Toward a Taxonomy of Ethical Research Practices for Critically Engaged Community Research: A Case Study in a Diverse Population
Link to the JSE December 2024 CECR Issue Table of Contents
Wooten JSE Dec 2024 CECR Issue PDF
Abstract: By reflecting on a research project involving the evaluation of a Neighborhood Association program in the Pacific Northwest, I develop a taxonomy of ethical research practices and considerations for social science researchers to use in their own critically engaged community research, ranging from institution- to researcher- to community-led practices. This paper makes visible the competing concerns of a diverse community in research processes, and suggests that hybridizing accountability practices can support ethical engagement across power differentials in pursuit of social justice. The taxonomy of practices theorized here is supported by a set of values that act as less-tangible orientations for researcher-led decision making. Practices include formal processes such as organizational and legal policies, critical self-reflection in positionality and active reflexivity, desire-based narrative and design, member checking and collaborative interpretation, and power-mitigating theories including un/ethics and elite theorizing. The values and orientations highlighted include discernment, flexibility, transparency, reciprocity, contextuality and critical iteration.
Keywords: qualitative research, research ethics, diverse communities, social engagement
Introduction
Community engaged critical action (CECR) research demands our work as researchers be as, for, and mindful of social justice (Griffiths, 2009). Yet, in sites where diverse communities have drastically unequal access to power and resources, the processes of ethical accountability require additional attention.
In 2022, I was contracted by a municipality in the Pacific Northwest (anonymized here as simply, the City) to explore how their Neighborhood Association (NA) program might be restructured or transformed to become more inclusive, to more equitably distribute resources, and to better support community belonging and engagement. In this research project, I worked closely with a diverse group of collaborators and participants, including both current and former City staff, current and former NA members, and community leaders who were civically engaged but not a part of the NA program. The project included qualitative one-to-one interviews, and targeted focus groups where data was collaboratively reviewed and evaluated using affirmative inquiry and strengths-based models before final recommendations were presented to the City’s decision makers.
As I undertook this research project, I began to develop a meta analysis on the way my own engagement and orientation evolved over time to navigate the ethics of this diverse collaboration between the de facto coalition of municipal staff, NA members and community leaders. The ‘community’ within the geographic borders of the City is both demographically and ideologically diverse, and indeed, the interests of this vast community were, at times, divergent and even contradictory. The question of how to engage as a researcher in this type of site is informed both by theories of community accountability and ethical engagement with elite communities.
Much of the existing literature on accountability assumes a homogenous community and the need to shift power balances toward that community. For example, Lyons et al. (2013) identify four principles/aspirations of socially just research to ensure ethical engagement: equity, access, participation and harmony; as researchers, we should position ourselves to serve community goals rather than our own. Indigenous, abolitionist, and Black feminist academics encourage accountability practices including: reflexivity, robust community vetting, co-creation of and approval of decolonized methods and data, shifting from the practice of single, damage-centered narratives, and ethnographic refusal (Collins, 2002; Wilson, 2008; Tuck, 2009; Tuck & Yang, 2014; Tuhiwai Smith, 2021). There is a robust set of practices for critical researchers working to mitigate their positional, structural and perceived power when collaborating with historically oppressed communities.
At the other end of the power imbalance spectrum, the literature on research with elites argues for a separate set of ethical considerations, although the homogeneity of the community is still assumed. Gaztambide-Fernández (2015) argues that the power imbalance in researching elites requires or demands an un/ethical position beyond traditional accountability in order to subvert their power (e.g., the power of censorship) and thereby achieve socially just objectives. Lillie & Ayling (2021) propose instead that theorizing the ethical dilemmas of elite research may disrupt power structures in ways that produce sustainable, socially just results over longer periods of time than acting un/ethically in the moment. I propose that theories of sustainable change are also particularly relevant in the process of developing research as social justice with elite participants.
And yet, action research with large, diverse communities that hold disparate power greatly complicates the question of how to engage both ethically and effectively; neither elite theorizing and un/ethics nor the accountability practices developed to empower marginalized communities are fully applicable. The ethics of accountability in diverse spaces will require both strong theoretical foundations and active practices that are flexible, emergent and multi-faceted. Neither a singular approach nor a scripted approach will appropriately address the complexities faced by critically engaged community researchers.
Structures and Practices for Ethical Engagement and Accountability
In practice, I have drawn on Denzin’s (1994) “researcher-as-bricoleur” understanding that I—and my collaborative community participants—must rely upon multiple eclectic perspectives to gauge accountability and authenticity in creating durable, meaningful work together. Although a single case study does not provide the breadth necessary for a fully grounded theory of ethical community engagement, I argue that a critical examination of the praxis developed during this project points toward a taxonomy of structures and practices that can be used by other researchers and communities to make visible and improve their own ethical praxes. By using this taxonomy as a “menu,” researchers can pick and choose the components that will strengthen their specific research process and products.
The salient qualities of this taxonomy include:
- Who or what leads and/or centers the accountability practice or guideline. For example, the governance of the practice may be institution-, researcher-, participant- or community-centric.
- The stage of the project during which the practice is most relevant. These stages include planning, initial engagement, data collection, data interpretation, development of recommendations. Many of the practices do also inform multiple areas of a project, and can and should be used in iterative ways.
- The ways in which these practices or guidelines support ethical engagement, such as by preventing harm, or encouraging the practice of ethical values.
- Complications and challenges, as well as the drawbacks and potential liabilities of using different methods for practicing and producing ethical research.
- In the narrative exploration of these practices, I also include a brief examination of historic, perceived, real and emergent power differentials between researcher, institution, participants and community.
There are also a set of less-tangible values that support ethical engagement but were not classified as practices in and of themselves; these supplemental guidelines, or orientations, are included after the narrative explanation of the taxonomy as a related offering.
Narrative Explanation of the Taxonomy of Practices & Considerations
Institution-led
Institutional Review Board (IRB)
Developing and submitting a proposal to the IRB of my academic institution was the first formal ethical checkpoint in this research project. By answering questions that included my protocols and documentation practices for Informed Consent, confidentiality, and data privacy, the IRB helped set a practical foundation for ethical and accountable research. Further, the review process ensured that other researchers were able to evaluate and critique my plans, bringing any overlooked areas into focus. In this project, for example, I was encouraged by the Board to re-establish consent in multiple places (e.g., with a signed formal Informed Consent form, in the “chat” of virtual public meetings I attended with participants, verbally at the start of individual interviews, and verbally at the beginning of focus groups). In the middle of the project, as I became interested in bringing in predetermined data from participants, I consulted with my Board liaison and submitted an addendum to broaden the method of data collection responsibly.
Organizational policies
Although a site exemption was required by the IRB, the guiding policies of the organization (the City, in this case) provide another layer of protection and forethought for both researcher and participants. The City’s ethical guidelines for engagement included centering values such as equity, inclusion, and diversity, as well as prohibitions on discrimination and harassment. Again, these policies are foundational, but not exhaustive; they provide a framework for excluding the most egregious violations of ethical engagement, but do not proactively encourage holistic ways of connecting.
Funding criteria and reporting guidelines
In this case study, the City funded the research as well as provided the site for research, but the requirements for engagement were different than the requirements for funding. Legal considerations, including liability insurance and risk assessment, required additional forethought and protection against physical and psychological harm. Although there were no substantive changes to the research process due to the criteria for funding, it did require initial financial investment and additional time on my part prior to starting the research.
Researcher-centered
Ethics Training
Although they could easily be classified under institutional-led practices, certifications in ethical research do require that the researcher understand and adopt the practices in which she is trained. Further, because many trainings are virtual and self-taught, rather than processes where human-human interaction occurs, I chose to categorize training as the researcher’s ethical foundation. Training provides the basis upon which all other researcher-led decisions will be made, and it is the responsibility of the researcher to act upon the training. One of my critiques of certified training is that it is by necessity much broader than any one project might realistically need, and that in that breadth, training is often much less proactive and constructive than it is reactive to prior harms; researchers may complete their training with a strong sense of what is off-limits and should be avoided, but without the actual skills to know how to engage more ethically.
Positionality Statement
Although positionality statements are not uncommon in social science journals or among researchers committed to social justice, I believe they are an incomplete method of addressing researcher bias and situatedness. Often, the statements are static and structurally separate from the body of the paper—failing to inform or dialogue with the data or findings. As a Black/biracial woman who has been engaged in racial justice work for the majority of my life, I have witnessed this “preamble” phenomenon as a form of virtue-signaling, rather than critical engagement; we know that our identities do matter, and so we share them—but we fail to understand or analyze how they matter, and so in turn we gloss over their impacts and implications. Further, positionality statements in a finished paper may not indicate how positionality is conceived of or implicated in the process of doing the research. To focus on process, I embedded relevant aspects of my positionality within the project summary used as part of my informed consent procedures, starting with my own research and values-alignment (e.g., social and racial justice, sustainability, community), as well as my attachment to our geographic region, and working relationship with the City. Because my participants saw visible markers of my gender and race (e.g., earrings and make-up consistent with how many femmes/women traditionally present their gender; brown skin and curly hair consistent with Black/biracial racial identity), I did not further emphasize those aspects of my identity.
Including positionality as part of the research process seemed to improve trust and transparency within the relationships I built with participants. There were some participants who were reassured by my values and research orientations and engaged more deeply. Others were dismissive of values like sustainability and justice (e.g., preferring values like authority and tradition), but nonetheless seemed to appreciate that I had been honest with them, and so were more willing to be honest with me.
Desire-Based Narrative, Appreciative Inquiry
Crafting strengths-based and desire-based narratives have required me to change my perspective and language so that I build myself and my community up in the stories and questions that I use in our collaborations. In research, I find that criticality can easily shift into negativity for me—as I look for places where we can do better in our pursuit of justice and liberation, I am often looking at places where we have fallen short—and the danger of a single, depressing, deficit-based narrative can have long-ranging impacts (Tuck, 2009). In this research project, I used a modified appreciative inquiry process to guide participants in a portion of the cycle of definition, discovery, dreaming and designing to focus on their desires and how the City might better support them. Although in our project we did not avoid discussing barriers to change or progress (e.g., limited budgets, political opposition, exclusionary systems), the majority of time and focus was on what was desired rather than what was absent.
Though we primarily used appreciative inquiry, strengths-based processes are plentiful and I suspect many models would support participants in feeling powerful, heard and excited about their contribution to research that might make their community a more inclusive and equitable place.
Active Reflexivity
Soerdigo & Glas (2020) theorize active reflexivity as a critique of static positionality, providing distinct strategies for doing reflexivity, which include: recording the assumptions connected to positionality, checking with additional accountability partners, and systemically bringing critical self-reflection into multiple parts of the research process. In this case study, establishing partners to bring in additional perspectives on my positionality was very useful; in our discussions we were able to share our assumptions about my positionality and its impacts, as well as brainstorm strategies to mitigate bias and improve the accuracy of our data and findings. One example of the way that active reflexivity helped shift the research process was concern I had early on that I might not be hearing the full breadth of perspectives from folks who knew me as a public activist and disagreed with my political views. My accountability partners encouraged me to compare data from public comments with the data I was gathering in qualitative interviews, and we assessed that participants were able to share honestly with me; we theorized (and later confirmed) that these participants had appreciated my honesty, transparency, and non-judgmental approach, and so many were willing to share honestly with me for the purpose of the research project.
Multimodal Inquiry
Although I would argue that multimodal inquiry does not, in and of itself, improve ethical accountability, by engaging in different modes of inquiry I was able to reduce the burden my participants shared in creating data, which does improve equity and reduce harm to participants. In this project, although the primary forms of data collection were qualitative interviews and focus groups, we also used asynchronous forms of collaboration to clarify and interpret data as well. One example of this was a virtual whiteboard where participants could add digital sticky notes with their own thoughts, and where I took notes during our conversation. Throughout the project, participants were invited to use whatever visual participation they wished—typing or writing words on the whiteboard, adding in photos or symbols from their own photo libraries, or even using a search engine to access images that they found online.
Collaborative and/or Transparent Data Collection
As mentioned above, one of the methods of transparent data collection I used was notetaking on a shared virtual whiteboard during our focus groups. I learned this practice from my friend and colleague, Justine Locke, who interviewed me in one of her research projects and collected her notes in a shared document that she invited me to view and edit as needed. When she invited me to own my words and story so fully, I felt both trusted and respected by her, and was able to experience how unfiltered I was able to be in my responses. In this case study, in real time, participants could see and correct the data they shared. They were able to visualize the body of information they produced, analyze their own themes and patterns, and engage in dialogue about the process as they engaged in it. At the end of each focus group, participants not only expressed comfort and satisfaction about the work that they had done in the group, but they also knew that they had ongoing access to return to the document we shared if they needed to do so.
Although it did not become an issue during this case study, I did decide that some protection might be needed for our collaborative data collection. I asked participants to agree that we would add to, but not subtract from others’ words if needed (such as adding clarification, context, or even disagreement, but not deleting other opinions). I also archived the document once at the close of the focus group, and again at the close of the research project, to determine what changes, if any, had been made. All participants honored the rules we agreed upon, and although there was sometimes a bit of activity within the first 24 hours after a focus group (adding clarification, emphasizing the excitement about an idea, or bringing a new concept onto the whiteboard), there was not nearly as much as I had anticipated there might be. I theorize that participants felt satisfied raising their voices and reviewing the collection of data in the focus group process and so overwhelmingly did not need to amend the documents afterward.
Participatory Action Research (PAR) design and principles
According to PAR purists, including PAR design and principles within this taxonomy might be a bit of a cheat. However, despite this case study not strictly qualifying as PAR, it nonetheless adopted PAR principles that improved the ethical accountability of the project. For example, from the start of the project, the City determined the scope and overall orientation of the project—they were also acting as the funding body for the research, and they were clear in their need for recommendations on how to better achieve their stated goals for the NA program—yet their broad goals (e.g. inclusion and equity) allowed for the flexibility to include the development of more specific community-led goals as well. As Nygreen (2010) argues, PAR’s revolutionary potential lies in its ability to disrupt unequal power relations. Further, although the actions recommended at the end of this case study were to be undertaken by the City rather than the people, the recommendations and prioritization were all part of the community- and participant-led processes that I facilitated on their behalf. Rather than simply evaluating a given research project as PAR or not, I believe we might also evaluate the ways in which PAR principles or design show up in the processes used.
Elite Un/ethics
During the course of this case study, although I did not behave in un/ethical ways myself, I was very aware of the way that oppressive forms of power might tempt such action. In a critical paper, Gaztambide-Fernández (2015) theorizes that elites who threaten censorship do not deserve the ethical considerations of researchers; instead, he argues that researchers owe their ethics to the people or to knowledge production, and so the betrayal of elites becomes the ethical “un/ethical” course of action. Although I was not directly threatened by the moneyed elites residing in the City, the City and City staffers did receive complaints following the recommendations developed during the project, fortunately too late for any censure.
Elite Theorizing
In response to the proposal of un/ethics, Lillie & Ayling (2021) suggest that elite theorizing might be a sufficient way to address the power of elite participants. In making visible the tensions, they argue, we as researchers may be able to do more to destabilize abuses of power than simply subverting them in the moment. To me, elite theorizing seems to play at a long game—valuing relationships, change over time, and researcher reputation—rather than the righteous, quick fix of un/ethical behavior. In this case study, my practice leaned far closer to elite theorizing, particularly in my active reflexivity practices. For example, my accountability partners and I discussed the best approaches for gathering data from elites, including interviews and observation in public spaces, as well as strategies to engage in member checking for data that would verify accuracy but not invite censorship.
Participant- or Community-based
Predetermined Data
In preparation for returning the data and preliminary findings to the focus groups, I began to think more strategically and creatively about the process for our time in conversation together. One of the challenges I have experienced in focus groups is that the first few speakers can significantly influence a round of dialogue. I thought that we might be better able to practice generative conflict and disagreement with each other if participants brought what I am calling “predetermined data” to the group—essentially sharing data of their choosing whose meaning they have already defined (predetermined). In this case study, participants were asked to bring a photograph or description of a place in the city where they felt high levels of belonging; we then mapped the locations and the salient qualities of those locations (e.g., public/private, number of persons, etc.) before also discussing other places of belonging that they collectively identified. Asking participants to prepare and interpret their own data ahead of time was especially useful in bringing a breadth of perspectives into the focus group and helped to seed the conversation in a way that encouraged individuals to speak from their own truths rather than only agreeing with the group consensus.
Member checking
In this project, member checking processes were embedded from the design and planning onward. Member checking refers to participants in the study checking the data for accuracy, and having the ability to amend or correct data and findings. One of the ways I employed member checking was in determining who should be interviewed; initial participants were asked for their suggestions, and I was able to compile a list of community and NA leaders that “snowballed” until there was a robust and diverse network for dialogue. In each interview, we concluded our time together with a brief recap where I summarized my handwritten notes and asked participants if the reflection was accurate and complete or needed modification. I also asked interviewees to prioritize my take-aways from the conversation by visually marking “with a star or underlining” what was most important in our conversation. The next level of member checking came in the focus groups, when I presented the synthesized information from qualitative interviews, and asked for group reflection and feedback. Throughout the course of this project, all participants had my contact information and were able to access the slide decks that held our shared data and findings.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the challenges that occurred with member checking were initiated by participants who held the most social and financial capital and power. Although members of that demographic did participate in interviews and focus groups, some of those who opted to not engage in the initial research were publicly critical of the findings—they argued that they had not been invited into the member checking process, and that they should have been regardless of their lack of participation in creating the data.
Emic/etic Status
Though debates over a researcher’s emic/etic (or insider/outsider) status and the implications of that status may range across academic disciplines, Zhu & Bargiela-Chiappini (2013) remind us that status should be viewed on a spectrum rather than as binary. In this project, I was collaborating with a community I could not be considered a part of—my home is outside of the boundaries of the City—but I was still familiar and connected with the community because of my proximity. Negotiating emic/etic status requires understanding the complexities of a relationship between the researcher and participant. In this project, some participants understood that I had a vested, neighborly interest in this project. Other participants appreciated that I was an outsider and therefore could speak on their behalf (by sharing their anonymized accounts) in a way that those who feared reprisal would not be able to. And others still felt that I missed the nuances of long-term residence in the area, or overlooked the distinctions between NAs by virtue of not belonging to any of them. As a researcher, my own assessment of my status was informed by and secondary to the ways the participants navigated and assessed me. In turn, the data we produced was influenced in the way they chose to build relationships and trust with me and their peers, as well as in the level of detail and explanation they provided.
Collaborative Interpretation
Similar to member checking, collaborative interpretation processes invite real-time participant feedback and interpretation. Rather than only presenting information to be verified or corrected, though, I brought synthesized data to participants in order to co-create meaning through facilitated conversation. The questions that I used to generate dialogue included topics that were specific to interpretation (such as looking for patterns and themes) as well as extrapolating from the data to “dream” and “design” the next steps for City support of shared values.
Collaborative Interpretation can and likely will overlap with researcher-led practices such as appreciative inquiry in practice, as it did in this case study. However, co-creating knowledge through interpreting data can be done using different types of facilitation or analysis tools.
Refusal
The practice of refusal might occur at any point in the research process, but generative ethnographic refusal, as discussed by Paris & Winn (2014), typically withholds findings from publication in order to safeguard community data and information. In this research project, participants signed on from the beginning with the understanding and expectation that their words and opinions would be used to inform City resource allocation and restructuring of the NA program. Nonetheless, refusal did show up in rejected requests for participation in interviews or focus groups, and opting-out of recording practices. To me, refusal itself can act as an important piece of data, for example, acting as a descriptor of the lack of relationship and trust, or a boundary around something to be protected. In this project, refusal sometimes seemed to indicate suspicion around the project and the City (e.g., the perception that it would be a waste of time because nothing would change as a result of participation), or alternatively, fear and distrust of me as an outsider.
Values for Ethical Engagement and Accountability
Although the taxonomy above is an attempt to catalog the practices I used and the actions I did, in hindsight I recognized that the orientation and values behind my actions supported the efficacy of those choices. As a supplement to the taxonomy of practices, I also compiled a set of values that served as theoretical frames for ethical accountability. Though this list is not exhaustive, it does make visible many of the most important drivers of ethical research decision-making from this case study. Further, the interplay between values and actions is a key part in understanding the tensions, dilemmas or paradoxes that critical researchers undertake in diverse community settings (Nygreen, 2010).
PDF: Figure 2: Values of Ethical CECR
Concluding Reflections
As a critically engaged community researcher, I consider a part of my ethical obligation to be developing the skills and values to best serve the liberatory goals of the communities I am able to collaborate with. In large and broadly diverse communities, power differentials may complicate engagement, requiring additional planning and strategy, time and resources, as well as practices and feedback loops to better achieve accurate findings. This taxonomy of practices, as well as the supplemental values, are an initial attempt to catalog some of the actions and orientations I used in the Pacific Northwest NA case study.
The taxonomy of practices attempts to tease apart the overlapping tools used to support ethical engagement across a large community. The taxonomy begins with formal checks, such as institution-led policies and procedures like Institutional Review Board approval, adherence to organizational and funding body policies, and the legal guidelines that a site may set for protection of itself, its members and the researcher. Although many of these practices span the length of the research project, I have highlighted the stages (such as planning and design, data collection and interpretation) where different tools are most relevant. Researcher-led ethical and accountability practices can be both exciting and contradictory; this is the space where dynamic, responsive and critical processes demand researchers with both the skill and willingness to devote time, resources and energy to processes that protect social justice values and empower our community collaborators. The line between researcher-led and community-led may be thin and blurry at times as fluid data collection, verification, and interpretation becomes a shared responsibility.
One of the limitations of this taxonomy is that it is focused almost entirely on the process and development of collaborative research, rather than the long-term impacts of the findings produced by that research. Although I do speak briefly to the process of developing findings and participant satisfaction, this case study has not yet allowed for full evaluation of the implementation and evaluation of the recommendations. The assumption inherent in this study is that a good, ethical process will be more likely to produce good, ethical results. There is also the assumption that ethical processes are a worthwhile end in and of themselves—that the act of research may be a part of building community power and solidarity and that a researcher can facilitate and collaborate in a way that makes those efforts stronger.
Per the values shared above, this research is by nature incomplete. Not only is this data shared from a singular case study (which had a breadth of challenges, but certainly not every possible challenge), but it is also limited by both time and geography as well as other factors. As research practices continue to evolve and grow, so too should this taxonomy. Further, I acknowledge that the western-centric focus of this case study does not adequately address the dilemmas or challenges of working within globally diverse communities. My hope is that the limitations of this case study will be addressed in future iterations that continue to address the complexity of engaging across power differentials to bring critically engaged action research to diverse communities.
References
Collins, P.H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Denzin, N. K. (1994). Romancing the Text: The Qualitative Researcher-Writer-as-Bricoleur. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 122: 15–30. JSTOR.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/40318652
Gaztambide-Fernández, R. (2015). Elite entanglements and the demand for a radically un/ethical position: the case of Wienie Night. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(9): 1129–1147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2015.1074752
Griffiths, M. (2009). Critical approaches in qualitative educational research: The relation of some theoretical and methodological approaches to these issues
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404329
Harvey, W. (2011). Strategies for conducting elite interviews. Qualitative Research, 11(4), 431–441.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794111404329
Holmes, A.G.D. (2020). Researcher Positionality — a Consideration of Its Influence and Place in Qualitative Research — a New Researcher Guide. Shanlax International Journal of Education, 8(4), 1-10.
Lillie, K. & Ayling, P. (2020) Revisiting the un/ethical: the complex ethics of elite studies research. Qualitative Research, 146879412096536.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1468794120965361
Lyons, H. Z., Bike, D.H., Ojeda, L., Johnson, A., Rosales, R., & Flores, L.Y. (2013) Qualitative Research as Social Justice Practice with Culturally Diverse Populations. Journal for Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 5(2), 10-25.
https://doi.org/10.33043/jsacp.5.2.10-25
Nygreen, K. (2009) Critical Dilemmas in PAR: Toward a New Theory of Engaged Research for Social Change. Social Justice, 36(4 (118)), 14-35.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/29768559
Paris, D., & Winn M. T. (2014). Humanizing Research: Decolonizing Qualitative Inquiry with Youth and Communities.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781544329611
Soerdigo, J. & Glas, A. (2020) Toward Active Reflexivity: Positionality and Practice in the Production of Knowledge. PS: Political Science & Politics, 53(3): 1-5.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S1049096519002233
Tuck, E. (2009) Suspending Damage: A Letter to Communities. Harvard Educational Review, 79(3), 409-428.
https://pages.ucsd.edu/~rfrank/class_web/ES-114A/Week%204/TuckHEdR79-3.pdf
Tuhiwai Smith, L. (2021). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books
Wilson, S. (2008). Research is Ceremony: Indigenous Research Methods. Fernwood Publishing.
Zhu, Y., & Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (2013). Balancing Emic and Etic: Situated Learning and Ethnography of Communication in Cross-Cultural Management Education, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 12(3), 380-395.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2012.0221
Courtney Wooten is a community educator, scholar-activist, and artist. Her academic interests include social justice, solidarity and coalition-building; interconnectedness and radical imagination; and education as a liberatory praxis. Contact: courtney.wooten (at) prescott.edu. 
