Inside‐Out: Representational Ethics and Diverse Communities

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to write about insights and special considerations for researchers who are, to some degree, "insiders" to the communities they study by expanding on the concept of representational ethics as applied to research in community psychology with diverse and marginalized groups. Representational ethics refers to the ways that researchers, artists, or corporations represent the identities of the people they portray in their communications. As community psychologists we generate and disseminate knowledge about the communities we work with, and in that process, create narratives about the people who participate in our studies. In preparing a report on psychological issues among Evangelical Christian refugees from the former Soviet Union, Dina Birman struggled with her portrayal of this group and her own status of being both an insider and an outsider to this community. When investigating academic aspirations and psychological distress among Muslim high school students, Ashmeet Oberoi was forced to acknowledge the one-sidedness of the discourse on autonomy and cultural socialization of Muslim adolescents. In her research with Cuban-educated doctors in Miami, Florida, Wendy Moore encountered similar issues as she considered how to represent gender dynamics among her participants.

Complicating Narratives: Defining and Deconstructing Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology

“…Haarlammert et al. (2017*) use a representational ethics framework to explore how researchers can pose risks to the populations they study. How cultures are presented in exhibitions is a primary concern in museum studies, as this framing can have a profound impact on how a population is perceived by others.…”

Supporting ethical practice in community-engaged research with 4R: Respond, Record, Reflect, and Revise

“…Instead, as others have also suggested (e.g., Haarlammert et al, 2017), we have worked to understand our community's history, build relationships and dialogue often with local leaders, explore the local understanding of corporal punishment versus abuse, and identify meaningful -but not harmful -ways for determining when and how to intervene, all while maintaining a clear understanding that protecting the physical safety of youth must at all times remain our first priority, and acknowledging our role as mandated reporters. In specific instances where we are called to action (e.g., when physical punishment is observed on site) we Respond immediately (e.g., intervene as needed to support the safety of the child, engage in dialogue with caregivers and local Future Leaders staff, discuss with supervisors guidelines for reporting based on severity and community norms); Record and Reflect on details of the incident and our role (e.g., think together on the proximal and distal consequences of our response, examine the need for and means to continue the conversation -with specific individuals or larger groups -to better ensure safe discipline); and Revise our "standing team rules" and operating procedures (e.g., updating our mental map to improve our response to future incidents).…”

“…Introduction of nuance when publishing about traditionally underrepresented groups (e.g., use of physical punishment alongside the recognition of a boundary between appropriate discipline and child abuse; acknowledgement of cultural restrictions on women couched in adolescent girls' reports that they accept and at times prefer to uphold these norms) allows for a more high-resolution view of specific populations. The deliberate choice to include details that contradict or qualify narratives perpetuated in conventional literature demonstrates respect for the agency and validity of individual and cultural differences (Haarlammert et al, 2017).…”

“…Identifying biases is a challenging enterprise -even for those who consider themselves "cultural insiders" based on demographic similarities to their partnered communities (Case, 2017;Haarlammert et al, 2017). Moreover, confronting these perspectives can raise shame, anxiety, and uncertainty (Case, 2017).…”

“…and legal standards built to accommodate research on campus; Frazier, Formoso, Birman, & Atkins, 2008;Michener et al, 2012). Research teams also face ethical challenges that arise from biases that exist on both sides of partnership (e.g., Case, 2017;Haarlammert, Birman, Oberoi, & Moore, 2017); differences in values and priorities across teams and subgroups (e.g., Kivell, Evans, & Paterson, 2017); and conflicting accountabilities across research team members' various roles (e.g., Kesten, Perez, Marques, Evans, & Sulma, 2017). Moreover, investigators' own needs and priorities (e.g., securing funding, career advancement, publication) can become entangled in -and may compete with -efforts to thoughtfully address these issues.…”