Performing goodness in qualitative research methods

Abstract

This essay addresses the use of diversity as a proxy for goodness in qualitative research. I argue that this presumption of goodness, operating through claims regarding participant group diversity, operates as a technology of neoliberal identity politics. Through framing diversity as a proxy for goodness, such research is performed as politically transformative, yet fails to maneuver research closer to revolution. Situated in a critical genealogy, I disrupt this use of diversity in qualitative research by considering the ways diversity works and is put in motion as containment, protection, and priority. In these ways, diversity is treated as fungible with liberation, has material effects, and reflects power over minoritized communities. These ramifications are further explored while providing 10 approaches that center equity and justice in qualitative research methods.

Keywords:

• Diversity
• participants
• qualitative research
• equity and justice

Acknowledgements

I wish to express deep gratitude to the reviewers, editors for their generous feedback on this paper. I am indebted to the work of the many scholars who have provoked me to (continue to) aspire to revolution.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 I am aware that for some the description of minoritized is used to only reference those erstwhile labeled as People of Color, or the current lingua franca, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of Color). However, my usage extends beyond racial minoritization to include groups who are minoritized by other structures of oppression within kyriarchy.

2 Here, diverse may be used to describe a community—or even individuals—in two different ways. One, as a codeword establishing the subject of the description as not-white or two, as a means of describing the mix of social identities present within the group. Mystifyingly, I have also heard this second usage be extended to describe a single individual. This is akin to describing a single person as “intersectional.”

3 Here again and throughout this paper, I am referencing the two ways individuals and communities can be understood as diverse.

4 One might also then think of containment as serving a limiting function. Contained = limited to.

5 The use of standardization as a proof of validity in qualitative research methods demonstrates the hold positivist paradigms still hold over qualitative research.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

D-L Stewart

D-L Stewart is professor and chair of the Higher Education Department in the College of Education at the University of Denver.