This article focuses on the role of collective reflexivity within a year-long ethnographic study examining Black and Latino/Latina urban youth’s negotiations of college going in and out of school contexts. Through collective reflexivity, the parent/guardian consent form is examined as a methodological tool of data collection and a written representational text that hinders and/or facilitates access to Latino/Latina youth as research participants. After Puerto Rican and Dominican families did not return parent/guardian consent forms, the authors reconstituted the form as a site for feminist critical policy analysis. In (de)constructing the form, varied cultural perspectives of credibility, trust, authority, and reciprocity among Latino/Latina participants, the institutional review board, and the research team are analyzed, negotiated, and transformed. Throughout this process of creating a culturally responsive form, the authors negotiate language as power, recognize and implement cultural relevance as an ethic of research, and reconceptualize audience(s) within reciprocal matrices of power.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alldred, P. (1998). Ethnography and discourse analysis: Dilemmas in representing voices of children. In J. Ribbens & R. Edwards (Eds.), Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research: Public knowledge and private lives (pp. 147-170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
2.
Cannon, K. (1996). Katie’s canon. New York: Continuum
3.
Community Action Team. (1999). Fostering relationality when implementing and evaluating a collective drama approach to preventing violence against young women . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 95-109 .
4.
De Andrade, L. (2000). Negotiating from the inside . Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 29(3), 268-290 .
5.
Deyhle, D. (1998). The role of the applied anthropologist: Between schools and the Navajo Nation. In K. Bennett de Marrais (Ed.), Qualitative research reflections (pp. 36-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
6.
Fine, M. (1994). Dis-stance and other stances: Negotiations of power inside feminist research. In A. Gitlin (Ed.), Power and method: Political activism and educational research (pp. 13-35). New York: Routledge Kegan Paul .
7.
Fine, M. (1998). Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and others in qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 130-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
8.
Gonzalez, F. E. (1998). Formations of Mexicananess: Trenzas de identidades multiples: Growing up Mexicana: Braids of multiple identities . Qualitative Studies in Education, 11(1), 81-102 .
9.
Grossman, F., Kruger, L. M., & Moore, R. (1999). Reflections on a feminist research project: Subjectivity and the wish for intimacy and equality . Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 117-135 .
10.
Harrison, J., MacGibbon, L., & Morton, M. (2001). Regimes of trustworthiness in qualitative research: The rigors of reciprocity . Qualitative Inquiry, 7(3), 323-345 .
11.
Howe, K., & Dougherty, K. (1996). Ethics, institutional review boards and the changing face of educational research . Educational Researcher, 22(9), 16-21 .
12.
Knight, M., Norton, N., Dixon, I., & Bentley, C. (in press). Engaging representations of youth: A conceptualization of collective written reflexivity as power . Proceedings of the Third International Gender and Education Conference.
13.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy . American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465-491 .
14.
Lather, P. (1997). Creating a multi-layered text: Women, AIDS, and angels. In W. Tierney & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Representation and the text: Re-framing the narrative voice (pp. 233-258). Albany: State University of New York Press .
15.
Lomawaima, K. T. (2000). Tribal sovereigns: Reframing research in American Indian education . Harvard Educational Review, 70(1), 1-21 .
16.
Lykes, M. B. (1989). Dialogue with Guatemalan Indian women: Critical perspectives on constructing collaborative research. In R. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social constructions of gender (pp. 167-184). Amityville, NY: Baywood .
17.
Marin, G., & Marin, B. (1991). Research with Hispanic populations. Newbury, CA: Sage .
18.
Marshall, C. (Ed.). (1997). Feminist critical policy analysis: A perspective from post-secondary education (Vol. II). Washington, DC: Falmer .
19.
Oleson, V. (1998). Feminisms and models of qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of qualitative research (pp. 300-332). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage .
20.
Reagon, B. J. (1983). Coalition politics: Turning the century. In B. Smith (Ed.), Home girls: A Black feminist anthology (pp. 356-368). New York: Kitchen Table Press .
21.
Reay, D. (1996). Dealing with difficult differences: Reflexivity and social class in feminist research . Feminism & Psychology, 6(3), 443-456 .
22.
Reinharz, S. (1992). Feminist methods in social research. New York: Oxford University Press .
23.
Schultz, K. (1997). Crossing boundaries in research and teacher education: Reflections of a White researcher in urban schools and communities . Qualitative Inquiry, 3(4), 491-512 .
24.
Siddle Walker, V. (1999). Culture and commitment: Challenges for the future training of education researchers. In E. C. Lagemann & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Issues in education research: Problems and possibilities (pp. 224-244). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
25.
Smith, J. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies, research, and indigenous peoples. New York: Zed .
26.
Stanfield, J. (1993). Introduction and epistemological considerations. In J. H. Stanfield II & R. M. Dennis (Eds.), Race and ethnicity in research methods (pp. 3-38). Newbury Park, CA: Sage .
27.
Suarez-Orozco, C., & Suarez-Orozco, M. (1995). Transformations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press .
28.
Usher, R. (1996). Textuality and reflexivity in educational research. In D. Scott & R. Usher (Eds.), Understanding educational research (pp. 33-51). New York: Routledge Kegan Paul .
29.
Villenas, S. (1996). The colonizer/colonized Chicana ethnographer: Identity, marginalization and co-optation in the field . Harvard Educational Review, 66(4), 711-731 .
30.
Weis, L., & Fine, M. (2000). Speed bumps: A student-friendly guide to qualitative research. New York: Teachers College Press .
31.
Wolf, D. (1996). Situating feminist dilemmas in fieldwork. In D. Wolf (Ed.), Feminist dilemmas in fieldwork (pp. 1-55). Boulder, CO: Westview .
32.
Wong, L. (1998). The ethics of rapport: Institutional safeguards, resistance, and betrayal . Qualitative Inquiry, 4(2), 178-199 .
33.
Yamada, M. (1981). Asian Pacific American women and feminism. In C. Moraga & G. Anzaldua (Eds.), The bridge called myback: Writings by radical women of color (pp. 71-75). Boston: Kitchen Table, Women of Color Press .
34.
Yates, L., & McLeod, J. (1996). “And how would you describe yourself?” Researchers and researched in the first stages of a qualitative, longitudinal project . Australian Journal of Education, 40(1), 88-103 .
