Benefits and Challenges of Conducting a Comprehensive Study With Black Undergraduate Students at Historically Black Colleges and Universities

• In Event: Roundtable Session 42
  In Roundtable Session: Issues in Recruiting Participants and Collecting Data From Historically Underrepresented Populations

Abstract

This presentation offers insights on recruiting and interviewing Black undergraduate seniors at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and about how their institutions have prepared them to confront racist encounters. This preparatory process was operationalized in the study as racism readiness, which is defined as the “preparation of Black women and men to navigate and productively negotiate racist persons and racist encounters in predominantly white spaces.” Due to the past, and even some contemporary, unethical and racist treatment of Black persons in some research studies such as the United States Public Health Syphilis Study conducted at Tuskegee, (Washington, 2007) the racism readiness study emphasized quality assurance techniques by explaining informed consent, building rapport and trust, and ensuring confidentiality. The racism readiness research involved 24 individual interviews with HBCU alumni and a multi-campus approach entailing 11 focus groups with 58 undergraduate seniors on six HBCU campuses (three public and three private); a total of 82 participants were interviewed.

Focus group recruitment involved contacting Student Government Association (SGA) presidents, other student leaders, and Senior Student Affairs Officers. Having traveled to each of the six campuses, free food and small departmental gift cards were offered as incentives for participation.

Some of the graduating seniors had concerns regarding how the data would be used upon collection, particularly due to the sensitive nature of the topic. The researcher ensured them that the data would be protected in a locked filing cabinet and password-protected electronic storage, that each one would be provided the utmost anonymity, and that participation is voluntary. No identifying information with regard to name, institution, and/or major was presented in the findings, thus ensuring the confidentiality of study participants. These precautionary steps were a requirement for the college seniors because many did not want their perceptions about race leaked to their graduate departments and companies, firms, or agencies in which they were about to transition.

The racism readiness findings revealed that students anticipated being the only or among the only Black persons in their workplace or graduate school environments in which they will soon transition. Furthermore, many reported a hankering to overcome the low expectations placed upon them by White persons, maintaining that their work and not their race will speak for them. Keeping these frank and honest and revelations confidential was the utmost responsibility of the researcher.

Due to how race played a role in interviewing participants, (Rhodes, 1994) the identification of one’s racial identity during recruitment was imperative. Furthermore, the following strategies proved to be useful: building a working relationship with students, faculty, and staff, where needed, in order to gain access; having IRB documents ready to submit to multiple sites, finding on-campus spaces to have a discussion with 6-8 participants; and discussing the benefits and potential risks of participating in research. In conclusion, it was imperative to prepare for privacy and organizational concerns when visiting new sites because each University had different rules for outside researchers.

Author

• Tryan L. McMickens, Suffolk University