Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research has a tradition of being extractive from marginalized communities, taking knowledge without regard to giving back. In this manuscript, we discuss how using culturally congruent methodologies, specifically sista circle methodology, mitigates the harm of whiteness rooted in qualitative research. Guided by Black feminist thought and endarkened feminist epistemology, we center Black women to offer guidance for qualitative researchers committed to researching with marginalized communities. The purpose of this manuscript is to invite scholars into a conversation on qualitative research to consider ways to engage in culturally congruent methodologies. We present lessons learned from doing qualitative research centering on the community practices of Black women doctoral students using sista circle methodology. The lessons learned present tangible ways to remove the veil of whiteness in research by using a culturally congruent methodology, shifting methods to align with participants, and conducting authentic member checking.

Keywords

sista circle methodology black feminism critical qualitative inquiry ethic of care member checking critical methodology black women higher education

Introduction

Wynter expressed in “‘No Humans Involved’: An Open Letter to my Colleagues” (1994) that there is a disconnect in how the world of the “inner eyes” (white people) view those on the outside (Black people) that led to the use of N.H.I. (no humans involved) in the Los Angeles police department (LAPD) reports involving Black men in the 1990s. Through dominant inner eyes, they reinstated white logic that Black people have no humanity or knowledge. The LAPD’s use of N.H.I. reflected how Black people are seen and understood within the academy. Wynter (1994) argued that with the inclusion of Black Study within the academy, we allowed institutions a pass on the full inclusion of Black people within the inner eyes. Black study and, therefore, the intellectual contribution and history of Black people are othered within the academy. Hooks described how white supremacy operates to require Black scholars to forge a path to name their experiences and knowledge (Hooks, 1989). White supremacy sets the norms within the academy, institutionalizing what we view as knowledge. Although we have moved away from some restrictive ways of controlling Black people in our country, the norm of white supremacy is institutionalized (Hooks, 1991).

Wynter challenged us to think about the current world order and how that shapes the epistemological order of who is seen as human and what is considered truth. Mohanty (1984, 2003) critiqued the inner eye, calling out Western feminists and their depiction of women in the third world. Western feminist perspective is situated in a white woman’s perspective that is not inclusive and infantilizes women in the third world and how the term third world essentializes a diversity of perspectives and experiences from the women from the global majority. White supremacy allows the “inner eyes” to name truth and humanity based on their viewpoint and cannot see others within their frame. An inner eye framing creates a veil of whiteness within the research space that can stifle scholars trying to center othered perspectives. The current academic order is situated through a viewpoint that cannot fully understand Black humanity and knowledge. However, it shapes our approach to research and our understanding of ethics.

The institutionalization of white supremacy and whiteness shapes the landscape of qualitative research and how it continues to persist and affect Black communities as scholars and participants. We exemplify the problematic nature of whiteness with Cabrera and Hill-Zuganelli’s 2017 article, where they used the n-word unredacted. The article caused a stir in the higher education Black community because the lead author, Cabrera, is a non-Black scholar, placing the hurtful and violent language used by white students in full display repeatedly. The violence against Black readers was not valued enough in the research process and the publication of research. Dr Stewart wrote an opinion piece addressing the harm caused by the decision:

It is curious to me that in a study about Whiteness in which subjects engage in violence against Blackness, that the recipients of that violence — historically and contemporarily — did not warrant marginal protection from a truth — both authors and editors admit — are well-known to us because we live it. (Stewart, 2021, par. 8)

Following this op-ed, the lead editor of the journal doubled down on his approval of the author’s use of the n-word. In the editor’s response, he displayed how non-Black scholars of color, an Asian man, can perpetuate the harm of anti-blackness and white supremacy in the publishing process. The editor proceeded to nit-pick the commentary of Dr Stewart and determined that this incident did not constitute actual violence against the Black community. The institutionalization of whiteness allowed this discourse and circumstance to exist. All scholars, critical, people of color or otherwise, operate within a white standard and must take caution and care to mitigate the harm of white supremacy in research. In this current manuscript, we discussed how to combat that harm by centering the perspective of Black people throughout the research process and how it protects Black people from the evaluation of folks that occupy the inner eyes.

This manuscript invites scholars into a conversation on qualitative research to consider ways to engage in culturally congruent methodologies. Using methodologies aligned with marginalized communities is an ethical aspect of conducting qualitative research. Culturally congruent methodologies help researchers do ethically sound research with marginalized communities. This paper focuses on sista circle methodology (SCM) as a culturally congruent methodology for research with Black women. The lessons learned are derived from a larger study on five Black women doctoral students during the 2020-2021 academic year. The data that informed this study is from a group member check-in and four individual member check-in interviews, all conducted on Zoom. Each session lasted about two hours. We provided an example of how to conduct culturally congruent research with marginalized communities, specifically Black women doctoral students. Qualitative scholars can learn how to align their methodologies and methods with marginalized communities in ways that give back and enrich the experience for participants and the researcher. We learned with the sista scholars¹ (Amanda, Chanelle, Lennox, Jasmine, and Priscilla)² how to remove the veil of whiteness from research by using SCM, shifting methods to align with the sista scholars, and conducting authentic member check-ins to improve the quality of the study.

Literature Review

Ethic of Care

Traditionally, research extracts from marginalized communities without replenishing (Vidich & Lyman, 1994). We argue for the presence of care within research with marginalized communities. As researchers conduct research with marginalized communities, we agree with Dillard (2000) that we are responsible to the community. An ethic of care is integral to the work of Black feminist scholars, and this application is needed in qualitative research. Ethics is well discussed within research and the white standard for what is ethical historically. A well-known history of racism for the sake of science is documented with the U.S. Public Health Service’s Tuskegee Institute Syphilis Study not providing medical treatment to hundreds of Black men. These previous ethical conversations are why we have specific standards in research like the Institutional Review Board. Beyond the normalized standard for ethics (read whiteness), we are in conversation with researchers who focus on love and care in the research process (Hamilton, 2019).

Feminist scholars stated that the “personal is political,” acknowledging in their work that objectivity is not possible in the research process. We want to rely on the possibilities that subjectivity brings to research to enhance the research and experience for participants. One way of using subjectivity is acknowledging where care and love appear in our work. Carspecken and Saxena (2022) discussed how love is linked to validity within the ethnographic context. They extended an invitation for other scholars to consider the emotional work it takes to consider love and care within research. To shift as an academic community to “…enlarge the scope of academic discourse by including love explicitly; both as a rationale for research and as a support for the validity of their findings” (Carspecken & Saxena, 2022, p. 1095). Elfreich and Dennis (2022) detail the reimagining of ethics from a feminist perspective that advances justice principles. They see their feminist ethics approach as misbehavior in the academy to reorient a focus and commitment to participants.

Culturally Congruent Methodologies

Culturally congruent methodologies (CCM) decenter whiteness in qualitative research. Conducting research that centers on participants’ culture and natural communication efforts should be how we craft qualitative research projects. This is especially true when researchers are conducting studies with participants from marginalized communities. To mitigate some of the harm in research due to the embedded whiteness, researchers must invest in learning and applying culturally congruent methodologies with marginalized communities. CCM shows the value researchers place on marginalized communities’ knowledge, histories, and culture. Culturally congruent examples are evident in researchers’ use of testimonio, pláticas, kiki methodology, and Indigenous methodology, to name a few. Claiming space in the literature to uphold the epistemologies of nonwhite-centered communities emphasizes their ways of knowing. We place this manuscript in conversation with other CCMs by highlighting the benefits of SCM.

Testimonio grew from the influences of critical race theory, Chicano Studies, Latin American studies, and the lived experiences of Chicanas and Latinas (Huber, 2009; Reyes & Curry Rodriguez, 2012). Honoring a community’s culture, background, language, and communication style was transformed into a methodology (Beverley, 2004; Reyes & Curry Rodriguez, 2012; The Latina Feminist Group, 2001). Testimonio encourages subjectivity; the research is meant to be political, advocate, and focus on liberation and empowerment. Testimonio problematizes what we view as legitimate truth by focusing on the perspective of an individual’s voice to highlight a community issue (Haig-Brown, 2003). Using methodologies rooted in cultural traditions pushes our understanding of knowledge that is allowed to exist together. Testimonio and SCM draw from the connection to the culture of Black women and Chicanx and Latinx communities.

Indigenous researchers interrogate how we think about research practice and knowledge value. Drawson and colleagues (2017) conducted a systematic literature review on Indigenous research. They categorized the research into two distinct categories: “Western Methods in an Indigenous Context” and “Culture-Specific Context.” The categories highlighted a shift in thinking and applicability of how to center Indigenous communities within research. Some of the culture-specific methods are Kaupapa Māori (Māori culture), Anishinaabe symbol-based reflection (Indigenous North American cultures), talanoa and fa’afaletui (Indigenous cultures of the Pacific Islands). Wilson (2001) called us to question the methods, methodologies, and overall paradigms we use when researching Indigenous communities. We should not try to fit our different communities’ knowledge within a white European-centered research paradigm. We must continue to push our research conversations and worldviews to become more expansive and work to honor marginalized communities.

Naming for Ourselves in Education Research

There is a growing body of literature on Women of Color (WoC) in doctoral education highlighting their experiences that decenter faculty as the focal point (Ashlee et al., 2017; Leigh et al., 2021; Palmer et al., 2020; Wallace et al., 2020; Williams et al., 2005). These studies tend to be collaborative autoethnographies. Collaborative autoethnographies allow WoC to take the reins and analyze their position within the academy from their lens and not from the perspective of researchers. The insights offered by WoC doctoral students provide a foundation to continue to push our work to center their perspectives and knowledge in our work with marginalized communities. The SEAAster Scholars Collective (Mac et al., 2021) beautifully wrote how they created a homeplace for Southeast Asian American women. They detail how they came together, the empowerment that comes from their collective, and the value in seeing each other in a space that works to make them invisible. They reflected on their experiences together with this:

We commit to making a home in academia to ensure that we can welcome others into this space—so that we can nourish them so they can pursue a livelihood in academia. Our refugee families’ stories and our stories depend on not just building a home for ourselves but a community for others. It is in this spirit of collectivism and familial ties that we build this home for the purpose of those who will join us in resistance for liberation. (Mac et al., 2021, p. 6)

There is clear value in the homemaking process marginalized communities work to create together. Their articulation of connection would not have been possible with the imposition of dominant narratives within this collective.

These studies present examples of using CCM that center the voices, knowledge, and experiences of WoC. They are the focal point for researchers to ensure they affirm diverse perspectives when conducting research on and with marginalized communities. There is still a need to push for more literature on Black women doctoral students, specifically with research that aligns with their communication practices. We add to the literature on affirming research practices with marginalized communities by presenting the lessons learned from using SCM.

Guiding Epistemologies

Centering the knowledge and voices of Black women is central to the study. In this work, we were guided by the theory building of Patricia Collins (1986, 2000) and Cynthia Dillard (2000). Their efforts in crafting and explaining the cultural work and values of Black women and our communities were integral to this work. Acknowledging the wisdom and knowledge that Black women curate shifts epistemological standards traditionally silenced and disregarded in the academy (Collins, 2000; Dillard, 2000). A continued research focus on marginalized communities, especially Black women, must interrogate the foundation of who and what we value within the academy.

Additionally, Smith (1997) made a case for a feminist standpoint theory as a “commitment to the privileges of women to speak from experience that opens the women’s movement to the critique of white and/or heterosexist hegemony from those it marginalizes and silences” (p. 394). Smith (1992, 1997) differed in her sociological underpinnings from Collins, but taken together, they identified a need for Black women to tell their own stories to call attention to more significant structural issues. In centering Black women doctoral students, we took an explicit stance on valuing the knowledge of Black women, and we believed they shed light on truths within the academy.

BFT pushed us to center Black women doctoral students’ voices, perspectives, and knowledge at all stages in the research process. Collins (1986) stated that Black women occupy an insider-outsider perspective that allows them unique insights into their analysis of race, class, and gender. The intellectual work necessary to incorporate BFT relies on the process of self-conscious struggle on behalf of all Black women, without regard to where knowledge production occurs. The location of knowledge production is essential in determining different research methodologies and techniques researchers can use when researching with Black women. Researchers can feel empowered to explore sites of knowledge production that do not fall within the traditional confines of where knowledge is produced (ex., the classroom, advising meetings, research meetings, focus groups, interviews, etc.). Collins (2000) further elaborated on what it meant for Black women to be connected and how our connection was related to knowledge production:

Regarding Black women’s relationships with one another, African-American women may find it easier than others to recognize connectedness as a primary way of knowing simply because we have more opportunities to do so and must rely upon it more heavily than others. (p. 260)

We leaned into the relationship with Black women and our ways of knowing by using authentic member check-ins. Member check-ins in qualitative research are used for trustworthiness and validity (Glesne, 2006; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). By incorporating member check-ins, researchers share data and preliminary findings with participants to check for misrepresentation (Glesne, 2006). BFT encourages a greater responsibility for Black women in research; authentic member check-ins in this study were not merely to satisfy validity by traditional standards. The use of member check-ins in our paper aligns with Motulsky’s (2021) concept of reflexive participant collaboration because it “connotes a process of engagement, not a checklist technique, and contributes to potential emancipatory or social change outcomes from these methods” (p. 402). The sista scholars were essential to the analysis process. Research must align with the values and how Black women share knowledge to value the knowledge claims of Black women.

Dillard (2000) outlined a set of assumptions that are taken up in endarkened feminist epistemology (EFE). As we constructed knowledge with Black women, we aligned with the following assumptions: an emphasis on the meaning-making from the lived experiences of Black women doctoral students, a foundation on acknowledging the history and culture of Black women doctoral students in our epistemological understanding of qualitative research; and an emphasis on the use of dialogue to push off the pursuit of knowledge to blur the traditional line between the researcher and the researched. Dillard (2000) provided additional context for understanding the usefulness of EFE in educational research: “Thus, a more useful research metaphor arising from an endarkened feminist epistemology is research as a responsibility, answerable and obligated to the very persons and communities being engaged in the inquiry” (p. 663). Researchers entering marginalized communities must think of the responsibilities they are taking on with their inquiry. Being held responsible for a community shows an ethic of care for them.

BFT and EFE set the stage for the ideals we leaned on for our work. Collins and Dillard identified care within the work Black women bring into the research process. We continue to build from this foundation of an ethic of care. We relied on the principles of BFT and EFE to advocate for qualitative researchers for the need to care, in various aspects, for marginalized communities, especially for Black women. Evans-Winters (2019) and Toliver (2022) provide an example of the possibilities of qualitative research when centering on Black women/girls’ stories and the use of storytelling. Both books called into question the taken-for-granted norms of qualitative research. They presented diverse ways of knowing and reality that take concepts from Dillard (2000, 2006), Collins (1998, 2000), Walker (1983), Hooks (2000), Archibald (2008), and Octavia Butler (1993) to name a few. Learning from the work of other Black women scholars, we are explicit in stating that care-centered research includes using CCM, valuing the knowledge of marginalized folks, and having a sense of responsibility for the communities you with research. A reliance on the care and knowledge of Black women is in opposition to white epistemology.

Positionality Statement

Our positionality as researchers in this work is central to the interpretations that proceed (Chavez, 2008; Corlett & Mavin, 2018). As mentioned previously, this manuscript is crafted from a more extensive study. I (Palmer) was the original study’s principal researcher and a sista scholar. I and the four other sista scholars facilitated the original study when I was also a doctoral student. In the spirit of valuing the knowledge and expertise of Black women in the academy, I invited Udoh into the process for this manuscript. We currently work together in a faculty-graduate student research assistant capacity. For this work, we both discussed our collective knowledge and background that centers our connection to supporting and amplifying the voices of Black women in the literature.

I (Palmer) am devoted to creating a more equitable and safe experience for graduate students. I am very aware of the challenges that graduate students face and the systems of oppression that work against shaping the graduate student experience. As a researcher and higher education scholar, I am addressing these issues. I find that using critical and feminist approaches within the research process allows me the space to give back to the communities I research with.

I (Udoh) am interested in the wholistic experiences of Black women in higher education, from undergraduate enrollment and beyond. There exists a hidden curriculum in graduate school that many students must navigate. The hidden curriculum is even more veiled for Black women pursuing graduate degrees. As a Black woman in graduate school, I also relate to the experiences of other Black women. Moving from California to the Midwest for school, I know firsthand moving back and forth between experiences of hypervisibility and invisibility. I have found that employing theory and framework intended for Black women fosters a deeper understanding of our realities within higher education.

Our collective view on Black women, the potential impact of research, and shared knowledge and experience are woven throughout this manuscript. Our care for Black women is evident throughout this manuscript. Understanding care as an ethical component within research shaped our decisions in the choice of theoretical frameworks, literature, methodological decisions, findings presentation, and discussion.

Research Design

Methodology

Researchers using sista circle methodology (SCM) aim to “gain an understanding of a specific issue, topic, or phenomena impacting Black women from the perspective of Black women themselves” (Johnson, 2015, p. 45). This methodology was created by Johnson (2015) and informed by the work of BFT. The three key features of SCM are communication dynamics, the centrality of empowerment, and researcher as participant (Johnson, 2015). Communication dynamics honors and acknowledges the unique verbal expressions of Black women. Sista circles create space for mixing mainstream American English, African American Vernacular English (AAVE), and nonverbal communication to co-exist and collide. These forms of communication can exist without question or critique within the collective space of sista circles with other Black women. In so many spaces Black women occupy, they are under scrutiny, and having a sacred space away from critique is necessary. The second feature is the centrality of empowerment. Sista circles empower Black women to connect and share their knowledge and experiences. The third feature focuses on the researcher’s role and connection with the participants, which entails dialogue with participants rather than merely facilitation. Connecting with Black women in the sista circles removes a layer of feeling as if they are being researched and extracted from traditional research practices.

SCM provides an opportunity for praxis to move away from extraction from research participants and focuses on doing research with participants and conducting a study that supports participants. Sista circles are spaces for Black women to build community and offer support centered on their intersecting gender and racial identities. They are a familiar sense of community building for Black women. The research and insight gained from using a methodological approach with Black women participants minimize the sense of othering often present when researching marginalized communities.

Data

The study was conducted with five Black women doctoral students (Table 1). The study was facilitated over Zoom during the 2020-2021 academic year. The pandemic created a virtual culture for folks to connect. The school year followed immediately after the summer of 2020 and the substantial #BlackLivesMatter protests across the U.S. The pandemic and the social justice movements were the background to the lives of the sista scholars in the study. The sista scholars were at various stages of their doctoral journey at the time of data collection. All the women attended a large public institution in the Midwest. To conclude the larger study, a member check-in process was facilitated to receive input into the analysis process and feedback on the experience of participating in the study. The member check-in process involved interviews and a sista circle member check-in. Each session lasted between 90-120 minutes. For this manuscript, the data used to shape the lessons learned focuses on the member check-in data.

Table 1.

The Sista Scholars

Sista Scholar	Program	Reflection on Participation in Sista Circle Experience
Amanda	Education	I think I also really liked that we never really had a-we're going to talk about this today- kind of experience. It was very based on what we are going through, what we're not going through, how we're navigating things, which was useful and helpful. It was kind of therapeutic because you're able to talk about these things.
Chanelle	Education	So not just being a lazy participant or really fully participating and giving my full self. Not only because you as the researcher are Black woman, but this was also felt, like full of Black women. So, I think it just pushed me to dive deeper, and participate, and really be present.
Jasmine	Informatics	It also just really made me hope that other people have these spaces available to them or there are opportunities to create those spaces because talking about this with everyone and then talking about it to you today, they're just so important and every Black woman should have one of these spaces or maybe a couple of them for different things
Lennox	Education	Oh, it made me feel important. All right. It made me feel that what I have to say is important. What I've experienced is important. Yeah. I just think that it reaffirmed that what I'm doing, my purpose
Priscilla	Education	It was just nice. I don't even know... It was just nice. I don't know. I just enjoyed it. Even though technically we really didn't even meet that many times, but it was still really nice to have those moments when we did meet because it was welcomed relief every time we did meet

Analysis

The lessons learned were articulated from the lead researcher’s (Palmer) experience conducting the larger project. The lessons were formed from her experience as the researcher-participant. In the analysis process, Udoh read each transcript, wrote analytic memos, and identified data that aligned with the three lessons learned. Palmer reviewed the data within each category and provided additional notes. We discussed the data and analysis and used the guiding principles and assumptions from BFT and EFE within our process. Our goal in the analysis was to “ (1) [proffer] a social critique of traditional research paradigms and tralatitious interpretations of social relationships (2) [foster] dialogue for understanding unmitigated power and privilege; and (3) strategically [agitate] the status quo” (Evans-Winters, 2019, p. 19). We paid close attention to the meaning-making that the sista scholars expressed from their experiences as sista scholars in a sista circle research study. In addition, we related our experience as Black women in higher education and qualitative research scholars to the feelings and experiences shared by the sista scholars.

Lessons Learned

Conducting research authentically as a Black woman with Black women participants illuminated ways to remove whiteness from the research process. Black women are full of knowledge and share wisdom in space together. With the constraints of academic writing, capturing all the nuggets of shared information is impossible. Again, the lessons learned were how to remove the veil of whiteness from research by using SCM, shifting methods to align with the sista scholars, and conducting authentic member check-ins to improve the quality of the study. The findings section attempts to paint a cohesive picture of how we navigated unintentionally and fully authentically removing the veil of whiteness in a research study.

The Authenticity of Sista Circle Methodology

Amanda provided thoughtful insight into our collective research experience during the first member check-in interview. Aligned with this sense of authenticity, Amanda described how we “removed whiteness from the center of our space, and we were able to provide each other a different experience.” The collective knowledge was co-created without filtering through a lens of whiteness that subjugates the knowledge and validity of Black women’s claim to knowledge, which is central to BFT. Palmer wanted to understand how all the sista scholars made sense of this concept. Each sista scholar was asked how they believed the group was able to decenter whiteness. Below are responses from Chanelle and Amanda:
Chanelle: I don’t really fully have an answer because I feel like we always have to deal with whiteness, and we always have to try to disrupt whiteness. And I think we just wanted to put it aside for like an hour or two hours out of our day. And it was probably the most, it was probably the best part of our days, honestly.

Amanda: For a minute I forgot that it was a study. I think that’s important. I think that it not feeling clinical and researchy, and really stinking of whiteness… It didn’t feel like we were being watched like lab rats. It felt like it was for us and it centered our identities and our experiences. Even you as a researcher were able to facilitate questions and conversation in a way that didn’t feel like you were facilitating questions and conversation. I think that is a part of a Black woman experience. I think it’s also a part of that sista circle framework is being able to, as the researcher, be involved in the study in a way that is authentic and does not take away from the experience.

Chanelle and Amanda named the disruption of whiteness in our collective space, and by using SCM, they did not feel researched. These articulations highlight how using SCM provides space to remove the veil of whiteness. One central aspect of SCM discussed is the researcher as a participant. Inserting the researcher as a participant and leaning on the insider perspective shifted the feeling of the study.

Making sense and trying to articulate what was gained from the experience of participating in a sista circle study was a task for everyone in the group. It was not easy to name the experience because it differed from what we were taught about research and what we know of the academic experience for Black women.
Jasmine: I think that’s really interesting trying to find the policy applications for stuff that you’re doing and just looking at other things outside of the big five for what works for communities I think is really important. Again, because just some of the big five methods sometimes feel really extractive and out of context for the communities that they’re trying to be applied to because they were not really made with those communities in mind.

During the individual interview, Jasmine mentioned how traditional qualitative methods (ethnography, case study, narrative, phenomenology, grounded theory) graduate students are introduced to are not always best for research with marginalized communities. Her participation in a study using SCM, in combination with her knowledge of research, brought her to this claim that these methodologies extracted from marginalized communities because they were not placed at the center of the creation of the methodologies.

Alignment with a Shift in Methods

Journaling was initially proposed as one method within the larger study. Journaling was intended to allow space to answer group-generated prompts and for individual processing. During the first sista circle, the group co-created prompts to respond to throughout the study. There were a few emails and verbal reminders in the first couple of months of the study. Eventually, Palmer stopped asking for journal entries. There was a sense that they did not want to journal, and Palmer did not want to force engagement. In the individual member check-in interviews, Palmer asked each sista scholar why they did not journal. Shifting the methods removed the veil of whiteness because the study aligned with the comfort levels of the sista scholars, and it honored our communication dynamics through shared dialogue.

The group did not find journaling to be a needed space to process. Through the member check-in and individual interviews, Palmer received feedback that the journaling prompts were unnecessary. This sentiment was articulated by Chanelle, who shared, “. . . I don’t know, I just felt like in journaling for me, it just felt like another assignment…” In the individual interview, Chanelle stated that journaling felt like coursework, which Lennox further supported in her one-on-one interview.
When I say extra... Okay. I understand, and I actually validate the experience of journaling. I think it is a nice way of reflecting. But that may not be the way that people like to reflect. Not everybody likes to journal. And I feel like, at the same time, most of the stuff that we do at academia is writing and sifting through different types of scholarly works. But we don’t really get the time and the space to just talk. I can still process my feelings through my words. And I think that, yes, writing them out can be a useful tool. But at the same time, journaling sometimes, especially like in a study, makes me feel like it’s still academic, versus being in a sista circle where I’m just conversing freely, so anything can come. It’s not like, I guess, writing academia feels like another source of code-switching for me.

Lennox reiterated Channel’s view of journaling as an academic assignment. Although she affirmed its value, she pointed out that it limits her ability to speak freely and instead requires an amount of code-switching to be understood by a white reader, which did not align with her view of a sista circle. Further, Lennox highlighted that journaling may not be how everyone likes to reflect. This, in turn, confirmed Palmer’s decision to shift from journaling as a form of data collection to only using sista circles where sista scholars’ voices were most authentic.

To this point, the sista scholars asserted that journaling did not authentically capture how they enjoyed reflecting. In an interview, Amanda shared her critiques of journaling as a mode of data collection in this study. She stated that the journaling and the sista circles result from having a dissertation committee of white faculty members.
I think also that journaling was kind of a symptom of a white committee wanting to have evidence of what we talked about like, oh they wrote it down, so it can be considered rigorous, except for ... we’re saying exactly what we’d write. I think also, the way that I talked in the sista circle meetings is not how I would have wrote it. I think that was probably the disconnect, which is why it was probably difficult to do that because it’s hard ... I’m not a reflective person in the way that I can write about a specific topic in a reflective way, but I can definitely talk about it.

Sista scholars insisted that this data collection method was placed on them by the dissertation committee to demonstrate rigor. However, as evidenced in their quotes, the sista scholars found the sista circles the best space to share their experiences and reflections. Further, it was best to consider the needs of the Black women, who were co-creators, with data collection rather than the committee.

Channel, Lennox, and Amanda articulated two underlying assertions about journaling in this context: journaling was not a culturally congruent method for them, and their reflections should not be filtered through the white gaze. The individual interviews revealed that journaling did not generate an opportunity for reflection like the shared dialogue. Amanda stated, “the way I talked in the sista circle meetings is not how I would have wrote.” Amanda articulated that oral communication was the preferred and prioritized method of the collective. We were prioritizing dialogue aligned with the communication dynamic aspect of SCM. Lennox’s insistence that journaling would have demanded her to code switch rather than speak freely unveiled the group’s view that although the sista circle was a form of research and data collection, making their sharing palatable for the white gaze (the committee) was not of concern to these sista scholars. The white gaze is interrelated to the white inner eye discussed by Wynter. The white gaze is the understanding that Black folks are seen through a white epistemological filter. The sista scholars in this study knew that the ways they communicated with each other would not and could not be fully understood by white committee members.

Member Check-in: Reflexive Participant Collaboration

Valuing the knowledge of Black women was vital to the overall study. In the research design, Palmer intentionally included the voices of all the sista scholars. One way to incorporate their perspective and wisdom was to conduct member check-ins after completing preliminary data analysis. The member check-in was a two-step process. Each sista scholar was provided with detailed information about the themes and the corresponding codes. The document explained the connection of each theme to BFT and the literature on counterspaces (Case & Hunter, 2012). Additionally, one example quote was provided to highlight each theme. This document was shared with the sista scholars before the sista circle member check-in (Appendix provides an example of the document). Palmer felt it essential to conduct a member check-in as a collective since the entirety of the research was done together. Their knowledge helped articulate the nuance of the communication dynamics of Black women doctoral students.

The member check-in process was reciprocal. Palmer had the opportunity to share and be open about her role as a researcher and connection to the data as a participant. The sista scholars could also share, validate, and affirm her role as a researcher during the sista circle member check-in. During the check-in, the sista scholars discussed the struggles Palmer faced as a researcher trying to manage expectations and preconceived notions from a dissertation committee and adequately finding the words to capture the experience of the sista circle collective.

The collective struggled for words to articulate the specific phenomenon that they experienced. They were deeply embedded in the analysis process. Lennox commented on being Black and the normalization we face when dealing with whiteness in our everyday lives. This key point of discussion led Palmer to reveal some mental hurdles she dealt with during analysis:
I was trying to sit with and trying to understand because [my advisor is] trying to push me to be like, “What is unique?” or whatever, about this space to bring up in my findings. And one thing that I was saying was, “I’m trying to find a way to tell them that this is our normalized experience. This is our norm. We’re not comparing it to other people or somehow to get, like this is our normal. We are talking through our normal perspective. This is normal for us to be in spaces where that’s disrupted by white people. This is how we feel in being connected and having experiences with our faculty. This is our normalized experience.” And so, it’s hard to find what’s unique about this because it’s so normalized for us.

During the member check-in, sista scholars invited Palmer to share personal struggles during the analysis. Palmer invited the sista scholars into her hesitations, challenges, and thoughts, reflecting on their experiences together. This vulnerability and sharing opportunity gave them space to reaffirm Palmer and some of her original thinking about the work. They reiterated a need not to filter the analysis through a lens of whiteness because, as participants and witnesses to the research process and as Black women, they had the perfect insight to name what came out of the collective time. There was a weight lifted off Palmer as the researcher because she knew she had the backing of her sista scholars. There was data to support her claim that if you want to center Black women in research, do not push scholars to identify “unique” insights when we are inviting you into our normalized experiences. Calling them “unique” places whiteness as the norm and does not challenge our thinking.

The preliminary analysis reflected the codes, themes, connections to the theory, and example quotes. There was open space for everyone to share their thoughts and call attention to anything they disagreed with. Having the sista scholar’s input helped ensure that the findings in the larger study were aligned with their perceptions. Chanelle brought attention to a preliminary finding where the term “surface level” was used to describe how everyone was sharing in the sista circles to get to know each other beyond a surface level. She did not feel this was a good term to use and did not capture the cultural experience of Black women in community with each other.
Chanelle: So, I’ve been grappling with this one since last night, but I don’t... You all check me if you don’t agree. The term surface level, I feel, is very different when you’re in a group. I don’t know. With Black women, I feel we can’t even use surface level because we are like... Yes, we’re going beyond surface level, but that’s already given because we already...

Lennox: Recognized.

Palmer: I’m glad it’s coming out of your mouth, and I think I only had it on there because it was mainly with some of our earlier interactions. I was trying to get at this level of rapport building between us, but I agree with what you’re saying. It’s not just surface level. I think I let some of my committee in my head from my proposal because, for them, they had reservations that a group of Black women would need more time to get to know each other. They had reservations that we wouldn’t be able to connect to each other or it would take a while for us to do that.

This callout helped push the analysis process by offering a checkpoint of how the perspectives and filters of whiteness can creep in. This was an opportunity to serve as a reminder of who the work is accountable to, in this case, Black women doctoral students. The research is for Black women by Black women, and the analysis and representation of the data must stay true to that agenda.

Following the sista circle member check-in, individual interviews were conducted with each sista scholar. Individual follow-up interviews offered additional space for each sista scholar to reflect on their experience participating in the study and to express any concluding thoughts. Sista scholars were asked what they thought about the preliminary analysis. Lennox said her concern, but empowerment felt as she had shared stories with this community.
Lennox: I was still grappling with this tension between like, did I overshare on certain things? Right? And like, what would be included and what would not be included? But I think what happened was, I had to process that, and understand that I should be able to freely speak about the experiences that I’m having without having consequences of like, “Oh, somebody will think that this is mean.”...but at the same time, if this happened to another student that was not Black nor a Black woman, they will freely have these conversations without consequences. But then I have to go ahead and reflect on that and say, “Hey, I’m going to take ownership of my power like just, I have the right to speak about the things I’ve been through.”

Lennox shared an essential reminder of the impact of research on participants. It is not solely about the data extracted from participants. The member check-in process offered space for Lennox to have this moment of revelation and acceptance with her ownership of power. Lennox may not have left with this feeling had a member check-in not occurred. Placing marginalized communities’ voices and perspectives at the forefront allows moments such as this to take place and further iterates a need for researchers to filter whiteness in their work.

The insights gained from the analysis process with participants were a fulfilling process. Scholars should value the knowledge of the communities they research with and intentionally invite it into the analysis process. Had Palmer, the researcher, been left to her interpretations, she would have missed vital interpretations more aligned with the sista scholars. These examples show how Black women are the experts of their lived experiences and how they can add value to the analysis process, creating deeper analysis.

Discussion and Implications

The lessons learned from using SCM offer an option for scholars invested in critical, liberatory, and emancipatory work to see how it can be achieved. Participants can spot inauthenticity during the research process. In Jasmine’s member check-in, she noted how whiteness is centered in traditional research methods. She highlighted that traditional methods were not created with marginalized communities in mind and that SCM was the antithesis of normalized whiteness in some qualitative research. Research should be authentic to the research and communities you research, especially for “critical” scholars. The big five traditional research methods do not often allow for non-traditional modes for participants to share their experiences, as shown in the feedback received about journal entries. Amanda saw journaling as a form of code-switching; it is imperative to implement data collection methods for Black women to present themselves authentically. Researchers must consider the methods and approaches they use to research diverse groups of students.

Further, this manuscript is a call to consider methodologies that may not fit the mainstream research approaches yet fit the cultural background of participants. Scholars must consider methods and approaches that meet the realities of the participants they intend to study. Critical studies not only reside in the theories employed but also in the methodologies used. Aligned with the lessons learned by Porter (2023), using SCM provided space for the researchers to play and let go of methodological constraints to disrupt whiteness and (re)imagine possibilities centering on Black women.

In this study, we highlighted the impact of dialogue on women. The role of dialogue aligns with the feminist standpoint that Smith (1997) articulated helps women make meaning of their experiences. Through the dialogue shared with the sista scholars, we made meaning of how Black women naturally build community and how that is in opposition to the rigor that was projected onto Palmer from her committee. Hutchings (2023) also highlighted the role of dialogue for Black queer people using a new methodology. Hutchings constructed kiki methodology drawing from Black queer vernacular, Queer of Color critique, narrative construction, phenomenology, and arts-based research. Using a written podcast to represent kiki methodology, they highlighted “Black queer worldmaking and meaning-making” (Hutchings, 2023, p. 24). Scholars are carving out space to decenter whiteness and heteronormativity allowing marginalized perspectives to be better understood.

West (2023) highlighted the methodological benefit of using a participatory action research counterspace (PARC) in her study about Black women faculty, staff, and administrators at predominately white institutions. By instilling the principles of critical race theory, BFT, and critical qualitative inquiry, she found by using PARCs the women “gained greater confidence, employed specific resistance strategies, and engaged in acts of personal resiliency that led to positive professional and academic outcomes” (West, 2023, p. 19). West (2023) and Hutchings (2023) showed praxis-driven theorizing. In praxis-driven work, like SCM, there is attention to the moral responsibility of the researcher to the community they are researching with. As researchers, we cannot extract information from participants but must use the research space to be attentive to participants and affirm their reality. Using sista circles for studies with Black women provided a sacred space for researchers and participants to affirm each other’s histories and realities fluidly.

BFT and endarkened feminist epistemology are woven into SCM and the methodological assumptions from conducting this culturally congruent methodology. In connection with the intentional practice of BFT to dismantle systems of oppression, Black feminist scholars focus on doing so from a place of love. Cooper (2015) made a call to the scholarly community to “let us remove the artificial limits so that Black feminism can continue loving and seeing value in the lives of Black women and all Black people with no bounds” (p. 19). Seeing the value of Black women is not evident in all the research done on Black women, and researchers must place this in the forefront of their work to reduce the harmful impact of research and show their value on the knowledge contribution of Black women in the academy. This same focus of leading with love and care should be present in all work researchers do with marginalized communities.

Conclusion

This methods-focused paper highlights how to be intentional about doing research centered around participants with marginalized identities. In attempts to humanize higher education, researchers must take steps to avoid recreating the harm that Black women experience in the academy. Through research with five Black women doctoral students, we exposed how centering the ways Black women cultivate community and share knowledge is fulfilling for participants and provides quality data. Research to center and support participants should result in similar sentiments from participants. As Black feminists, it was essential to center care within research; it did not detract from the rich data collected. Research can feel good for participants and researchers. The feelings of research participants are essential to the center of research. Setting up a study to be objective and distant from the researched communities does not always yield the best results and promote good feelings for the participants. Using a culturally congruent methodology allowed the sista scholars in this study not to feel they were being studied. Researchers should take note and continue to push research methodologies and methods that align with their participants.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Removing the Veil of Whiteness in Qualitative Research Using Sista Circle Methodology

Supplemental Material for Removing the Veil of Whiteness in Qualitative Research Using Sista Circle Methodology by Dajanae Palmer and Ekaete Udoh in International Journal of Qualitative Methods.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the Research grant from the American Educational Research Association Division D Research Grant in 2021.

ORCID iD

Dajanae Palmer

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

References

Archibald

J. A.

(2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. UBC press.

Ashlee

A. A.

Zamora

Karikari

S. N.

(2017). We are woke: A collaborative critical autoethnography of three “womxn” of color graduate students in higher education. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 19(1), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v19i1.1259

Beverley

(2004). Testimonio: On the politics of truth. U of Minnesota Press.

Butler

(1993). Parable of the sower. Grand Central Publishing.

Cabrera

N. L.

Hill-Zuganelli

(2021). “If Lil’Wayne can say it, why can’t I?”: White male undergraduates using the n-word. The Journal of Higher Education, 92(5), 680–703. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1889942

Carspecken

Saxena

(2022). From lines to circles: Love as a component of validity. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 35(10), 1085–1096. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2022.2061632

Case

A. D.

Hunter

C. D.

(2012). Counterspaces: A unit of analysis for understanding the role of settings in marginalized individuals’ adaptive responses to oppression. American Journal of Community Psychology, 50, 257–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-012-9497-7

Chavez

(2008). Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality. Qualitative Report, 13(3), 474–494. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2008.1589

Collins

P. H.

(1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33(6), s14–s32. https://doi.org/10.2307/800672

10.

Collins

P. H.

(1998). Fighting words: Black women and the search for justice. U of Minnesota Press.

11.

Collins

P. H.

(2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.

12.

Cooper

B. C.

(2015). Love no limit: Towards a Black feminist future (in theory). The Black Scholar, 45(4), 7–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00064246.2015.1080912

13.

Corlett

Mavin

(2018). Reflexivity and researcher positionality. In the Sage handbook of qualitative business and management research methods (pp. 377–399). Sage.

14.

Dillard

C. B.

(2000). The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Examining an endarkened feminist epistemology in educational research and leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 661–681. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390050211565

15.

Dillard

C. B.

(2006). On spiritual striving: Transforming an African American woman’s academic life. State University of New York Press.

16.

Drawson

A. S.

Toombs

Mushquash

C. J.

(2017). Indigenous research methods: A systematic review. The International Indigenous Policy Journal, 8(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.18584/iipj.2017.8.2.5

17.

Elfreich

Dennis

(2022). Methodologies of possibility: Feminist ethics as justice-oriented research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 35(10), 1067–1084. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2022.2061735

18.

Evans-Winters

V. E.

(2019). Black feminism in qualitative inquiry: A mosaic for writing our daughter’s body. Routledge.

19.

Glesne

(2016). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. Pearson.

20.

Haig-Brown

(2003). Creating spaces: Testimonio, impossible knowledge, and academe. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(3), 415–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/0951839032000086763

21.

Hamilton

(2020). Now that I know what you’re about’: Black feminist reflections on power in the research relationship. Qualitative Research, 20(5), 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794119891583

22.

Hooks

(1989). Talking back: Thinking feminist, thinking Black. South End Press.

23.

Hooks

(1991). Representing whiteness in the black imagination. In Grossberg

Nelson

Treichler

(Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 338–346). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203699140

24.

Hooks

(2000). Feminist theory: From margin to center. Pluto Press.

25.

Huber

L. P.

(2009). Disrupting apartheid of knowledge: Testimonio as methodology in Latina/o critical race research in education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 22(6), 639–654. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390903333863

26.

Hutchings

Q. R.

(2023). For me, us, our community: A kiki methodology of black queer storytelling. Departures in Critical Qualitative Research, 12(4), 6–28. https://doi.org/10.1525/dcqr.2023.12.4.6

27.

Johnson

(2015). Using sista circles to examine the professional experience of contemporary black women teachers in schools: A collective story about school culture and support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia.

28.

Leigh

E. W.

Pak

Phuong

(2021). Defining ourselves: Exploring our leader and activist identities as Asian American women doctoral students. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 14(2), 174–188. https://doi.org/10.1037/dhe0000173

29.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.

30.

Mac

V. S.

Thaviseth

L. J.

Phommasa

Pheng

L. M.

(2021). The SEAAster scholars collective. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education & Advancement, 16(1), 1–13. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48684487

31.

Mohanty

C. T.

(1984). Under Western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Boundary 12(3), 333-358. https://doi.org/10.2307/302821, https://www.jstor.org/stable/302821

32.

Mohanty

C. T.

(2003). “Under western eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs: Journal of Women in culture and Society, 28(2), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.1086/342914

33.

Motulsky

S. L.

(2021). Is member checking the gold standard of quality in qualitative research? Qualitative Psychology, 8(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000215

34.

Palmer

Chang

T. H.

Covington

Wang

A. C.

(2020). (Re) negotiating and (re)envisioning our feminist journeys: A collaborative autoethnography of five women of color doctoral students. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 5(3), 6. https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/vol5/iss3/6.

35.

Porter

(2023). “Playing with” and “Letting go”: Employing theoretical frameworks and methodologies to examine Black women’s experiences in higher education. New Directions for Student Services, 2023(182), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ss.20464.

36.

Reyes

K. B.

Curry Rodríguez

J. E.

(2012). Testimonio: Origins, terms, and resources. Equity & Excellence in Education, 45(3), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2012.698571

37.

Smith

D. E.

(1992). Sociology from women’s experience: A reaffirmation. Sociological Theory, 10(1), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.2307/202020

38.

Smith

D. E.

(1997). Comment on hekman’s “truth and method: Feminist standpoint theory revisited”. Signs: Journal of women in culture and society, 22(2), 392–398. https://doi.org/10.1086/495164

39.

Stewart

T. J.

(2021). To whom it should concern: An open letter on the n-word and academic publishing. Medium. https://terahjay.medium.com/to-whom-it-should-concern-an-open-letter-on-the-n-word-and-academic-publishing-edcd0c699578

40.

The Latina Feminist Group . (2001). Telling to live: Latina feminist testimonios. Duke University Press.

41.

Toliver

S. R.

(2021). Recovering Black storytelling in qualitative research: Endarkened storywork. Routledge.

42.

Vidich

A. J.

Lyman

S. M.

(1994). Qualitative methods: Their history in sociology and anthropology. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 23–59). Sage.

43.

Walker

(1983). In search of our mothers’ gardens: Womanist prose. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

44.

Wallace

E. R.

Fullwood

C. C.

Horhn

E. B.

Loritts

Propst

B. S.

Walker

C. R.

(2020). The black feminist mixtape: A collective black feminist autoethnography of black women’s existence in the academy. Journal of Critical Scholarship on Higher Education and Student Affairs, 5(3), 7. https://ecommons.luc.edu/jcshesa/vol5/iss3/7

45.

West

N. M.

(2023). Defining the contours of a participatory action research counterspace developed by, for, and about Black women in higher education. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 37(5), 1542–1565. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2023.2181449

46.

Williams

M. R.

Brewley

D. N.

Reed

R. J.

White

D. Y.

Davis-Haley

R. T.

(2005). Learning to read each other: Black female graduate students share their experiences at a White research I institution. The Urban Review, 37(3), 181–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-005-0008-0

47.

Wilson

(2001). What is an indigenous research methodology? Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(2), 175–179.

48.

Wynter

(1994). No humans involved: An open letter to my colleagues. Forum N.H.I.: Knowledge for the 21st Century, 1(1), 42–73.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB