Trustworthiness in Culturally Responsive Inquiry: Embracing the Complexities of Culture, Method, and Theory (Poster 3)

• In Event: Manufacturing Trustworthiness in Qualitative Research

Abstract

Culturally responsive (CR) inquiry centers on participants’ knowledge, assets, vulnerabilities, and ways of being as well as their context and history with attention to issues of race, power, and privilege (Author, 2020; Hood et al., 2015). From a CR inquiry perspective, trustworthiness is bound up in the complex interactions of cultures, methods, and theories (Author, 2021). The notion of multicultural validity put forward by CR scholar Karen Kirkhart (2010) acknowledges these complexities and offers a framework for establishing trustworthiness. While the framework has multiple domains (methodological, consequential), some CR scholars argue the interpersonal validity domain is most central to establishing trustworthiness (Symonette, 2004). The interpersonal validity domain concerns “the soundness and trustworthiness of understandings emanating from personal interactions” (Kirkhart, 1995, p. 4). In practice, CR researchers rely on critical reflection to address internal validity. Critical reflection includes systematic and continuous practices that interrogate the researchers’ interactions, motivations, and feelings throughout the inquiry process (Symonette, 2004).

Because interpersonal validity is context-bound and specific to an inquiry context, there is no best way to establish trustworthiness, nor is that the goal from a CR perspective. The goal is to use critical reflection to implement culturally-appropriate inquiry. However, it is important to note critical reflection does not guarantee every aspect of the design will be culturally appropriate. Inappropriate interactions (intentional or unintentional) can still occur. Further, researchers are commonly discouraged from including missteps in their academic writing as it is perceived to jeopardize the credibility of the research. As a result, the constructed write-up gives the appearance that CR inquiry—and by extension establishing trustworthiness—is a straightforward process with little to no issues (mishaps, misunderstandings, oversights, power struggles). Ultimately, the report reflects a highly simplified and polished narrative, which, in turn, perpetuates reductive and inaccurate views of reflective practice.

In short, I argue the messiness and complexities involved in establishing trustworthiness are needed in the write-up of CR research to advance a more realistic understanding of what interpersonal validity looks like in practice and produce accurate/truthful reporting. Accordingly, in this poster, I share the successes and failures I experienced while striving to establish trustworthiness in a recent CR research project and the extent to which these practices showed up in the project report. To contextualize the project, I provide information including the project description, power dynamics, and the CR design used. Before discussing the project, I provide an overview of the commitments associated with CR inquiry to situate the project. Then, I outline the domains of the multicultural validity framework, focusing on interpersonal validity. This work importantly offers a uniquely practical view of how validity is constructed in the context of CR inquiry.

Author

• Jori N. Hall, University of Illinois at Chicago