Epistemological inclusiveness in researching the African American community

Abstract

African American communities have experienced negative effects from a history of medical abuse, lack of proper research procedures, and misinterpretations of study findings because of racism. These past injustices have led to a mistrust of research and researchers. This paper focuses on how some methodological challenges, in a study funded by a National Institutes of Health grant on two low-income African American communities in Kentucky, were mediated through the collaboration of a multi-racial/ethnic team of researchers engaged in cross-disciplinary research. The information for this paper is based on the reflections of key members of the research team. The reflections show that having researchers with different epistemologies resulted in a culturally aware and sensitive study in which emic and etic research approaches were adopted. The inclusion of race-based epistemologies and close community ties were found to be particularly useful in building trust and getting the support of the two communities. However, these outcomes were only possible because research team members provided each other latitude for intellectual freedom and leadership.

Keywords:

• Cross-cultural research
• multi-racial/ethnic research teams
• African American communities
• race-based epistemology
• emic approaches
• reflective methodology

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge those who contributed to this research project, including Dr Lisa Markowitz, Dr Toni Miles, Keneka Cheatham, Ricky Cheatham and family, Dr Latonia Craig, Chandra Stroud, other staff, students, community members/gatekeepers, and business owners in Louisville and Hopkinsville, Kentucky.

Funding

Funding for this study was provided by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [Grant 5R21HL108190-02]. The project is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute or the National Institutes of Health.

Notes

1. Keller (n.d.).

2. These studies can be found mainly in (Africana, Black, Pan-African, and Negro) academic journals of the African Diaspora.

3. The four typologies are not mutually exclusive of each other, nor are they on a continuum. Type A, which is highly centralized, is characterized by one dominant leader, such as the professor-student research assistant relationship. Type B, is less centralized and is characterized by a participatory structure among participants in which each member participates extensively in planning and implementing research tasks. For the most part, communication and responsibility are shared among team members unless the PI is needed to resolve a disagreement. Type C is decentralized in nature, with a minimal exercise of rights among members. Each member has independent subprojects and communication can be practically non-existent during study execution. Sub-project teams may reconvene at the end of the project to discuss findings. The fourth type, Type D, involves subject matter experts collaborating to execute a research plan created by the PI, who may have solicited expert ideas during plan development but ultimately formulated the specific plan. Team members may have responsibility for executing specific tasks of the research that the PI has preplanned, and the PI oversees execution of these plans, assigns tasks, and supervises activities. In essence, Type D lies somewhere between the highly centralized structure of Type A and the collaborative nature of Type B, where the PI acts in a similar role as a chief surgeon (i.e. allowing some team members to complete tasks, but checking on the fidelity of execution and intellectual knowledge application across the process).

4. Presented at the Kentucky Communication Conference (Della et al., 2013).