Unanticipated Contexts for Vulnerability: An Exploration of How Black College Men Made Meaning of a Research Interview Process Involving Sensitive Topics

Abstract

There is an emerging call for empirical studies that examine the development of masculine identity among Black college men. However, the varied ways Black college men made meaning of participating in these research processes are virtually absent. The purpose of this particular inquiry is to offer insights into how 17 Black college men described their participation in a research study that explored sensitive topics involving their identity and interpersonal relationships with other men. Building rapport with Black college men through the research interview process was critical. Data analysis yielded five themes that illustrated how Black college men made meaning of their participation in a research process that employed both semi-structured and photo-elicitation interviews.

Keywords

Black college men therapeutic benefits vulnerability emotion sensitive research

Over the past two decades, Black college men’s gendered expressions and conceptions of masculinity has been a focal point within the scholarly literature (Dancy, 2011; Davis, 1999; Ford, 2011; S. R. Harper, 2004; Harris, Palmer, & Struve, 2011; Jackson, 2012; Johnson & McGowan, 2017; Martin & Harris, 2006; McClure, 2006; McGowan, 2017; Pelzer, 2016). A central implication for practice embedded within these works is an invitation for administrators and faculty to better understand and positively engage the developmental trajectories of Black men on college campuses. Doing so involves creating spaces where Black college men can be supported in their authentic selves (Ford, 2011; McGowan, 2017; Pelzer, 2016). This becomes even more important within historically White campus environments where Black men are sorely underrepresented. More specifically, Black males account for less than 5% of undergraduate students enrolled on college campuses (S. R. Harper, 2012; Palmer, Wood, Dancy, & Strayhorn, 2014; Strayhorn, 2008). Pelzer (2016) goes on to suggest that postsecondary institutions must reframe the Black male experience to allow for “the exploration of identity and its many intersections” (p. 23). With that said, the research interview could serve as a context where these explorations occur.

Although the emerging empirical literature on Black college men’s gendered experiences has shed important insights into their lived realities within postsecondary milieus, the varied ways that participants experienced the research processes employed in these studies are virtually nonexistent and this phenomenon warrants further investigation. Below, I explore the nature and impact of how Black college men experienced participating in a research study exploring sensitive topics via both a semi-structured interview and a photo-elicitation interview. The impetus for this article derives from the following research question: “How do Black college men make meaning of their participation in a research process where they had to disclose salient aspects of their identity within the context of their male interpersonal relationships?” Although the ways in which participants make meaning of their interview experiences involving sensitive topics are explored in other disciplines and fields of study, this idea has not been a central focus within the literature on Black college men. To that end, I examine pertinent literature that links back to the aims of this study. First, I examine hegemonic masculinity and social constraints on men’s emotionality. Second, I explain men’s vulnerability with other men. Finally, I discuss vulnerability in research interviews, namely, the benefits associated with research interview processes involving sensitive topics.

Hegemonic Masculinity and Social Constraints on Men’s Emotionality

Hegemonic masculinity has influenced contemporary thinking on men, gender, and social hierarchy in recent decades and researchers have characterized this perspective in multiple ways (Collins, 2006; Connell & Messerschmidt, 2005; Donaldson, 1993; Kimmel, 2008). Collins (2006) posited that “hegemonic masculinity is installed at the top of a hierarchical array of masculinities” (p. 81). Hegemonic masculine behaviors are manufactured in social institutions and perpetuated through human encounters. Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) described this type of masculinity as the most respected way of being a man and impose that other men adhere to and comply with its rules accordingly. Certain masculinities are also hegemonic and privileged over others. More specifically, “this perspective [hegemonic masculinity] also recognizes that some masculinities (e.g., White, heterosexual, able-bodied) are prioritized and situated as dominant above others (e.g., gay, feminine, racial/ethnic minority, physically disabled, working class)” (Harris, 2010, p. 299). Hegemonic masculinity is also shaped by ideologies of race, gender, sexual orientation, social class, and the possession of traditionally masculine traits such as being assertive and restricting emotions (Griffith, Gunter, & Watkins, 2012). Kimmel (2008) further mentioned that hegemonic masculinity is preserved as a result of cultural dynamics that tend to govern men’s behaviors, which include a culture of silence where men remain quiet about emotional violence.

Within the literature lie perspectives on hegemonic masculinity that suggest men are reluctant to express emotional vulnerability. O’Neil’s (1981) widely cited theoretical concept of gender role conflict has multiple behavioral patterns that are intractably linked to gender role socialization. One of the behavioral patterns is restrictive emotionality, where men restrict expression of privately felt emotions and deny other men their rights to emotional expressiveness. In essence, men who do not subscribe to hegemonic masculine attitudes and behaviors are oftentimes ostracized and marginalized.

Studies have also shown how hegemonic masculinity has influenced the experiences of college men. For instance, in a joint article based on shared findings from their respective individual studies (Edwards & Jones, 2009; Harris, 2010) on how college men conceptualized masculinity, Harris and Edwards (2010) described how hegemonic masculinity limited vulnerability among men. Participants in these studies performed their masculinity in hegemonic ways to avoid having their sexual orientation questioned by their male counterparts. Prior research on Black college men’s gendered realities overwhelming suggest that Black men express their masculinities in hegemonic ways based on sociocultural masculine conceptions that discourage them from seeking closeness with one another (Davis, 1999; Ford, 2011; Harris et al., 2011).Harris et al. (2011) stated that “hegemonic masculinities are usually so internalized by men that rarely are they critically examined” (p. 49). Because college men often negotiate how they perform their masculinities with other men on campus, this negotiation could pose a challenge for some men as a result of external expectations to perform their masculinities in hegemonic ways that embrace restrictive emotional expression.

Men’s Vulnerability With Other Men

As indicated above, the literature is replete with examples of how some men struggle to display vulnerable emotion with other men. However, empirical evidence also suggests that some men are actively reframing masculinity and embrace being emotionally expressive. For instance, one of the studies worth mentioning is Schwalbe’s (1996) work during the mythopoetic movement of the early 1990s. Schwalbe attended 128 meetings with a men’s group and explored how they conceptualized their gender, identity, and emotions. Through this experience, Schwalbe witnessed that men convey vulnerable emotion and express affection with each other as they actively tried to transcend the emotional strictures of traditional masculinity. Schwalbe felt that it was easy for him to gain entry and establish rapport with the men as they all shared similar social identities (e.g., White, middle-aged, heterosexual, and middle or upper class).

Previous investigations into men’s vulnerability with one another also emerged within the literature on college men and masculinity (Anderson, 2008; Harris, 2010; McGowan, 2017). Contrary to previous studies that portray college fraternities as entities that revere hegemonic masculine attitudes and behaviors, Anderson (2008) found that participants portrayed “an institutionalized form of masculinity esteemed for the social inclusivity of various types of men” (p. 616). Anderson coined the term inclusive masculinity, to figure in a sociofeminist theory of masculinity rooted in the social inclusion of individuals who are historically marginalized by hegemonic masculinity. Within this particular fraternity chapter, displaying emotional intimacy (e.g., crying in each other’s presence, confiding in one another, accepting gay men) and openly rejecting homophobic discourses were required.

Emerging literature suggests that Black college men are also vulnerable. McClure (2006) explored how men in a historically Black fraternity attempted to resolve the contradictory expectations of their race, class, and gender identities. Consistent with an Afrocentric philosophy, McClure (2006) described a sense of cooperation among the men where they shared their feelings with one another. This space also allowed them to have honest and authentic relationships. Past research also mentions the emotional vulnerability forged under the label of brotherhood. For instance, in McGowan’s (2017) study, Black men intentionally sought close relationships with other men on campus and deemed them as being integral in their college experience. Within their respective male peer groups, the Black men in this study felt obligated to one another as a means for survival to navigate the predominantly White campus climate that in many ways differed from their hometown communities. Jackson (2012) conducted interviews with 17 participants who were part of a larger national organization for Black male students and they deemed emotional vulnerability as a necessary component of brotherhood. For instance, one participant in Jackson’s study stated, “I want you to be able to cry on the phone with me when y’all got a problem” (p. 62). In another study by Brooms, Goodman, and Clark (2015), Black men were reported as benefiting immensely from being part of a Black men’s initiative where they were able to open up to one another. Abovementioned studies illuminate the ways Black college men conveyed vulnerable emotion in ways that “rebuff the negative perceptions of Black masculinity that is perpetuated by society as well as Black men” (Pelzer, 2016, p. 22).

Vulnerability in Research Interviews Involving Sensitive Topics

The research interview process can also create vulnerable environments for Black men. However, given the scant research on Black college men and their vulnerability in research interviews involving sensitive topics, I draw on health research where these studies are more common. Scholars in health research have defined sensitive research as emotionally difficult topics that require participants to recall issues that can be deeply personal (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2009; Lee, 1993). Several qualitative health research studies have described the potential benefits associated with interview processes undertaking sensitive topics and its impact on both the study participants and the researcher in different ways (Corbin & Morse, 2003; Dempsey, Dowling, Larkin, & Murphy, 2016; Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2007; Dickson-Swift et al., 2009; Elmir, Schmied, Jackson, & Wilkes, 2011; Hutchinson, Wilson, & Wilson, 1994; Murray, 2003; Newman & Kaloupek, 2004). Scholars undertaking sensitive research have a unique opportunity to employ various methods that provide a platform for participants to discuss their experiences and they must take into account both the physical and emotional risks (Dickson-Swift, James, Kippen, & Liamputtong, 2008). For instance, through the use of a reflexive journal, Smith (1999) cited the potential therapeutic effects for study participants when reviving unpleasant memories of their experiences with consuming alcohol. M. Harper and Cole (2012) explored the experiences of stepfathers in stepfamilies and the unexpected therapeutic benefits associated with a participant-to-participant member-checking procedure. Participants were able to unload suppressed feelings, which resulted in an experience similar to components of group therapy, particularly in normalizing the phenomenon under investigation. Harper and Cole cited this form of member checking as being “beneficial to all parties involved in ways that proved to be far beyond the promise of methodological quality control” (p. 6). Corbin and Morse (2003) noted the benefits of communicating vulnerabilities within the context of a research interview, as it is different than doing so with familiar individuals such as family members or friends. They noted how it is not uncommon for individuals to conjure powerful emotions and be overcome by grief when discussing sensitive topics to friends and family members as they could be mortified by their emotional response. For this dynamic to not occur within the research setting, a trusting researcher–participant relationship must be established and maintained. To that end, Dickson-Swift et al. (2008) encouraged qualitative researchers conducting studies involving sensitive topics to consider ways to process participant self-disclosure and be proactive about self-care.

Participants in Hutchinson et al.’s (1994) study constructed their meanings of a research process in positive ways that “were not elicited by interviewers but occurred spontaneously” (p. 162). Hutchinson et al. outlined seven possible benefits of qualitative interviews involving sensitive health-related topics as they (a) allow participants an opportunity to express personal feelings, (b) offer self-acknowledgment and validation, (c) contribute to a sense of purpose, (d) increase self-awareness, (e) foster a sense of empowerment, (f) offer healing, and (g) provide voice to the voiceless and disenfranchised. Participants in their study also reported feeling good about sharing their stories and having them subsequently used in the publication process. Health research has also explored how participants made meaning of their experiences participating in sensitive interviews. For instance, at the conclusion of a research process exploring sensitive topics, Alty and Rodham (1998) advocated for allowing space for participants to debrief the interview experience, discuss their feelings, and describe the impact the research interviews had on them. Alty and Rodham (1998) also suggested having a potential contact for additional help for participants where appropriate follow-up may be needed. This recommendation holds significant importance as the research interview may prompt the need for professional therapy or counseling. Although the research interview has been found to have therapeutic benefits and can serve as an initial venue where participants answer questions regarding their life experiences, it is not meant to replace the need for professional therapy and counseling.

Participant conceptions of their involvement in research studies exploring sensitive topics have not been employed much in higher education studies on Black college men. Creating contexts for vulnerability where Black college men can transcend stereotypical expectations of masculinity is particularly important at a time when postsecondary institutions are devoting more attention and resources to better understand and engage this population on campus. Researchers undertaking sensitive empirical research on Black college men should not only attempt to answer their respective research questions but also understand the long-standing impact that the research process can have on the study participants. To that end, this article illuminates the complex interplay between the varied ways that 17 Black men displayed vulnerability in a research process that asked sensitive questions about their social identities within the context of their interpersonal relationships with other men at a historically White institution.

Method

Data for this research were derived from a larger grounded theory study about how Black college men developed interpersonal relationships with other male peers on campus. I approached the larger study from a constructivist epistemological perspective (Crotty, 1998) using grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014). Grounded theory was suitable in the larger study given the emerging research on how gender informs the experiences of Black college men. In the ensuing section, I offer pertinent methodological context about the larger study that connects to the aims of this present study.

The larger study took place at a large Midwestern public university where men comprised 50.1% of the undergraduates and African Americans account for 4.2% of the overall population. Using a snowball sampling procedure, I identified participants through four student affairs practitioners who had access to Black men on the campus. Participation was open to Black men who were full-time undergraduate students with a sophomore or higher status. First year students were not considered due to their limited exposure to the campus. Seventeen students (seven seniors, five juniors, and five sophomores) participated in this study. Seven participants came from homes with active fathers and six self-identified as gay or bisexual. I interviewed each participant twice during the research process. First, I conducted an initial semi-structured interview with each participant that lasted 60 to 75 min. Second, I conducted a photo-elicitation (full description below) interview with each participant that lasted 45 to 60 min. The interviews took place over a 4-month period, with a period of approximately 2 months between the interviews. The time between the initial semi-structured interview and the photo-elicitation interview was 2 months to give participants prolonged exposure to the environment and allow time to transcribe and analyze data in between the interviews.

Polkinghorne (2005) described the meaning experiences of participants and foregrounded the importance of establishing a trusting researcher–participant relationship. This involves creating a comfortable setting where participants can reflect on how they made meaning of past incidents and events. Given the sensitive topics explored throughout this research process (Table 1), I made an intentional effort to build empathy and rapport with each participant. For instance, I emphasized the potential impact of the larger study, thanked participants for sharing their stories at multiple points throughout the interview process, established common ground whenever possible, allowed participants to be their authentic themselves, and offered encouragement at times when sensitive stories were shared. Of note, each participant created a pseudonym for this study.

Table 1.

Demographic Information and Sensitive Topics Explored.

Participants	Class standing	Active father	Sexual orientation	Sensitive topics participants explored during the interview
Charles	Sophomore	No	Heterosexual	Developing friendships with other Black men Exploring racial identity Seeking help from other men
Daron	Sophomore	No	Bisexual	Death of parent Developing friendships with other Black men Expressing vulnerable emotion to other men
Donte	Junior	No	Gay	Relationships with family members Fear of being “outed” on campus Forming friendships with heterosexual men
Henry	Senior	Yes	Heterosexual	Developing friendships with gay men
Jamar	Senior	No	Gay	Relationship with father Intersections of race, religion, and sexuality
James	Junior	No	Gay	Relationship with biological father Discomfort with gay identity Developing friendships with other men
Jeff	Sophomore	No	Heterosexual	Relationship with biological father Developing friendships with other men Bullying and physical abuse from other men
Kobe	Senior	Yes	Heterosexual	Seeking help from other men Displaying vulnerable emotion
Michael	Senior	No	Heterosexual	Difficult hometown experiences Developing friendships with other men Experiencing loneliness
Neal	Senior	No	Gay	Being “outed” by a fraternity brother Intersections of race, religion, and sexuality
Preston	Junior	Yes	Heterosexual	Uncomfortable childhood moments
Ryan	Senior	Yes	Heterosexual	Microagressions from faculty and other men
Sebastian	Junior	No	Heterosexual	Uncomfortable childhood moments
Shaun	Sophomore	Yes	Heterosexual	Displaying vulnerable emotion
Terrance	Sophomore	Yes	Heterosexual	Relationship with stepfather
Tre’	Junior	Yes	Heterosexual	Uncomfortable childhood moments
Trint	Senior	No	Bisexual	Death of parent Relationship with father Body image

Some of the sensitive topics gleaned from participant experiences in this particular inquiry included exploring their sexual, racial, and gender identities, describing uncomfortable moments within their male peer friendships, expressing emotional vulnerability, recalling childhood experiences that triggered negative emotions, and recounting experiences with homophobia.

In the first interview, I wanted to gain insights into the origins of their early understandings of their identities and how these understandings shaped their interpersonal relationships with other men over time. Some of the questions in the initial interview included, “Please provide an example of how you had to hide parts of your identity to fit into certain social circles on campus,” “Can you tell me about a time where homophobia played a role in your college experience?” “Do you have friends with a different sexual orientation from your own?” Similar to participants in Murray’s (2003) study, I created an interview setting where participants told their stories and were “accepted in a non-judgmental, non-blaming and non-threatening way” (p. 233). Furthermore, I adhered to Lowes and Paul’s (2006) distinction between research interviews and therapy. They stated, “the purpose of the research interview is not to intentionally offer any form of therapy, and researchers need to recognize and carefully consider this potential outcome at an early stage in the process” (p. 594). My aim in the larger study was to understand how Black men made meaning of their identity within the context of their interpersonal relationships with other men, not to help them work through their issues or reach decisions and actions that are based on informed choices.

At the conclusion of the initial semi-structured interview and to prepare for the photo-elicitation interview (D. Harper, 2002), I provided participants with a photography interview checklist and asked them to submit photographs that illustrated their close relationships with other men and to describe how these relationships influenced their campus experiences. Photo-elicitation is “a qualitative technique where participants are asked to take photographs relating to the concept under study, and these are then used as triggers for underlying memories and feelings during a subsequent interview” (Tonge, Ryan, Moore, & Beckley, 2015, p. 741). John Collier introduced this approach in 1957 while exploring mental health communities in Canada. This method can also be used to understand individual experiences across multiple social and cultural contexts. During the photo-elicitation interview, I offered participants printouts of their respective photographs and asked them to arrange them in an order in which they preferred to discuss them. I then used Zainuddin’s (2009) approach to understanding photographs, which asks questions focused on content (what), purpose of creation (who, when, how), and interpretation (why). The words participants used to make meaning of the photographs were transcribed, analyzed, and incorporated into the data analysis process. Although photo-elicitation has gained more visibility within the higher education literature (Kelly & Kortegast, 2017), studies using this approach on Black college men remain scant. Using multiple interviews helped study participants grow comfortable disclosing sensitive information during the research process.

In the larger study, I incorporated data analysis procedures consistent with constructivist grounded theory methods described in Strauss and Corbin (1998). Using the interview transcripts, I analyzed the data using three levels of coding: open, axial, and selective (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I also incorporated Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) trustworthiness strategies in the larger study. First, I relied on a peer debriefer, a qualitative researcher who has extensive experiences working with Black college men, to help me establish, clarify, and apply the coding criteria. Second, I used member checking and wrote summaries that were later shared with each participant to verify interpretation of the conversations. Third, I had a reflexive journal as part of the data collection process and as a running self-commentary when analyzing data. Finally, I situated myself within this work via a positionality reflection, a reflection of worldviews, and epistemological underpinnings influencing the research process (Jones, Torres, & Arminio, 2013). Being a Black man, conducting research on how Black college men developed interpersonal relationships with other college men helped some study participants feel comfortable expressing their vulnerabilities as we shared similar racial and gender identities.

For this particular article, I conducted a secondary data analysis to determine how Black college men made meaning of their experiences in the research process outlined above. At the conclusion of the photo-elicitation interview, I asked participants to reflect on how they experienced the entire research process. Based on their responses to this inquiry, I analyzed their responses using three levels of coding: open, axial, and selective (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). I began by reading through each participant response to this question and identified patterns within the data. Next, I employed a constant comparative analysis where I read each sentence line by line and gave it a code name, which led to some preliminary categories. Using the preliminary categories and the reflective notes from my researcher journal where I recorded participant feelings and emotions as a guide, I continued to refine the categories that led to the ensuing five themes outlined below.

Findings

The focus of this article was to illuminate how 17 Black college men made meaning of a research process where they had to reveal sensitive information about their identities and interpersonal relationships. Doing so required participants to explore the origins of how they developed their identities before college and how these understandings influenced the manner in which they made friendship decisions. Participants were able to be vulnerable in the interviews and they found this process to be both satisfying and unexpectedly therapeutic. Data analysis yielded five themes that illustrated how participants made meaning of their involvement in this research study: (a) experiencing catharsis despite uncomfortable moments, (b) unpacking unresolved issues from childhood, (c) exploring the nature of friendships, (d) fostering self-awareness and growth, and (e) being invested in the study’s aims and outcomes.

Experiencing Catharsis Despite Uncomfortable Moments

During the interviews, it became increasingly evident that this was the first time that participants had meaningfully reflected on the role their intersecting identities played in their interpersonal relationship development. Despite this newfound awareness, participants overwhelmingly viewed the research process as being positive, as they were able to express their feelings. For instance, Neal mentioned,

It felt really good. It was really good because it was introspective. I don’t think that I’ve ever had to explain my relationships or how I develop relationships with other people, specifically males . . . It made me think of my identity in a way that I don’t think about on a daily basis; it was very positive.

Participating in this research interview process provided Neal with a sense of relief. In the abovementioned quote, Neal mentions how this process was not only positive but also provided him space to reflect on his identity in ways that he typically does not. Other participants expressed gratitude by the sheer nature of having someone engage these topics. For example, James stated, “Most people never ask what is your relationship with other men so actually it was positive. It [this study] was something that I actually looked forward to doing because somebody was interested in knowing how Black men developed relationships.” Of note, although James described this process as being positive, there were several moments where he became visibly uncomfortable when describing sensitive topics such as his relationship with his biological father and sexual orientation. Other participants described this process as being enjoyable despite being surprised by some of the interview questions. For instance, Tre’ shared,

I liked it. Some of the topics threw me off though; the family stuff. It forced me to think about my friendships and what they mean to me, and how they came about. It’s pretty cool to think about those things, because you normally don’t think about them. You just do it; it’s something that’s human nature.

Despite being “thrown off” during various points in the interview process when discussing family, Tre’ enjoyed participating in this study as it gave him a chance to reflect on the origins and value of his friendships. The uncomfortable moments displayed throughout most of the interviews occurred when participants tapped into aspects of their lives that typically remained concealed. They displayed behaviors such as shaking, looking away, or shedding tears. Having them discuss these sensitive topics brought them different types of benefits. Despite experiencing discomfort, they conceptualized this process as being positive and beneficial.

Unpacking Unresolved Issues From Childhood

It became evident that the research interview served as a place where participants could express their feelings and emotions about sensitive and painful topics. This process allowed participants to reflect on unresolved issues from their upbringing. For instance, Trint stated, “It’s a very intriguing process just because I’ve gotten to open up about things that I thought I was over.” Similar to other participants in this study, Trint elaborated on several sensitive issues and there was a newfound awareness that some issues were still unresolved. Jamar expressed similar sentiments when reflecting on the entire research process. He shared,

I think it’s been a good process. I’ve actually been able to be true in a sense. I’ve also been able to reflect on that issue that has bothered me, that does bother me, the whole father issue. Now, I can talk about it openly. I don’t have a relationship with him. I don’t care to have a relationship with him. My mother is the only person that I really need.

Jamar’s relationship with his father, or lack thereof, manifested itself throughout the interview process and played a role in how he created and maintained relationships with other men on campus. The research interviews also became a place for participants to both describe and work through their insecurities. To this end, Michael shared,

I appreciate having somebody to talk to. If I wasn’t here I would probably be at home, you know, watching TV or something like that, but I’m actually getting to talk to a brother, you know what I’m saying? Somebody to hear what I am going through, like what I am experiencing because, I’ll be frank, I really don’t have nobody to talk to. It was the same way back home.

Michael found this interview process to be therapeutic to some degree. Similar to several other study participants, Michael was comfortable being vulnerable with me as we shared the same racial and gender identities. Of note, during the photo-elicitation interview, Michael offered several photographs of him being in multiple campus settings alone. He also reflected on being lonely both during his childhood and on campus and expressed gratitude for having a space to discuss this topic. These feelings of isolation were exacerbated by his inability to form close friendships with other men on campus. The research interview served as a place where Black men could be vulnerable and reflect on unresolved issues.

Exploring the Nature of Friendships

The research interview process also allowed room for participants to reflect on the breadth and depth of their interpersonal relationships. In response to an inquiry about how they experienced this research process, some participants were able to differentiate their friendships from acquaintances. For example, Donte shared,

This process really did make me look at my friendships overall. Who do I actually consider a friend? What do I look for in a friend? Is there a difference between a gay male friend and straight male friend? Can I be comfortable? The quality of the friendship; is it genuine? Is it uplifting or is it baggage? Who am I close with? Who do I give information to or tell things about myself to?

Donte posed important questions that several other participants worked through in their respective interviews. The research interview process helped participants delineate between lasting relationships and temporary bonds. This process also allowed some participants to reflect on the number of quality male friendships they had while in college. Michael shared,

I feel like it’s [research interview process] somewhat reassuring me that I don’t really have as many friends as I thought I did. My Facebook friend [list] says like 1300, but I can narrow that down to probably 3 friends that I’m actually talking to on a consistent basis. I also couldn’t tell you the last time somebody texted me. I just wish that I had more but it’s really not the case.

As previously mentioned, for Michael, this interview process served as a reminder that he did not have many friends. Participants also reflected on their friendships on campus versus ones from their respective hometowns. For instance, Sebastian shared,

It [research interview process] kind of educated me on my relationships with my friends, the close people in my life that I just don’t think about every day; ones I do not take for granted. Even going back to home. It made me reflect on how I interact there and here [campus].

This research interview process allowed Sebastian space to think about the connections in his life that he tended to not think about regularly. During the photo-elicitation interview, he submitted photographs of both male peers back home and at the university as they both played a role in his matriculation process. Overall, participants were able to reflect on the varying levels of breadth and depth of the male peer connections in their lives.

Fostering Self-Awareness and Growth

Participants described being more self-aware as a result of participating in this research interview process. They also discussed gaining new perspectives about their male interpersonal relationships. For instance, Ryan shared,

It [research interview process] definitely makes me reflect back on the transitions that I made throughout my college experience. I’ve grown from it. Overall, it’s been positive. Ever since I left [former academic major], my friendships have really changed. I am a lot happier now. This interview process brought back a lot of memories. I have grown a lot.

During the photo-elicitation interview, Ryan presented photographs and told stories about his male friendships in his initial academic major and subsequently revealed how these friendships were not mutually beneficial. Upon leaving his initial academic major, it became evident that he was a lot happier and appreciated having a venue to discuss those negative encounters. Ryan acknowledged that he grew from those experiences. Similarly, Trint shared,

This [research interview process] was very interesting. I got to share some feelings and emotions about people that I would probably never talk to or tell them about. I’m happy that I did. I feel a lot better now that I have talked about them . . . I grew from this experience.

Trint shared several experiences about male friends who hurt him and others who played a significant role in his college experience. It was evident that this research interview process was beneficial based on his responses and relaxed demeanor toward the end of the photo-elicitation interview. Participation in this research interview gave study participants an opportunity to be listened to by someone who wanted to hear their story. They gained a new perspective as hearing themselves talk about sensitive issues was different from them thinking about them.

Being Invested in the Study’s Aims and Outcomes

In addition to expressing gratitude for taking part in this research interview process, participants also felt comfortable sharing information that could ultimately be used in academic presentations and publications. The ways in which participants made meaning of their male interpersonal relationships and the manner in which they negotiated them on campus provided a sense of purpose for the interview. James shared, “I thought it was cool to be a part of it [research interview process]. I really hope it makes a difference. I look forward to seeing the results.” While building rapport with study participants throughout the research interview process, it became clear that they felt connected to the study and invested in its overall aims. Similarly, Henry shared,

I’m very appreciative that I could be a part of this. I wish there were more studies and more avenues to kind of help minorities in higher education because there definitely are things that Caucasian students know that we just don’t know.

Henry often discussed the ways that he formed peer connections with his same race male peers in ways that differed from his White male counterparts. Preston also conveyed similar sentiments and said,

I am appreciative of it [research interview process]. There were questions that I have never had to answer. I felt like that was really cool. I liked the process . . . I think you are doing something really good right here. It felt good and I want to read your final report.

Participants were able to be vulnerable during this research interview process and subsequently became interested in the study’s findings and outcomes.

Discussion

The impetus for this article was to examine the ways in which a research interview process exploring sensitive topics was beneficial to Black college men. Findings from this article suggest that the research interview process is a venue where Black men can express their feelings, feel empowered, and reveal their vulnerabilities. Although participants did not expect there to be therapeutic benefits as a result of participating in this research process, they expressed gratitude as it was the first time many of them had an opportunity to unpack issues related to their identity and interpersonal relationships. Participants gained deeper insights into their friendships with other men and the manner in which these connections influenced their overall college experience.

Researchers exploring the experiences of study participants, particularly on sensitive research, must understand that this is a privilege that should not be taken for granted. Telling one’s story can be empowering, therapeutic, and liberating. Corbin and Morse (2003) acknowledged how participants appreciated communicating vulnerabilities via a research interview instead of with family and friends out of fear of being judged by someone familiar. Participants in this study often expressed relief that they were able to discuss sensitive topics with a researcher. An important point to consider is that participants similar to Michael were particularly appreciative of a space where they could be vulnerable with another Black man. I spent time building rapport and showing empathy and as a result, participants felt comfortable being vulnerable throughout the research process. Researchers must understand how their social identities could potentially influence the research process and actively work to create an atmosphere where participants feel comfortable. Similar to Schwalbe’s (1996) admission that sharing similar identities and having a great deal in common with his participants helped in the rapport building process, being a Black man who shared commonalities with my study participants was beneficial.

Hutchinson et al. (1994) found that participants felt good about discussing sensitive topics with researchers knowing this information could be used in research publications and presentations. Similarly, the men in the present study were not only grateful to engage in the research interview process but they also had a keen interest in the study’s aims and outcomes and requested to see the overall findings. The therapeutic benefits of engagement in qualitative research interviews were both unexpected and beneficial for study participants. Of note, as previously mentioned, I am not suggesting that the research interview should replace counseling or therapy. However, I am conveying that individuals who participate in research studies involving sensitive topics may gain some therapeutic benefits as a result of their participation.

Through the process of conducting this study, additional considerations for rapport building in qualitative research emerged. Qualitative researchers must create a rapport building process that begins with their first encounter with a study participant (Dickson-Swift et al., 2007). Polkinghorne (2005) discussed the importance of developing a trusting researcher–participant partnership where participants can share openly during the research process. To that end, to establish rapport and create an interview climate where participants were comfortable being vulnerable, I was deliberate in the design of the larger study. The initial semi-structured interview was to establish rapport and the subsequent photo-elicitation interview allowed for the co-construction of knowledge and was particularly helpful for participants who do not open up as much in the previous interview. Participants who did open up as much during the initial interview appreciated having photographs as they were a less intrusive way to capture information. The photographs also helped some participants feel relaxed given their familiarity of both submitting and discussing them on their own terms. The two-pronged interview approach offers an innovative way for researchers and practitioners to collect data that unearth the interpersonal realities of Black men. The research interview process was more than just gathering information to answer this study’s research question; it helped participants become more vulnerable.

The research interview process could be transformative in the lives of college men, particularly Black college men. Black men are vulnerable beings and the research interview process could serve as an initial venue for individuals to express emotional vulnerability. The benefits Black college men glean from participation in a research interview process involving sensitive topics are underexplored and these benefits could have long-standing impact that extends beyond the present study.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Brian L. McGowan is an assistant professor of higher education at The University of North Carolina at Greensboro. His research focuses on Black men’s achievement, engagement, identity development, and interpersonal relationships in higher education; developmental realities and meaning making capacities of college students and educators; and broader examinations of race and gender within postsecondary institutional contexts.

References

Alty

Rodham

(1998). The ouch! factor: Problems in conducting sensitive research. Qualitative Health Research, 8, 275-282.

Anderson

(2008). Inclusive masculinity in a fraternal setting. Men and Masculinities, 10, 604-620.

Brooms

D. R.

Goodman

Clark

(2015). “We need more of this”: Engaging Black men on college campuses. College Student Affairs Journal, 33, 105-123.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). London, England: SAGE.

Collins

P. H.

(2006). A telling difference: Dominance, strength, and Black masculinities. In Mutua

A. D.

(Ed.), Progressive Black masculinities (pp. 73-97). New York, NY: Routledge.

Connell

R. W.

Messerschmidt

J. W.

(2005). Hegemonic masculinity: Rethinking the concept. Gender & Society, 19, 829-859.

Corbin

Morse

J. M.

(2003). The unstructured interactive interview: Issues of reciprocity and risks when dealing with sensitive topics. Qualitative Inquiry, 9, 335-354.

Crotty

(1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Dancy

T. E.

(2011). Colleges in the making of manhood and masculinity: Gendered perspectives on African American males. Gender and Education, 23, 477-495.

10.

Davis

J. E.

(1999). What does gender have to do with the experience of African American college men? In Polite

Davis

J. E.

(Eds.), African American males in school and society: Politics and practices for effective education (pp. 134-148). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

11.

Dempsey

Dowling

Larkin

Murphy

(2016). Sensitive interviewing in qualitative research. Research in Nursing & Health, 39, 480-490.

12.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2007). Doing sensitive research: What challenges do qualitative researchers face? Qualitative Research, 7, 327-353.

13.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2008). Risk to researchers in qualitative research on sensitive topics: Issues and strategies. Qualitative Health Research, 18, 133-144.

14.

Dickson-Swift

James

E. L.

Kippen

Liamputtong

(2009). Researching sensitive topics: Qualitative research as emotion work. Qualitative Research, 9, 61-79.

15.

Donaldson

(1993). What is hegemonic masculinity? Theory and Society, 22, 643-657.

16.

Edwards

K. E.

Jones

S. R.

(2009). “Putting my man face on”: A grounded theory of college men’s gender identity development. Journal of College Student Development, 50, 210-228.

17.

Elmir

Schmied

Jackson

Wilkes

(2011). Interviewing people about potentially sensitive topics. Nurse Researcher, 19(1), 12-16.

18.

Ford

(2011). Doing fake masculinity, being real men: Present and future constructions of self among Black college men. Symbolic Interaction, 34, 38-62.

19.

Griffith

D. M.

Gunter

Watkins

D. C.

(2012). Measuring masculinity in research on men of color: Findings and future directions. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 187-194.

20.

Harper

(2002). Talking about pictures: A case for photo elicitation. Visual Studies, 17, 13-26.

21.

Harper

Cole

(2012). Member checking: Can benefits be gained similar to group therapy? The Qualitative Report, 17, 510-517.

22.

Harper

S. R.

(2004). The measure of a man: Conceptualizations of masculinity among high-achieving African American male college students. Berkeley Journal of Sociology, 48, 89-107.

23.

Harper

S. R.

(2012). Black male student success in higher education: A report from the national Black male college achievement study. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Center for the Study of Race and Equity in Education.

24.

Harris

III . (2010). College men’s meanings of masculinities and contextual influences: Toward a conceptual model. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 297-318.

25.

Harris

III. Edwards

K. E.

(2010). College men’s experiences as men: Findings and implications from two grounded theory studies. Journal of Student Affairs Research and Practice, 47, 43-62.

26.

Harris

III. Palmer

R. T.

Struve

L. E.

(2011). Cool posing on campus: A qualitative study of masculinities and gender expression among Black men at private research institution. Journal of Negro Education, 80, 47-62.

27.

Hutchinson

S. A.

Wilson

M. E.

Wilson

H. S.

(1994). Benefits of participating in research interviews. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 26, 161-166.

28.

Jackson

B. A.

(2012). Bonds of brotherhood: Emotional and social support among college Black men. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 642, 61-71.

29.

Johnson

J. M.

McGowan

B. L.

(2017). Untold stories: The gendered experiences of high-achieving African American male alumni of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Journal of African American Males in Education, 8(1), 23-44.

30.

Jones

S. R.

Torres

Arminio

(2013). Negotiating the complexities of qualitative research in higher education: Fundamental elements and issues (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

31.

Kelly

B. T.

Kortegast

(2017). Engaging images for research, pedagogy, and practice: Utilizing visuals to understand and promote college student development. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

32.

Kimmel

(2008). Guyland: The perilous world where boys become men. New York, NY: HarperCollins.

33.

Lee

(1993). Doing research on sensitive topics. London, England: SAGE.

34.

Lincoln

Guba

(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

35.

Lowes

Paul

(2006). Participants’ experiences of being interviewed about an emotive topic. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 55, 587-595.

36.

Martin

B. E.

Harris

(2006). Examining productive conceptions of masculinities: Lessons learned from academically driven African American male student-athletes. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 14, 359-378.

37.

McClure

S. M.

(2006). Improvising masculinity: African American fraternity membership in the construction of a Black masculinity. Journal of African American Studies, 10, 57-73.

38.

McGowan

B. L.

(2017). Visualizing peer connections: The gendered realities of African American college men’s interpersonal relationships. Journal of College Student Development, 58, 983-1000.

39.

Murray

(2003). Qualitative research interviews: Therapeutic benefits for the participants. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 10, 233-236.

40.

Newman

Kaloupek

D. G.

(2004). The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused research studies. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 17, 383-394.

41.

O’Neil

J. M.

(1981). Patterns of gender role conflict and strain: Sexism and fear of femininity in men’s lives. The Personnel and Guidance Journal, 60, 203-210.

42.

Palmer

R. T.

Wood

J. L.

Dancy

T. E.

II. Strayhorn

T. L.

(2014). Black male collegians: Increasing access, retention, and persistence in higher education (ASHE higher education report). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

43.

Pelzer

D. L.

(2016). Creating a new narrative: Reframing Black masculinity for college men. Journal of Negro Education, 85, 16-27.

44.

Polkinghorne

D. E.

(2005). Language and meaning: Data collection in qualitative research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, 137-145.

45.

Schwalbe

(1996). The mirrors in men’s faces. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 25, 58-82.

46.

Smith

B. A.

(1999). Ethical and methodologic benefits of using a reflexive journal in hermeneutic-phenomenologic research. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 31, 359-363.

47.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

48.

Strayhorn

T. L.

(2008). The role of supportive relationships in facilitating African American males’ success in college. NASPA Journal, 45, 26-48.

49.

Tonge

Ryan

M. M.

Moore

S. A.

Beckley

L. E.

(2015). The effect of place attachment on pro-environment behavioral intentions of visitors to coastal natural area tourist destinations. Journal of Travel Research, 54, 730-743.

50.

Zainuddin

(2009). Using photo elicitation in identifying tourist motivational attributes for visiting Taman Negara, Malaysia. Management Science and Engineering, 3(1), 9-16.