Voice, Counterspaces, and Ethical Care in Research With Black Women With Trauma and Incarceration Histories

Abstract

Formerly incarcerated women face diverse challenges to re-entry, which include recovering from health illnesses and trauma to navigating various systems of stigma and surveillance. It is these multilevel challenges to reintegration that also make formerly incarcerated women vulnerable participants in research. As such, this qualitative study explores how 28 formerly incarcerated Black women experience the research interview process. Findings revealed that women participated in research because these contexts were viewed as spaces for “truth telling” and increasing awareness that can effect changes in the lives of communities facing trauma. Moreover, the participants perceived the interview process to allow them to share their pasts in ways that can promote healing and recovery. Participants also discussed risks of emotional distress and anticipatory fears regarding imbalanced researcher–participant dynamics. The implications for antioppressive, compassionate interviewing practices underscore the need for greater considerations of the role of the researcher and how they contribute to women’s recovery from complex trauma and illness.

Testimonies and Healing: Anti‐oppressive Research with Black Women and the Implications for Compassionate Ethical Care

“…From my previous work exploring this topic, 9 I have walked away with three critical understandings of how the qualitative research process can function for Black women with intersecting experiences of marginalization.…”

“…First, the interview process can serve as a context for naming one's intersectional 10 experiences of stigma, as these overlapping devalued statuses reinforce oppression and pose barriers to women's ability to heal from trauma and substance use. Throughout my research investigation, participants discussed the importance and value of being able to talk about their multilayered experiences with incarceration and substance use in research contexts that were nonclinical settings 11 . Following imprisonment, people must still interface with various surveillance systems (for example, mental health facilities or community corrections programs such as parole and substance‐use treatment) in which they are either mandated or expected to tell their stories while in fear of being labeled, punished, or diagnosed 12 .…”

“…Throughout my research investigation, participants discussed the importance and value of being able to talk about their multilayered experiences with incarceration and substance use in research contexts that were nonclinical settings. 11 Following imprisonment, people must still interface with various surveillance systems (for example, mental health facilities or community corrections programs such as parole and substance-use treatment) in which they are either mandated or expected to tell their stories while in fear of being labeled, punished, or diagnosed. 12 The qualitative interview space can serve as an alternative context in which formerly incarcerated women tell their stories without the fear of institutional harm and criminalization.…”

Stigma, surveillance, and wounded healing: Promoting a critical ethics of care in research with formerly incarcerated Black women

“…Although there has been recognition under Subpart C, which has been expanded to include those under custodial detention, significant points of research concern still exist regarding the real or perceived risks that come with participating in research, while under community corrections supervision (Iphofen & Tolich, 2018). Breaches in confidentiality by researcher, perceived stigmatization and fears regarding surveillance are all potential risks for individuals already managing concerns as they navigate overlapping systems of surveillance post‐incarceration (Schenwar & Law, 2020; Gunn et al, 2021; Urada & Simmons, 2014). Considering these concerns around risk and protection and the emergent challenging of categories of vulnerability, this study will explore how formerly incarcerated Black women talk about their experiences of surveillance within the interview process.…”

“…This problem is particularly salient when we consider how often relatively powerful outsiders are insufficiently engaged and knowledgeable about the lives of the participants they seek to speak on behalf of (Alcoff, 2009; Hardesty & Gunn, 2019). The process of inclusion can indeed heighten risks as research shows that participants report perceived judgment, fears regarding researcher misrepresentation, and, possibly, increased sense of secondary traumatization due to the use of condescending language and other harmful research processes (Bell & Salmon, 2011; Gunn et al, 2021; Urada & Simmons, 2014).…”