Theoretical, Methodological, and Ethical Challenges to the Study of Immigrants: Perils and Possibilities

Research on immigrant communities has often been reductionist, stereotypical, and simplistic, and even the most well‐intentioned researchers are susceptible to using cultural deficit models. This chapter critically evaluates some of the dominant tensions and problem areas with respect to researching immigrant communities. Specifically, we analyze three primary challenges that researchers encounter: the heterogeneity of immigrant lives, adequate representations of immigrant communities, and researcher privilege. In addition to identifying these unique theoretical, methodological, and ethical concerns, we draw from critical theory, feminist scholarship, and cultural psychology to provide an interdisciplinary solution. For researchers investigating immigrant communities, we advocate the following: (a) grounding of intersectional frameworks; (b) reliance on a risk and resilience framework; (c) phenomenological understanding of immigrants' everyday lives; (d) inclusion of immigrant participants' voices; and (e) cultivation of negative capability. Finally, we briefly review selected studies that address three recurring challenges that researchers face and heed our five recommendations. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/99609/1/20041_ftp.pd

Ethnicity and the Stigma of Disabilities

Recent studies reveal significant differences in the attitudes held by people of various ethnic groups toward people with disabilities. We surveyed university students and community members on a scale of desired social distance from people with disabilities. Study 1 revealed that Asian-American participants were more likely to stigmatize and less likely to differentiate between individuals with physical and mental illness than were their African-American, Latin-American or European-American counterparts. Study 2 compared U.S. born with Asian born Asian-Americans and found that nativity was a useful predictor of attitudes toward people with disabilities. Asian born participants were more likely to stigmatize disabilities overall (except mental illness and old age) than U.S. born participants presumably because of the level of assimilation. These cultural differences may have health care and psychosocial implications for those who are disabled and for health care providers

Faculty writing groups: The impact of protected writing time and group support

Faculty at teaching institutions carry high teaching loads, leaving little time to write manuscripts or grant applications, let alone getting them published or awarded. This manuscript describes the impact of protected writing time for faculty at a higher education, teaching institution who committed to focused, uninterrupted writing time on a weekly basis and exchanged writing challenges and tips with colleagues. A mixed methods approach was used to assess the impacts of the writing group which found increased productivity (manuscripts and publications, proposals and grants) and sense of a research community with enhanced structural knowledge, camaraderie, and morale

Critical race theory as a bridge in science training: the California State University, Northridge BUILD PODER program

Abstract Background and purpose Unconscious bias and explicit forms of discrimination continue to pervade academic institutions. Multicultural and diversity training activities have not been sufficient in making structural and social changes leading to equity, therefore, a new form of critical consciousness is needed to train diverse scientists with new research questions, methods, and perspectives. The purpose of this paper is to describe Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD); Promoting Opportunities for Diversity in Education and Research (PODER), which is an undergraduate biomedical research training program based on transformative framework rooted in Critical Race Theory (CRT). Key highlights By employing a CRT-informed curriculum and training in BUILD PODER, students are empowered not only to gain access but also to thrive in graduate programs and beyond. Poder means “power” or “to be able to” in Spanish. Essentially, we are “building power” using students’ strengths and empowering them as learners. The new curriculum helps students understand institutional policies and practices that may prevent them from persisting in higher education, learn to become their own advocates, and successfully confront social barriers and instances of inequities and discrimination. To challenge these barriers and sustain campus changes in support of students, BUILD PODER works toward changing campus culture and research mentoring relationships. By joining with ongoing university structures such as the state university Graduation Initiative, we include CRT tenets into the campus dialogue and stimulate campus-wide discussions around institutional change. Strong ties with five community college partners also enrich BUILD PODER’s student body and strengthen mentor diversity. Preliminary evaluation data suggest that BUILD PODER’s program has enhanced the racial/ethnic consciousness of the campus community, is effective in encouraging more egalitarian and respectful faculty-student relationships, and is a rigorous program of biomedical research training that supports students as they achieve their goals. Implications Biomedical research programs may benefit from a reanalysis of the fit between current training programs and student strengths. By incorporating the voices of talented youth, drawing upon their native strengths, we will generate a new science that links biomedical research to community health and social justice, generating progress toward health equity through a promising new generation of scholars

Enhancing grant-writing expertise in BUILD institutions: Building infrastructure leading to diversity

BackgroundThe lack of race/ethnic and gender diversity in grants funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a persistent challenge related to career advancement and the quality and relevance of health research. We describe pilot programs at nine institutions supported by the NIH-sponsored Building Infrastructure Leading to Diversity (BUILD) program aimed at increasing diversity in biomedical research.MethodsWe collected data from the 2016-2017 Higher Education Research Institute survey of faculty and NIH progress reports for the first four years of the program (2015-2018). We then conducted descriptive analyses of data from the nine BUILD institutions that had collected data and evaluated which activities were associated with research productivity. We used Poisson regression and rate ratios of the numbers of BUILD pilots funded, students included, abstracts, presentations, publications, and submitted and funded grant proposals.ResultsTeaching workshops were associated with more abstracts (RR 4.04, 95% CI 2.21-8.09). Workshops on grant writing were associated with more publications (RR 2.64, 95% CI 1.64-4.34) and marginally with marginally more presentations. Incentives to develop courses were associated with more abstracts published (RR 4.33, 95% CI 2.56-7.75). Workshops on research skills and other incentives were not associated with any positive effects.ConclusionsPilot interventions show promise in supporting diversity in NIH-level research. Longitudinal modeling that considers time lags in career development in moving from project development to grants submissions can provide more direction for future diversity pilot interventions

Rate ratio of increased productivity for institutions based on annual progress reports in 2015–2018 to participants’ use of a tool as indicated by the 2016–2017 HERI survey.

Rate ratio of increased productivity for institutions based on annual progress reports in 2015–2018 to participants’ use of a tool as indicated by the 2016–2017 HERI survey.</p

The count and proportion of participants at each BUILD site who used a research tool at their institution, HERI Survey 2016–2017.

The count and proportion of participants at each BUILD site who used a research tool at their institution, HERI Survey 2016–2017.</p

Sampling description for HERI faculty survey 2016–2017 by BUILD institution.

Sampling description for HERI faculty survey 2016–2017 by BUILD institution.</p

BUILD sites and their corresponding partnerships.

(DOCX)</p