his hatred of school and love of basketball are significant influences on his living and learning. Cheryl E. Matias discusses an exploration of life in the academy while doing racially just work, and the associated difficulties. She explains that those who relay their experiences in the academy as a way to improve the professoriate are incor- rectly labeled whistleblowers and are often met with resistance, passive aggressive bullying tactics, or find themselves and their scholarship constantly under scrutiny. She notes that instead of listening and learning from the stories shared about acad- emy life, administrators who do have the power to make changes belittle and mini- mize the stories as if they are just mere whines of a baby. To combat this, she shares three essays that paint a picture of academy life while doing racially just work. She also shares the trials, tribulations, and simple successes of this path so that profes- sors and administrators can create more racially just educational systems that is inclusive to faculty of color and scholars of race. Lolita A. Tabron notes that historically, statistical research has been used as a tool of oppression attempting to “prove” the intellectual and cultural inferiority of communities of color (i.e. bell curve, Tuskegee Syphilis Study, eugenics, IQ testing) and obscure the reality of racism. Such scientific racism is the foundation of the US education system and contextualizes many of the contemporary issues of racial and social stratification today. She discusses the need for critical quantitative inquiry, where researchers disrupt and push for the re-imagining of ways to engage in more culturally inclusive and sustaining approaches to quantitative inquiry and argues that statistics is a powerful tool that can be used to resist oppression through community-­driven, justice-oriented work. Kristen A. Renn recounts the pathways she followed in developing a line of LGBTQ research and her identity as a queer researcher. Specifically, she traces the parallel pathways of becoming an LGBTQ activist and focusing her research on LGBTQ topics, in the process coming to terms with the ways that she was social- xxiv Introduction ized to follow rules, not to draw attention to herself, and not cause trouble. She further describes how she came to understand herself as a scholar who works inten- tionally to create a more socially just version of higher education while also being in tension with the idea that higher education is itself inherently unjust. Erica R. Dávila reflects on her research trajectory, which is rooted in collabora- tion, community, and collectives. She includes a discussion of her development as a scholar-activist and her work with justice-centered research projects. Overall, she highlights her work with and for our people, lived experiences grounded in struggle and hope, and the power that schools and universities have to liberate as well as oppress. While there are scholars from a broad mix of educational fields, and who apply a variety of methodological approaches in their work, included in this textbook, we do not intend this to be a comprehensive treatment. Rather, we hope it is the begin- ning of a conversation, and that students and faculty are able to go deeper with methods and theories that resonate with them through the suggestions for further reading. Further, we hope Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education is useful for faculty and graduate students alike, as they conduct their work, and that it provides a meaningful exploration of social justice and equity-­ related research across educational contexts. University of Iowa  Leslie Ann Locke Iowa City, IA, USA Auburn University  Kamden K. Strunk Auburn, AL, USA  Part I Theoretical and Philosophical Issues Chapter 1 Re-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity: Examining Positionality and Building Validity Through Reconstructive Horizon Analysis Meagan Call-Cummings and Karen Ross Abstract In this chapter, we explore how researchers might engage in reflexivity. Reflexivity is closely related to the concept of positionality, which refers to the way we as researchers view our position in the world in relation to others, especially those who are involved in or may read our research. Often reflexivity is issued as a call—an important step to take to establish the validity, rigor, or ethical nature of the research being done. Here we engage in reconstructive horizon analysis (RHA), which is an approach for examining taken-for-granted claims made by ourselves and our research participants. We find that by engaging in RHA, we build moments for dialogue and communication into the research process that allow assumptions, structures, and roles to be made explicit. Over the past 20 years, much discussion and debate in methodological literature has revolved around reflexivity: what it means, what it looks and feels like, and how it is best “done.” Linda Finlay and Gough, in her (2008) edited volume, Reflexivity: A Practical Guide for Researchers in Health and Social Sciences, defines reflexivity as “thoughtful, self-aware analysis of the intersubjective dynamics between researcher and the researched” (p. ix), acknowledging that “reflexivity both chal- lenges treasured research traditions and is challenging to apply in practice” (p. ix). Both authors contributed equally to this manuscript. M. Call-Cummings (*) George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA e-mail: [email protected] K. Ross University of Massachusetts Boston, Boston, MA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 3 K. K. Strunk, L. A. Locke (eds.), Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05900-2_1 4 M. Call-Cummings and K. Ross In this chapter, we explore these issues by focusing on how we as researchers can engage in reflexivity, a concept we define as purposeful, often challenging reflection about ourselves, how we identify, and what we take for granted as true or right. Reflexivity is closely related to the concept of positionality, which refers to the way we as researchers view our position in the world in relation to others, especially those who are involved in or may read our research. In particular, positionality requires us to think about how our background and experiences play a role in our relationships with participants and in how we carry out research: for instance, how might one’s gender/race/class/religion or other aspect of one’s identity affect the choices one makes about what questions to ask an interview participant or how one interacts with participants of similar or different backgrounds during the interview? Being explicit about our positionality is important as a way of helping readers understand how the lens through which we see the world is reflected in our research. As our opening paragraph suggests, there is agreement among many (though not all) methodologists about the importance of exploring positionality and reflexivity, especially in order to be transparent about how our backgrounds shape both the process and results of our research. However, there is much less agreement about how to engage in reflexivity in productive ways. Scholars have illuminated chal- lenges to doing so through discussions of reflexive practice as well as through what scholars have learned from engaging reflexively. Most often, reflexivity is issued as a call—an important step to take to establish the validity, rigor, or ethical nature of the research being done, especially for scholars who are determined to engage in knowledge production that is critical, participatory, emancipatory, and democra- tized. Often these calls relate to concerns about the representation of participants. For example, Milner (2007) charges researchers to engage in the process of cultural and racial introspection in their research in order to avoid some of the potential dangers of (mis)representation that can occur in varying research contexts. He argues that researchers in the process of conducting research “pose racially and culturally grounded questions about themselves,” and that attention to these ques- tions can “bring the researcher awareness and consciousness of known (seen), unknown (unseen), and unanticipated (unforeseen) issues, perspective, epistemolo- gies, and positions” (p. 395). By researching the self in relation to others, Milner (2007) maintains, researchers can better understand issues of power and self-­ interest, which can overshadow the interests of participants. This kind of “engaged reflection and representation” (p. 396) can allow researchers and participants to explore together what is happening in that particular research community, allowing the research findings to become products of shared interpretation and perspective. Pillow (2003) calls for researchers to work toward an uncomfortable reflexivity— a reflexive practice that seeks to “know while at the same time situate this knowing as tenuous” (p. 188). Her work highlights the often vulnerable and personally chal- lenging aspect of reflexivity, and she urges researchers to understand reflexivity as a “methodological tool interruptive of practices of gathering data” to produce what she acknowledges are likely uncomfortable “tellings” (p. 192). She suggests that reflexivity is about more than just an accounting of researchers’ struggles with rep- resentation but should also attend to accountability to that representation. 1 Re-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity: Examining Positionality… 5 Guillemin and Gillam (2004) advocate for a kind of reflexivity that they connect to the concept of “ethics in practice” (p. 262). They suggest that ethical engagement in the research process requires a constant monitoring of the ethical implications of one’s choices as a researcher. This practice of continuous scrutiny—of relationships between researcher and participant, research context, and the purposes of research, in addition to methods—is, in Guillemin and Gillam’s view, a form of reflexivity. This idea expands the role of reflexivity beyond the examination of epistemo- logical aspects of research, to its use as a conceptual tool for understanding how researchers might exercise ethical practice in research. Guillemin and Gillam (2004) say that researchers should develop ways to address and respond to ethical issues that arise in the research process. By so doing, researchers can prepare for potential problems and even prevent them. Framing reflexivity as a skill in this way—the ability to recognize and effectively navigate ethically important moments—is excit- ing, but still begs the question: how? How can researchers examine and account for their positionalities in research that works toward equity and social justice? And when? Is reflexivity only called for upon completion of a study? Or, like Milner (2007) and Pillow (2003) seem to suggest, is there something about the role of reflexivity that demands its use throughout the process of knowledge production? Lastly, we ask, with whom? Finlay and Gough (2008) is explicit that reflexivity allows intersubjective understandings and dynamics between and among the researcher and the researched to emerge. Yet the literature on reflexivity as a whole emphasizes internal introspection focused on oneself, thus leaving it unclear how self-reflection might occur in a way that opens up possibilities for position-taking and deeper intersubjective understanding of meaning. Reconstructive Horizon Analysis: An Introduction Carspecken’s (1996) reconstructive horizon analysis (RHA) is a methodological tool that can help researchers in this quest to “do” reflexivity in a way that is mean- ingful. In particular, RHA is a tool that requires individuals to position-take, that is, to explicitly take the position or perspective of other actors (such as research partici- pants) in a way that is conscious and explicit rather than in the tacit, implicit manner that is characteristic of most interactions (Carspecken, 1996). Moreover, as Dennis (2017) states, “when we listen to the claims of others, our interpretations involve position-taking, which intrinsically require our self-commitments and positionings within the interpretations” (p. 112). As a tool used to deepen understanding of a participant’s speech acts, RHA can be understood as a form of “listening” to the claims of others, wherein the attempt is made to hear those claims more clearly. As such, it requires position-taking from the perspective of the participant as well as from one’s position—this inherently creates a dialogic approach to reflexivity, wherein a researcher is moving through multiple positions in attempting to bring tacit claims into explicit discourse. 6 M. Call-Cummings and K. Ross According to Carspecken (1996), who bases his work in Habermas’ (1984, 1985) Theory of Communicative Action, the implicit reasons behind an action or com- municative claim fall into one of four categories of validity claims: objective (based on the principle of multiple access), subjective (based on the principle of unique access by the communicator), normative-evaluative (relating to norms by which we operate in a given society or culture), or identity claims (references by the commu- nicator to who that person is in the world); these reasons also differ based on “how immediately they are referenced in the original act (foregrounded) or how remotely they are referenced (backgrounded)” (p. 111). RHA is an approach for examining taken-for-granted claims made by ourselves and our research participants that allows us to locate the source of discomfort that is central to reflexivity. We offer four examples from our fieldwork to highlight how this can be done. Our use of RHA entails the creation of what Carspecken (1996) refers to as a valid- ity horizon, which puts into explicit discourse the tacit validity and identity claims articulated in a specific communicative act. Example 1 In the midst of an interview with Bayan,1 a Palestinian woman, I (Karen) found myself discussing enlistment in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). Our conversation had focused on Bayan’s experiences, several years prior, in a program designed to bring Jewish and Palestinian youth together for joint learning and education toward activism. As we spoke, Bayan discussed the issue of enlistment among her Jewish friends from the program, how some had enlisted and some had not, and how this had helped her understand that there is more complexity among the Jewish popula- tion in Israel than she had previously thought. In the midst of discussing this, Bayan suddenly asked me, “Did you enlist?” I found myself extremely uncomfortable in that moment and unsure how to respond. Ultimately, the conversation went like this: Karen: Yes, I enlisted. I enlisted out of a belief that I could try to change things from… inside the military. Bayan: Yes, one of my friends, I heard the same thing from her, about trying to change things from the inside. Karen: Yes. I’m not totally sure it’s possible, to be honest. Bayan: That’s exactly what I told her. Karen: But, anyway, for me, it was a long time ago, and the way I see things now is not the same way that I saw things then. Today if I were in the same position I am sure that I would not enlist. But it’s something that…it’s a process that takes time, for everyone. By reconstructing the validity claims and identity claims in this example, we can better understand the discomfort I experienced in this conversation and its source (Table 1.1). In particular, the source of this discomfort can be addressed through a validity horizon focusing in the statement, But, anyway, for me, it was a long time ago, and the way I see things now is not the same way that I saw things then. Today if I were in the same position I am sure that I would not enlist. But it’s something that…it’s a process that takes time, for everyone. 1 Re-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity: Examining Positionality… 7 Table 1.1 Validity horizon for Example 1 Normative-evaluative Objective claim Subjective claim claim Identity claim Foreground The IDF I am Researchers should be I am an honest requires Jewish uncomfortable honest with their person. citizens of Israel telling Bayan that I research participants. to enlist. enlisted. Mid-ground There are ways I am concerned Researchers should I am a person who for Jewish about how Bayan value relationships is willing to citizens to avoid will react to my with their participants. challenge the enlisting. response. Jewish citizens should status quo. I want Bayan to not enlist without feel comfortable understanding why narrating her they do so. authentic self. Background Enlistment in I do not want It is appropriate for I am a person who the IDF is not Bayan to think I research participants is willing to something that blindly submit to to ask researchers acknowledge poor all Israeli societal pressure. questions that make decisions in my citizens agree them uncomfortable. past. with. Using RHA to create a validity horizon allows for a much better understanding of where my discomfort, as a researcher, came from, as well as my own normative beliefs and the role they played in creating discomfort. Although this validity hori- zon focused on a comment I had made, the tacit claims it put into explicit discourse highlight how in the process of speaking these words, I was engaged in a process of trying to reconcile my perspective with Bayan’s, based on my presumed under- standing of her position. Specifically, the italicized subjective, normative-­evaluative, and identity claims illustrate a situation where my desire for authentic interaction with Bayan stood in tension with my sense of self as an honest individual. Ultimately, it is difficult to know whether my response facilitated or mitigated a sense of com- fort on Bayan’s part to express herself honestly; however, the validity horizon makes clear the different pulls on my sense of accountability to her as a research partici- pant and to myself in the process of data collection. Example 2 After the conclusion of a semester-long participatory research project with English Language Learners at a local middle school, my (Meagan’s) graduate research assistant interviewed me about my experience as one of the faculty leaders of the group. We were conducting these interviews with all those who were involved in the project because some of the graduate students who acted as “mentors” to the research participants had expressed frustration about their roles and the roles faculty members played during the project. They felt like there were power dynamics that 8 M. Call-Cummings and K. Ross Table 1.2 Validity horizon for Example 2 Normative-­ Objective claim Subjective claim evaluative claim Identity claim Foreground I am a new faculty I am aware that I People should be I am an honest member here. put my professional honest. person. needs first. People should not be selfish. Mid-ground My main focus at Sometimes I feel Sometimes it’s okay I need others to the beginning of torn between my to be selfish if it’s think I am this project was my needs and attending for a good reason. honest. career, not you or to my students’ I am not really the participants. needs. selfish, I am just trying to move my career forward. Background New faculty I didn’t think this Researchers should I am an members need to through fully before clarify their ambitious begin to conduct I signed on for this expectations before person. research quickly in project. engaging in Sometimes I am order to be I was not being research. not as thoughtful competitive for transparent about Researchers should or intentional or tenure. whose needs I was be transparent and transparent as I attending to and the intentional about should be. role I was taking in their goals and their this project. roles as they engage in research. were not explicitly attended to. Overall, they felt like the project did not live up to its full potential. Conducting these interviews became an opportunity to reflect on what happened, understand each other’s perspectives on what maybe went wrong, and plan for more ethical work in the future. During my interview, Marie, my research assistant, asked me about the expectations I had coming into the project (Table 1.2). Marie: So you said your expectations were kind of undefined, when you went in. But what did you hope to gain from it, or what was your objective in joining? Meagan: This is probably really selfish, but as a new faculty member, honestly I was just trying to get into a school or into a space. I was trying to start research and hit the ground running. Coming here as a new assistant professor. Trying to get contacts in schools, start working with you, you guys as students, doctoral students. Get some research under my belt. That type of thing. I mean, of course I love photovoice, and of course I wanted to work with students, but I think that was kind of secondary or different than really just wanting to get into schools and start—start doing good research. Focusing in on my first sentence here helps to illuminate more backgrounded truth claims: This is probably really selfish, but as a new faculty member, honestly I was just trying to get into a school or into a space. 1 Re-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity: Examining Positionality… 9 The act of constructing this RHA table allowed me to see the validity claims that I had taken for granted when I was speaking. When I spoke these words, I was aware that I was speaking about professional priorities. After examining the horizon of these claims, however, I realized that I was also indicating my lack of intentionality, thoughtfulness, and transparency as I took the project on. This realization makes me extraordinarily uncomfortable, even now as I write. I see an implied act of power in my original dismissal of my lack of thoughtfulness and intentionality as I put my own needs ahead of the needs of my students. Engaging in RHA allowed me to see my actions and understand the justification of those actions from others’ positions. Through this exercise, I clarified my need to be accountable not only to my own professional needs but also to those of my students. Redistributing Power Through Reflexive Reconstructions The preceding examples are meant to illustrate that researcher engagement with RHA can allow for a better understanding of one’s own positionality (through the process of making backgrounded validity claims explicit), as well as for articulating points of tension in the data collection (and larger research) process that can shape the validity of findings. RHA is useful not only for making explicit issues of power and other taken-for-granted claims that arise in research contexts but also for position-­taking and thus making the reflexive process more dialogically oriented. Yet, we wonder about the challenge of using RHA in a fully democratized and dialogic way that moves the researcher and the researched toward greater intersub- jective understanding. In our experience, the use of RHA almost always happens as a retrospective or reflective/reflexive analytical exercise (i.e., after “being in the moment” of discomfort in a fieldwork situation). Engaging in this analysis allows us to learn from what has happened in the past, and even potentially think about how we can “do better” the next time around as a result of what has been learned. But, if we think back to Guillemin and Gillam’s (2004) idea that, by building the skill of reflexivity, researchers can prepare for and even prevent moments that are ethically troubling, we wonder how RHA might offer a clear path for examining and account- ing for our own positionalities “in the moment”? Is that even possible? And how can engaging in RHA “in the moment” and with our participants build a stronger inter- subjective understanding of each other’s positions and positionalities? One possibility we suggest is to use RHA not only as a tool for better understand- ing one’s positionality in an intersubjective way but also as a tool that can help us be more accountable to our participants. Specifically, we suggest that RHA might become a part of a multilayered member checking process, and thus a basis for dialogue and a more explicit position-taking process with our participants. In the following examples, we illustrate situations where we believe dialogic engagement with RHA could potentially have been used as the basis for developing a deeper understanding of our own and our research participants’ perspectives. 10 M. Call-Cummings and K. Ross Example 3 In 2012, I (Meagan) conducted several interviews with people in Jamaica who were involved in peace education, either as teachers, principals, school counselors, non- profit staff members, or other members of civil society. Principal Nathan, the prin- cipal of a high school renowned for students that “behaved badly,” agreed to be interviewed but did not want to have her interview audio recorded. Therefore, I wrote notes during the interview and then wrote up everything I remembered imme- diately following the interview. Any verbatim speech I had captured in my notes were set off in italics: She is talking about talking to teachers, giving them advice on how to treat difficult stu- dents. Treat the issue like a Doberman or (other dog, comments missed) comes to attack you. Don’t show your fear. Treat it with authority. Spare the rod, spoil the child. I beat. You can write that. (A few seconds pass as she talks more.) My warning: I’m not going to back off from any student. (She puts more force into the word “any” with more volume, and more depth, as if she’s punching someone with her voice.) Pickney fi’ afraid of adult. I emailed the notes to Principal Nathan for her comments. She responded to the sec- tion above: Thank you for sending this to me. It seems like you are doing good work; however, your notes indicate that you possibly do not understand Jamaica or the children I am charged with educating and controlling as well as you might think. The only words you wrote down or remembered paint a picture of me as a person who only wants control or vengeance. Although I knew she might have been upset seeing the transcription and notes, I was still taken aback by her comments. I did not know what to do. Now, I envision work- ing through an RHA on her comments emailed back to me to try and take Principal Nathan’s perspective (position-take) to understand better points where there has been a breakdown in meaning and thus in validity (Table 1.3). Table 1.3 Validity horizon for Example 3 Objective Normative-evaluative claim Subjective claim claim Identity claim Foreground You do not It is important to You should try to I am an educator understand me that you understand me. who works hard to me. understand me. serve students. Mid-ground You do not My job is really Researchers who do not I am understand my hard and it is fully understand a misunderstood. job or this frustrating that you context should not context. do not seem to conduct research on understand that. that context. Background You did not I do not feel Researchers should be I am someone who fairly understood and understanding. is often represent me that is hurtful. Good and valid misunderstood. or what I said. research reflects understanding. 1 Re-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity: Examining Positionality… 11 After working through the process of parsing out the various validity claims implicit in her statements, I attempted to try to take Principal Nathan’s position so as to understand better her perspective instead of jumping to my conclusions and feeling defensive. Doing so, and narrowing in on the backgrounded normative and identity claims Principal Nathan may have implied through her email, I clarified for myself the possible justifications she may have made for her words. Looking back, I could have delved deeper into my assumptions through RHA and then met with Principal Nathan to discuss the backgrounded claims and taken-for-granted assump- tions I had uncovered. In this way I could have engaged more dialogically, reaching toward intersubjective understanding. Discussing these assumptions with Principal Nathan would have also enabled her to comment on my interpretation of her words and mitigate the power imbalance that exists when researchers make monological decisions about the meaning of their participants’ statements. Example 4 At the end of one of my (Karen’s) interviews when living in Tel Aviv conducting my dissertation research, Neta, the woman I had spent the evening conversing with, offered me a ride part-way back to my apartment. As we sat in the car, we spoke about my research, and I mentioned that some participants had told me they enjoyed the opportunity to reflect on some aspects of their lives. Neta nodded her head and then said to me, “The reason I agreed to do this interview was because I knew it would help you out, and I’m the type of person who helps people out, always.” Neta’s statement gave me pause. I found myself wondering, what did her state- ment suggest about the authenticity of her words? About the power dynamic between us? What should I take away from what she said? A validity horizon helped clarify my understanding of Neta’s comment (Table 1.4). Table 1.4 Validity horizon for Example 4 Normative-evaluative Objective claim Subjective claim claim Identity claim Foreground I helped you tonight I feel good about It is important to help I am a helpful with your research. helping you. other people. person. Mid-ground Researchers need It is important to I am a person Researchers should help in order to do me that you who is willing to appreciate the help their work. understand I did do things for they get from their this for you. participants. others even if they don’t benefit me. Background Participants’ choice I am confident Research participants I am a person of whether to help or that I helped you should be explicit who is not afraid not affects the end tonight more about their reasons to share my result of the research than you helped for participating in thoughts. process. me. research projects. 12 M. Call-Cummings and K. Ross It was only through going through the process of creating this validity horizon and attempting to understand Neta’s position better that I had a sense of why her statement gave me pause: the highlighted mid-grounded and backgrounded normative-­evaluative claims, and the backgrounded subjective claim, clarified for me what I understood to be Neta’s perspective, and helped me realize that I had not spent sufficient time considering my own perspective on what the benefits of research participation should be and for whom. Engaging in the process of RHA, therefore, helped me clarify my perspectives on this issue. However, had I shared this validity horizon with Neta, I believe it would have been the basis for a rich dialogue about shared assumptions and misunderstandings that would have both allowed for a more accurate interpretation of her words and provided Neta with an opportunity to participate in the process of meaning-making and interpretation. In other words, using this validity horizon as the basis for a joint conversation could have served as a powerful tool for democratizing the meaning-making process that is an inherent part of interpretive research. Conclusion The examples above point to the utility of RHA as a tool for carrying out the “engaged reflection and representation” that Milner (2007) suggests is necessary for better understanding issues of power and self-interest. In particular, we believe RHA is an important tool because it requires researchers to position-take with respect to their research participants. This makes RHA unique as a tool for reflexiv- ity, which generally occurs only as an introspective, self-focused exercise where researchers better aim to understand their perspectives. Because RHA requires making explicit the backgrounded claims that are central to one’s understanding of both self and others, it moves us closer toward a communicatively based, intersub- jectively structured understanding of meaning and process of sensemaking. Thus, RHA not only deepens the process of reflection but it also enables a potentially more accurate understanding of meaning and thus a more precise interpretation in the (intersubjective) analytical process. We suggest that beyond its utility for researchers, moreover, RHA can be used to democratize the analytical process itself if used as part of member checking with participants. While it is not necessarily possible for us to engage in RHA during specific moments of fieldwork, it is possible for us to share and engage in dialogue about validity horizons with our research participants. Doing so provides an oppor- tunity for participants thus to be part of the conversation about the assumptions that are made, and therefore to address the power imbalance that generally exists within the interpretive process. By engaging in RHA, we build moments for dialogue and communication into the research process that allow taken-for-granted assumptions, structures, and roles to be made explicit (Call-Cummings, 2017). Thus, this process carries with it the potential to enhance the validity of our interpretations as well as of the larger meaning-making projects in which we are engaged. 1 Re-positioning Power and Re-imagining Reflexivity: Examining Positionality… 13 Suggestions for Further Reading Berger, R. (2015). Now I see it, now I don’t: Researcher’s position and reflexivity in qualitative research. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 219–234. https://doi. org/10.1177/1468794112468475 This article is useful because it explicitly addresses how a researcher’s social posi- tion, lived experiences, and beliefs interact with the process of reflexivity. Chan, A. (2017). Reflection, reflexivity, reconceptualisation: Life story inquiry and the complex positionings of a researcher. Reconceptualizing Educational Research Methodology, 8(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.7577/rerm.2544 This is an example of reflection and reflexivity that can be useful, especially for those just starting to engage in qualitative inquiry, as well as for those interested in learning new approaches to become more reflexive. Note 1. We use pseudonyms for all individuals referenced in this chapter, in order to protect confidentiality. References Call-Cummings, M. (2017). Establishing communicative validity: Discovering theory through practice. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(3), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657101 Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research: A theoretical and practical guide. New York, NY: Psychology Press. Dennis, B. (2017). Validity as research praxis: A study of self-reflection and engagement in qualita- tive inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 24(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416686371 Finlay, L., & Gough, B. (Eds.). (2008). Reflexivity: A practical guide for researchers in health and social sciences. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Guillemin, M., & Gillam, L. (2004). Ethics, reflexivity, and “ethically important moments” in research. Qualitative Inquiry, 10(2), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800403262360 Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Habermas, J. (1985). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 2). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Milner IV, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher positionality: Working through dangers seen, unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 388–400. https://doi.org/10.310 2/0013189X07309471 Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodolog- ical power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000060635 Chapter 2 Considering Positionality: The Ethics of Conducting Research with Marginalized Groups Laura Parson Abstract In this chapter, I outline the ethical concerns and potential methodologi- cal obstacles that can occur when conducting research with underrepresented, mar- ginalized, or minoritized groups. Prioritizing the implications of conducting this research as a member of a dominant group and/or with privileged outsider status, I describe key methodological strategies to use when conducting social justice-­ oriented research to address or mitigate ethical concerns and methodological obsta- cles. Finally, I describe strategies for the ethical use and reporting of research findings by providing examples of existing and proposed social justice research projects. Conducting research through a social justice lens is key to identify and explore the factors that marginalize and minoritize underrepresented groups and individuals. Historically, however, research procedures and reporting have often served to rein- force and exacerbate the marginalization of research participants and members of marginalized groups even when research was conducted with the intent of “helping” them (Goodkind & Deacon, 2004). Considering positionality allows one to identify how the research process has the potential to marginalize research participants and perpetuate structural and systemic discrimination of the researched population. By interrogating one’s role, placement, and motivation, identifying one’s positionality prompts researchers to explore the power and privilege inherent in one’s identity. This consideration allows researchers to make decisions to mitigate the pitfalls of conducting research with marginalized groups, which includes an evaluation of if one is positioned such that they should not be conducting that research. L. Parson (*) Auburn University, Auburn, AL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s) 2019 15 K. K. Strunk, L. A. Locke (eds.), Research Methods for Social Justice and Equity in Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05900-2_2 16 L. Parson Researchers hold a privileged status within the research process, regardless of their other salient identities. One’s status as a researcher influences the research process from the selection of research questions, who is invited to participate, the selection of research methods, and decisions about how to report and share findings: “Strategies, tactics, and procedures that characterize power dynamics in research include participant selection, privacy, disclosure, interviews, observations, analysis, and the (re)presentation of research participants and their communities” (Vanner, 2015, p. 2). The ability to make these decisions in the research process represents the significant power of the researcher. Further, this decision-making power means that researchers have a significant role in creating and reifying knowledge: “Academic researchers represent centers of power, privilege, and status within their formal institutions, as well as within the production of scientific knowledge itself” (Muhammad et al., 2015, p. 1046). Reporting research results, such as through the publication process, defines what is considered knowledge, which is why decisions about what to study, how to conduct research, and what is reported convey signifi- cant power to researchers. Through a system of rewards and recognition, the research reporting and publication process confers power both to the reported “knowledge” and to the researcher/author. The power of researchers in the power/knowledge process is significant. As a result, it is especially important to be mindful of one’s place in the research process in order to identify how research might be reproducing existing power/knowledge frameworks that marginalize underrepresented groups (Muhammad et al., 2015). First, beyond selecting research parameters, researchers rebuild participant stories in ways that conform to the dominant ideology because they are recontextualizing the stories of research participants through their own lens as a member of the oppres- sor class. Without considering the bias inherent in one’s worldview, “participants in the study are silenced, and that the last word remains with the uncontested and privi- leged interpretations of the author” (Arber, 2000, p. 45). Second, researchers often exploit participants in very colonizing ways. For example, if I publish a participant’s words (accurate or misrepresented), then I profit via job security, accolades, or merit raises. Meanwhile, participants gain very little, if anything. I have, in essence, turned participants’ “struggles in society” to my own personal gain. Considering positionality means identifying one’s motivation for doing research and identifying how that research could be implicitly reinstantiating the very dynamics one hoped to document and interrupt. Positionality prompts researchers to ask if this research should be done and if one is the researcher to be conducting this research. If one cannot really represent stories of people of color without them being implicitly and intrinsically reframed through a whiteness-infused worldview, then this is perhaps not the research that this researcher should be conducting. Further, even if researchers believe that their research is emancipatory, simply by speaking for participants in one’s reports and writing, a researcher is still objectifying participants (Gordon, 2005, p. 280). Considering one’s positionality is the first step toward conducting research that con- tributes to more equity in society, instead of reproducing inequity or diminishing it. 2 Considering Positionality: The Ethics of Conducting Research with Marginalized… 17 In this chapter, I begin by discussing the implications of conducting research from a position of privilege and critiques around privileged group members doing research with or “on” marginalized populations. Next, I define and discuss position- ality, insider/outsider status, reflexivity, and the relationship between power and knowledge. Second, I discuss key strategies in the research process, beginning with research questions, the nature of participation, and reporting results. Finally, I sug- gest several research methodologies that incorporate ethical and participatory research methods, research methods designed with the goal of empowering partici- pants that result in meaningful change. Positionality To understand the potential harms that come from doing research on marginalized populations without considering power/privilege, it is important to understand posi- tionality and how to identify one’s positionality in the research process. Suffla, Seedat, and Bawa (2015) define positionality as “the researcher’s social location, personal experience, and theoretical viewpoint, the relational and institutional con- texts of the research, and the bearing of these elements on the research process itself” (p. 16). Thinking about and identifying one’s position in the research process is the first step toward understanding the impact of personal bias, because one’s position limits them from seeing things from the perspective of someone in a differ- ent position: “One’s position in the field is situated within a social hierarchy vis-à-­ vis other groups and individuals with regard to class, gender, ethnicity, and race, each of which potentially limits or broadens one’s understanding of others” (Milgram, 2012, pp. 178–179). One’s position impacts how a researcher anticipates participant needs in the research process, crafts research questions that truly seek to understand the participant’s lived experiences and interprets participant’s words. To begin the process of considering positionality, one starts by identifying the salient and non-salient aspects of personal identity and the power and privilege embedded in the intersection of one’s salient identities. The process of identifying one’s position rejects the idea of a post-racial, post-feminist society. While one’s identity, and therefore their positionality, is not limited to race, it is important that one first acknowledges that race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and other identities do exist: Colorblindness is a complex ideology in which White people are taught to ignore race, a stance that ends by reinscribing existing power relations that privilege White people. Colorblindness maintains that race does not exist as a meaningful category and posits that the benefits accrued to White people are earned by (gifted) individuals rather than system- atically conferred. (Gordon, 2005, p. 281) Ignoring the power and privilege that come along with racial identity and per- ceived racial identity virtually ensures that the research one conducts will, at the very least, perpetuate the marginalization of minoritized groups: “By pretending 18 L. Parson these implications are not real, we become complicit in reproducing them” (Gordon, 2005, p. 299). Similarly, one must also identify how their identity relates to class, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and age, and the power/privilege inherent in those intersecting identities. Indeed, in social-justice-oriented research, research should seek to improve the lives of the marginalized groups of individuals whose experiences the researcher is exploring. Yet, one cannot hope to make recommendations to improve their position if the researcher does not truly understand what marginalized persons are chal- lenged by. Defining one’s identity is the first step of that process. As an example, consider The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the movie based on Rebecca Skloot’s book of the same name. In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Skloot’s (played by Rose Byrne) exploration of the life of Henrietta Lacks and the Lacks family provides an example, both positive and negative, of the difficult and often problem- atic ethical issues associated with conducting research as a White, privileged out- sider with a disadvantaged group. The Lacks family, whose experiences Skloot is exploring, are Black, poor, and lack formal education as evidenced by degrees. While Skloot is disadvantaged by her gender because of systemic sexism in aca- demia and journalism, she is simultaneously privileged by her race, education level, and socioeconomic status. In contrast, the Lacks family is disadvantaged by their race, socioeconomic status, and formal education level; the men in the Lacks family may be privileged because of gender, but the stereotype of Black men as criminals that is perpetuated throughout the movie serves to disadvantage the Lacks men. Skloot’s power and privilege are witnessed when she can gain access to medical records that the family has not been able to access, despite repeated attempts. As one considers Skloot’s positionality, this should raise questions about whether Skloot can truly understand the experiences of the Lacks family, how she can ethni- cally gain access to speak to them, and if she can speak for them. If Skloot cannot gain access or she cannot understand the experiences of the Lacks family, when she speaks for them, is she really speaking for them or continuing to marginalize them? Considering Skloot’s identity in the research process is just the first step. After defining one’s identity, the next step in considering positionality as it impacts the research process is to identify how one’s identity is related to the identities of those whose experiences one’s research seeks to explore. This is not an exercise in describ- ing how a group of individuals are different from the researcher and therefore defi- cient, which is the traditional way of viewing members of marginalized groups. Instead, exploring one’s identity as it relates to the identities of the group whose experiences one hopes to improve is an exploration that acknowledges differences in order to consider how the intersection of power and privilege impacts a researcher’s ability to conduct research ethically. Considering positionality in order to conduct research ethically is more than identifying how one might be less able to anticipate the methodological challenges of conducting research with marginalized groups. Considering positionality also includes identifying how the privileged aspects of one’s identity have structured their life such that they view others through the lens of being in power. The privileged aspects of one’s identity structure their relationship with power, and the ways in which one has been a beneficiary of asymmetric power 2 Considering Positionality: The Ethics of Conducting Research with Marginalized… 19 relations may have conditioned them to see the world in ways that reproduce the goodness of their values, characteristics, and culture. That understanding of the world will impact the research process and knowingly or unknowingly impose that worldview on the data and those from whom the data originate. To understand the identities of marginalized groups, it is important to understand the history of how they have been exploited and marginalized. Returning to The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, the Lacks family has been exploited multiple times by researchers or people claiming to want to help the family or tell their story. Understanding how the Lacks family had been victimized in the past could have helped Skloot to approach the family differently or, perhaps, led her to reconsider the research project completely so that she did not contribute to their exploitation. In addition to considering immediate factors, it would also have been important for Skloot to consider the larger history of research and exploitation. Black Americans have been made unwilling participants in medical research since before slavery, such as the Tuskegee Syphilis study. Like many underrepresented groups, Henrietta Lacks was exploited as a patient when her cells were taken and used in research without her consent and acknowledgment. This medical invasion and ethical viola- tion of her body is a history that was important to consider as Skloot decided how to approach the family to ask them to participate in her research. Positionality does not just include identity differences that are apparent in how one presents themselves to the world but also research context and the researcher’s role in the research process. Researchers, as a part of their identity, have power in the research process in the decisions they make about the research project. In tradi- tional research methods, researchers decide whom to talk to, the questions partici- pants are asked, where the research occurs, how participants’ voices are used, and where to publish research results. In each step of the research process, researcher decisions take agency, and therefore power, away from participants. Researchers control the process, and therefore, the ways participants are involved, represented, and presented. This power is especially dangerous if one has not considered posi- tionality and has not considered how one might not understand the experiences and perspectives of participants. If researchers are not asking the right questions, researcher recommendations and implications may not address the problematic, or, worse, address problems that do not exist. Further, a lack of awareness of researcher bias may lead one to frame participants, findings, and recommendations through a lens of privilege that views participants as deficient because they are unlike the researcher. Making decisions in the research process, especially as it is designed within the modern, western university, researchers may still make decisions that marginalize participants, even if they share other characteristics with participants. Traditionally, research has been a colonizing practice even when occurring in decolonizing spaces: These spaces are officially decolonized but are usually characterized by a new imperialism shaped by the economic, political, military, and cultural hegemony of the West within the context of globalization. Therefore, the Western researcher represents not only a colonial past but also a neocolonial present. (Vanner, 2015, p. 1) 20 L. Parson In addition to the researcher role, one’s positionality also includes nationality. National privilege, as a western researcher, is an additional layer of identity that may impose western knowledge, culture, and values on non-western participants (Falcon, 2016, p. 176). Considering nationality is important, especially in cases where one shares certain aspects of their identity with research participants, such as race. The intersection of one’s identity interacts to privilege them in multiple ways (Crenshaw, 1991). For example, as a researcher, I am a White, middle-class, woman professor. My privilege from my race and social class interacts with my role as a professor. The power I derive by determining the research process privileges me in multiple ways and gives me even more power in the research process than I might have as a woman professor within the higher education institution. Similarly, research participants might be marginalized by their race, gender, or sexuality and then they may be further marginalized in the research process when they are identi- fied, sometimes reductionalistically, as “subjects” and stripped of agency in the research process and control over how their voice is used. Intersectionality provides additional perspective on how a researcher’s identity will influence the research process, even for researchers who identify as a member of a marginalized group. A researcher still holds power and privilege in the research process because of other aspects of their identity, like nationality or the power inherent in their roles as research decision-maker. This leads me to the concept of insider/outsider status. Insider/Outsider Status Researchers are often insiders as members of groups whose experiences they are exploring and outsiders by their status as academics or researchers simultaneously (Wiederhold, 2015). Suffla et al. (2015) describes the complicated navigation of con- sidering positionality as insiders and outsiders: “In the space between, we were insid- ers as Blacks, as Africans, and as community-based researchers whose work centers on underrepresented and oppressed groups, and insiders through our established and recognized partnerships with the local research teams” (p. 17). Similarly, in the case of my work with women in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) educa- tion in the United States, I am an insider inasmuch as I am a woman, but I am an out- sider as a researcher, a professor, and because of my education level. This made me simultaneously an insider and an outsider. However, without reflecting on positional- ity, it was hard to identify when my status as an insider shifted to outsider and how that impacted data collection and analysis: “At times as researchers we are so embedded within our work, it is difficult to determine how our insider/outsider status changes and how this impacts our research” (Kohl & McCutcheon, 2015, p. 753). Further, there were conflicts that came into play because of my role as a researcher, and I was only able to identify those conflicts because I considered the bias of my position as a researcher and the power and privilege that resulted from my position (Hoskins, 2015). If I had assumed that because I was a young(er) White woman I understood the experi- ences of participants, I would have neglected to explore how my experience changing 2 Considering Positionality: The Ethics of Conducting Research with Marginalized… 21 majors from STEM to political science as an undergraduate student may have been dramatically different from the experiences of participants who were majoring in math, computer science, or physics. That could have meant that I took for granted certain characteristics of my participants or did not probe for deeper meaning because I assumed I understood what participants were experiencing, leading to flawed conclu- sions and results. Additionally, I also ran the risk of assuming insider status and equal footing with participants and the relationship norms that went along with that, when in reality my relative power and privilege would have made that both an impossible and unethical assumption. Racism, sexism, ableism, cisgenderism, and ethnocentrism interlock to compli- cate systems of oppression and exacerbate the marginalization of those who are disadvantaged because of the different groups without whom they identify. Again, intersectionality provides insight to understand how “various layers of inequality that are present in the field” (Caretta & Jokinen, 2017, p. 277). Systems of oppres- sion influence researcher and participant power and privilege, so understanding how identity impacts the research process is complicated by one’s identification as an insider and an outsider, “multiple identities can be simultaneous, inter-related and sometimes contradictory” (Muhammad et al., 2015, p. 1047). Limitations of Positionality Positionality is, like one’s identity, a construct: “Positioning is often discussed as if it is something natural, authentic, timeless, essential, primordial; something which can fully explain and categorize them and us. Yet we find ourselves saying there is something more; that we are not just that” (Arber, 2000, p. 45). However, while identity itself is a construct, it is still important to consider; without identification, however tenuous, one might fall back into the more problematic “colorblind” view that neglects to admit or acknowledge that meaningful differences exist between members of privileged and marginalized groups, which we know they do. The goal, in the positionality process, is to understand the multiple ways that privileged aspects of a researcher’s identity act as “power over” research participants. Although identity is constructed, considering positionality prompts researchers to understand where they are positioned