Since the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, and the racial justice protests that followed, many institutions, including the academy, pledged their support for policies and practices that combat on-going racial injustice. Social justice and anti-racism initiatives abound on college campuses, including programming, hosting speakers, and proposing required ‘diversity’ classes for all students. For all this rhetoric, college and university administrators have remained silent when it comes to diversity, equity, and inclusion practices as they relate to research. And yet, extant research documents the ways in which racial and gender biases have consistently shaped every level of research from the development of the research question, to the diversity (or not) of the sample, the availability of funding, and the probability of publishing. In this paper we focus on one aspect of the research process: the assembling (or not) of diverse research teams. We explore the benefits that diversity in research teams brings to the integrity of the data as well as the obstacles to both assembling a diverse research team and managing it successfully. Specifically, this paper focuses on the myriad ways in which diversity in research teams is treated as a set of boxes to check, rather than an epistemology that underscores positionality and power. We present a series of case examples that highlight the ways in which diversity, equity, and inclusion are successfully and unsuccessfully achieved in research teams, both in terms of outcomes and experiences. These case examples focus specifically on power relations along all forms of diversity, including race and gender as well as rank. The case examples also serve to unpack the ways in which research teams can rely on positionality as a tool for addressing power at three distinct levels: in conducting social science research generally, between the researcher and the “researched,” and among the research team itself.

No abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States, those involved with the criminal legal system experience disproportionate vulnerability to infection, transmission, and mortality, facing additional systemic barriers due to criminal legal involvement (CLI) (e.g., prior incarcerations or probationary status affecting employability or housing security). We use Weick’s (1979) model of sensemaking as a theoretical framework to inform our examination of CLI individuals’ experiences during the pandemic. The primary objective of this paper is to explore the process of sensemaking amid misinformation, trust/mistrust, and vulnerability during the pandemic among CLI communities in three central states (Illinois, Louisiana, and Arkansas). We conducted seven online focus groups (n = 44), between December 2020 and January 2021, from the targeted communities about their awareness of misinformation, trusted or distrusted sources, attitudes about COVID-19 health behaviors (including testing, protective behaviors such as mask-wearing and social distancing, and vaccination), and experiences with the criminal legal system during the pandemic. The concept of equivocality was at the core of the narratives shared among participants, with uncertainty emerging as a meta-theme across all focus groups. The findings of this study should prove useful for those who are developing messaging to combat mis/disinformation and overcome mis/distrust with the medical system and government institutions among those who are disenfranchised.

Background Communication-based activities and products (i.e., training programs, webinars) are a critical component of implementation strategies that relay information to various audiences. Audience perceptions of communication effectiveness contribute important insight into the processes and mechanisms through which an implementation effort may succeed or fail. To advance research on this front, a psychometrically sound instrument for measuring perceived communication effectiveness (PCE) is needed. Methods An expert panel identified the theoretical foundations and conceptual domains of PCE and drafted preliminary items. Five focus groups of correctional professionals who had recently completed an implementation leadership training reviewed the items and provided feedback for refinement. Revised items were then included in a survey-based evaluation of an ongoing eLearning curriculum designed to improve the practices used by front-line probation officers in supervising individuals in the field. The factorial structure of a final 6-item scale as well as its convergent, divergent, and predictive validity was evaluated using data from the evaluation surveys (Nfollow-up = 358, Nbaseline+follow-up = 159). Results Confirmatory factor analysis of the final scale of PCE demonstrated adequate fit. PCE was strongly correlated with measures of implementation outcomes (acceptability, r = .819, p < .001; appropriateness, r = .809, p < .001; and feasibility, r = .754, p < .001), yet uncorrelated with a scale of need to evaluate (r = − .051, p = .422), demonstrating both convergent and divergent validities. The predictive validity of PCE was evidenced by significant associations between PCE and key training outcomes, including perceived staff use of evidence-based practices (β = .230, p < .05), agency climate (β = .261, p < .05), and value concordance (β = .209, p < .05), after controlling for baseline values and other confounders. Conclusions The PCE scale is psychometrically sound and can be a useful tool for gauging audience receptivity to and the potential impact of communication-based implementation activities and products.