Addressing race,racism,and commercial sexual exploitation in practice through an action-based research partnership

Interview guide

The construction of the question guide greatly benefited from our collaborative efforts. Given the conversations of the coalition’s direct service provider group, the researcher constructed a preliminary interview guide for women and brought it to a meeting. Group members provided feedback, editing certain questions from their practice experiences. For example, one question originally included in the question guide asked women “how important is it to you that a service provider have similar types of life experiences?” The question was placed after a series of questions about substance use and sex trading and was intended to ascertain whether women preferred speaking with a “peer counselor” or someone who previously had experienced some type of sex trading or drug use. Providers indicated that the question was too broad and that “life experiences” could mean anything from sex trading and drug use to other experiences women would bring up in the interview about their family life, communities, and even (racial or other) identities. As such, the question was reworded to specifically ask about the importance of talking with a counselor who had personally experienced substance use as well as sex trading.

We also discussed potential scenarios of questions that might be difficult for women to answer. For example, in order to participate in the study, women had to confirm that they met inclusion criteria, which meant that they had already disclosed that they had traded sex as adults. Even with that confirmation, providers stressed that the material regarding sex trading would be more sensitive than questions exploring drug use. Consequently, questions were ordered such that the first sets of questions explored themes related to service access generally and substance use followed by sex trading. All of these changes emerged in discussions between the researcher and coalition members, which may have helped to prevent challenges from occurring throughout the interview process. In building from conversations about the study aims itself, questions or edits to questions proposed by coalition members were relevant to the research aims. The researcher found that this order worked well in her interviews and allowed for more time to build rapport before approaching the most sensitive material in the interview.

Interviewer considerations

Some providers at this meeting wished to confirm that the researcher was going to conduct the interview, rather than a research assistant. When the researcher confirmed this, some commented on how this made it easier for providers to refer their clients to the study because they trusted the researcher. These conversations also provided an opportunity for providers who were newer to the coalition to follow up and ask questions. One person, for example, probed the researcher about how any issues of violence, trauma, or suicidal ideation were to be addressed and this was discussed at length. A plan was described that included assessment and referral to community resources. Another important conversation addressed the racial identity of the researcher herself. The group delved into how the researcher’s own racial identity (as a Hispanic, White woman) may impact the interviews. The researcher discussed the self-reflexivity processes, which are instrumental in qualitative research (see reflection section of this article). The practitioner felt that the researcher’s growing experience and expertise with this population would build confidence and trust in providers who had concerns about the researcher interviewing their clients about such sensitive material. Trust in the researcher, built over time, resulted in providers’ enhanced willingness to refer clients to this study, and to confidently inform clients and agency directors about the nature of the study and credibility of the researcher, without pressuring clients to participate.

Study promotional materials

The language and color scheme used in flyers for this study was modeled from a different study occurring in another state (Martin, 2013) and brought to the coalition for their review. Flyers used bright colors and non-stigmatizing language (i.e., asked if individuals had “traded sex” instead of asking about prostitution, trafficking, or other stigmatizing wording), and were formatted with tear-off strips with contact information. In addition to feedback given on the flyer, the conversations provided an opportunity to discuss the best locations to place them. For example, practitioners associated with a drop-in center for emerging adults underscored the importance of placing the flyers in bathroom stalls at their locations to provide more privacy to anyone who tore off the researcher’s contact information. Such placement of flyers likely enhanced the feasibility of the study for those who accessed the information from those particular flyers.

Member checking with service providers

Service provider member checking was completed in two interactive presentations. The first presentation occurred at an addiction treatment center, where approximately 25 staff members attended. Due to recent turnover, only one attendee had participated in the research study. The researcher took notes of the discussion in this session. The second presentation was given to CATE and 14 key stakeholders attended, of whom seven were research participants. The open CATE meeting attendees represented organizations that address mental health, women exiting prostitution, homelessness, poverty, and criminal justice. Most of the attendees were regular members of the domestic service provider group led by the practitioner. The coalition organizer was present and she took notes and transcribed comments during the discussion portion of the presentation. In both member checking sessions, the researcher presented the findings and facilitated a discussion of providers’ experiences in relation to the findings. Providers gave a confirmatory response and discussed the challenges of addressing sex trading as well as differences between how women judged others for their experiences. They also discussed challenges to addressing racial tensions among women as they arise in groups. As one provider who was a study participant indicated.

I thought racism wouldn’t exist in the [organization]. And that needs to be addressed for all of us. Oh there’s racism in referral, but it wouldn’t be in the house. We stopped inviting White women in the house until we could create a safe space for women of color. We still have a lot of work to do. Part of what we’ve tried to ask referring agencies to have those conversations as well. And us having those conversations with our partners.

Member checking with women

Given the transient nature of many women’s lives who are involved in CSE, it was expected that women would be difficult to contact for member checking. Of the 30 women who participated in the study, 10 women could not be reached because their phone numbers were out of service or not working and another three women had voicemails that were full or not yet activated so the researcher was unable to leave a message. This was a difficult and unfortunate start to the member checking process, as a stronger process would have been able to reach more women. Although expected to be difficult, this dynamic was possibly further exacerbated by the timeline. Attempts to contact women occurred approximately seven to 10 months after the initial interview was completed, in large part because the researcher was flying across the country for faculty interviews and was unable to devote the time to conducting member checking in the months after analysis was complete. Shortening this timeline would have potentially improved the quality of the member checking process. Of the remaining 17 women contacted, the researcher was directly able to speak with 10 women, of whom six indicated they would attend. However, only three women attended the meeting. The three women identified as Black/African-American. The researcher took notes of the discussion.

The presentation was interactive in nature, particularly as the researcher presented each emerging theme. The women appeared to experience a range of emotions in processing the findings and the researcher took breaks and checked in with the women, as needed. Generally, the women confirmed the findings and engaged in a rich discussion about the central themes. For example, when the researcher described the messages received by women based on their racial identities in sex trading, one participant indicated that men would “choose a White girl because she’s weaker” while another chimed in that “Black girls-they’re too demanding so men can control [White girls] easier.” The three women were in agreement about these particular dynamics. They also indicated that a White woman would be worth more financially if she has a “pretty” or “put together” look about her. If she “looks like a junkie,” then she would not be worth as much, even if she was White.

When the researcher presented findings about facilitators and barriers to disclosure, the women nodded vigorously and affirmed the judgment they had experienced about sex trading. One participant indicated she was judged for the type of sex trading she did and it “made me feel like I was this little,” making a very tiny space with her fingers. One woman said, “[they] need someone to tell you that it’s the same thing. You’re still lying down and opening up your legs and everyone’s doing it.” When the researcher described providers’ lack of addressing certain aspects or judgments in groups, two women became teary-eyed. One summarized:

All you looking for is someone to care and just to say something, but it’s like you’re nothing. Like a routine, like putting bricks on those buildings. And you thinking, when you go to a place like that, you think you’re in a good place now. It’s almost like you gotta go into survival mode. They don’t care…you have to learn how to survive in there.

Finally, the researcher presented the challenges women experienced with respect to racism and racial tensions in organization. The women confirmed their sense that preferential treatment was given to White women but also indicated that there was intersectionality between “beauty” and race. Judgment was seen to be made, as evidenced by this woman’s comment:

“If you look like you’re on drugs and [have] that street look. Majority of ladies…White, Black purple, orange…if you got the street mode, you’re being treated [like that]. If you a White, female that got the [street] behaviors, all y’all going in the same box like shit. But if you look like you got a little class or you whatever, if you White you got special privileges.

Research to practice action

Member checking presentations with providers and women with experiences of sex trading as adults enhanced the feasibility of creating action steps. Providers who attended the member checking presentation at the coalition requested the presentation to be given at other service provider coalitions, of which they were a part. One example was the St. Louis Ending Violence Against Women Network, a network of individuals and organizations who serve survivors of intimate partner and sexual violence. Collectively, these presentations led to planning of next steps to address challenges of power, privilege, and racism in services. For example, the CATE contacted NCCJ to provide training for providers on addressing privilege and oppression in practice with individuals and groups. The cost for such trainings, however, proved to be too expensive for one organization or one group to fund independently. However, the dissemination of findings to various coalitions in the area led to multiple organizations and coalition groups organizing to fund trainings and integrate the material into practice.

The researcher’s reflections

Given the findings of the study, it is important to address my own racial identity and reflect upon the impact it may have had. Although I am White and access White privilege, I am also Hispanic and am often asked, “what are you?” or “you’re not White are you?” or “are you mixed?” because, I think, of my olive skin color and dark hair and eyes. When this line of conversation surfaced in a few research interviews with women in this study, I addressed it indicating that I do know that I access White privilege because it is important to note that I have been granted certain privileges because of the color of my skin. Women who identified as African American/Black shared their stories of racism and racial tensions, irrespective of whether they (verbally) questioned my own racial identity. Although it is impossible to know, the fact that I was questioned about my race may have increased access within interviews.

Consequently, this research process required engagement in reflexive research, which requires thinking through one’s position through self-awareness and providing insights into how the researcher’s role in impacts everything from research design to data collection and analysis to writing (Foldy, 2005; van Bochove, Burgers, Geurts, de Koster, & van der Waal, 2015). Scrutinizing my own process, as a White researcher, is essential to particularly charged topics, including the roles of race and ethnicity (Foldy, 2005). Through self-reflexivity, memo-ing, and peer debriefing support (PDS), I did not see any differing patterns of interview ease with African American/Black or White participants, or if we had an open conversation about my racial identity or not. For example, one participant stated in the interview

all the white girls get the special privileges and us [n-word]s, we come second…no matter where you look or where you go, we supposed to be subservient to your masters or our masters children or their children’s children. Slavery and racism aren’t dead.

The organizer’s reflections

After my first few meetings as the organizer for CATE, it became clear that we were predominantly a group of White women and therefore did not reflect the intersectional identities of the individuals the coalition served. The CATE executive committee and I were interested in changing that and broadening the coalition’s membership. However, my own Whiteness, steeped in an upbringing of subtle racism, made this more difficult than I thought it would be. Addressing racism in my own life was a relatively new process for me. Helping a coalition confront their lack of diversity while deconstructing my own implicit biases proved to be more challenging than I thought.

Still, it was important for the coalition members and me to acknowledge our lack of diversity and strategize ways to change that. We recognized that, in many ways, our coalition reflected the larger anti-trafficking movement and social service provision in this area (Donnelly, Cook, van Ausdale, & Foley, 2005). Diversifying us in some ways was about diversifying our respective organizations. This study in particular helped us understand how our overall Whiteness impacted the individuals we were working to serve, and identify that our collective hesitation to address issues of race and racism in practice negatively affected women engaged in services. Just as I rarely noticed the power dynamics in our meetings of mostly White women and one or two African American women, the other White coalition members were not always aware of how participants of color representing their organizations were impacted in mixed-race groups sessions led by White women. The participatory research process revealed that the coalition could serve as a space to foster open dialogue about that process, as well as provide a place of encouragement from others also attempting to change the systems. As the coalition organizer, I knew this was my responsibility. However, as I was preparing for a new position, there was little time to implement anything more than help facilitates this priority in the transition.

The findings of this study underscored our need and responsibility to address racism at the micro and mezzo levels. I watched our coalition member service providers during member checking meetings, who seemed genuine in their desire to address privilege, oppression, and racism at their agencies and in our community. The struggle was what to do next. Ideas were generated for further learning, training opportunities with anti-racism organizations, and discussions to implement anti-oppression training into practice settings. I became convinced the coalition needed a bigger change.

During my last year as the organizer, we began to address racism more purposefully in part because of the findings of this research study. Our efforts to diversify the coalition did result in a small but substantial increase in the participation of women of color and efforts to foster inclusivity. When I left the coalition to move out of state, we emphasized the importance of diversity in interviewing and selecting the next coalition organizer, an African American woman. As part of the transition, the new organizer and I had several conversations, which emphasized the need to address diversity in the coalition and provide opportunities for individuals of color to retain leadership roles. Although I do believe I brought my own strengths to the coalition work in this community, I had failed to connect with the communities at highest risk for a number of reasons, not the least of which may have been my Whiteness. This study’s findings provided an avenue to discuss, acknowledge, and address the roles that racism, privilege, and oppression had played in the dynamics among providers. I know the person hired will bring a perspective and a voice to the coalition and to her organizing that is essential to addressing diversity concerns within the coalition but also to the individuals who seek services from these providers.

The practitioner’s reflections

As a provider and an African-American woman, who has been met with prejudices and racism all my life, I find myself to be sensitive to the plight of people of color, especially when being discussed in majority White spaces. I grew up in the Northeast part of the country, predominately in what I consider a progressive city. When I came to St. Louis, I was challenged by the deep racial divisiveness expressed by people from this area. This is something that I continue to struggle with in my professional and private life.

When I joined CATE, I noticed that it was and continued to be a predominantly White, female space. Given my work in the community of St. Louis serving African American female teens who were victims of CSE, I became concerned about the level of racism that they experience within various organizations that are attempting to assist them in their victimization. As a social worker, I am aware that empathy and non-judgmental attitudes are inherent in our work and believe that providers are well intentioned in truly seeking to assist their clients who have been trafficked. However, I wonder whether those interactions would be deeper with a provider of a similar racial/ethnic background. There was a particular instance at a CATE meeting when a provider mentioned that they would like to hire more people of color to reflect their clientele, but indicated that more African American people were not applying, and she did not know how to market to varying ethnic/racial groups. In engaging in this discussion, it felt uncomfortable figuring out why this was happening. Although the answer to this question did not fall solely on the people of color in the room, I felt an urge to somehow speak for African-American professionals; a common experience for African-Americans when there are limited people of color present in a situation.

Given this context, I had initial concerns about a White researcher leading this study, which I assumed would mainly recruit people of color. In discussing the study with her, I felt reassured by her background, motivations, and genuine attempts to understand women who had traded sex. I knew she was a fellow social worker with multicultural practice experience who had also lived in less racially divisive cities, which reduced my fears of discrimination and judgment toward African American female participants in the study. Without time to build trust and to have multiple conversations in this regard, I would have remained rather skeptical and less willing to collaborate.

When member checking occurred with provider groups, I was most surprised to hear women’s accounts of racial divisiveness in the group practice settings and the blatant racialized exchanges between White and Black/African American group participants. I was, however, pleased to notice providers’ apparent enthusiasm about addressing the findings in practice. I was encouraged by the potential opportunity to partake in anti-oppression trainings for CATE members, as I believe it is an important one in going forward with this work. When the coalition organizer relocated due to a job venture, I was excited by her replacement, an African American woman who had a passion for this issue. Unfortunately, we recently learned that her position would be terminated due to lack of funding, which we worry will jeopardize efforts to integrate the findings into practice for this community. However, she will continue on as a (volunteer) co-organizer. Thus, I hope that information gleaned from this research study is not shelved and that providers can continue to discuss issues of cultural relativism while interacting with individuals impacted by CSE.

Lessons learned from our experiences

As we might have expected, we realized that the dynamics of racial privilege and oppression seep into our experiences as coalition members striving to address racism and enhance social justice. Throughout our process of working together, we did not have enough built-in, reflexive processes to address the discomfort that coalition members of color experienced and that White coalition members may be unaware of because of racial privilege. For example, it is well documented that the practitioner’s experiences of feeling the need to speak for all women of color or, in her case, all African American women, as well as a host of other microaggressions are not unique experiences (Ballinas, 2017; Sue et al., 2007). Even though we had ongoing conversations about experiences of racism and racial tensions in the work, conducting deeper reflexive processes to co-write this article enhanced our understanding on another level. The coalition organizer and researcher realized that we were unaware of this dynamic specifically within the incident that the practitioner described, while the practitioner was not surprised about the exchange at the meeting due to misgivings, assumptions, stereotypes about cultural dynamics involving African Americans. This is similar to the process Bell and colleagues experienced in coming together as two Black and two White researchers doing anti-racism work. In describing their own challenges, they indicate that “the act of writing this article became a microcosm of our topic of inquiry” (Bell, Meyerson, Nkomo, & Scully, 2003, p. 384). For us, writing this paper elucidated missed opportunities (for the two of us with racial privilege in particular) to create space for reflexive processes to occur before the writing of this article. Such processes may be helpful to integrate among transracial, community-based research partnerships to address some of the challenges group members face and ultimately strengthen quality of the study.