Ethnographic Access

Establishing a relationship with a potential research site for this dissertation was not without its challenges. Hubert and Hollins (2007) emphasized that closed institutions pose some of the greatest challenges for researchers. In particular, the authors noted internal research committee approval, gaining informed consent from guardians, data collection, and the

dissemination of findings as areas of concern. Facilities with state-funded programs have their own internal research committee. As with other institutional review boards, its purpose is to ensure safe and ethical administration of research methods. Closed institution policies can be quite prohibitive in that they may require additional reports (e.g., weekly, monthly, or quarterly reports on the types of data collected) and copies of transcripts or analyses before permitting the researcher to proceed with the next phase of the study. After one year of negotiation with the center where I worked, I was ultimately denied access. Following this experience, I was denied access by two more state-funded developmental centers. As a last attempt, I contacted a private institution, the Community Center for Developmental Disabilities, that provides services for adults and children with ID.

The ease through which I was able to access the Community Center for Developmental Disabilities (CCDD) was refreshing, and by the same process, disconcerting. Having endured three denials, I was expecting to have to answer many questions and face a number of barriers for approval. Cynthia, who was appointed to manage CCDD’s student research interests and projects, requested I submit a mini proposal and “if all checked out with the Human Rights Committee,” my study would be welcomed at the center. One week post submission, I received notification that the center’s Human Rights Committee approved the study. I do feel that their private status helped me to be able to access the site in a very different way. It is a facility that has been open to having students, they have participated in research (although not for some time), and they pride themselves on being well connected in the community. They saw me being there as a benefit to them. The center’s chief executive officer stated, “Of course we want to know what we can do to better serve our residents. Any smart CEO would have you in their center.” Following my data collection, the CCDD Human Rights Committee requested that I

submit a report detailing my perceptions of the strengths and areas of improvement based on my research findings.

My status as an occupational therapist, in addition to being a researcher, also affected how I was able to access the center. In particular, being a licensed clinician added another unspoken expectation that I would provide an evaluation of the habilitation technicians’ performance from a clinical perspective. This, in addition to being an educated African- American female, would also prove to be an unanticipated barrier to building rapport with the habilitation technicians. It was a power dynamic that I was not comfortable negotiating, especially because direct care staff were primarily young minority females. Initial reactions from the habilitation technicians were somewhat critical. Everyone seemed to notice my attire, the type of jewelry I wore, and handbags I carried. To reduce these stares, I decided I would leave my handbag in the car and would only wear a watch and my wedding ring. I made sure that I dressed as casually as possible, including wearing scrubs on occasion. I also stopped bringing my lunches from home, and instead opted to eat fast food with staff in order to create another space through which I could become better acquainted with them. Sharing meals was a very important activity for them. I made sure I listened to the stories they shared about their families, and occasionally added my own family experiences to their narratives.

Through these efforts, over time, the staff’s perceptions of me changed. I was often asked to participate in social activities (e.g., playing a game and decorating Hope House for parties) or even assist female residents with their hair. This excerpt from an exchange with a habilitation technician illustrates this point:

Ann: <laughing> We were just saying that we really like you and how down to earth you are. I told everybody you’re a real sistah.

Khalilah: Uh huh.

Ann: I know we shouldn’t judge people, but some of us did assume you were going to be ‘saditty’. <she pauses> But seriously, we all really like you. Even the ones who tried not to like you, like you. Sometimes people like you, you know, people who have a lot of education talk down to us. You never did that. You just talk to us and listen to us. You never made us feel less than you. I can’t speak for nobody else, but I really appreciate that. I wish more people were like that.

I was first viewed as an “uppity black woman” from the ivory tower, but now, I am seen as an educated and approachable woman with whom many of the habilitation technicians had many interests in common.