Qualitative Methodologies

This study is informed by several qualitative research methodologies commonly used in teacher education and literacy research: practitioner inquiry, a modified version of grounded theory, and community-engaged research.

Practitioner Inquiry

The study draws upon practitioner inquiry (PI) methodology. PI takes a critical orientation to the study of collaboration and collective sense-making processes and positions members of the inquiry group—in this case, teachers—as central agents in research and knowledge-construction processes (Anderson, Herr & Nihlen, 2007; Campano et al, 2015; Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999, 2009). Campano (2007) draws attention to the ways in which practitioner inquiry might inform the development of a broad horizontal outlook or

perspective, as both the teacher and those with whom s/he works—in Campano’s case, students—come to take up an “inquiry stance” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009) in their collaborative work. Here, the teacher—and others with whom s/he works—come together to co-investigate questions and problems encountered in their practice, and seek new insights through experiments in creativity and new expressions of learning (see Campano, 2007). I build on the work of Campano (2007) and Cochran-Smith (2009) through framing the work of the inquiry group as centered in a stance and orientation that is rooted in inquiry and the search for collective meaning, as participants sought to make sense of structural racism and to

consider how to put this into action through their activist work.

For the purpose of this study, PI has been extended to study the work of teachers as they make meaning of experiences that extend beyond their classrooms and schools and into broader realms in which they seek to trigger institutional and political change. The inquiry group in this study engaged in a meaningful process of local knowledge generation. This work

strove to generate theoretical and practical ideas that were applicable to multiple contexts, including their activist organizations (Maton, 2016); classrooms (see also Ballenger, 2009; Campano, 2007); practitioner groups (see also McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006); and, their teacher networks extending beyond the local school (see also Himley & Carini, 2000). Modified Grounded Theory

Charmaz (1983) explains that the “grounded theory method stresses discovery and theory development rather than logical deductive reasoning which relies on prior theoretical frameworks” (p. 110). This leads grounded theorists to engage in four distinct strategies. First, they seek out “solid, rich data” (p. 110) and shape their collection of data based on their analytic interpretations. Second, they shape their processes and products of research based on the data rather than based on the literature in the field, because they seek innovative new ways of explaining phenomena. Third, they make systematic efforts to check their developing ideas with further observations and make systematic comparisons between observations in order to verify their findings. And finally, they “assume that making theoretical sense of social life is itself a process” (p. 111) and seek to develop new theoretical interpretations of the data rather than final or complete interpretations of social phenomena (Charmaz, 1983).

I take up grounded theory as Charmaz (1983) has outlined it, but with two major modifications. First, unlike Charmaz’s (1983) description of grounded theory, I base my coding system on both the patterns emerging from the data and the literature in the field. Especially in the beginning stages of coding, I found that the literature provided a good starting-place for orienting my work within traditions of teacher and adult education.

Secondly, and most importantly, I take care to situate myself within the research process and pay attention to the ways in which I shape the study’s formation, data collection and analysis (see Behar, 1996; Brown & Strega, 2005; Lather, 1993). I incorporate race feminist theory and

methodologies into my understanding of grounded theory (for more on race feminist epistemologies, see section 1.3).

Community-Engaged Research

MacQueen et al. (2001) define community as a group of people with diverse characteristics who are linked by social ties, share common perspectives and engage in joint action in some way, and often also share geographical links and ties. Building on this notion, community-engaged research means partnership between researchers and community. Hacker and Taylor (2011) reveal that there is a continuum of community engaged research, ranging from research situated within communities where there is less community involvement by the researcher to research that is deeply embedded within and highly responsive to the needs of communities.

My study was deeply embedded within and responsive to the Caucus community’s needs. It enacted deep community-engaged research along two major dimensions. First, the questions driving the research and the structure of the study emerged from the community. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2006) writes that true community research emerges from the

community and that the process of the research is more important than the outcome. Regarding research, she writes, “Processes are expected to be respectful, to enable people, to heal and to educate” (p. 128). This study strove to similarly emerge from deep partnership with the Caucus community. Prior to the start of this study, I was an active member of the Caucus community for over a year and had been an active volunteer and leader in many of its core campaigns and committees. I built close relationships with many members of the organization and allied myself with its work as I straddled roles as both a participating activist and a researcher. This volunteering work allowed me to better understand the inner workings of the organization and the questions of salience to Caucus members. Furthermore, I ran a pilot study prior to the

dissertation, and the questions driving the group’s inquiry (i.e. What is structural racism? And, how does structural racism shape the organizing practice of the Caucus?) emerged directly from this pilot study and my conversations with Caucus community members. Caucus members were key drivers in defining the framing and purpose of the inquiry group and the recruitment of participants. There was substantial reciprocity and collaboration with leaders and Caucus members at all stages of study design, implementation, and analysis.

Second, the community was engaged in ongoing processes of thinking through and identifying their own needs regarding programmatic and organizational outcomes from the study. Scholars point out that ethical community research should be deeply embedded within and emerge from communities themselves (Campano, Ghiso, Yee & Pantoja, 2013; Delgado- Bernal, 1998). Similarly, participants felt connected to the research and revealed this through their engagement in the professional development activity, their attendance at meetings, and their enthusiasm to present about the research at the Ethnography in Education Forum at the University of Pennsylvania one year later, in February 2016. The participants in my study not only identified the initial topic in question, but also together decided upon and drove the professional development sessions that resulted from our work together. They participated not just in the two professional development sessions that we spearheaded in our study, but following the end of the study proceeded to run professional development sessions based on the curriculum developed in our group for numerous education workers and students at various sites across the city and country over the next six months. Participants were deeply wedded to and invested in the inquiry group work and in subsequent projects stemming from the group.

3.2 Research Design