Within the qualitative research, scholars critiqued the process undertaken to transform data into disseminated findings-representations of the data based on the analyses used and interpretations developed. Such critiques focus on navigating and negotiating methodologicalepistemological tensions that exist as a result of the authors' positioning and research agenda (Kuntz, 2010;Mifsud, 2016;Tierney, 2002). These tensions, often philosophically based, involve moral, ethical, and theoretical struggles scholars endure. Ethical and moral struggles manifest due to personal bouts with servicing marginalized and stigmatized populations without reifying deficit orientations (Prosser, 2009). Theoretical struggles manifest as scholars attempt to integrate or overlay frameworks with the data without misrepresenting the phenomena articulated by their participants (Kuntz, 2010).Such methodological-epistemological-theoretical contentions are well documented within scholarship pertaining to Black women. Given their unique social positioning as a result of their identity-where issues pertaining to race privileged Black men and issues related to gender favored white women-Black women conceptualized theoretical-methodological framings (e.g., Intersectionality, womanism) based on epistemology situated within their lived experiences (see Collins, 2000; Collins & Blige, 2016; Crenshaw, 1989; hooks, 1981). Challenges associated with research Black women increase when investigations of their interactions and engagements occur with dominant cultural context such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). STEM disciplines perpetuate hegemonic, white-middle class male cultural norms and practices that function to alienate and marginalize Black women (Johnson, 2007;Wong, 2015).These experiences promote the development of dissociated identities with STEM (Carlone &