Dinámica de las cuentas

January 24, 2018: Until Natalie and I spoke via FaceTime for a 90-minute interview (the first full-length interview of the study), I had never asked a Latinx woman to describe her experiences to me concerning living in a predominantly-White world. After just a few minutes, as she began to recall the events of her freshman year at Eminence, she began to cry. I heard about microaggressions and identity threat in her memories. These recollections were visibly painful to her.

As Natalie shared the details of numerous injustices and offenses during those first months at Eminence, an institution with an outstanding reputation, I thought, I have never read a single unfavorable story about Eminence in any newspaper nor heard it described as anything other than an excellent environment for earning a bachelor’s degree. I thought, how far removed I am from the reality of Natalie’s experience. I had not expected tears. I had expected anger. Outrage. Even fury. How White I am.

Looking at myself in the computer image and at 21-year-old Natalie in a

computer lab miles away, I thought, it took tremendous courage for her to respond to the call for participants, to establish contact with an unknown White woman, and to share with this stranger so many intimate details of her life and experience. CRM methods seemed especially important in that moment. The CRM researcher may initiate a project, but she researches with not on the participants. They must be empowered to establish the parameters of the project. I was relieved that Natalie had chosen to be interviewed via FaceTime, even though we could have met in person. I felt intuitively that there was a safety for her in the maintenance of distance between us.

113

There was also safety in the distance for me How awkward I felt during that interview – how much it felt like prying. I also felt that my “IRB-approved” questions were intrusive, haphazard, and convenient for me but ridiculous for the participant. Question #4: While an undergraduate at your university, can you describe experiences of racism in any form (microaggression, overt racism, etc.)? Question #5: What were the institutional responses to these incidents? Question #6: How would you have liked the university administration or your faculty members to respond? Question #7: Can you describe any other experiences of oppression, such as sexism or classism? And on and on. What had I been thinking when I proposed those questions? Who talks that way?

I also feared that this study was exploitative, despite my desire to be culturally responsive and personally sensitive. I also thought, in terms of compliance, Natalie is certainly old enough to be in this study, but in terms of ethics, perhaps she is too young. Was I turning into what my friend and colleague, Elizabeth, called, “the White lady with a clipboard”?

Our time together had hardly begun and I felt as though I had nothing to say. My experiences, my epistemologies, my standpoint, my class, my race – all of this served to separate me from Natalie. She mattered and I was completely irrelevant in my own dissertation study.

I was also overcome by a disequilibrium I later learned was White Fragility (DiAngelo, 2011). It was actually difficult for me to speak. After the interview had been transcribed, I listened to my voice on the recording. I heard a brittleness and an

awkwardness. I was stupefied by my own White Privilege. DiAngelo (2011) described this as a response to racial stress, which “results from an interruption to what is racially

114

familiar” (p. 57). I live and have lived in a White-normative world. Outside of the university setting where I work and am a student, there are few if any conversations about White racism, White privilege, and especially no discussion of White culpability in the current and historic race-based, class-based, and gender-based patriarchal

hierarchy.

As DiAngelo (2011) explained, because Whites have not had to develop the skills and abilities to engage across racial divides, despite White positionality in a White- normative society, White people are, in fact, the least prepared to discuss constructively the conditions and factors of racism. White fragility manifests in the silence I

experienced during that first interview with Natalie. For example, most White people live segregated lives and Whites are inculcated with a sense of universalism – that their experiences and culture are the standard (DiAngelo, 2011).

This collision of Latinx alumna experience at a PPWI with White fragility was a factor in the study I was ill-prepared to face. Yet again, I did not know what I did not know. What I did understand intuitively – the tacit knowledge Lincoln and Guba (1985) described – was that in order to pursue this study, I had to allow the participants to fully dictate the terms of our engagement – not just the terms of our meetings but also what they chose – and chose not – to discuss. The ethical framework of CRM describes an equal partnership between researchers and participants (Berryman et al., 2013a). This allows for all parties in a study to have equal influence on all aspects of the process (Berryman et al., 2013a). As Berryman et al. (2013a) wrote:

Thus, transparency replaces covert agendas. This means researchers (and participants) are encouraged to clearly communicate their known intentions,

115

thereby lessening the possibility of manipulation and misunderstanding. Furthermore, culturally responsive researchers resist appropriation of another culture’s knowledge and ways of knowing and promote the uncovering of ideological frameworks to bring forth authenticity of mutual positionalities (pp. 17).

What did I have in common with Natalie? My first-generation journey had been so long ago. I was far removed from those days and deeply embedded within the culture of White-normative higher education that, despite fervent attempts to recruit Natalie and many more first-generation Latinx women, did not appear to be making meaningful space for them within the Academy. I also knew Natalie was probably sharing with me only a tiny fraction of what she had experienced and witnessed at Eminence. And the problem was not necessarily about Eminence. The problem was everywhere.

April 23, 2018: For the remainder of the study, I attempted to be as culturally- responsive and as equity-focused as possible. There were in-person meetings according to their needs and propensities, not according to my timetable. There were multiple discussions via FaceTime and several series of emails depending on their schedules and preferences. All six of the participants were busy and engaged in their own lives, with work, education, parenting, and family life.

I also backed away from the prepared list of questions. I had received approval for semi-structured interviews, allowing flexibility in what was asked and answered. I started to ask the participants to tell me stories. This was, after all the, the goal of the study – to hear their counter-stories. Within these counter-stories, I saw extensive offenses: racial joking and institutional racism and much more. I also saw tremendous

116

love, expansiveness, intelligence, and self-determination. I was honored to work with every one of the women in the study. I was humbled to be a person they trusted with their truth.

There were only three more emails between Natalie and me after that initial conversation, to thank her, to offer her an opportunity to review the interim drafts of the study (she did not reply), to confirm her age at the time of interview – 21. We have not spoken again.

117