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.

Participating in face-to-face qualitative interviewing can cultivate self-acknowledgement, self-acceptance and voice for participants who often feel marginalized (Hutchinson et al., 1994). The process of sharing one’s story can promote the personal growth of the individual who is disclosing while deepening their sense of their own value and purpose (East et al., 2010). For antioppressive researchers, who view knowledge production as embedded in marginalized groups’ historical and cultural stories of oppression, privileging the firsthand accounts of insider knowledge are techniques for assuaging power differentials in the research process (Moosa-Mitha, 2005; L. T. Smith, 2013). Moreover, this kind of storytelling allows often silenced communities the opportunity to shape the way one’s own in-group is understood (L. T. Smith, 2013). For Black formerly incarcerated women, the focus of this article, telling one’s story can be especially important as they are situated at the intersection of many overlapping experiences of illness, societal stigma and trauma which reinforce health disparities.

Formerly Incarcerated Black Women and Re-Entry

Over the past several decades, the population of incarcerated women has increased by 14%, outpacing the corresponding rate of increase of 7% for males (Belknap, 2015). Black women have accounted for the greatest increase in female incarceration, with rates of 97 per 100,000 compared with 49 per 100,000 for White women (Carson, 2018). This escalation in predominantly Black female imprisonment can be attributed to both harsh drug penalties as well as the higher rates of co-occurring mental health illnesses and substance use, which shape their pathways into criminal legal involvement (Van Olphen et al., 2009).

Unfortunately, formerly incarcerated women have multi-systemic experiences of trauma and illness over their life-course, which shapes their ability to recover and reintegrate. Incarcerated women are 10 times more likely to have histories of substance use than women in the general society (Charles et al., 2003) and longer addiction histories, linked to abuse and violence, than their male counterparts (McKim, 2017; Sanders, 2014). Exposure to trauma and mental health disorders often co-occur, with evidence revealing that incarcerated women are three times more likely than men to have post-traumatic stress disorder (Belknap, 2015).

Unfortunately, re-entry for formerly incarcerated women is marked by not just the process of navigating illnesses (Bronson & Carson, 2019) but also structural barriers. Structural stigma and surveillance impede women’s access to resources such as employment, housing, substance use treatment, and education (Blakey & Gunn, 2018; Schenwar & Law, 2020; Van Olphen et al., 2009). Indeed, Black women experience myriad barriers to re-entry. However, it is these same re-entry challenges that also make formerly incarcerated Black women vulnerable participants in research. This study will explore how 28 Black women experience the research interview process as they reflect on their stories of trauma and illness.

Risks and Benefits of Research Participation

Significant ethical concerns have been raised regarding whether engaging individuals in research who have experiences of marginalization exacerbates their level of distress (Overstreet et al., 2018; Shorey et al., 2011). Research efforts have explored how vulnerable populations perceive the research endeavor amid their traumatic experiences. In one study of women experiencing intimate partner violence, respondents reported feeling disempowered by the researcher/participant power dynamics, which harmed their sense of autonomy and ability to refrain from participating (Fontes, 2004). In another study of a vulnerable population, individuals actively using drugs, participants reported fears of exploitation and objectification at the hands of investigators they believed to be disingenuous (Fisher et al., 2008). Similar findings emerged with women who were engaged in sex work; respondents reported a sense of stigma due to condescending researchers and became conflicted with sharing highly sensitive information (Urada & Simmons, 2014).

Even with these reported risks, there is evidence of the perceived benefits of engaging in research. A qualitative study based on interviews with Peruvian female sex workers revealed that while participants knew they could withdraw from the study exploring distressing topics, they continued to engage because of how it might promote better access to medical care for their community (Brown et al., 2015). Similarly, women who have survived sexual violence also perceived their participation to offer benefits such as raising awareness and building research knowledge regarding the needs of survivors (Shorey et al., 2011). In a study of injection drug users (Carlberg-Racich, 2021), findings revealed that while stigma and surveillance were anticipatory concerns, strategies to promote anonymity through the study promoted a sense of safety. Additionally, participants reported greater self-reflection and a benefit of raising awareness about the needs of drug users (Carlberg-Racich, 2021).

Collectively, these studies provide critical understanding of the importance of promoting safe and trusting research contexts for marginalized groups to share their stories, such as those of violence, sex work, or drug abuse, many of the experiences faced by formerly incarcerated Black women. However, these studies do not speak the added layered of also being Black and how that shapes perceptions of both research risks and benefits. We know that United States medical research has a problematic and long history of abuse involving minority women already facing significant societal oppressions (Jones, 1993; Wasserman et al., 2007). Considering these atrocities, there is greater attention to examining the perceptions of Black women toward engaging in research.

Studies have shown that Black women participating in clinical health trials express fears that their research participation will benefit White people more than Black communities (Killien et al., 2000; Y. R. Smith et al., 2007). In addition, Black women experienced reluctance to trust researchers due to historical legacies of research maltreatment as well as contemporary everyday racism (Killien et al., 2000; Y. R. Smith et al., 2007). Nevertheless, participants expressed desires to participate in research that offered tangible health benefits to the larger Black community; moreover, participants discussed the possibility of engaging in research where investigators build trust through research/community partnerships, which promoted prolonged engagement and community voice (Y. R. Smith et al., 2007).

Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is one such epistemological and methodological approach to research that seeks to address the legacy of research harm imposed on marginalized populations by engaging with communities in coreseacher/colearner partnerships throughout the research process (Liebenberg et al., 2018). In the CBPR study by Fletcher et al. (2018) of Black women living in the rural south with HIV illness, findings revealed that potential stigma, safety concerns and potential discrimination from the Black community further constrained access to health resources and posed barriers to participation in research. However, researchers also found that building trust and increasing participant sense of autonomy were critical factors for promoting engagement (Fletcher et al., 2018). In a study of Black women participating in an e-health study to explore perceptions of preexposure prophylaxis, findings revealed that women participated to raise awareness regarding the concerns and needs of Black women, even though participants also identified potential barriers of medical mistrust and gendered stigma attached to HIV (Bond & Ramos, 2019). In another CBPR study, of Black women experiencing interpersonal violence and managing HIV, findings revealed that women who participated felt more empowered and gained more insights into IPV (Overstreet et al., 2018). Moreover, while participants reported the potential to face emotional distress, they experienced a great sense of empowerment throughout the study thereby superseding the risks of reliving their sensitive pasts (Overstreet et al., 2018).

While there is an emergence of research on how Black women engage in medical and sexual health research, there still remains significant lacunae in exploring the unique experiences of Black women. Moreover, there is a dearth in health disparities research examining how the lived experience of being a Black woman intersects with highly stigmatized and vulnerable experiences of addiction and criminality to shape disclosure. Drawing from lens of intersectionality, trauma-informed and antioppressive practice, this study will explore how 28 formerly incarcerated Black women experience the research interview process as they discuss experiences of stigma and trauma.

Method

Sampling and Data Collection

This article draws from a study examining the re-entry experiences of 28 formerly incarcerated Black women living in a mid-size city. This article will report specifically on the ethics-specific debriefing findings of the study. A convenient sample of participants were interviewed while they were engaged in a mandated postprison re-entry program specifically for women with compounding experiences of substance use problems. To be eligible for the study, women had to identify as Black, have substance use experiences, and been released from a prison within the past 3 years.

The data collected from the debriefing section asked the 28 respondents questions about how it felt to discuss (1) their past experiences with incarceration and substance use and (2) societal perceptions of both their criminal justice and illness experiences. Women were also asked to share their perceptions of the risks and benefits of participating in research exploring their experiences with addiction, incarceration, and their current interactions community corrections and other social services postincarceration.

Interviews lasted from 60 to 90 minutes. They were digitally audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. In addition, interviews used a semistructured format with a list of topics followed by open ended questions and optional probes, which allowed participants to elaborate on topics of importance. All study procedures were approved by the Institutional Review Board at the author’s university and by the funding institution. The author read the consent form out loud to promote understanding, and each participant provided written informed consent and was compensated with 40 dollars. All names referenced in this study are pseudonyms to provide for anonymity.

Rigor and Trustworthiness

While the study specifically utilized interviews as the primary mode of data collection, the author also engaged in prolonged engagement in the field for approximately 7 months. This allowed the researcher to establish rapport with both program participants and staff, and to confirm interpretation of the data through member checking as the study progressed. To further promote rigor and trustworthiness, a community advisory board (CAB) was formed to provide key insights throughout various stages of the study (Quinn, 2004). CABs can also strengthen the researcher’s contextual and cultural understanding of the community they seek to examine (Quinn, 2004). As such, the CAB consisted of four individuals who had direct criminal justice and substance use experiences. The CAB was instrumental in the development of the interview guide as they provided insights on the subject areas and suggested potential areas for development. They were also consulted to discuss preliminary findings from the data as well as the author collaborated with the CAB to present findings at local reform events.

These processes of peer debriefing with the CAB, prolonged field engagement and member checking with participants were used to triangulate the research team’s interpretation of the data (Lincoln & Guba, 1985; Padgett, 2016). These efforts may promote rigor in qualitative research in ways more critical than traditional strategies of measuring agreement as with interrater reliability techniques, which may not always complement the underpinnings of qualitative research and the exploration of intersubjective realities (Lietz & Zayas, 2010).

Data Analysis

A constructivist grounded theory (CGT) methodology was used to “interpret how subjects construct their realities” by focusing on their meaning-making processes (Charmaz, 2006, p. 524). CGT allows researchers to develop a deeper understanding of the social or psychological processes within a certain context (Charmaz, 2006) in this case, the qualitative research endeavor, by examining in depth social interactions as well as the role of societal social structures. As such, the author used an iterative process of reviewing and coding transcribed data to identify key themes and patterns (Charmaz, 2006).

In order to enhance analytic rigor, three individuals participated in the coding process. Using an initial code list based on the aims of the study and previous research exploring the risks and benefits of research participation, the three coders independently examined approximately one fourth of the transcripts.

Multiple interview transcripts were first read thoroughly by the research team using open line-by-line coding to reduce the data into codes. Next, constant comparison methods involved examining earlier codes against emerging codes, merging redundant codes, and eliminating codes that failed to be substantiated by the data (Glaser, 1992). To best refine codes collaboratively in this second stage, the three team members met for sessions to discuss themes and enhance the code list. Once a refined code list was created, the three team members proceeded to code the remainder of the interviews continuing to consult periodically to discuss findings and research consensus.

A final step was used by the author to develop proposed relationships between existing codes and concepts forming analytic and theoretical explanations (Charmaz, 2006). To facilitate this analysis, the author employed some of the heuristic “six Cs”: Causes, Contexts, Consequences, Conditions, Covariances and/or Contingencies (Charmaz, 2006). In this analytic step, the researcher asks questions of the data, selectively using any of the six Cs, to establish the conceptual relationships between emerging themes or concepts. As such, the analysis within this article presents findings grounded in these analytic questions: (1) How do women construct and talk about their traumatic experiences within the research context and (2) What are the conditions shaping how women talk about their experiences of incarceration and substance use? These domains are discussed within the findings section.

The two coders who assisted the author were both female social work masters students. One identified as Black, and the other identified as a White; both in their mid-20s. The author of this article identifies as a Black female social work professor with decades of clinical and research experience in the fields of incarceration and substance use illness. Moreover, the author has been a fellow in the Research Ethics Training Institute (RETI), a National Institute on Drug Abuse–funded training grant on research ethics. To manage biases and further promote rigor, all coders engaged in a reflexive process to build self-awareness regarding how their own positions of privilege and oppression can shape the research endeavor and contextual experience (Drisko, 2013). For a researcher, informed by an antioppressive lens of study, research enquires require one to consider how their own positionality shapes the way they engage with and interpret a community’s lived experiences (Iphofen & Tolich, 2018).

Results

The findings from this study reveal that participants perceive the interview process as a context for reflecting on various forms of trauma related to their experiences of substance use, incarceration, and trauma. Additionally, the participants view their processes of talking about their traumas not as a process of “reporting information” but rather a process in which they are able to retell their story in a space that differs from many of the environments they must navigate as they re-enter their communities. We see this in Laura’s account, she is in her late 20s and has two children. She was released from prison 8 months ago and is currently interfacing with social service systems to obtain needed services:

I was happy to do this [interview] because I was like this is going to help me, this makes me feel good. Coming out for myself, going to DSS especially because I’ve been in and out they like speak to me like all kinds of ways, “All right so how long are you going to stay out this time … is it even worth me opening this application for you just to use and leave. I’m looking at her like is that your job to judge me” [Emphasis in original].

In this quote, Laura discusses her experiences with feeling judged as she sought re-entry services. She recounts a time where a service administrator suggests that there is no reason to start an application for her to receive resources as she will probably start reusing drugs and consequently go back to prison. As such, Laura felt judged within the context of seeking needed help. This is in contrast to her perception of disclosing in the interview which she sees as a context where she can get help through telling her story.

Sharon has a similar perspective on the research interview as a place to tell her story as we see illuminated here:

For me, it’s like every time I tell my story I learn something new. I feel better. We are used to so much trauma. You go through the prison process, dress and undressing in front of officers, it’s just degrading it’s so scary. And I went through it in 09 and then again 15, and I cried like a baby. And I went to [prison name] my hair was like all the way down to here they shaved it … you are a number, you aren’t a human being … To go from prison and now with my P.O. are we even free? It can be hard to talk about this.

Sharon is in her mid-30s; she has been using drugs since dropping out of high school in 10th grade. She has been in recovery for about a year after her last release. The prison process can create harm, from the intimate process of getting dressed and undressed as a woman is examined by guards, to having her hair cut off and being assigned a number to signify control and conformity. Clearly, Sharon recalls her prison experience in traumatic ways which have created feelings of pain and fear. Despite her harmful memories, the interview process allows Sharon the context to reflect on these experiences in ways that create greater resolve.

Both Laura and Sharon illustrate the multilayered systems that can harm women who are managing both co-occurring incarceration and substance use illness. Not only do their experiences speak to the ways that institutional cultures can reproduce harm and a sense of being violated but also individuals can as well. For these women, the research context can be an alternative context to tell their stories, however, the fear of anticipated judgment still looms and can potentially create barriers to disclosure.

Releasing and Reliving Trauma

The interview process elicits women’s discussion of their experiences with trauma that are often multilayered, and to some of the women, like Vivian, this reliving process could be problematic:

Depending on what the question, it could trigger some sort of traumatic thing … bad things that shaped our adulthood … I was molested by my stepdad, it’s hard to talk about that time, how we were out on the streets prostituting especially when you know a lot of what happened like drugs is because of your childhood.

Vivian has struggled with a drug addiction for more than a decade. She is now in her early 30s and has been in recovery for about 5 months. Like many women recovering from drug use addiction, Vivian has had equally crippling experiences of sexual abuse and violence as a child, particularly at the hands of those who were supposed to protect them. It is these experiences of sexual violence that Vivian sees as shaping one’s later engagement in drug use, prostitution, and crime and can be debilitating to discuss in the interview process. This is in sharp contrast to Sharon’s earlier quote that views storytelling as creating understanding and peace. Carrie also speaks to how engaging in the interviewing process can bring up memories that a woman may not want to remember:

Because I’m just digging up things that I’m really trying to forget. That’s the person that I was. I was in jail, that’s not who I am. I got a job, gave myself to God. I did many things to get a fix I’m not proud of that I’m trying to forget, if you would, the hurt. But I myself keep it up front to keep myself sober.

Carrie is in her mid-30s; she has a high school education and has been in recovery for about a year and a half. Carrie’s passage speaks to how the storytelling process can be challenging for those who have survived various traumas, in large part because of the efforts they have devoted to changing. According to her, when a women is trying to develop a new life postaddiction, she desires to forget these things, almost erase the memories of them in efforts to support her full transformation. This change may signify a spiritual transformation as well as a shift in how she views herself. Thus, this excavation process can be quite traumatic as one seeks to rid themselves of their old self. While Carrie elucidates how sharing can be a negative process, she chooses to keep her memories in her current thoughts to maintain her recovery.

Marlie’s passage further explores this concept that one’s comfort with reliving her past story may be dependent on how much she has transformed:

But sometimes it’s more we are not at a place to acknowledge our past because you’re not at a place of wanting to change, so you don’t want to remember. Like some women, they may not be ready to change, so why would they wanna do this interview; yeah they aren’t incarcerated, but in their mind they are still drugging.

This passage brings up some really rich considerations. Marlie is in her early 20s, and she is a mother of two. She has been in recovery for less than 3 months. Here Marlie states that comfort in disclosure can be conditioned on whether or not a woman is really seeking change and transformation. As an individual seeks change within, she can better acknowledge her past and feel more comfortable sharing. In contrast to Carrie’s quote, life markers, which distance one from their past, such as the getting a job, do not necessarily mark that someone has changed. But it is the internal change process for Marlie that helps women gain acceptance of their past and desire to remember.

While the potential for triggering trauma exists, participants also discussed the ways in which telling their stories of victimization can allow for a sense of pain relief. Brianna expands on this perspective here:

I have learned from my choices with my substance abuse and that a part of my problem is that I didn’t talk about them. The more I talk about my past the less it hurts. The less I feel victimized or feel less than … I think a lot of people feel alone because they don’t talk about it … this is part of our recovery, naming your hurt also makes me want to go helps others who may go through the same thing as me.

Brianna is in her mid-20s and has been in recovery for about 6 months. She has a GED and three children. Not only does Brianna see her disclosure as providing clarity but also she sees it as alleviating her sense of being victimized. The more she discusses her past, the more her sense of pain attached to her past experiences decreases. In addition, it ameliorates her sense of “feeling less than” and devalued.

Researcher Role in Sharing Trauma Stories

While the participants discussed how their process of sharing shaped their overall well-being, it is important consider the role that the researcher can play in the sharing process. Kim remarks on the interviewer’s impact on shaping participant engagement:

Because from the moment you started the interview you spoke to me like, “I’m impressed that you are going through these things and you are managing them, how do you work through them, how are you mending your relationships with your family, your older children.” You made me feel like you noticed my efforts to overcome and that my efforts were validated. Even if I am hooker, validate me.

Kim is looked on as one of the program veterans. She is in her late 30s and, she is a mother of five children, two of whom are older than 18 years. She has been in recovery for more than 2 years, and she has some college education. As evident, a researcher’s response can signal deference for a participant’s story and support for one’s journey through recovery from stigmatized experiences, relational strain, and addiction. While the researcher may view their position as someone who offers probes, which promote disclosure, the participant may interpret greater meaning from their exchanges, which then impacts not just engagement but how they perceive the researcher. As Kim states, even a “hooker” needs validation, and the researcher’s responses offer that. Vanessa also expresses a similar sentiment regarding the researcher’s role in validating participants in ways that combat stigma.

Us women, we’re always going to feel, that you’re better than me; that you’re worth more as a human being than I am. That you got it right the first time. Now how that changes, how that ends up being internalized in the end depends solely on how you interact with me. How you treat me. Again it goes back to a couple of times when I’ve cursed, and to you it’s like, “Really!” and you smiled at me, offered water. Whereas somebody else might have been like, “Whoa,” and looked at me stank.

Vanessa has been in recovery for almost 2 years; she is in her late 30s with some college education. According to Vanessa, even the slight gestures of a researcher can signal acceptance and validation. Formerly incarcerated women come into the interview process bringing to bear a sense of being devalued and anticipatory judgment even from the researcher. Through the interviewer’s facial expression and reactions, they have the potential to provide either a corrective, empowering experience or reinforce the notions of unworthiness that women are already managing from other systems they interact with.

Discussion

Shame dies when stories are told in safe places.

—Ann Voskamp

The act of “truth-telling” can be cathartic and influential in one’s personal process of recovering from harmful and traumatic events and experiences (Zehr et al., 2015). Moreover, the research interview process, although not designed to be therapeutic, can have health-promoting effects. The findings from this study of Black women managing both incarceration and substance use pasts support this.

Perhaps one of the most important findings is that women found the process of telling of their stories to offer greater understanding of their experiences of trauma as well as it supported their continued healing. Many of these women came to the interview process navigating perceptions of pain and harm embedded in their experiences of incarceration and substance use. It was the process of reflecting on their challenges that motivated them to also reflect on how they overcame them. However, the data also suggest that the interview process can elicit feelings of discomfort and the retriggering of trauma depending on one’s own stage of recovery and acceptance of their past. Nevertheless, the majority of the women illuminated the ways in which sharing their stories promoted both their voice and their well-being.

The data also suggest that the interview process allows participants to share their stories in contexts that become alternative spaces or as scholars suggest, counterspaces. “Counterspaces” are where one might find respite that they may not experience in other contexts they interface with which reinforce stigmatizing perceptions of their identities (Case & Hunter, 2012). These alternative contexts offer opportunities to receive identity support and validation to counteract the negative conceptions of self that are produced and reproduced in dominant society (Case & Hunter, 2012).

As seen in this study, the interview process allows women to share their stories in spaces that encourage both resistance and validation, particularly in the resisting of judgments attached to their experiences of incarceration and substance use which exacerbate feelings of devaluation and traumatization. For many, incarceration itself was a traumatic experience, which included constant surveillance; unfortunately, this state of surveillance does not end when their sentence is complete; as scholars postulate formerly incarcerated individuals are embedded in a web of systems, which continue to relegate them to statuses of “carceral citizens” even as they integrate back into their communities (Gurusami, 2019; Schenwar & Law, 2020).

Even after incarceration, participants discuss perceptions of surveillance from their interactions with parole officers, to their interfacing with social service entities to access needy resources. In fact, the interfacing with multiple systems of surveillance, from policing systems to health services, have been found to contribute to poor mental and physical health outcomes (Geller et al., 2014; Remster & Kramer, 2018). Considering these system challenges, a counterspace within the interview context, where formerly incarcerated women can share their stories without feeling surviellanced can be critical.

Third, the findings suggest that the storytelling process is shaped by more than just participant characteristics and will but the researcher as well. Interviewers perceived as nonjudgmental can help create an empowering context for individuals who have had their voices silenced or ignored (Gilbert, 2000). This was seen in both Kim and Vanessa’s remarks. They perceived the author’s probes to demonstrate care for a participant’s journey, and this provided validation. This is critical for women who commonly interface with systems, which do not offer validation (Schenwar & Law, 2020). Whether it was when a participant discussed their desires to improve their relationships with their children or desire to help others at risk of addiction, in acknowledging women’s experiences with oppression and transformation, a researcher is communicating appreciation for the sharing of their story. Researchers must name women’s multiple sources of ongoing harm; traumatic life events of stigma and surveillance are often experienced throughout encounters with carceral, child welfare, social service, and governmental systems (Schenwar & Law, 2020). However, while trauma can impede research, it can also be a mechanism for building trust and deepened disclosure (Crooks et al., 2021). As researchers who promote antioppressive, trauma- responsive inquiry strategies, we must recognize these enduring sources of trauma that exacerbate one’s sense of emotional harm, illness, economic deprivation, and systemic inequalities.

Moreover, researchers must be attuned to increasing participant’s sense of autonomy throughout the research process, whether it is from continuing to remind participants they can refrain from answering traumatic questions at any stage of the interview process (Overstreet et al., 2018) or allowing participants to select nontraditional spaces for conducting interviews, such as in the researcher’s car, which can offer them greater privacy and comfort (Fletcher et al., 2019). Researchers have the obligation to provide participants with safe spaces for disclosure, and sometimes that requires researchers to rethink their own conceptions of safety and comfort to promote respect for participant autonomy (Fletcher et al., 2019).

Moreover, it is critical to promote autonomy by making it clear that participants can express consent progressively throughout the interview, or abstention at any point in the interview, which creates extreme discomfort (Holloway & Galvin, 2016). Consent should be communicated as a flexible participatory process, instead of a fixed definitive state. With that said, respect for autonomy should be embedded within the initial consent process. For formerly incarcerated women, with diverse literacy strengths, verbally reading the consent form promotes greater clarity and personal decision making. Moreover, it is attuned to the trauma many impoverished communities of color have experienced along their often disrupted and criminalized educational journeys (Dawes et al., 2017; Morris, 2016).

Limitations

While this article provides critical knowledge about engaging in research with vulnerable populations, there are some limitations that are meaningful to consider. This study, like others, may be impacted by social desirability bias in participant responding. Mistrust and perceived societal stigma can affect participants’ reporting of sensitive behaviors, particularly among already marginalized communities (Guest et al., 2006). Moreover, vulnerable groups are often concerned about whether their research participation will be kept confidential, which can shape the level at which they engage and share. With that being said, this study utilizes multiple strategies in efforts to promote respondents’ sense of agency and emotional safety; this included minimizing the fear that participants’ confidential disclosures would be mined for medical or criminal content.

Indeed, the fact that the author shares the same gender and racial identity of the respondents may also promote respondents’ proclivity to provide socially desirable answers. However, the author is also a professor at a research-intensive institution, which could also shape the participants’ engagement in the research process, as she inhabits both an insider and outsider perspective (Obasi, 2014). Considering these complexities, the first author devoted noteworthy efforts to communicating to participants that the interview process was a nonjudgmental space for exploring their diversity of lived experiences. Moreover, the author spent considerable time informing participants that the research context should be seen as a context to share their stories without fears of it shaping their parole or re-entry program status.

Conclusion

The participants in this study engaged in a complex process of reflecting on their past experiences and their will to transform their lives. This process of narrating their stories within the interview process promoted their sense of empowerment and strengthened their commitment to recovery. This analysis suggests that the research context can be significant for providing spaces that counteract the multilevel challenges that formerly incarcerated women face as they reintegrate back into their communities while recovering from trauma. Indeed, trauma and shame can find resolve when shared in safe spaces; thus, it is important for health researchers that ask participants to recall sensitive memories to engage vulnerable communities in responsive ways.

Although qualitative researchers do not seek generalizability, transferability is critical to promote applicability to other settings, to practice, and to future research (Devers, 1999). The findings of this study can provide significant understandings into how to engage marginalized women navigating an intersection of surveillance and illness experiences from past incarceration, community-based corrections, substance use treatment, and mental health services to child welfare systems. The findings of this study can provide transferable insights as to how to engage women who are managing myriad systems of inequality in ways to advance future health disparities research and practice. As behavioral health researchers seek to understand the multisystem factors, which exacerbate health disparities for communities navigating significant disparity, there is a need to utilize research practices that are attuned to cultural context, social stratification, and social processes, which shape health and well-being in efforts to inform practice and policy (Sprague et al., 2017).