Creating space: A university-based action research curriculum as a counterspace

Abstract

Students of color, particularly Black students, navigate a complex environment when they attend Predominantly White Institutions (PWI) of higher education. The counterspaces framework outlines the processes which occur when marginalized groups of individuals gather with one another in a space ‘counter’ to settings where they experience marginalization. This study utilized the counterspaces framework to understand the experiences of a group of mostly Black students who participated in an action research curriculum program called Youth as Researchers at a PWI. The study found that the Youth as Researchers program functioned as a counterspace for a group of predominantly Black students by providing a space to acknowledge shared experiences with the campus environment, allowing group members to recognize their unique abilities as students and activists, and positioning group members alongside supportive others through which to navigate the research experience. Overall, the counterspaces framework has utility for scholars and practitioners working with marginalized groups in higher education settings.

Keywords

action research Black students counterspaces higher education students of color

Introduction

The undergraduate college experience is one of complexity, adventure, and challenge. In the United States, the undergraduate college experience is often four years in length, with students choosing their own classes and academic focus. Most students live on or near the university campus and engage in extracurriculars and close peer interactions throughout this time. Crafting one’s personal identity, determining academic interests, and integrating socially with like-minded young people play throughout the backdrops of students’ daily lives. For students of color who attend Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs) within the United States, the changes which face all students are even more complex. It is not unusual for students of color to feel they don’t belong within the wider campus environment, a feeling further strengthened when they find themselves as the only or one of the few people of color within their classroom, campus housing, or other sites on campus (Harper, 2013; Mills, 2020). It is also still common for students of color, particularly Black students, to experience negative stressors and microaggressions related to race throughout their experiences on college campuses (Griffith et al., 2019; Mills, 2020; Smith et al., 2016) which has been persistent over decades (Ogunyemi et al., 2020).

Black students have been found to cope with these circumstances in a variety of ways (Ogunyemi et al., 2020). Strategies documented by Griffith et al. (2019) include taking time to carefully process an event personally, finding supportive mentors or other students to share one’s experiences, working harder academically than non-Black peers to combat negative academic stereotypes, and reaching out to non-Black peers to educate or inform about their experiences on campus. Black students have also been shown to maintain homogenous social networks even in settings with mostly White students, demonstrating that Black students actively seek out and pursue Black friendships as well as Black spaces on campus (Gilkes Borr, 2019). Examples of spaces crafted by Black faculty, staff, and students on campus include multicultural and Black sororities and fraternities, networking programs for students and faculty, and university-wide centers for ethnic/racial studies. These spaces can provide respite, friendship, intellectual engagement, and networks for Black students and other students of color.

This article describes how an action research curriculum program, open and designed for any university student, may have served as a counterspace for Black students attending a PWI. The purpose of this program was to equip students to carry out group-based research on social justice-related community issues. Seven groups participated in this program in 2017. Individual students interested in joining the program were asked to list topics they were passionate about studying. Groups were then created by the program team based on the similarity of interests. One group out of the seven was composed of almost entirely Black students because of their shared interest in racial justice topics. This paper examines the experiences of this unique group using the counterspaces framework (Case and Hunter, 2012) to understand how this action research curriculum program may have functioned as a counterspace.

Counterspaces: A concept

The concept of counterspaces is rooted within critical race theory. Critical race theory seeks to understand and overcome systems of oppression by focusing on race-based experiences and racism. It challenges ideologies and social structures which perpetuate racial injustices while making explicit many of the implicit ways in which people of color experience harm, bias, and discrimination (Solórzano et al., 2000). By studying, naming, and voicing these issues, critical race theory provides a platform to showcase racism as a systematic issue rather than an individual or idiosyncratic problem. By doing so, it provides a standpoint to advocate for positive social change.

A counterspace is typically defined as a place where those who face similar oppression can come together, process their experiences, find understanding, and engage in behavior which resists their oppression (Carter, 2007). This concept provides an important way to analyze how different contexts affect the ability of marginalized people to respond in positive ways to oppressive circumstances (Case and Hunter, 2012). Within counterspaces, marginalized experiences are expressed openly, and strategies are created to cope with or overcome marginalization. Therefore, studying counterspaces is a way to engage in critical race theory’s wider aim to understand and challenge racialized oppression.

Counterspaces as a concept has been used to study experiences of racial minorities within university settings. These studies have examined Black students’ experiences at PWIs and the role counterspaces play in helping students to adjust and thrive. Solórzano et al. (2000) found that Black students experienced a sense of being devalued within the classroom while also being considered suspicious outside of the classroom. In the classroom, Black students reported they felt faculty and other students held low or negative expectations of their abilities. Outside the classroom, Black students perceived that they were subjected to higher levels of surveillance by campus authorities and held to higher standards of conduct than their White peers. These negative experiences were emotionally draining to students and counterspaces were important as places to rejuvenate, relax, and feel at home with students experiencing similar issues. Similarly, at another PWI, Grier-Reed (2010) found that a network created by Black students and faculty provided a sense of safety for students, gave them a place to process their feelings of alienation, and provided discussion on how to behave and handle negative experiences on campus. They argue that ‘intentional spaces in which students are free to express their authentic selves and feel heard and validated versus stereotyped and judged may have the potential to counter the microinsults and microinvalidations experienced elsewhere on campus’ (p. 187).

Lane (2016) examined the concept of counterspaces and its relationship to the development of science identity for Black students within STEM fields. Students within her study expressed high levels of exhaustion and discouragement from classroom environments which required adapting to different cultural expectations (high levels of individualism and competitiveness) while simultaneously being one of the few, if only, student of color in most classroom environments. In contrast, the experience of engaging in undergraduate research was a place to build their identity as young scientists away from these challenging classroom environments. The research environment provided a chance to allow their work and research to speak for itself. Altogether, these studies have used the concept of counterspaces to understand the experiences of Black students within PWIs has shown that these spaces play an important role in the creation of community, positive adaptation, and identity development (Grier-Reed, 2010; Lane, 2016; Solórzano et al., 2000).

Counterspaces: A conceptual framework

Recently, Case and Hunter (2012, 2014) expanded counterspaces from a concept to a conceptual framework. This conceptual framework highlights several ongoing processes which comprise the experiences of those in a counterspace setting. These processes help to explain why being part of a counterspace environment might lead to higher levels of adaptive responding of marginalized people. Case and Hunter (2012) describe three key processes: (1) Narrative Identity Work; (2) Acts of Resistance; and (3) Direct Relational Transactions. These three processes are summarized below.

The first process is Narrative Identity Work in which individuals or groups make meaning about their circumstances through the creation of stories about themselves and their situations. Case and Hunter (2012) describe how this Narrative Identity Work progresses across three different forms. The first is an oppression narrative which ‘is a shared narrative that articulates the nature of the members’ lived experiences with respect to oppression’ (p. 263). This allows for members to feel validated in their day-to-day experiences, particularly in circumstances where these experiences are ignored or denied by wider society. The second is a resistance narrative in which members recognize their ability to overcome oppression. This is a way for members to reassure themselves that they are worthy of improved circumstances. The third is reimagined personal narratives in which members take back their own self-identities away from the denigration of mainstream society and recraft their perception of themselves in positive ways. In Case and Hunter’s (2014) more recent study, they found evidence for a fourth narrative category reimagined collective narratives in which members engaged in new perceptions of themselves at the group level.

The second major process that can occur within counterspaces are Acts of Resistance. Acts of Resistance refer to the ability of members to embrace and engage in behaviors marginalized in society and to do so without fear or worry. Since being part of a counterspace puts members alongside others who are similar, members can more freely express aspects of their culture they may suppress in other circumstances. Also, the counterspace environment provides the chance for members to engage in behavior that sheds light on the marginalization they experience and can offer opportunities to actively resist or change the oppressive status quo.

The third and final process is Direct Relational Transactions. Since counterspaces are contexts that are group-based, being a part of a counterspace provides members with important relational experiences. The first is the emotional closeness and social support resulting from shared community. The second is the ‘transmission of behavioral and cognitive strategies to respond to the existence and consequences of oppression’ (Case and Hunter, 2012: 266). This refers to the collective ideas and strategies a counterspace group can provide to members about how to practically adapt and problem solve in the context of oppressive environments.

Some recent studies have applied this conceptual framework to study the role of counterspaces within specific environments. Case and Hunter (2014) have applied this framework to study the experiences of offender-labeled youth within a peer-ambassador program aimed to reengage them in positive community life. Through ethnographic study, they found that not only were the three initially outlined narratives present (oppression, resistance, reimagined personal) but also that a reimagined collective narrative emerged from youth’s experiences as peer ambassadors. Relational mechanisms between different groups within the program (youth-youth; youth-adults; etc) also seemed to play a role in how these narratives were formed. McConnell et al. (2016) applied the counterspaces framework from Case and Hunter (2012) to examine a women’s music festival and found that applying an intersectional lens helped to unveil that this festival had counterspaces within an environment that could already be classified as a counterspace. That is, when researchers consider multiple marginalized identities (in this case women of color and heterosexual women in an environment constructed for primarily White and lesbian women) counterspaces can become more complex. Hassanli et al. (2020) found that an immigrant and refugee-focused cultural festival served as a counterspace, even when non-immigrants were part of the festival. This was because the purpose of the festival was to uplift and recognize the positive aspects of immigrant and refugee cultures. In addition, the festival connected refugees and immigrants to others like them while allowing them to express their cultural practices in positive ways, building pride.

These three studies presented above have shown, through an examination of diverse settings, that the use of the counterspaces conceptual framework outlined by Case and Hunter (2012) is a useful tool for exploring and understanding the processes which comprise how counterspaces lead to adaptive responding of marginalized groups—whether those groups be marginalized based on race, immigrant status, gender, or sexuality. This study will apply this framework to explore the experiences of Black students within a program delivered at a PWI. The key argument of this article is that the counterspaces framework can be applied to understand the experiences of a group of predominantly Black students participating in an action research-inspired program at a PWI.

Study context

The program which comprises the context of this study was an action-research curriculum called Youth as Researchers. This program was created initially by the National University of Ireland at Galway (2016) for young adolescents and was altered and delivered for college students within a large public research university in the United States, Pennsylvania State University, during the 2017–2018 academic year. The program is an applied research curriculum based on action research principles, which teaches basic skills in social science research to young people and guides them on how to carry out research about community issues of their choosing. The goal is to catalyze positive social change. Research is conducted in groups, with topics chosen by youth, and with youth designing, gathering, and analyzing their own research findings.

During the 2017–2018 academic year, there were 66 students who engaged in this program voluntarily at Pennsylvania State University. All interested students were asked to complete a form describing which topics they were most interested in exploring. Seven groups of students were formed based on these interests, and most students did not previously know one another. Each group had approximately 8–10 students. Participants engaged in a 3-hour-long active learning training session about social science research methods followed by weekly check-in meetings with program staff to provide progress updates and receive guidance and support. This program was delivered in the fall semester, and student findings and reflections were shared in a public forum on campus in the spring. The topics chosen by each group and the racial/ethnic demographics of each group are shown in Table 1. This article focuses on the experiences of Group 1, the only group that was comprised of mostly Black students.

Table 1.

Group research topics and racial/ethnic demographics.

Group #	Group topic	White n (%)	Black n (%)	Hispanic n (%)	Asian n (%)	Other n (%)
1	Students’ Perceptions of Diversity-Related classes at Pennsylvania State University (n = 7)	1 (14)	5 (71)	1 (14)	—	—
2	Food Insecurity on Campus (n = 10)	7 (70)	—	3 (30)	—	—
3	Food Insecurity on Campus (n = 9)	5 (56)	2 (22)	—	1 (11)	1 (11)
4	Immigrant Students’ Perceptions of Free Speech on Campus (n = 7)	3 (43)	—	1 (14)	1 (14)	2 (29)
5	Self-Described Identities of Pennsylvania State University Students (n = 9)	5 (56)	1 (11)	1 (11)	1 (11)	1 (11)
6	Perceptions of Sustainability Programs and Recycling at Pennsylvania State University (n = 8)	1 (13)	3 (38)	1 (13)	2 (25)	1 (13)
7	Pennsylvania State University Women’s Perceptions of Empowerment (n = 8)	4 (50)	1 (13)	1 (13)	—	2 (25)

All percentages were rounded to the nearest whole number. Numbers in bold indicate that the racial category of participants represented a majority of that group’s composition.

This program was part of a larger, quasi-experimental study exploring the effects of participatory evaluation (Odera, 2021). The purpose of this larger study was to understand if engagement in participatory evaluation of the program affected groups’ experiences and learning. Information for this larger study was gathered through pre/posttest surveys and focus group discussions with each group. Details about the focus group questions and initial data analysis for this larger study are described in the proceeding section. While many emergent themes were common to all Youth as Researcher groups, there were also unique themes held by some groups but not others. These unique themes are listed in Table 2. The unique themes of Group 1 are shown in italics.

Table 2.

Unique themes of youth as researcher groups.

Learning about topic and context	Learning about oneself	Learning about group/others
Learned about contextual factors influencing food security on campus (G2, G3) Learned about students’ perspectives about intersectionality (G5) Learned how university defines diversity and inclusion compared to students’ understanding (G1)	Sense of pride and independence (G2, G3) Leadership development and self-reflection (G4, G6, G7) Desire and commitment to social change work (G1)	Logistical management and organization required for successful group work (G3, G6) Openness and passion of group deliberation and debate (G1)

Emergence of a new research question

After examining the focus group results across all seven groups, the authors discussed the results in the context of the first author’s direct observations of the groups and the lived experiences of both authors, which led to the emergence of a new research question. The first author led this research study as part of her dissertation work. The first author is a mixed-race (Black, White, and Hispanic) woman of color who has attended PWIs throughout her undergraduate and graduate education. The second author served on the dissertation committee of the first author and is a Black American woman with roots from the Caribbean who has had PWI educational and career experiences. The initial research training was led by a Black African man. The first author attended all trainings for observational purposes and debriefed with the trainer after each session. After the training held with Group 1 (the only Youth as Researchers group which was majority Black, see Table 1), both the first author and the trainer noticed that each Black student approached him personally at some point during the training, asking questions about his career trajectory and expressing excitement to see him as the trainer of the program. The two authors of this study then discussed the possibility, enlightened by our own experiences attending PWIs, that the students within Group 1 may have experienced their research group setting (predominantly Black students) and program support (led by a Black African male and mixed-race woman) as a unique space within the context of a PWI. Additionally, as shown in Table 2, Group 1’s focus group themes differed from other groups in that they engaged in a topic related to race, reflected more deeply on engaging in social change efforts, and described their group dynamic as particularly passionate, safe, and open to debate when compared to other groups. As a result of these observations and discussions, the authors of this paper decided to reexamine the focus group results of Group 1, the group comprised of predominantly Black students, through the counterspaces conceptual framework to explore the following research question:

RQ: In what ways did the Youth as Researchers program function as a counterspace for Black students?

To answer this question, data from the group is presented and its alignment with the three processes of counterspaces posed by Case and Hunter (2012) is described. The purpose of this exploratory study was to see whether the application of the counterspaces framework to the focus group results of Group 1 would help to shed further insight into the unique experiences of this group.

Data analysis

As previously mentioned, this study explores the specific results of one group of students embedded within a larger research study. A major purpose of the original study was to understand the experiences of engaging in group-based social justice research. The research design for the overall study was a quasi-experiment which used a mixed-method form of data collection to determine changes in the group over time (Odera, 2021). All program participants of the larger study received a pre and posttest survey at the beginning and end of the program and engaged in a single focus group with their project team at the end of the program in December 2017. Focus groups allowed for group-level dynamics to be both discussed and observed (Stewart et al., 2007) and allows for members within a group to express agreement, disagreement, or reflect on their experiences (Hesse-Bieber and Leavy, 2006; Stewart et al., 2007).

The focus group was 1 hour in length. The decision for this shorter time frame was made for two reasons, (1) the participants already knew each other well from working together on their research projects and did not need additional time to establish rapport during the focus group, and (2) the focus group moderator’s guide was designed to ask specifically about participants’ experiences in the program and not about broader social issues. The focus group moderator’s guide asked questions structured by common stages within the action research process including the stages of planning, acting, developing, and reflecting. The specific questions asked can be seen in Table 3.

Table 3.

Focus group moderator’s guide questions.

Action research stage	Moderator’s guide question
Planning	Please describe the process your group went through to complete your research.
Acting	Describe what it was like for your group to participate in such a hands-off program.
Acting	What would you say are the unique strengths of your group?
Developing	Did participating in this research project change your understanding of your topic? If yes, how?
Reflecting	Why did you all decide to sign up for this program?
Reflecting	If a friend was interested in joining the program, what would you tell them?

For the larger study, all focus group data was analyzed thematically by the first author for emergent themes. All focus groups were audio-recorded and then transcribed by the first author. Once transcriptions were completed, coding of key findings took place in seven stages, with codes being narrowed cyclically (Saldaña, 2013). The initial themes from the larger study were taken as a starting place to reanalyze the focus group discussion of this particular group using the counterspaces framework. First, all previously identified themes recognized by the first author from this group were categorized under the components of the counterspaces framework. Then, the transcription was re-read in full and any other quotes relevant to the framework not already captured were added. Finally, a thorough re-reading of all chosen quotes and subsequent narrowing down was undertaken to ensure each quote was relevant to the counterspace component. To protect the identity of the respondents, pseudonyms were given in place of participants’ real names. Of the seven participants within this group, three were men and four were women. The majors of the studies were broad and included African American Studies (2), Social Sciences (2), Agricultural Sciences (2), and Biotechnology (1).

Results

The results of the qualitative analysis of the focus group results, using the counterspaces framework, are described below. The analysis looked at the three major components of Narrative Identity Work, Acts of Resistance, and Direct Relational Transactions, and whether experiences within the Youth as Researchers program supported these components.

Narrative Identity Work

Narrative Identity Work is the process through which individuals or groups make meaning about their circumstances through the creation of stories about themselves and their situations. For marginalized groups, these narratives can help them identify and share their experiences of oppression, resist these oppressive narratives, and redesign narratives which are affirming and reimagined at personal and collective levels. After reanalyzing the qualitative data through the counterspaces framework, Group 1 participants’ reflections about their experiences in the Youth as Researchers program highlighted ways in which they engaged in each of these four narrative experiences.

The oppression narrative refers to the coming to an awareness about one’s marginalized position in the world. Counterspaces provide spaces and relationships for marginalized individuals to come to this awareness among others going through the same experiences. During the planning and acting stage of the action research process, when students were selecting a topic and collecting background information on this topic, they confronted challenges related to their circumstances as Black students at a PWI. This group chose to examine the university’s efforts to create an enabling environment for diversity and inclusion among underrepresented populations on campus through the designation of some undergraduate courses as ‘diversity courses’. During the creation of the research question stage, group members reflected on their own experiences and interpretations of diversity on campus, and their experiences within these classes. Through their group research, group members engaged in discussion about the distinction between official university efforts regarding diversity compared to their lived experiences on campus. They found the use of the word diversity to earmark certain courses, such as world history, to be inauthentic and did not fit with what group members themselves considered to be diversity on campus. Members of the group expressed disappointment toward what they considered a low bar set by the university regarding incorporating the values of diversity and inclusivity throughout the campus setting.

Mike:

I remember when we were looking at the All-In achievements. . .that’s when I first learned how a university defines an achievement. You know? An achievement can be a meeting, you know what I mean? . . .So it makes me think about um, just the bureaucracy behind like, trying to change policy here. If we think that these are achievements, then how long would it actually take to actually start doing things?

Jasmine:

. . . I believe it was an achievement at Pennsylvania State University. It was like the best university, or like the university [that] has like the most diverse [accolades]. . ..if this is an achievement, like, what are other campuses doing? You know?

The resistance narrative refers to marginalized groups creating narratives about themselves in opposition to negative stereotypes seen in dominant society. For Black students at a PWI who may struggle with being overlooked academically, this program offered a chance to push back and consider themselves in a positive light. Members resisted holding onto the self-narratives of not being capable, disciplined, or experienced enough to do something. They discussed their personal strengths when working with their group. They also discussed their connections on campus as student leaders or their involved in student clubs as benefiting their research process.

Jacob:

For me I would say, I was capable of more initiative than I thought. ‘Cause, like I had noticed when it came to like, the group meetings I was finding myself taking notes, and like the google doc and things like that, you know what I mean? And when I was younger and stuff like that, I would always be the one who shied away from doing responsibilities.

Mike:

In our meetings I was always asking abstract questions just to make us think differently about the question, or what does this actually mean, how will students respond to this if they’re in this situation?

Nadia:

I would consider myself a little well-connected on this campus in terms of our topic. . . . when we did talk about things, [I could say] oh this already happened, give insight on how the higher administration thinks about certain things and how we can move forward from there.

Group members discussed how they reimagined their identities in ways which emphasized their ability to engage in social change work and research-related activism. They discussed how the independence they had throughout the program allowed for them to stretch, learn from challenges, hone their personal skills and commitment, and maintain an open mind about how to design and carry out research within a group. That is, the planning, acting, and developing stages of the action research process allowed students to reflect upon themselves in new ways—as young social activist scholars.

Jacob:

. . .So, it was definitely a really good experience learning to move forward, you know. And give us like the power to say we can do something, we are researchers. We can reach out to professors and present in front of classes and get people to like, fill out our surveys and things like that. You know?

Acts of Resistance

The second major component of the counterspaces framework is that of Acts of Resistance. This component comprises of both active engagement in behavior which resists a given situation as well as openly expressing cultural values which are typically marginalized. Students in this group engaged in Acts of Resistance during the planning stages of their action research through choosing to explore a topic critically examining their PWI’s efforts to increase the culture of diversity and inclusion on campus. This group chose a topic more institutionally and politically contentious than other groups and experienced practical difficulties and some resistance from professors when asked to survey their students about diversity and inclusion within the classroom environment. Despite these challenges group members discussed their commitment to continuing to work toward the improvement of the diversity and inclusion efforts at Pennsylvania State University. The group engaged in Acts of Resistance during the acting and developing stages of their action research project through strategizing how smaller research results that build on one another can be used to push for greater change within the environment they found themselves at their university.

Jacob:

. . .[I learned that] the small questions matter. We gotta like research questions that we may not necessarily find, we may not necessarily be the most passionate about, but they still help us get to our goal.

Nadia:

It’s sometimes it’s using the smaller projects and being able to present that to the university to actually get feasible change . . . it’s about how we can make an impact on certain things and that can sort of trickle down to the other initiatives.

Regarding the expression of cultural values and behaviors, the group meetings observed by the first author were marked by boisterous, free-flowing conversation and open debate. Members openly enjoyed challenging one another on ideas. The first author took observational notes on the interpersonal dynamics, social interactions, and her individual personal reactions after the training, after project meeting check-ins, and after the focus group discussion. The first author debriefed her observations with the second author, and both agreed that traits of this group dynamic mirror our own experiences being in predominantly Black settings where we behave in ‘freer’ or different ways than we do in predominantly White spaces. For instance, this group playfully teased one another, talked passionately, and used active body language to emphasize points (such as pounding the table to make one’s point). While the focus group moderator’s guide did not ask explicitly about the group’s cultural affinity with one another, when group members discussed what they appreciated about their group members, they spoke of how they appreciated the ability to speak freely and raise their ideas openly within this group. Therefore, during all four stages of the action research (planning, acting, developing, and reflecting) the group was able to behave openly with one another.

Jacob:

. . . I enjoyed that time we had like. . ..a show down, where we was like, alright I believe in this, let’s do this, no no no, let’s do this. . .A lot of challenge and it’s good because when you challenge you learn things you’re missing so that was good.

Jasmine:

. . .But like, it was good, ‘cause being in this group ideas always bounce off of each other. . . we all didn’t agree, which I liked. Everybody wasn’t like ok, someone said one thing and we all just like jumped on it. We all had different viewpoints and all those different viewpoints made like a good, solid question that we could ask. Because we like jumped at it and we looked at it from different angles. Um, but being within the group itself like, I thought it was enjoyable, it was fun.

Direct Relational Transactions

Direct Relational Transactions are the final component of the counterspaces framework. These relational transactions include social support resulting from interacting with others who have experienced similar challenges, as well as group-level collective wisdom/problem-solving skills. The focus group discussion indicated that group members experienced both components. Regarding social support, this group stood out from other groups in the program in the way they learned about their group through the openness and passion of their group deliberations and debates. In contrast, other groups discussed the logistical and organizational management needed to maintain successful group work. When asked questions in the focus group about their group’s dynamic, they described enjoying debating one another, appreciating the unique viewpoints of group members, and their affection and enjoyment of one another. The members also discussed the support they felt from one another as they went through the challenges of their action research together. As a result, during the planning and acting stages of the action research process in which the challenges of the topic and data collection were strongest, the members experienced social support from one another.

Mike:

Sometimes in life you may feel like on your path you don’t know the right direction, but if you are on that boat with many people y’all can work to find the best way to go about, you know, embarking on like, that journey. So, I felt like throughout the whole process of this program, that we were in control of our own fate in terms of where this project’s going.

Mike:

A lot of times we were meeting, and it was, you know, even though it was serious work we can laugh too. I think that’s important. . .. When working in the group as well, you find not solely the technical side, but also like the human side of being in a group.

Regarding collective wisdom and problem solving, the group shared ways in which they came together to overcome anxiety, share their skills, and engage in initial data collection. They discussed how they appreciated the diversity of the backgrounds of group members, and how each person brought his or her unique personality, academic skills, and personal skills to the group. They also discussed how they would recommend changes to the group dynamics to be more successful in initiatives like this in the future, by dedicating enough time and devising a clear communication strategy among the group. Therefore, the planning, acting, and developing stages of the action research process helped the group members reflect upon how to carry out work like this successfully in the future.

John:

. . . some of us had experience doing research, and other of us were good at um, like thinking of questions and topics and stuff like that. So, I think just kind of like a mix of different backgrounds and experiences was a positive.

Rosalyn:

. . .if we all came on in the same exact majors or same exact type of thinking, that would have defeated the process of learning how to do research or gain new perspectives. [Through group research] you can open up your mind.

Jacob:

Definitely make sure you have the time, the commitment, be like, open to change. Be open to like, um the way things aren’t necessarily your way, it’s for the group. . .

Discussion

This study found that the Youth as Researchers program functioned as a counterspace for a group of predominantly Black students in a number of ways. It provided a space to acknowledge shared experiences with the campus environment, allowed group members to recognize their unique abilities as students and activists, and positioned group members alongside supportive others through which to go through the ups and downs of research together. The program also gave group members a structured space to actively pursue knowledge and information about the campus environment with the goal to cause some positive change.

Focus group reflections from group members indicate that participation in the program, within their specific group, fostered internal self-reflection and identity development. Counterspaces provide a safe environment where members can shift their mindset away from the negative narratives of the outside world and turn toward a new and positive self-narrative (Case and Hunter, 2012). By being able to discuss openly their thoughts and feelings about diversity on campus, and selecting a research question to explore this topic, group members validated one another’s experiences. This is an important component of how counterspaces allow for new narratives to develop (Case and Hunter, 2012). By grappling with the challenges of the program in a non-threatening environment, group members began recognizing that they were learning skills related to discipline, leadership, and compromise and that these skills will serve them in future efforts both academic and social. These positive identity narratives, at the individual and group level, are a crucial outcome of counterspaces (Grier-Reed, 2010; Lane, 2016; Solórzano et al., 2000).

The personal identity development group members discussed is inseparable from their group relationship. The ability to grapple with shared experiences of oppression is a key element of why a counterspace can be a safe haven and a place for self-reflection and friendship (Carter, 2007; Case and Hunter, 2012, 2014). Counterspaces provide social support among others with similar experiences of oppression or marginalization. PWI environments are settings in which students of color often feel physically, culturally, and socially isolated. They may grapple with the sense that others perceive of them as less capable than other students (Griffith et al., 2019; Lane, 2016; Solórzano et al., 2000), that they do not belong (Grier-Reed, 2010; Lane, 2016), or that their presence on campus is considered with suspicion by others (Mills, 2020; Smith et al., 2016; Solórzano et al., 2000). Counterspaces can provide group support for emotionally and pragmatically dealing with marginalization, including in the university setting (Grier-Reed, 2010; Solórzano et al., 2000). This study finds support for these claims as these group members developing a social bond with each other through meetings where they felt free to engage in debates, deep reflections, and frank sharing of their experiences on campus.

Group members also explored their identity as young researchers through actively participating in group-based research within a unique environment in which they were they were not a numerical minority. For Black students with graduate school ambitions or interest in research, the low representation of faculty of color in most institutions can further strengthen the perception that they do not belong in those settings (Mills, 2020). This program was one in which students found themselves among other people similar in background. The program was also designed for students to engage intellectually and practically with a topic of their choosing, which for this group, was related to their racialized experiences on campus. Research engagement itself has been shown to function as a counterspace for Black students and a mechanism for their identity development as scientists (Lane, 2016). This current study aligns with this finding as group members in this study perceived of themselves and their group as capable of intellectual and academic self-discipline and exploration.

This study has limitations. The primary limitation rests in the emergent nature of this research question. This study emerged from a larger research project designed to learn about participants’ experiences in the program in a general sense, therefore questions related to race, racial identity, or racial belonging were not built into the study instruments. The choice to examine this group’s experiences in the program was made through (1) seeing the unique results of this group when compared to the other groups, and (2) the observations made by the study team from their unique positionalities as people of color. Future research could examine how counterspaces from university-based programs function by using ethnographic design often used in the recent application of this framework (Case and Hunter, 2014; Hassanli et al., 2020; McConnell et al., 2016). Another important area for future research would be to explore the interactions of non-Black students who are part of groups that are predominantly Black and whether this effects the salience of the counterspace experience. For instance, this group had one White member and one Hispanic member. Future studies could examine how the dynamics of the racial/ethnic composition of groups matter for the application of the counterspaces framework.

The findings of this study suggest some practical implications for those working with Black students, or any students of color in university settings with action research projects. This program was not aligned with a class, did not result in a grade, and did not cost anything for participation. For students of color who may be first-generation students, academic risks may put their financial status in peril. Other students may have heavy co-curricular or employment responsibilities. This program provided a chance for students to engage in low stakes but highly engaging research within a group setting. The program delivered was a pilot in a university setting, and from the pilot study many improvements are recommended for future programming, such as more direct support for students, a longer timeframe for conducting research, and extended training. Even so, this program appears to have functioned as a kind of counterspace for this group and did so even without explicit intent. This suggests there are rich future opportunities to support the development of students’ social relationships, academic and personal identities, and civic engagement on campus through programs which focus on group action-research based work among students of color. Graduate students or young faculty of color within these same institutions could be important resources to support this type of programming.

These findings also lead to suggestions for future research. A practical outcome of this study is the utility of the counterspaces framework to campus related action research-focused programming with students. Explorations of programs like this one with other marginalized groups—such as women, those with disabilities, other ethnic/racial minority groups, or non-traditional students—would also benefit from the use of the counterspaces framework to better understand these groups’ experiences. As we work to make the campus environment a welcoming, stimulating, and enriching place for all students of color who attend PWIs, it is important to consider crafting or safeguarding counterspaces for these students. This study has shown that an action research curriculum program might be just the setting where students can counter negative experiences within a space of their own.

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.

ORCID iDs

Erica L Odera

Nicole S Webster

References

Carter

(2007) Why the Black kids sit together at the stairs: The role of identity-affirming counterspaces in a predominantly White high school. The Journal of Negro Education 76(4): 542–554.

Case

Hunter

(2012) Counterspaces: A unit of analysis for understanding the role of settings in marginalized individuals’ adaptive responses to oppression. American Journal of Community Psychology 50: 257–270.

Case

Hunter

(2014) Counterspaces and the narrative identity work of offender-labeled African American youth. Journal of Community Psychology 42: 907–923.

Gilkes Borr

(2019) The strategic pursuit of Black homophily on a predominantly White campus. The Journal of Higher Education 90(2): 322–346.

Grier-Reed

(2010) The African American student network: Creating sanctuaries and counterspaces for coping with racial microaggressions in higher education settings. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling Education and Development 49: 181–188.

Griffith

Hurd

Hussain

(2019) “I didn’t come to school for this”: A qualitative examination of experiences with race-related stressors and coping responses among Black students attending a predominantly White institution. Journal of Adolescent Research 34(2): 115–139.

Harper

(2013) Am I my brother’s teacher? Black undergraduates, racial socialization, and peer pedagogies in predominantly White postsecondary contexts. Review of Research in Education 37: 183–211.

Hassanli

Walters

Friedmann

(2020) Can cultural festivals function as counterspaces for migrants and refugees? The case of the New Beginnings Festival in Sydney. Leisure Studies 39(2): 165–180.

Hesse-Bieber

Leavy

(2006) The Practice of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

10.

Lane

(2016) Research environments as counterspaces? Examining spaces that inhibit and support science identity development for Black students in STEM. Urban Education Research and Policy Annual 4(1): 160–169.

11.

McConnell

Todd

Odahl-Ruan

, et al. (2016) Complicating counterspaces: Intersectionality and the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival. American Journal of Community Psychology 57: 473–488.

12.

Mills

(2020) “It’s systemic”: Environmental racial microaggressions experienced by Black undergraduates at a predominantly White institution. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 13(1): 44–55.

13.

National University of Ireland at Galway (2016) Youth as researchers. Retrieved August 15, 2016, from https://www.universityofgalway.ie/cfrc/unesco-chair/youth-as-researchers

14.

Odera

(2021) Capturing the added value of participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation 42(2): 201–220.

15.

Ogunyemi

Clare

Astudillo

, et al. (2020) Microaggressions in the learning environment: A systematic review. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education 13(2): 97–119.

16.

Saldaña

(2013) The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers, 2nd edn. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

17.

Smith

Mustaffa

Jones

, et al. (2016) ‘You make me wanna holler and throw up both my hands!’: Campus culture, Black misandric microaggressions, and racial battle fatigue. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 29(9): 1189–1209.

18.

Solórzano

Ceja

Yosso

(2000) Critical race theory, racial microaggressions, and campus racial climate: The experiences of African American college students. The Journal of Negro Education 69(1/2): 60–73.

19.

Stewart

Shamdasani

Rook

(2007) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.