Culturally Competent Qualitative Research With People of African Descent

Abstract

Qualitative research studies are underrepresented in psychology journals, and those that are published vary in quality. As such, researchers have called for an improvement in the quantity and quality of qualitative research. This article represents an attempt to guide researchers wishing to conduct culturally competent qualitative research with people of African descent. To do so, the authors review potential areas of confluence between qualitative research and African cultural values (e.g., holism, emphasis on relationships). The authors also review and highlight best practices throughout the qualitative research process (e.g., topic selection, research team development, data analysis) that may facilitate a sense of safety for people of African descent as well as holistically and usefully represent their experiences.

Keywords

qualitative methods African-centered psychology culturally competent research data collection data analysis

Recently, scholars have called for an increase in qualitative research (Ponterotto, 2002) as well as a bolstering of the sophistication and competence in psychologists’ use of qualitative methodologies (Haverkamp, Morrow, & Ponterotto, 2005). Benefits of doing so include the potential for qualitative research to (a) holistically represent the underrepresented (Fassinger, 2005; Morrow, 2007; Suzuki, Ahluwalia, Mattis, & Quizon, 2005); (b) identify lines of inquiry, constructs, and experiences relevant to participants and communities, which may translate into appropriate treatment approaches (Alvidrez, Snowden, & Kaiser, 2008); (c) provide participants and communities with the ability to contribute to and improve research (Guishard et al., 2005); and (d) present research in a voice and method familiar to participants. Furthermore, points of confluence may exist between qualitative research and African cultural values, as suggested by some researchers (e.g., White & Dotson, 2010). Despite these potential strengths, qualitative research continues to represent a small minority of published research studies (Hoyt & Bhati, 2007). In fact, a search in the online database PsycINFO (2011) reveals only 13 qualitative studies published in the Journal of Black Psychology between 2000 and 2010. Additionally, overall levels of quality in such research products across journals vary (Haverkamp et al., 2005).

Qualitative research possibly is not yet well represented in psychology journals because those in the field lack the appropriate training. Ponterotto (2005) noted that, although most counseling psychology programs offer qualitative research courses, only 10% of the programs surveyed required them. Additionally, only 26.7% integrated qualitative methods into introductory research courses to some degree.

In response to this call, the purpose of the present article is to extend the recent work on qualitative research to specifically consider and guide the use of qualitative methods with people of African descent. We will begin with a consideration of potential areas of confluence between qualitative research methods and African cultural values (e.g., holism, an emphasis on relationships; Ani, 1994; Grills, 2004). We also will discuss ways to approach the qualitative research process (including topic, sample, and site selection; research team and instrument development; and data collection, analysis, and interpretation) that may facilitate a sense of safety for people of African descent and holistically and usefully reflect their experiences.

Qualitative researchers commonly participate in explicit and implicit self-reflection of their assumptions throughout the research process to become aware of the biases and reactions they bring to the work, increasing the likelihood of the trustworthiness drawn from research results (Cho & Trent, 2006). As qualitative researchers, we interviewed each other about our own experiences conducting qualitative research with people of African descent, a technique known as bracketing (i.e., introducing ourselves, thereby allowing readers to better understand the lens through which we understand these research experiences; Morrow, 2005). The first author is a biracial woman of Caribbean and European descent, who identifies herself as a Black person. She has experience conducting qualitative and mixed-methods research on biracial individuals’ experiences with racism and identity as well as the work experiences of African American men and women of a variety of socioeconomic statuses and education levels. The second author is a White woman of Irish and Polish heritage. She has worked as a researcher on a consensual qualitative research investigation of low-income African American men. The third author identifies herself as a woman of African descent. She intentionally uses the designation, “of African descent,” to show her allegiance for and identification with her African heritage. She has conducted qualitative research on the experiences of people of African descent since graduate school. The final author identifies herself as an African American woman, though she also understands and appreciates her existence in a diaspora of people of African descent. She has conducted qualitative research with undergraduate college students of African descent (i.e., Caribbean American and second-generation African Americans).

African Cultural Values Reflected in Qualitative Research

Points of potential congruence may exist between qualitative research and African cultural values. In this way, we make a case for the relevance of qualitative research to the life experiences of people of African descent.¹ Kambon (2004) argued that, consciously or unconsciously, cultural values reflect the “survival thrust” (i.e., orientation toward the maintenance and proliferation) of cultural groups. Though many have identified African cultural values previously (e.g., Houston, 1990; Woods & Jagers, 2003), Kambon (2004) brought together existing research and therefore, presents a summary of values identified in the field. Generally, the worldview of people of African descent can be conceptualized along the following dimensions:

cosmology (i.e., the structure of reality), which for those of African descent may be grounded in interdependence, collectivism, and harmony with nature;

ontology (i.e., the nature of being and reality), where there is a recognition of the spiritual bases of nature, one’s existence, and the universe;

the primary importance of human-to-human interaction as a value system or axiology; and

epistemology, or “ways of knowing,” that for people of African descent tend to be both affective (e.g., intuition) and cognitive (e.g., self-knowledge; Kambon, 2004; White & Dotson, 2010).

The African cosmological emphasis on interdependence and harmony with nature is reflected in the value of holism and context in most qualitative paradigms (Krahn & Putnam, 2003; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Using qualitative research, psychologists may be better able to understand person–environment interactions. These interactions are necessarily embedded in complex conversational and contextualized data gleaned through qualitative inquiry, compared with the use of formalized measures applied in quantitative research. Additionally, reflections on the specific structure of reality may be gleaned through “beingness” with others in person-to-person interactions (e.g., interviews, the most common form of data collection used by qualitative researchers; Hoyt & Bhati, 2007; Krahn & Putnam, 2003), thereby, respecting an African value system or axiology.

When considering topic selection and data analysis and interpretation, allowing for the post hoc identification of important phenomena rather than developing a priori hypotheses fits with an African epistemology and ontology. In this manner, foci, themes, and meanings relevant to participants may be recognized through contact with participants and reflection on the data as a whole. Such reflections may include researchers’ affective reactions to the research encounters. Furthermore, the practice of allowing post hoc identification of themes honors the value that participants hold in influencing the researchers’ approach to study. This inductive approach present in the major qualitative paradigms means that many versions of reality may emerge (e.g., constructivism) or that reality is necessarily contextualized within a sociocultural history of oppression (e.g., critical theory), contrasting positivistic and postpositivistic quantitative researchers’ goal of confirmation or discovery of one objective truth (Guba & Lincoln, 2005; Ponterotto, Mathew, & Raughley, n.d.). Researchers who use a positivistic or postpositivistic paradigm rarely discuss the influence of worldview on their investigations and interpretations because of this belief in objectivity. However, qualitative researchers, recognizing many articulations of and influences on reality, advocate for the examination of their own worldview within the research process (Cho & Trent, 2006; Morrow, 2005).

Similarly, the interpretive nature of qualitative research (which certainly has been an integral part of the discussion questioning the rigor and quality of these forms of inquiry) also honors the affective–cognitive epistemology inherent in an African belief system (Johnson, 1997; Stenbacka, 2001). Many qualitative methods recognize the interpretive nature of research. Therefore, they also may employ the use of research teams to make decisions about the data, thereby valuing the compatibility of a reality structured by interdependent and harmonious cosmology with these methods (e.g., consensual qualitative research; Hill et al., 2005). The interpretation of meaning has additional value for African-descended participants and researchers alike. This is because qualitative methods are often used with underresearched phenomena and populations as well as with the emic, fundamentally unique phenomena that exist in the African community (Ponterotto, 2005).

Finally, as addressed earlier, in most paradigms informing qualitative research, the researcher is recognized as a tool in the research process. In other words, the “biases” that researchers have about the topic at hand are overtly acknowledged, explained, and are reviewed when conducting analyses. This facilitates research with people of African descent for two reasons. First, the body of traditional Western psychological research deemed people of African descent to be deficient did not acknowledge the role of racism and oppression in the approach to studying this population (Bowman, 1991; Smith, 2006). Psychologists (and participants) certainly have seen advances in ethics and acknowledgement of psychology as a tool of oppression in our history as a discipline. However, people of African descent continue to be pathologized, evaluated with measures with inappropriate norms, and taken advantage of when participants in psychological research (Washington, 2006). This treatment has negatively influenced African Americans’ perceptions of psychological research, leaving this population reluctant to participate (Allen, 1994; Shavers, Lynch, & Burmeister, 2002).

This discussion of “biases” and “brackets” provides an opportunity to further examine cultural context and meaning of research. Although culturally competent quantitative inquiry is undoubtedly useful in studying populations of African descent (Awad & Cokley, 2010), there is value in the use of qualitative inquiry that is symbiotic with the African worldview. From first discernment of a relevant line of inquiry through data analysis and interpretation, qualitative methods may offer an opportunity to honor culture in a unique way. These African cultural values may be used to guide each aspect of the qualitative research process, which we will now address.

Selecting Topic, Sample, and Site

Topic Selection

Investigators who conduct qualitative research with people of African descent may be stakeholders in the communities they choose to study, in which case they may generate topics by drawing on personal experience, relationships, and observation. These techniques are usually complemented with an exploration of the literature. As the third author noted,

I have essentially spoken with colleagues, friends, and relatives of African descent about their concerns and challenges and then examined what has been written in these areas to determine if the area would be a good topic for new study.

Researchers, who are not members of the community, may instead identify topics by observing gaps or biases in the literature and conduct a line of research to correct for such gaps, such as Diemer (2002), a White researcher who noted “the psychological study of men tends to focus disproportionately on White middle-class men, neglecting issues germane to men of color, including African American men” (p. 31).

Clinicians and others in the field might notice a gap through the access they have as service providers. For instance, Russell, Maraj, Wilson, Shedd-Steele, and Champion (2008), all nurses, noticed a prevalence of late-stage breast cancer detection in African American women, which decreases chances of survival. This observation led to their qualitative investigation of barriers keeping women of African descent from participating in early mammography screenings and related clinical trials. Ultimately, topics should be chosen that possess practical utility (Morrow, 2005), defined by Akbar (2004) as “an objective of self knowledge and collective liberation” (p. 685).

Sample Selection

Sample selection may be guided by an African emphasis on collectivism: the needs of the community and of participants may supersede investigators’ individual needs. This is also aligned with qualitative research ethics (Haverkamp, 2005). The first question guiding researchers in their sample selection process should be Why am I choosing this sample? As the first author observed, “it is important to think about how the research benefits those who you are researching, and that will hopefully make participation more attractive. If not, it makes sense to take a step back and think about researchers’ motivations.” On a related note, Akbar (2004) warned against sampling only those individuals who perpetuate stereotypes of African American life rather than those who represent examples of cultural strength.

A second question to guide sample selection may be, How can I respectfully connect with this sample? People of African descent may have a healthy skepticism of researchers and the research process, a cultural mistrust that “is the result of past unethical research, of racism and abuse in the health care system, and of research findings that are misinterpreted as exploitive and irrelevant to African American communities” (Russell et al., 2008, p. 90; see also Gibson & Abrams, 2003). Access considerations will be discussed further in the Collecting Data section.

Site Selection

Most qualitative research takes place in the community to provide researchers with “a sense of the lived world of research participants . . . in which the behaviors of interest might normally be expected to occur” (Hoyt & Bhati, 2007, p. 204). Equally important is the researchers’ consideration of the impact of site selection on their participants (Haverkamp, 2005). As such, site selection considerations are a commingling of methodology, logistics, and participants’ needs. For example, Lyons et al. (n.d.) chose a church outreach center in which to conduct interviews with low-income African Americans. The principal investigator’s prior relationship with the site facilitated rapport with staff and clients, and allowed for recognition of relevant research themes for the site’s clients. Also, this site reduced demands on participants—they were interviewed while waiting for services—and provided them with the comfort of “home turf.” On the other hand, various other researchers effectively have used phone interviews with people of African descent, providing ease, comfort, and privacy (e.g., Yerger, Wertz, McGruder, Froelicher, & Malone, 2008).

Selecting a Qualitative Research Team

Research team members may be selected based on commitment to the research process, counseling skills, and cultural competence, including respect for the dimensions of African cultural values explained previously. Counseling skills equip team members with the ability to self-reflect, build rapport, and otherwise respectfully interact with participants. Counseling skills are also useful in facilitating the communal exercises essential to the qualitative research process (e.g., brainstorming themes, scheduling, reaching consensus; Hill et al., 2005; Lyons & Bike, 2010).

Team members should demonstrate cultural competence throughout the research process and must believe that attention to culture is necessary to advance scientific understanding of phenomena under study (Hill et al., 2005; Lyons & Bike, 2010). Cultural competence has been defined as

. . . the capacity to appreciate and understand the rich within-group variability that occurs within any diverse racial/ethnic group. Under cultural competence the [researcher] also understands the conditional and contextual relationships that occur daily within complex “real world” situations faced by [participants]. (Castro, Obert, Rawson, Lin, & Denne, 2003, p. 543)

For greater specificity, we also reflect on Myers, Abdullah, and Leary’s (2000) definition of cultural competence from their publication “Conducting research with persons of African descent.” They include within their definition the need for training in areas that are deemed relevant by the Association of Black Psychology (e.g., African psychology) and researcher validation by experienced African American researchers. Researchers also should be aware of their own cultural worldview and possess the ability to reflect on their potential blind spots. In fact, White and Dotson (2010) encouraged qualitative researchers to document their own histories as a way of making readers aware of their potential biases. The implementation of research with people of African descent must be sensitive to cultural mistrust of the research process; thus, team members should be flexible in guiding the interview process. For example, team members should be open to honoring participants’ autonomy in the interview process (e.g., give an overview of interview content, allowing some content to be kept off the tape recording as will be discussed later) and explain how research findings might benefit communities of African descent.

Furthermore, cultural mistrust might also mean that participants may be more willing to work with researchers of African descent or may request a match along other dimensions. For example, before interviewing participants in person Corneille, Tademy, Reid, Belgrave, and Nasim (2008), who are African American researchers, contacted participants by phone to ask them about their preference for a male or female interviewer. Cultural similarity between researchers and participants may provide intimate access to participants. Cultural similarity can also help researchers anticipate and nondefensively respond to challenges from participants about the purpose of their research. Language, racial/ethnic, and experiential similarities between researchers and participants can also improve communication throughout the process.

However, cultural similarity alone is not enough to facilitate understanding, rapport, or a useful working relationship (Few, Stephens, & Rouse-Arnett, 2003). Furthermore, given within group differences and intersections between identities (e.g., sexual orientation, socioeconomic status), researchers of African descent should not assume cultural similarity with participants of African descent. Naturally, researchers of racial or ethnic identity statuses different than participants, researchers with cultural blind spots, and researchers with ideological dispositions that conflict with participants can also arouse cultural mistrust in participants. In important ways, these variables (e.g., cultural blind spots), regardless of researcher demography, influence topic selection and study conceptualization, attendance to some data over others, and interpretations of the data.

Research team membership can also vary by race, ethnicity, acculturation, ability status, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, nationality, and language. Such cultural dissimilarities may force team members to explain (and thereby to examine) how their experiences shape their understanding of participants’ experiences (Lyons & Bike, 2010). This point can be illustrated with the fourth author’s experiences conducting a qualitative research study of racial and cultural identity among African American and second-generation Caribbean and African undergraduate students. The research team consisted of a White middle-class woman and a Chinese American, working-class woman. During data analysis, the woman of Asian descent recognized that her acculturation experiences influenced her understanding of second-generation Caribbean and African participants’ experiences of not being perceived as fully “American” in the United States or as fully a member of their Caribbean or African nationality when visiting their nation of origin. Cultural similarity and diversity both offer a unique lens through which participants’ experiences can be understood. Regardless of the cultural research team composition, research team members should demonstrate respect for data gleaned from research participants of African descent, as discussed in detail in the next section.

Collecting Data

Data collection with people of African descent has occurred through various means including genograms (e.g., Simpson & Cornelius, 2007), focus groups (e.g., Corneille et al., 2008), and participant observation (e.g., Pressley, Raphael, Gallagher, & DiBella, 2004). However, we will focus on in-person interviews, the most common data collection method in qualitative research (Hoyt & Bhati, 2007; Krahn & Putnam, 2003).

Connecting With Participants Through Gatekeepers

At this point, the researchers have articulated their motivations to perform research in service of African descended populations being studied. They have also developed a protocol respectful of the potential participants’ values and interactional expectations. Now begins the crucial phase of connecting with participants.

Healthy skepticism of researchers’ motivations among people of African descent makes engaging high-prestige community members, called gatekeepers, an essential phase of the data collection process. “Gatekeepers are individuals who are trusted by the residents, are sought out for advice and respected for their opinions, and often are embraced by others both inside and outside the community” (Russell et al., 2008, p. 92). Without gatekeeper support, especially for researchers who lack racial, economic, or geographical commonality with the community, obtaining access to and cooperation from community members can be time consuming and difficult, if not fully prohibitive. Conversely, those with “insider status,” as well as outsiders who have a demonstrated history as an ally to the community, will find that the access phase runs more smoothly (Gibson & Abrams, 2003). For instance, Diemer (2002), a White researcher studying the provider-role identity of African American men, was “personally vouched for by someone participants knew” (p. 33), which afforded him greater connection with participants.

Conducting Interviews

The asymmetry of power inherent in the interview process can be compounded when studying people of African descent, particularly when the researchers are from a privileged population relative to race and social class. Regarding race, Pierce (1970) coined the term microaggressions to describe unintentional behaviors acted on people of color by Whites as side effects of the institutionalized power differential. Qualitative researchers should be mindful of the potential for such microaggressions to interfere with the interview process. For example, the second author found, through self-examination (in personal therapy and in an informal supervision-type relationship) early on in the research project described above, ways that her racism might have interfered with the interviews through a paternalistic “I’m here to help you” attitude.

Having taken cultural considerations and power differentials into account, the researcher must establish trust with participants. Qualitative researchers who are effective with participants of African descent are willing to set aside the individualistic approach valued in White, middle-class settings like academia and adopt the expectation that interpersonal relationships and impact are more important than personal gain (Houston, 1990). By demonstrating their knowledge of community values, such as the deep respect placed on elders in African American communities, researchers can foster trust. For example, Gibson (Gibson & Abrams, 2003) addressed her participants as consultants and “explained that [she] was learning from them about their experiences” (p. 466), an approach particularly appropriate in its indication of respect for the African American grandmothers she was interviewing.

Regardless of their level of multicultural knowledge and awareness, researchers who are not of African descent should be aware that some participants might filter their responses with an outsider in an effort to protect themselves and their community from negative characterizations (Gibson & Abrams, 2003; Russell et al., 2008). Other participants, however, may be more willing to explain themselves in detail to an outsider. They might assume that outsiders lack knowledge and understanding of their worldview and experiences, thus necessitating explanation (Gibson & Abrams, 2003). They also might view the interview as an opportunity to confide in a “safe stranger” (Collins, 1986; Gibson & Abrams, 2003). Interviewers should remain mindful, therefore, that due to the asymmetry of power and to our skill as therapists, participants may find themselves sharing more than they wish to (Haverkamp, 2005; Morrow, 2007).

Therefore, it is important to provide for participants’ needs before, during, and after the interview. Precede the interview with an explanation, in transparent language, of the general purpose and the process. This can include stating how many questions you will ask, how long the interview is projected to take, and that you will occasionally take notes to remind yourself of something important that you want to follow up on. During the interview, a similar respect for the informants’ self-efficacy and safety should be demonstrated. For instance, when the second author, a White woman, was interviewing an unemployed African American man about his work aspirations, he began to discuss details of a criminal matter in which he was involved, so she turned off the audiotape. Furthermore, to address his concerns about the direction the interview had taken, together they looked over the remaining questions and he determined that he was comfortable resuming the taped interview. In this case, the interviewer was attending to the participant’s affect and used it to guide her actions and reaffirm consent. Affect, as valued in African cultures, means that the participant will pick up on researchers’ cues—and thus will attend not just to the content of words but also to tone, emotionality or lack of, and to physical cues (Hayles, 1991; Woods & Jagers, 2003). Likewise, he or she will assume that researchers are doing the same.

To a culturally competent interviewer, this understanding of affect’s importance to community members makes it apparent when participants are communicating that racism and/or classism are interfering with the process. Participants of African descent may send these messages both verbally (e.g., providing shorter responses, indicating impatience with the process) and nonverbally (e.g., shifting in the chair; Dovidio, Hebl, Richeson, & Shelton, 2006). For instance, one of the authors suggested to the team that they revise the research protocol when a question about race was annoying participants (as demonstrated through their shorter responses and changes in body language) who were interviewed by the White researchers (Lyons et al., n.d.). To make the question less confrontational, the protocol was slightly reworded from “How might your work experiences be different from someone who is White?” to “How might your work experiences be different from someone who is of a different race?” The importance of comparing responses given to White and African American interviewers also became clear.

In addition to attending to participants’ needs before and during the interview, interviewers should demonstrate care after the interview. At the end of the interview, researchers may allow participants time to digest their experience. This can be accomplished with experience-of-interview questions as well as with a general question like “Is there anything else you would like to share as we complete our time together?” Also, researchers should be prepared to provide culturally congruent resources and referrals to participants and/or gatekeepers. Doing so can reinforce the African value of human-to-human interaction while acknowledging the collaborative aspect of the researcher–participant dynamic, inherent to come degree, in all forms of qualitative research (Haverkamp, 2005; Ponterotto, 2005).

Data Analysis and Interpretation

As with other aspects of qualitative research, the steps taken during data analysis and interpretation may increase the quality of research, thereby representing a full range of African experiences. During analysis and interpretation, data are organized and meanings are extracted (Patton, 2002). The methods by which this occurs are numerous (e.g., content analysis, grounded theory; Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007) and represent various paradigms (e.g., critical–ideological, postpositivistic). Because of the overwhelming choice, those researching people of African descent should select a method that not only most closely mirrors researcher competence and values but also that most accurately frames the research questions. Methods may also correspond to the level of analysis under investigation. For example, researchers may wish to investigate individual-level phenomena (e.g., captured with a case study), group-level values (e.g., critical ethnography), or systemic-level functioning (e.g., critical race theory). However, merely selecting one method over another or one paradigm over another is not enough. Psychologists should also consider the sociohistorical context in which the research is conducted and the role that data interpretation and eventual dissemination of research will take in a particular community. It is important to consider the selection of a method that holistically communicates participants’ “voice,” which in turn is most likely to reflect the cultural worldview of communities of African descent. Furthermore, several researchers have argued for the need to consider how results may become useful to communities of African descent (e.g., Akbar, 2004; Morrow, 2005). In a discussion of research conducted on indigenous populations, Smith (2006) stated,

it is research which brings to bear, on any study of indigenous peoples, a cultural orientation, a set of values, a different conceptualization of such things as time, space and subjectivity different and competing theories of knowledge, highly specialized forms of language, and structures of power. (p. 43)

Although the author was speaking specifically about indigenous populations, the notion that research can be used to fully and accurately portray the experiences of people of African descent, as challenging as that might be to existing definitions, makes research valuable.

Researchers investigating the experiences of people of African descent have been encouraged to include those represented in data analysis and interpretation in meaningful ways that benefit those represented (Lyons & Bike, 2010). However, what a community perceives as beneficial depends on participants’ cultural values and experiences (Haverkamp, 2005). Depending on the researchers’ paradigm, participants’ involvement in research may include asking them to vet transcripts and tentative interpretations, having participants offer their own interpretations of the data (which may help researchers and readers understand potentially differing worldviews), or engaging participants as co-creators in the interpretation process. Such inclusion of participants may help improve the quality and relevance of interpretations made.

When investigating the meanings ascribed to work by unemployed African Americans, Lyons et al. (n.d.) tried to use member checks (i.e., sending transcripts to participants for them to review and edit) to gain participant involvement. However, no transcripts were returned. The research team then decided to involve a focus group to confirm and challenge responses as well as an external auditor who specialized in vocational issues with multicultural populations. Whether because it was difficult to collect member checks through mail, because of the transient lifestyle of the Lyons et al. sample (i.e., those experiencing chronic unemployment), or because of the congruence of a focus group with an African worldview, the latter method was more successful. Similarly, Martin and Harris (2006) used a combination of methods to assess the trustworthiness of interpretations drawn from their data. In their study of African American male student athletes, they used one focus group of participants and another focus group of colleagues familiar with the experiences of African American student athletes. Other researchers might more intimately involve participants throughout the process of research. Guishard et al. (2005) conducted a participatory action research study of the experiences and history of an educational justice organization in the South Bronx in which participants not only conducted interviews but also became part of the research team that extracted meanings from the resulting data. From these examples, it becomes obvious that there are a variety of methods available to researchers to operate cooperatively with the people of African descent they are studying at the later stages of the process: when analyzing and interpreting data as well as assessing the quality of these interpretations.

Member checks and participant involvement may not only be culturally congruent but also helps evaluate the trustworthiness or “validity” of qualitative data. Qualitative researchers should be aware that depending on paradigm, many criteria exist (Morrow, 2005). For example, those working from a post-positivistic paradigm might be more interested in evaluating the credibility or confirmability of data and interpretations, among other paradigm-specific criteria, through various means including triangulation and auditing (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). However, authenticity may be more important to researchers operating from a constructionist/interpretivist paradigm (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Finally, critical–ideological based research may consider the extent to which research results in systemic reform, called consequential validity (Patton, 2002) to be the most relevant trustworthiness criteria. In addition to these paradigm-specific criteria, Morrow (2005) identified transparadigmatic criteria that may be helpful for researchers to consider, including reflexivity, the extent to which researchers recognize the subjectivity of data analysis and interpretation and can consciously report on these subjective experiences and how these experiences may influence data analysis and interpretation.

Two of the researchers in the present study reflected on how their own identities influenced data analysis and interpretation. A woman of African descent raised in a segregated Midwestern American city, noted,

I believe that being a woman of African descent raised in a very segregated Midwestern town influenced my level of sensitivity to respecting and honoring the perspectives of the individuals I collect data from. I believe that I may spend a great deal of time thinking about what influences my interpretation of the data as well as how participants of African descent may have intended to answer questions or to seek out the underlying meaning in what they have shared. I believe this enhances the process overall; however, it can lengthen the data analysis stage.

This researcher comes from a cultural background different from the other researcher (i.e., she is biracial), but inherent in her response is also the effect and recognition of her own cultural experience on data analysis and interpretation:

I identify as a Black person. However, I am also biracial and was raised in an immigrant family. Therefore, I try not to make assumptions about similarity (or dissimilarity) of experiences. I try to use my experience as a Black person to empathize with the meanings communicated by participants but also try to step back to try to recognize when my own experiences may be influencing and overwhelming my direction. While not always possible, this is an aspiration.

Conclusion

Research remains a powerful tool for psychologists invested in gaining perspective on various aspects of the African diasporic experience and hopefully, yielding information enlightening and instructive for this population. However, this power should be wielded thoughtfully throughout all stages of the research of the research process. As Akbar (2004) warned “There is neither implicit benefit nor danger in the instrument of research, but the research must be guided by a set of principles which insure the ultimate utility of that research” (p. 685).

Footnotes

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

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Akbar

(2004). Paradigms of African American research. In Jones

R. L.

(Ed.), Black psychology (4th ed., pp. 685-700). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

Allen

(1994). The dilemma for women of color in clinical trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 49, 105-109.

Alvidrez

Snowden

L. R.

Kaiser

D. M.

(2008). The experience of stigma among Black mental health consumers. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 19, 874-893.

Ani

(1994). Let the circle be unbroken: Implications of African spirituality in the diaspora. New York, NY: Nkonimfo.

Awad

Cokley

(2010). Designing and interpreting quantitative research in multicultural counseling. In Ponterotto

Casas

Suzuki

L. A.

Alexander

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp. 385-396).Thousands Oak, CA: Sage.

Bowman

P. J.

(1991). Race, class, and ethics in research: Belmont principles to functional relevance. In Jones

R. L.

(Ed.), Black psychology (3rd ed., pp. 747-766). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.

Castro

F. G.

Obert

J. L.

Rawson

R. A.

Lin

C. V.

Denne

Jr. (2003). Drug abuse treatments with racial/ethnic clients: Toward the development of culturally competent treatments. In Bernal

Trimble

J. E.

Burlew

A. K.

Leong

F. T.

(Eds.), Handbook of racial and ethnic minority psychology (pp. 539-560). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cho

Trent

(2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative Research, 6, 319-340.

Cokley

Awad

(n.d.). In defense of quantitative methods: Using the “master’s tools” to promote social justice. Manuscript in preparation.

10.

Collins

P. H.

(1986). Learning from the outsider within: The sociological significance of Black feminist thought. Social Problems, 33, S14-S32.

11.

Corneille

M. A.

Tademy

R. H.

Reid

M. C.

Belgrave

F. A.

Nasim

(2008). Sexual safety and risk taking among African American men who have sex with women: A qualitative study. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 9, 207-220.

12.

Diemer

M. A.

(2002). Constructions of provider role identity among African American men: An exploratory study. Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychology, 8, 30-40.

13.

Dovidio

J. F.

Hebl

Richeson

J. A.

Shelton

J. N.

(2006). Nonverbal communication, race, and intergroup interaction. In Manusov

Patterson

M. L.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of nonverbal communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

14.

Fassinger

(2005). Paradigms, praxis, problems, and promise: Grounded theory in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 156-166.

15.

Few

A. L.

Stephens

D. P.

Rouse-Arnette

M. T.

(2003). Sister to sister talk: Transcending boundaries in qualitative research with Black women. Family Relations, 52, 205-215.

16.

Gibson

Abrams

(2003). Racial difference in engaging, recruiting, and interviewing African American women in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 2, 457-476.

17.

Grills

(2004). African psychology. In Jones

R. L.

(Ed.), Black psychology (4th ed., pp. 171-208). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

18.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

19.

Guba

E. G.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(2005). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp.191-216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

20.

Guishard

Fine

Doyle

Jackson

Staten

Webb

(2005). The Bronx on the move: Participatory consultation with mothers and youth. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 16, 35-54.

21.

Haverkamp

B. E.

(2005). Ethical perspectives on qualitative research in applied psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 146-155.

22.

Haverkamp

B. E.

Morrow

S. L.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2005). A time and place for qualitative and mixed methods in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 123-125.

23.

Hayles

V. R.

(1991). African American strengths: A survey of empirical findings. In Jones

R. L.

(Ed.), Black psychology (3rd ed., pp. 379-408). Berkeley, CA: Cobb & Henry.

24.

Hill

C. E.

Knox

Thompson

B. J.

Williams

E. N.

Hess

S. A.

Ladany

(2005). Consensual qualitative research: An update. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 196-205.

25.

Houston

L. N.

(1990). Psychological principles and the Black experience. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

26.

Hoyt

W. T.

Bhati

K. S.

(2007). Principles and practices: An empirical examination of qualitative research in the journal of counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54, 201-210.

27.

Johnson

B. R.

(1997). Examining the validity structure of qualitative research. Education, 118, 282-292.

28.

Kambon

K. K.

(2004). The worldviews paradigm as the conceptual framework for African/Black Psychology. In Jones

R. L.

(Ed.), Black psychology (4th ed., pp. 73-92). Hampton, VA: Cobb & Henry.

29.

Krahn

G. L.

Putnam

(2003). Qualitative methods in psychological research. In Roberts

M. C.

Ilardi

S. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 176-195). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

30.

Leech

N. L.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

(2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22, 557-584.

31.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Guba

E. G.

(2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

32.

Lyons

H. Z.

Bike

D. H.

(2010). Designing and interpreting qualitative research in multicultural counseling. In Ponterotto

J. G.

Casas

J. M.

Suzuki

L. A.

Alexander

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of multicultural counseling (3rd ed., pp. 413-425). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

33.

Lyons

H. Z.

O’Brien

K. M.

Bike

D. H.

Raughley

Smith

H. L.

Leckey

(n.d.). Meanings ascribed to work by African American men experiencing chronic unemployment.

34.

Martin

B. E.

Harris

(2006). Examining productive conceptions of masculinities: Lessons learned from academically driven African American male student-athletes. Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, 359-378.

35.

Miles

M. B.

Huberman

A. M.

(1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

36.

Morrow

S. L.

(2005). Quality and trustworthiness in qualitative research in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 250-260.

37.

Morrow

S. L.

(2007). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: Conceptual foundations. The Counseling Psychologist, 35, 209-235.

38.

Myers

L. J.

Abdullah

Leary

(2000). Conducting research with persons of African descent. In Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests (NCPAAMI, Ed.), Guidelines for research in ethnic minority communities (pp. 5-8). Washington, DC: NCPAAEMI.

39.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Pierce

C. M.

(1970). Offensive mechanisms. In Barbour

F. B.

(Ed.), The Black seventies: Leading Black authors look at the present and reach into the future. Boston, MA: Porter Sargent.

41.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2002). Qualitative research methods: The fifth force in psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 30, 394-406.

42.

Ponterotto

J. G.

(2005). Qualitative research in counseling psychology: A primer on research paradigms and philosophy of science. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 126-136.

43.

Ponterotto

J. G.

Mathew

J. T.

Raughley

(n.d.). Promoting mixed methods, social justice–oriented research in counseling psychology.

44.

Pressley

Raphael

Gallagher

J. D.

DiBella

(2004). Providence-St. Mel school: How a school that works for African American students works. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 216-235.

45.

PsycINFO. (2011). PsycINFO. Murray, UT: OVID Technologies. Retrieved from http://www.columbia.edu/cgi-bin/cul/resolve?ALD2284 (Columbia URL).

46.

Russell

K. M.

Maraj

M. S.

Wilson

L. R.

Shedd-Steele

Champion

V. L.

(2008). Barriers to recruiting urban African American women into research studies in community settings. Applied Nursing Research, 21, 90-97.

47.

Shavers

V. L.

Lynch

C. F.

Burmeister

L. F.

(2002). Racial differences in factors that influence the willingness to participate in medical research studies. Annals of Epidemiology, 12, 248-256.

48.

Simpson

G. M.

Cornelius

L. J.

(2007). Overlooking African American males: A qualitative perspective of urban African grandmother caregivers’ reliance on family members. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 15, 149-170.

49.

Smith

L. T.

(2006). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University Otago Press.

50.

Stenbacka

(2001). Qualitative research requires quality concepts of its own. Management Decision, 39, 551-555.

51.

Suzuki

L. A.

Ahluwalia

M. K.

Mattis

J. S.

Quizon

C. A.

(2005). Ethnography in counseling psychology research: Possibilities for application. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 206-21.

52.

Washington

H. A.

(2006). Medical apartheid: The dark history of medical experimentation on Black Americans from colonial times to the present. New York, NY: Doubleday.

53.

White

A. M.

Dotson

(2010). It takes a village to raise a researcher: Narrative interviewing as intervention, reconciliation, and growth. Journal of Black Psychology, 36, 75-97.

54.

Woods

L. N.

Jagers

R. L.

(2003). Are cultural values predictors of moral reasoning in African American adolescents? Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 102-118.

55.

Yerger

V. B.

Wertz

McGruder

Froelicher

E. S.

Malone

R. E.

(2008). Nicotine replacement therapy: Perceptions of African-American smokers seeking to quit. Journal of the National Medical Association, 100, 230-236.