Positionality

Positionality is defined as where the researcher stands socially, locationally, and ideologically in relation to participants (Hay, 2005; Merriam et al, 2001). Positions can be determined by education, gender, sexual orientation, class, or race and can shift throughout the time of the researcher's and participant’s interactions (Merriam et al, 2001). Additionally, positionality is the critique of viewing a culture as a monolithic entity (Aguilar, 1981).

Aguilar (1981) challenged the notion of “insider” by presenting a model of relativity as it pertains to the researcher and participants, with respect to the multiplicity of social and cultural characteristics present in each culture. That is, given intracultural variation, there is perhaps no full insider status, but a researcher may be relatively inside or outside. Historically, insider status meant “easy access, the ability to ask more meaningful questions and read non-verbal cues, and most importantly, be able to project a more truthful, authentic understanding of the culture under study” (Merriam et al, 2001,

p. 411). The critique of insider status lies within the propensity for insiders to be biased and to be too close to the culture to ask provocative questions (Merriam et al, 2001). The outsider’s advantage is his/her curiosity with the unfamiliar and the ability to raise

provocative questions. The outsider’s disadvantage is the insider’s strengths.

Glesne (2011) noted that while researchers cannot control positionality, they (we) can make decisions that mediate our positionality and subjectivities in ways that honor our participants. Power dynamics are inherent in all research (Merriam et al, 2001). It is not only important to recognize the presence of power dynamics but to negotiate them with participants. Knowing one’s positionality can help guard against a self-seeking research process and cultivate a research process in which participants are regarded as colleagues.

As stated above, positionality also locates the researcher within insider or outsider status. Given the advantages and disadvantages of each status, it is imperative that the researcher locates his/her insider or outsider status at the outset of the study to mediate that status. Banks (1998) offered four typologies for insider/outsider variations:

indigenous-insider, indigenous-outsider, external-insider, and external-outsider. For my study, I located myself as the indigenous-insider. The indigenous insider “endorses the unique values, perspectives, behaviors, beliefs, and knowledge of his or her indigenous community” and “who can speak with authority about it” (p. 7).

Merrick and I are both African American and experience and name the oppression that exists within a country founded upon white supremacy. While we possess these commonalities, it is also important to note that I was once Merrick’s teacher and as previously stated, viewed as an elder by him. This may have impacted the way he shared

his experiences with me. As an elder, Merrick admired me and knew the assumptions of my research. I was concerned that my position as an elder may influence his storytelling, that Merrick would tell his stories in a way that match my particular assumptions about race and schooling. At some points in our time together, I wondered if this was

happening. For instance, when I asked Merrick what he would change about the school curriculum, he replied, “I would try to change all the history. You know that was going to be my thing.” I wondered if he presented that example because of my harsh critique of the traditional school curriculum in our afterschool meetings. However, when I first met Merrick, he too critiqued the school’s morning news school for not expanding its

coverage of Black leaders in Black History.

Besides serving as his elder, Merrick and I also come from seemingly different socioeconomic backgrounds. Merrick lives in what he considers, “the hood.” I would describe myself as growing up in a middle-class neighborhood. Based on our interactions and conversations about home experiences and views of schooling, I believe our class differences influence the way we understand and make sense of the world. For example, in class one day, Merrick asserted that Black folks live in the hood. Similarly, around that time in the school year (before the afterschool meetings), he concluded that I was an “oreo” based on where I resided.

Along with differences in class, I also recognized that Merrick is a Black male and as described in Chapter Two, historically and currently, Black males have been vilified in society. Black women also experience their own oppression in this country (Crenshaw, 1991), yet, the experiences of Black men and women are different. This difference also influences our contextualization of the world in which we live. I wrote

the protocol of the interview in a semi-structured way that allowed Merrick to discuss his experiences without the pressure of situating them in a particular set of assumptions.

The assumptions with which I approached this work are grounded in the literature and my ideological commitments to social critiques; however, Merrick’s voice is central in this work. I recognized my assumptions about race, schooling, and black subservience could cloud my interpretations of Merrick’s narratives. To guard against centering my assumptions, from the outset of the study, I selected in vivo coding to draw directly from Merrick’s verbiage to center his words and perspectives. In my analysis, I used both in vivo and descriptive coding and categories to represent what I thought was salient to Merrick. Additionally, I used in vivo coding to organize themes based on Merrick’s own words. Using in vivo coding helped mediate some of my commitments to theoretical orientations.