Psychology of Women Quarterly

1-12
Critical Participatory Action Research: ª The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
A Feminist Project for Validity DOI: 10.1177/0361684319865255
journals.sagepub.com/home/pwq
and Solidarity

Michelle Fine1 and Marı́a Elena Torre1

Abstract
We present critical participatory action research as an enactment of feminist research praxis in psychology. We discuss the
key elements of critical participatory action research through the story of a single, national participatory project. The project
was designed by and for LGBTQIAþ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, intersex, asexual, plus) and gender expansive youth; it
was called What’s Your Issue? We provide details of the research project, the dreams, desires, experiences, and structural
precarity of queer and trans youth. We write this article hoping readers will appreciate the complexities of identities, attend to
the relentless commitment to recognition and solidarities, learn the ethical and epistemological principles of critical partici-
patory action research as a feminist and intersectional praxis, and appreciate the provocative blend of research and action
toward social justice.

Keywords
feminist research, participatory action research, LGBTQIAþ youth

What if psychology took feminist scholarship seriously? As Beginnings: What’s Your Issue? Was Born
researchers and scholars who have spent much of our lives Over Lunch
building a praxis of critical participatory action research
(PAR), we take this provocation as an opportunity to reflect Just as we (Michelle and Marı́a) were about to sit down for
on critical participatory action research, an approach that we lunch, to discuss the possibility of a large grant to launch a
understand as a feminist response to conventional research national participatory survey by/for lesbian, gay, bisexual,
practices (see Cahill, 2007; Langhout & Thomas, 2010; trans, queer, intersex, asexual, plus (LGBTQIAþ) youth, the
Lykes & Moane, 2009; Maguire, 1987); it is research rooted foundation officers who ended up funding our work said to
in politics, power, participation, and a deep appreciation of us, “Did you ever notice that the leaders of the new youth
knowledge, created in conditions of oppression and mobi- movements, DREAMERS, Education Justice, the Movement
lized for social action. for Black Lives, Immigration Justice, Black Youth Project
In a highly contentious political moment when “truths” 100, Standing Rock, . . . are disproportionately queer youth
and “facts” are under attack (https://www.washingtonpost. of color?” Well, we had.
com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database), we engage Our funders had approached us about the possibility of a
critical participatory research with communities and move- national survey of, by, for, and with LGBTQIAþ individuals,
ments under siege. Steeped in feminist theories and meth- which would specifically emphasize experiences of margin-
odologies, with a commitment to both “public science” alized queer youth; they wanted to fund research with and by,
(Torre, Fine, Stoudt, & Fox, 2012) and activism, our proj- not research “on” LGBTQIAþ young people. Existing
ects are fueled by an urgency produced by extreme injustice, national youth research featuring queer youth focused
one inspired and informed by the passion and commitments
of feminist and critical race and queer theorists (Collins & 1
Public Science Project, Department of Critical Social Psychology, City
Bilge, 2016; Maguire, 1987). We aim to generate solidarity University of New York Graduate Center, New York, NY, USA
studies (Torre, Stoudt, Manoff, & Fine, 2017) for the public
good. In this article, we review the key elements of critical Corresponding Author:
Michelle Fine, Public Science Project, Department of Critical Social Psy-
participatory action research through the story of a single
chology, City University of New York Graduate Center, 365 Fifth Avenue,
participatory project designed by and for queer youth, called New York, NY 07043, USA.
What’s Your Issue? Email: mfine@gc.cuny.edu
2 Psychology of Women Quarterly XX(X)

primarily on bullying, depression, and suicide and relied on community co-researchers. At the center of the inquiry are
samples of youth who identified as lesbian, gay, sometimes girls and women, immigrants, queer youth, women in prison,
bisexual, and on rare occasions trans and/or gender noncon- school push-outs, young people in foster care, and youth
forming; participants were largely White, mostly students, activists, who are fighting for educational justice and against
and/or youth in Gay/Straight Alliances in schools (www. police brutality (www.publicscienceproject.org).
glsen.org). Our funders desired a more complex picture. They We have documented the impact of college in a women’s
knew that gender nonconforming and trans youth (especially prison, with a research team composed half of women in
those under 18) were historically overlooked in most national prison and half in the academy (Fine et al., 2003). In another
survey samples. They knew these same youth (especially project, we identified the gifts that formerly incarcerated
those who were also youth of color) were disproportionately students bring to a university; we have done this work with
dealing with precarious housing, in foster care, and involved a team comprised predominantly of college students who
with systems like child welfare and juvenile justice. (see had been formerly incarcerated (Halkovic et al., 2013).
www.lambdalegal.org/know-your-rights/article/youth-glos We have catalogued the devastating consequences of
sary-lgbtq-terms). And so they sought a national participatory aggressive policing on communities of color—on families,
project, led by marginalized LGBTQIAþ youth, a survey that elders, and youth—with a research collective of New York
could gather intersectional (see McCormick-Huhn, Warner, City youth, adults, and elders in the Bronx (Stoudt et al.,
Settles, & Shields, 2019, the current issue) narratives and 2015). We have examined, in coalition with youth organi-
quantitative responses from a much wider berth of queer, zers, why and how gender non-conforming girls of color are
trans, and gender non-conforming young people living at the most likely to suffer suspension from New York City
margins, especially those of color, who might tell a different schools (Chmielewski, Belmonte, Stoudt, & Fine, 2015).
story about desires, betrayals, dreams, aches, demands, and In each project, we worked collaboratively in what Torre
radical imaginaries (e.g., a group’s shared values, institutions, (2009) has called participatory contact zones, spaces where
symbols). As a result, the What’s Your Issue? project was very differently positioned people come together—across
born. Rooted in the recognition that the stories of poor and power, privilege, and vulnerabilities—to develop theoreti-
working-class queer and trans youth need to come out of the cal and methodological designs that focus on structural
closet and that research would be most valid—that is, it dynamics, engage history and contemporary social move-
would accurately reflect the perspectives of the young people, ments, and assume lives are simultaneously filled with pain,
across varied contexts—if it sutured political solidarities and joy, and resistance (Torre, 2009). As an introduction to
was shaped by the perspectives of those who have been mar- CPAR, we elaborate each element in its name:
ginalized, even within the LGBTQIAþ movement.
At the project’s inception, we (including our funders) used
the umbrella of LGBTQ and GNC (gender non-conforming) Critical
to describe and reach out to youth. We quickly came to learn Once we establish a research team of university and
from survey-takers, however, that though we hoped the “Q” community-based researchers, together we read and share
(queer) would signify the inclusion of all youth who did not experiences, standpoints, and skills; we draw upon critical
identify as straight and/or cisgender, this intention was not psychology, feminist, critical race, queer, decolonizing and
explicit enough. We soon shifted to using LGBTQIAþ to Marxist theoretical frameworks, music, art, and folk tales; we
refer to lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, intersex, asexual, “plus” catalog various perspectives on the shape of the “problem”
any youth who do not identify as straight and/or cis. We also we are about to explore. We start with a critical lens because
shifted to using GE, or gender expansive, instead of GNC as we understand that we are researching in landscapes that are
our team felt more comfortable describing people by what deeply uneven and unjust. Together, from an angle of
they “are” rather than what they are not. inequity, informed by a wide spectrum of theory, methods,
and life experiences, we carve a set of research questions.
Like Maguire (1987), who was so passionately (and humbly)
The Public Science CPAR Project: A Brief
critical of male participatory researchers who silenced
History women’s voices and lives, we begin with an analysis of
For the past 25 years, the Public Science Project at the Grad- power, oppression, and privilege; we ask always, whose
uate Center, CUNY, has been engaged in critical participa- voices are smothered, whose are centered, and how might
tory action research (CPAR) with communities on key policy we produce knowledge together?
questions of educational, carceral, racial, gender, immigra-
tion, and sexuality justice (see Torre, Stoudt, Manoff, & Fine,
2017). Marı́a Elena Torre is the founding director, and Participatory
Michelle Fine is a founding faculty member. Scores of We assemble research teams as “participatory contact
research projects have been designed by collectives of zones” (Torre et al., 2008), where very differently posi-
vibrant, diverse teams of academic, practitioner, and tioned co-researchers come together to grapple with a
Fine and Torre 3

common concern, in the context of their own and each oth- meaningful evidence; we conduct focus groups and inter-
er’s lived experiences. Bringing together vibrant and diverse views and gather identity maps and local artifacts. In sum,
forms of knowledge, our collectives privilege the perspec- we weave visual methods with history, quantitative with qua-
tives among us that have been most adversely affected by litative data, and “official” databases with evidence gathered
structural injustice. Researching together, our discussions by and for community members.
and debates are not quieted by the pressure to reach consen- With this range of methods and some very traditional
sus; instead, we embrace disagreements and what the late commitments to being systematic, valid, and theoretically
Chicana feminist theorist, Gloria Anzaldúa (1987), called driven, many of our projects, in some ways, can look like
“choques”—moments when perspectives clash, arguments conventional research—with multi-level research questions,
erupt, and tensions boil over. These disagreements may theoretical frameworks, multiple methods, systematic statis-
emerge across and within power lines, between academics tical and qualitative analyses, and triangulation of data—and
and “community members,” or within cross-class, genera- a commitment to ambitious and creative dissemination aimed
tion, racial, and gender dynamics. Like MaGuire (1987), as at a wide range of audiences. However, two foundational
well as Lykes and Moane (2009), we take relationality and commitments distinguish CPAR projects from conventional
non-neutrality as core commitments of feminist inquiry. research: No research on us without us; and research must be
While choques are often uncomfortable, we have learned led by those who have been most adversely affected by
to expect and engage them, as they push us to deepen our injustice.
collective understandings of the issues we are studying
(Torre & Ayala, 2009).
No Research on Us Without Us
Drawing on feminist, Indigenous, AIDS, and disability
Action rights activists, who have refused to participate in top-
CPAR projects are designed as public science for the pub- down or externally generated research, CPAR projects
lic good, that is, to “be of use” (Fine & Barreras, 2001), to begin with the conviction “No research on us without us.”
struggle for justice, that is, to challenge dominant lies, to Rather, we ground our questions in the lives of those most
support social movements, and/or to uplift silenced voices affected by injustice. In our work, we heed the call of
and perspectives. Throughout the process, we seek and liberation theorist, Ignacio Martı́n-Baró (1994), and fore-
create opportunities to weave research and action together: ground those perspectives that are usually ignored and
contributing to legal briefs; engaging in organizing oppor- silenced from communities under siege. We believe firmly
tunities; producing scholarly publications, Op Eds, popular that people who experience injustice must have a seat at
education writings, and workshops; conducting “sidewalk the research table; that no one can speak “their” stories for
science” (e.g., presenting data to community members and “them”; that marginalized bodies and tongues carry stories
asking them to interpret the data and imagine what com- untold; and that together—across generations, race and
munity safety would look like); engaging performance; ethnicity, experience, education levels, trauma, and
producing social media; creating websites, blogs, comic desires—we can build a research team that practices what
books, T-shirts, postcards, or—most recently—card games feminist philosopher Sandra Harding (1994) calls strong
(see publicscienceproject.org). We understand that actions objectivity. Harding argued for research teams of differ-
and audiences to whom we are accountable are multiple. ently positioned people who work through and across their
distinct standpoints and are therefore most likely to gen-
erate robust, counter-hegemonic evidence. CPAR scholars
Research further assert that those who have been most adversely
CPAR projects are designed with and alongside communities affected by injustice must lead research collectives or be
under siege, blending a range of quantitative, qualitative, key decision makers.
visual, and embodied methods, as suits the need. A popular In the case of What’s Your Issue?, queer and gender expan-
misconception is that CPAR is simply a methodology. It is sive youth of color formed the core of our research team.
not. CPAR is an epistemology—a theory of knowledge—that Working together, as an inter-generational collective of
radically challenges who is an expert, what counts as knowl- researchers, we moved away from conventional public health
edge and, therefore, by whom research questions and designs frames of “risk” and tried to develop a national, online survey
should be crafted. Together we develop and pursue a set of that would capture holistic, relational, and intersectional lives
carefully crafted questions, and together we make sense of and experiences. The young co-researchers wanted to learn
the evidence we construct. In our projects, we integrate com- what their peers across the country—LGBTQIAþ youth, and
munity-based, secondary analyses of “official” data bases, particularly queer youth of color—experience, know, and
including education, police, and incarceration statistics; we desire; where they ached; how they resisted, survived, made
also develop and implement original, community-designed homes, and built relationships; and how they advocated for
surveys to offer up quantitative counter-narratives of locally change. The young people anchored the questions, methods,
4 Psychology of Women Quarterly XX(X)

and the analyses. And together we formed a participatory narrow-ness of our disciplines is revealed. Our research
contact zone. teams approach and then pause to trouble the very constructs
Like Harding, Anzaldúa (1987; see also Torre & Ayala, and assumptions that psychologists routinely place on mar-
2009) has written on the many streams of wisdom that flow ginalized bodies. We call this critical construct validity, with
in the borderlands (the “in-between spaces”) among diverse an epistemological nod to Foucault’s (1974) call for
points of view. Anzaldúa’s writing on Mestizaje animates genealogy.
mestiza consciousness produced in the in-between spaces of In the early 1970s, in a conversation with Noam Chomsky,
intersecting and multiple identities, histories, and social Foucault urged social scientists to “ . . . criticize the working
locations that each of us inhabit. Mestizaje recognizes the of institutions which appear to be both neutral and indepen-
keen insight and awareness that comes from embodied see- dent; to criticize them in such a manner that the political
ing and knowing at multiple (and simultaneous) levels of violence which has . . . exercised itself obscurely through
power and vulnerability, from both “the eagle and serpent’s them will be unmasked, so that one can fight them”
eyes” (Anzaldúa, 1987, p. X). Multiple knowledges live (Chomsky & Foucault, 1974, p. 171). In our research teams,
within each of us and grow even more powerful when we work hard to unmask the political violence and the embo-
explored among us. died dynamics that often result. While we focus on structures,
We also borrow and build on Anzaldua’s notion of “nos- we are careful to understand how structures can induce lives
otras,” which forces us to hold the ever-present tensions of of pain and joy, imbued with complexity and multiplicity,
power, privilege, and vulnerabilities within participatory con- both wounded and resisting.
tact zones of our research collectives. We are a “we” made at This kind of conceptual excavation is precisely what
all times of revolving “us” (nos) and “others” (otras), con- happens in CPAR projects, where we challenge, reject, and
nected by a hyphen of mutual implication. Our lives and re-work traditional constructs, even as we birth new ways of
histories and the “false” binaries that position us are produced seeing the present. Consider, for instance, the scholarship of
in relation to each other, and these dynamics are part of what feminist psychologist Sara McClelland (2010, 2017), who
we interrogate and seek to disrupt with our praxis. We under-
has undertaken a “critical historiography” of the construct
stand the “we” of our collectives as nos-otras, where our
“sexual satisfaction” that psychologists, evaluators, and
many intersecting differences come together; we share the
public health researchers routinely apply to measure quality
gifts and challenges of our distinct standpoints; and we com-
of life. With a blend of classic and original methods,
mit simultaneously to reckon with power and imagine new
McClelland has studied how people—women and men,
possibilities, to share, and to build new knowledge and new
trans and cis, straight and gay, and across racial groups—
futures. Participatory contact zones ignite the catalytic
make assessments that they are (un)satisfied. Compared to
insights produced when very differently positioned people
what? Whether interrogating sexual satisfaction or stigma,
join together to critically examine what is and to creatively
imagine what could be. “safe sex,” or desire, she catalogs the history of the construct
in the field, gathers material from very distinct sources to
learn how the construct lives in real bodies and then she
Critical Construct Validity generates new constructs that better map onto human com-
CPAR projects not only challenge traditional notions of plexity, like “intimate justice,” as an alternative to “sexual
“expertise,” but the research—by design—delicately and satisfaction.”
deliberately seeks to complicate the very “constructs” that Like McClelland’s program of scholarship, CPAR takes a
researchers use to frame their work. As if we are heeding the deep interrogating dive, with quite diverse co-researchers, in
call of Emily Dickinson, the poet who wrote, “Tell the truth, real time, often through choques and difficult dialogues, to
but tell it slant,” and grounding our work in the feminist unearth what we mean (and what we are hiding) when we use
insistence to question top-down authoritative ways of seeing, taken-for-granted notions like woman, gender, sexuality,
CPAR researchers challenge unquestioned assumptions from bisexual, race, safety, gender-conforming, violence, belong-
the ground up. We ask, what is the shape of the problem we ing, mental health, homelessness, trauma, desire, activism, or
are studying and from whose point of view? What do domi- even trust. In What’s Your Issue?, we spent much time and
nant narratives about queer youth leave out, ignore, dismiss, shed a few tears—as you will see—deliberately unpacking
and fetishize? How does the problem look from the bottom up and denaturalizing these “objects of inquiry,” sometimes with
or from the radical margins? sparks flying, from our very varied standpoints. In the
In every CPAR project, we knead pummel, work, pound, remainder of this article, we try to trace our engagements
squeeze, wring, twist, crush, shape, mold, mix, and blend our with feminist epistemology, critical race theory, the search
constructs and frameworks. When we pause and attempt to for critical construct validity, and our own slant toward sol-
unpack the taken-for-granted constructs of depression, bully- idarity—engagements that stabilize us like bannisters in our
ing, suicidality, homelessness, activism, or pleasure, with work, and hold us steady as we navigate new terrain and run
queer youth, the conversations change and the blinding into choques—in our attempts to produce “research of use.”
Fine and Torre 5

Building a Research Collective organization or group that gathered youth to work with us
was given a “gift card” to subsidize “survey-making parties”
Once we received funding for the What’s Your Issue? project,
(and later “survey-taking parties” and “survey analysis
we set out to assemble a nationally diverse advisory board of
parties”) from which young people sent us ideas for survey
adults and youth, and an equally diverse research collective
themes, submitted items, and later reviewed and edited the
of LGBTQIAþ young people from across the United States
multiple drafts of the survey. We drew items from
(our participatory contact zone). Starting out, the “we” were
“traditional” youth surveys on youth’s sense of belonging
three cisgender women: all psychologists; two who identify
in schools, the short version of a Clinical Depression Inven-
as queer; one as Latinx, one as Hispanic, and one as White. tory, standardized items on suicidality, and items developed
Over time, a White, cis gay male, critical psychologist and by the Black Youth Project 100 on youth activism and civic
statistician, who had worked for a long time on “queering” engagement. These items sat beside “homegrown” items cre-
research on relationships, joined us; as well as 40 ated by youth to tap issues of meaning, urgency, debate, and
LGBTQIAþ and gender expansive youth activists, most of desire in the lives of LGBTQIAþ and gender-expansive (GE)
whom identify as youth of color, from 10 communities youth and their communities. They helped us better under-
around the United States, aged 16–24. stand, for instance, experiences of transphobia, relationships
We reached out to LGBTQIAþ artists, scholars, and acti- with foster families, meanings of community, gay-affirming
vists through personal and national networks, and within a services, inclusive curriculum, and more.
month, an advisory group of intergenerational (majority From these national phone and online conversations, our
youth and people of color) formed. The group was charged research collective compiled what we call our “best bad
with helping us develop a national survey of open-ended, draft” of the survey that was submitted to a last group of
narrative, and quantitative items that would creatively stretch youth who would work with us to review, critique, edit—and,
beyond the existent research on bullying, depression, and if need be, rip apart. And the journey toward strong objectiv-
suicide, and systematically reach out to youth traditionally ity and critical construct validity was launched, in a Korean
left out of national LGBTQIAþ youth surveys: youth of deli on 41st and Lexington Avenue in New York City, over
color; trans-identified youth; young people involved with rye bread sandwiches. It was a Saturday of “bad drafts” and
foster care, housing, and shelter systems, and juvenile justice. choques galore.
We also wanted to be sure to avoid what Fine and Cross
(2016) and Tuck (2009) have called “damage centered
research”—focusing only on problems but not the gifts, Drafts in the Deli: Critical Construct Validity Over
strengths, and desires of young people. Rye Bread
Once our advisory group was assembled, we together We had put out a call for LGBTQIAþ in New York City to
identified key regions in the United States that we wanted join us on the second floor of a Korean deli in midtown
to be represented by the youth participatory research team Manhattan. Expecting a few dozens, we were stunned as
and sent invitations to LGBTQIAþ youth organizations. As more than 150 young people (paid $15/hour for 4 hours)
well as general youth groups, in each region. Soon thereafter, streamed into the deli, climbed the steps to a rather funky,
we were joined by a stunning research collective of 40 young well-lived-in space, with three rooms of tables and couches.
people from Boston, Seattle, Jackson Mississippi, Detroit, We ate, laughed, traded pronouns, and created and presented
New Jersey, New York, Tucson, Saint Louis, Los Angeles, colorful banners for “what the world should know about
and New Orleans. This collective worked with us and the LGBTQIAþ youth.” We wanted everyone to place their
advisory group to build the survey and a series of local eth- voices and standpoints in the room, through banners and
nographies; to document the wide range and place-based videos, and then split off into groups (of sometimes 4 and
specificity of experiences, dreams, struggles, and desires of sometimes 20 youth) to critique, edit, revise, and re-mix the
lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans, queer, plus and gender noncon- survey, producing a final survey ready to go out to young
forming youth; and to maintain a special emphasis on peers, filled with questions about activisms and dreams,
LGBTQIAþ and gender expansive youth of color. betrayals and worries, intersections and anxieties, gifts and
We built the survey in conversation with youth from the desires. We were working on critical construct validity, shar-
research collective as well as more than 400 other young pening our survey to capture the range of issues of desire and
people who were connected to organizations and groups dispossession that our youth colleagues understood so well.
across the United States that were recommended by our advi- Across the upstairs rooms of the deli, with young people
sory group. This larger group of youth included those focused (and one mother, who appeared to be in her 40s) spread across
on LGBTQIAþ issues and involved in performance poetry, rooms, sofas, and cubbies, we invited “Who wants to work on
youth engaged in immigration struggles and anti-ICE (Immi- some of the more difficult issues—and how we should phrase
gration and Customs Enforcement) campaigns, groups iden- the questions?” In one small room, 20 young people wan-
tified through social media and radio activism, and youth dered in from various agencies, activist organizations, and
involved in foster care and with unstable housing. Each educational areas. They met to discuss some of the more
6 Psychology of Women Quarterly XX(X)

“contentious issues”—questions on pain, betrayal, and needs survey was obviously written by queer youth!” “I felt
and questions that could be misheard as pathologizing or affirmed by this survey.” We believe the fact that the survey
damage oriented. Long, difficult conversations ensued with was designed by an intergenerational collective, led by a
“lively” discussion and much debate about what to include, diverse set of young people who brought experiences and
how to phrase questions, what to ask, and what not to ask. wisdom, in which diverse knowledges (including methodo-
Before we knew it, we entered a dense conversation about logical) were exchanged and collectively built, made the
construct validity: “What’s a woman?” “What counts as response rate so impressive. Further, we hired social media
family?” “If I live on my cousin’s couch, am I homeless?” consultants who were themselves geographically diverse,
“Do police really protect?” “Should a White-passing person self-identified as queer and of color, to activate a variety of
of color really be classified as “of color?” “If I don’t get social media platforms and increase our sample’s diversity.
harassed by police, because I am scared to go outside as an We developed a project website that contained a video expla-
undocumented person, does that mean I have a lot of stress nation of the project, photo galleries of the survey-making
about police, or none?” “If I am an online blogger, does that parties, and a link to take part in the survey. In the end, we
count as activism?” and “If I feel most comfortable among succeeded in generating a sample with a high representation
trans women of color in social media sites, can I say that’s of youth of color (39%, N ¼ 2,300), and transgender, non-
where I find community?” binary, or gender expansive youth (58%, N ¼ 3,404), youth
We were deep into critical construct validity territory with disabilities (39%, N ¼ 2,264), and youth under 18 years
when we realized that basic constructs needed to be interro- old (46%, N ¼ 2,690)—populations underrepresented and
gated; in an attempt to unpack “what’s gender, what’s sexu- often absent from the literature (http://whatsyourissue.org/).
ality and what’s identity,” we asked the full group: “Should It is important to note that for most marginalized, invisi-
we even ask about sex assigned at birth?” Some applauded, bilized (or more accurately, rendered invisible), or stigma-
yes! Others yelled out, “That question is offensive!” After tized groups and communities living under surveillance—for
much back and forth, another argued,
example, young people who are undocumented or court
involved, queer or gender expansive, with invisible disabil-
I want to respect trans experience, if we don’t ask sex assigned at
birth, we might miss the experiences of trans people who only
ities, sexually assaulted, closeted gay and trans youth—there
check “man” or “woman” [and not or also trans man or trans is no “random” statistically representative sample. Seeking a
woman]. I want them to have that right, but I also want to include sample of young people who identify as LGBTQIAþ or gen-
their experiences as part of the trans community. der non-conforming (whom, during the research, we shifted
to calling “gender expansive”), we know that many are not in
The collective of young people were ripping the threads school, not living in homes, are placed in juvenile facilities,
off what many of us thought were coherent psychological and in and out of shelter or foster care. With the advice of our
categories of gender and sexuality, race and racism, family advisory group and statistical consultants, we sought to
and police—challenging each other and not always agreeing. recruit a What’s Your Issue (WYI) sample that was intention-
We were renovating the survey, bottom up. ally inclusive of those who had been ignored by earlier sur-
veys. We worked hard to capture a sample rich in a range of
gender expressions and sexualities, with an overrepresenta-
What’s a Representative Sample? tion of youth of color, those with disabilities, gender-expan-
The final survey we created was launched online at (http:// sive youth, and young people who had experienced negative
whatsyourissue.org/), and participants were recruited by shar- interactions with aggressive policing, troubles with school
ing the link through social media (Twitter, Instagram, discipline or feeling unsafe/bullied in schools, and those
Tumblr) as well as through listserv e-mails, paper postcards, experiencing housing instability. Our final sample included
flyers, and posters that were mailed to the organizations and young people from urban, rural, and suburban communities
groups that helped build the survey. In the end, more than and those connected to youth organizations and, of note,
6,000 young people across the United States took the survey those who were not.
(which we defined as answering 80% of the questions). A full Below we offer a “taste of data” so you can appreciate the
5,860 identify as LGBTQIAþ. Ranging in age from 14 to 24 rich, vibrant, and complex range of participants who gener-
years, participants were from all U.S. states, Guam, and ously shared their time, wisdom, and experiences. You will
Puerto Rico and reflected a relatively balanced representation get a snapshot of how contemporary LGBTQIAþ youth
of the four primary geographic regions of the U.S. We were speak their gender, sexualities, and racial/ethnic identities;
overwhelmed and excited by the magnitude of responses, the how they responded to standardized quantitative measures
geographic breadth, and the diversities that the young people of discrimination, depression, police, and school interactions
represented. In comments at the end of the survey, we learned and activism; and how they crafted responses to our request
that participants were most excited that the survey—even for “banners.” And you will see why, and how, critical par-
though it was long—“felt like it was made for us!” “The ticipation matters.
Fine and Torre 7

Disrupting Categories: Why Binaries Are Bad would you describe your sexual orientation?” participants
for Our Health wrote more than 2,000 different detailed responses, and they
checked what felt appropriate in the long list of sexual orien-
From our first gathering in NYC, members of the research team tation “boxes” we provided. Their responses amounted to 80
battled about the question of “categories.” In a video we pro- different repeated terms or categories, with many including
duced to highlight some of our findings, J’ai Celestial, a youth descriptions of their romantic attractions (not sexual) as part
researcher and organizer at BreakOUT! In New Orleans (http:// of their sexual orientation. Youth descriptions of their sexual
www.youthbreakout.org/) argued eloquently and unapologeti- orientation were serious, careful, and often very specific:
cally: “LGBTQIAþ youth of color reject the binaries and iden- bisexual (used by 1,062 youth), queer (1,060), pansexual
tities that have been placed on us. We have a range of identities (904), gay (823), asexual (631), lesbian (555), and demisex-
and refuse to squeeze ourselves into categories you can under- ual (216). At the same time, many were tender and filled with
stand.” Honoring this stance, we understood that in order to be humor, including, for example, “Anyone with a heart, I don’t
accountable to the LGBTQIAþ community, we needed to cre- _ _
care about the parts,” “ \_(灝)_/ ,” “Ladies, ladies, ladies,”
ate questions and opportunities on the survey for us to learn
and “nebulous and changing.”
about how gender, sexuality, and identities are embodied, expe- Because we asked about each “demographic” first, with an
rienced in the world, treated by others, transformed, and multi- open-ended prompt, we learned that sexuality, gender, and race/
plied. We wanted a survey that would not essentialize gender,
ethnicity are embodied and described with a rich range of lan-
sex, or sexuality; would not centralize being LGBTQIAþ as the
guage. Youth used more than 100 different terms to describe
only or defining feature of respondents; and would feel like an
their race and ethnicity and another 100-plus terms to describe
invitation for respondents to be seen, heard, and recognized in
their gender—43% (N ¼ 2,544) used more than one term.
their full selves. Thus, together we crafted a number of oppor-
Terms rejecting or critical of binaries, like trans, non-binary,
tunities within the survey for youth to express a wide range of
genderfluid, and agender, were each used by more than 400
identities and intersectionalities. As recommended by the youth
participants. The vibrant range of subjectivities young people
co-researchers, the survey opened with, “What five words
embody and narrate points to why they bristle visibly and audi-
would you use to describe yourself?” Here is a word cloud of
bly when asked to squeeze into narrow identity boxes.
the responses, with larger words representing those most fre-
The wide variation in identities excited our collective and
quently used:
validated many of us on the research team, until we stumbled
into a choque. The adult researchers—ourselves among
them—explained that with a sample of more than 6,000, we
should collapse the data into race/ethnicity and gender/sexu-
ality categories in order to analyze differences. We wanted
their perspectives on how to “cut” the data. We continued:
We were doing this so that we could assess, for instance,
disparities in police violence or school push-out by race/eth-
nicity or gender/sexuality. While we thought this analytic
move was obvious, we were wrong. The youth researchers
were enraged that the categories were back in the room. They
confronted us: Why would we open up descriptions of iden-
tity, allow people to define themselves “beyond boxes” and
then re-box them? After much heated deliberation, we crea-
tively navigated a compromise that defined the limited con-
ditions under which we would compare White respondents to
respondents of color, cis to trans, and precariously housed to
stably housed. The categories themselves were an affront (see
Torre et al., 2018). And, again, we slammed into the issue of
critical construct validity. If you turn to the What’s Your
Issue? website (http://whatsyourissue.org/), you can watch
As displayed above, we see the range of descriptors, the videos that warn readers of our research, that the young peo-
complex personhood young people offered with “QUEER” at ple refuse to squeeze themselves into boxes, and that viewers
the center (most often) but also cute, brave, poet, gamer, should not believe in these categories—even as our quantita-
spiritual, witch, bookworm, and so much more, sprinkled tive analyses reveal stark racial and gender disparities in
throughout. treatment by police and in schools. We settled on an awkward
A bit later in the survey, we asked about demographics but compromise: We would investigate and document structural
always first in an open-ended way. In response to “How oppression through demographic categories but represent the
8 Psychology of Women Quarterly XX(X)

young people in the vibrant, intersectional, and fluid lan- Gender/Sexuality Alliances and have anti-discrimination pol-
guage of their “willful subjectivities” (Ahmed, 2014). icies report better school experience and fewer negative
health outcomes. This is an example of generating a new
construct—dignity schools—through the participation of
A Taste of Quantitative Analyses co-researchers and the available empirical evidence. The
The quantitative analyses, available in a series of publications analysis shifted away from traditional questions, such as
including Fine, Torre, Frost, and Cabana (2018), reveal what “Which students are at risk of dropping out or experiencing
will come as little surprise: LGBTQIAþ young people expe- psychological distress?”, and toward robust policy discus-
rience relatively high levels of structural precarity—unstable sions of what elements need to be in place in a school to
housing, aggressive policing, push-out from education, alie- generate a culture of inclusion and affirmation.
nation from family—across racial/ethnic groups and yet sig- This line of inquiry proved to be quite generative. After
nificant disparities by race/ethnicity and gender/sexuality in presenting these data to a series of policy and advocacy cir-
negative relations with police and school push-out. There are cles in NYC, we are now collaborating with the Out & Proud
also painful and predictable statistical relations between Teacher Initiative in NYC (http://proudteacherinitiative.org/),
structural precarity, mental health struggles, and suicidality. gathering videos, interviews, testimonies from out and proud
But because our youth co-researchers encouraged us to pur- educators—stories of harassment and intimidation, but largely
sue an analysis of the relation between mental health and stories of radical transformation “after” they disclosed . . . in
activism, we also found a surprising and important pattern: elementary, middle, high school, and college. From our youth
For a significant segment of respondents, the more discrim- research collective’s stories of “what could be” and, for
ination they experienced, the more activism they engaged in. D’Mitry, what beautifully was, we launched statistical analy-
And the more activism they engaged in, the better their men- ses; we presented findings to various relevant audiences; and
tal health outcomes and the more diminished their rates of new projects have sprouted. None of this would have happened
suicidality. These associations were particularly strong for if we were working without the benefit of our young
youth of color who seem to metabolize discrimination into co-researchers. (For a review of quantitative findings, see Frost
activism with greater velocity than their White peers (Frost, et al., 2019.)
Fine, Torre, & Cabana, 2019).
Another intriguing quantitative nugget emerged when one
A Taste of Qualitative Findings: A Peek at the Banners
of our youth colleagues, D’Mitry (name used with permission),
expressed surprise at the high levels of school-based alienation In addition to the compelling quantitative findings that
that respondents reported. The rest of the room was, to put it emerged from our more traditional questions, we have won-
mildly, not at all surprised that school was considered an derfully colorful responses from some of our more creative,
oppressive space. When asked to explain, D’Mitry described open-ended questions where we tried to uncover the “issues”
high school as a time and place of great support and affirma- that were identified as important to LGBTQIAþ youth across
tion. The room took a collective, curious gasp: “I went to the the nation. Early in the survey, we asked a seemingly simple
Arts magnet in Boston—it was filled with students of color, question, “If you were going to design a banner about your-
queer educators, a full and affirming context.” In the stew of self, what would it say?”
these conversations, we decided to try to create a scale from a Survey-takers offered a palette of incredibly warm, touch-
range of items on the survey, to measure the effects of what we ing, funny, and painful banners. They chose to display their
came to call an “LGBTQIAþ dignity school.” A simple addi- complex intersectionalities, their wounds, and desires. Many
tive metric was calculated. Students were classified as attend- wrote in a dialect we now call “radical wit.” Below we re-
ing a “dignity school” if their school included at least five of present the banners with the self-described gender, sexuality,
seven key attributes: “out” and/or trans teachers; LGBTQIAþ race, and ethnicity of the authors in parentheses:
material in (a) social studies, (b) language arts, or (c) sex
education; a Gay/Straight or Gender/Sexuality Alliance; an Queer, Trans, Asian, Disabled; Scientist, Artist, Actor. Imagine
anti-discrimination policy; or “adults who care about me.” me complexly
We did the analysis of the full sample with our entire (“I have no idea anymore, really.” Bigender, Japanese)
collective and discovered that respondents who attended a Woman, queer, immigrant, Mexican . . . . How much more pow-
school we would classify as a “dignity school” were more erful could I get in this country?
likely to trust educators and report more positive mental (Dykeness, cisgender, Mexican to the core, Maya/Aztec)
health and academic outcomes. Conversely, students in dig-
Just because I am a man with a vagina doesn’t mean I can’t be
nity schools were less likely to report experiences of bullying,
proud about it
mental health struggles, school push-out, and suicidal
(Gay, male, transman, Caucasian)
thoughts. That is, youth in schools that enable LGBTQIAþ
educators to be their full selves; schools that use an I was born gay, were you born an asshole?
LGBTQIAþ inclusive curriculum; schools that host (Natural, queer, woman, White)
Fine and Torre 9

My PGP is PRISON ABOLITION toward strong objectivity, pursue critical construct validity,
(Queer, GNC, butch, White) and seek what Fine (2006) has called “provocative general-
We were all born naked and the rest is drag.
izability”—evidence that provokes a wide-awakeness, open-
(Goldstar, platinum, double mile gay, male with some drag ing new ways of seeing old struggles.
queer influences, sombrero AF, Latino, Native) While our major theoretical and political “choque” in What’s
Your Issue? was around the use of rejection of gender, sexuality,
I am #tamirrice I am #sandrabland I am #john crawford and race categories, we also debated if and how to compare
(Straight?, nonbinary, two spirit GNC, Peruvian) respondents across racial categories (e.g., especially through
Radical by necessity not choice the binary of White vs. youth of color—”Hell no! You can’t
(Gay as hell, queer, pansexual, fluid, female, Korean, Asia) include White-passing respondents in the ‘of color’ group!”);
whether to ask standardized questions about depression, sui-
Yellow Peril supports Black Power cide, sex at birth—for some these were essential and for others
(Lesbian, cis, biracial, Japanese/White) they were questions that trigger; whether offering a checklist
Disability is about a system of oppression, not about me being (after an open-ended question about gender) inviting survey-
broken takers to check all that apply: “man/woman/trans man/trans
(Straight, transman, White) woman/two-spirit” would suggest that a “trans man is not a real
man.” We clashed over whether the census data on racial rep-
Flexing my complexion over White supremacy
resentation is accurate and reliable. “The census?! Who believes
(Gay, boy, multiracial, Brazilian, Latino, Asian, Black)
the census?! I don’t ever see White people in my neighborhood,
Hug a Gay Mormon: We Exist!! they aren’t the majority in the country.” We generated a wide
(I am a boy who is attracted to other boys for emotional and bottom-up list of injustices that may induce stress and elabo-
physical reasons, I am Caucasian and my family stems from rated a broad base of activisms enacted by young people on the
Europe . . . . I am LDS but have Jewish heritage and practice both streets and young people in their pajamas online. Other tensions
Jewish and Christian holidays, White) erupted (fortunately) because we were such a diverse group and
How am I still here?
led by the standpoints of the young people. If D’mitry hadn’t
(Blackity Black, I’m Black yall and Afrolatinx) attended a “dignity school,” we might not have imagined that
such an analysis would be possible. If we didn’t ask for banners,
we might not have uncovered the radical wit that so many young
Why Critical Participation Matters people express. If we didn’t ask for five identifying character-
Drawing on long-time feminist commitments to the power of istics as an opening inquiry, we might never have learned about
consciousness raising groups, intersectional solidarities, and the rich intersections of neuro-diversity and queer identities—
local knowledge produced on the ground (see Boston still being unpacked.
Women’s Health Collective, 1971; Combahee River Collec- We, two of the academics on the research team, did not
tive, 1977), our research projects intentionally bring together consider including questions about religiosity that proved to
very different standpoints. And as a collective, we dive into, be really meaningful to our co-researchers and many of the
disrupt, and innovate critical psychological dynamics. With respondents. Some of our co-researchers were sure that sex and
strong objectivity, we aim toward critical construct validity. gender were real, essential, and embodied, while others fiercely
We curate difficult dialogues within and across power lines, rejected all categorical identities and preferred to think about
encourage the voicing of divergent lines of analysis, and we fluidity (Diamond, 2009). Some wanted no “damage” analy-
explore how opportunity and betrayal, resistance, and ses—of pain, wounds, troubles—and others insisted that we
“willful subjectivities” (Ahmed, 2014) live in our bodies. gather this material—“this is my life!”—to reveal the scars of
Within our research collective, we explore how social cate- oppression. As a collective, we decided to ask about the wounds
gories and even diagnoses (e.g., bisexual, trans, bipolar, neu- of oppression, betrayal by public authorities and intimates, and
rodiverse, homeless) have moved under the skin. We the psychological scars of homophobia, misogyny, xenophobia,
privilege the views, critiques, and insights narrated from the and racism always alongside evidence of activism, desires, rad-
margins, and we build together with the insight and incites ical wit, and vibrant, willful subjectivities (Ahmed, 2014; Fine
that are fermented in conversations with nos-otras. & Cross, 2016). All of these tensions—and the analytical
Within feminist studies, there are debates about whether or debates they inspired—resulted from deep participation and a
not feminist scholars should rely upon traditional “metrics” collective commitment to dive into our differences as if they
of objectivity, validity, or generalizability—or whether we were gifts—nos-otras, indeed.
should generate new justice-oriented guidelines for feminist
praxis (see Levitt, Motulsky, Wertz, Morrow, & Ponterotto,
2017, on criteria for qualitative inquiry). In our participatory
Practice Implications
projects, we do not reject commitments to objectivity, valid- We write this piece with the hope that the process, participa-
ity, or generalizability. Instead, we queer them. We gather tion, and findings of this study are useful to educators, youth
10 Psychology of Women Quarterly XX(X)

workers, advocates, activists, and also to mental health prac- (Stoudt, Fine, & Fox, 2011). And yet, through our critical
titioners. We have worked with lawyers, social workers, and PAR design, we were able to see, recognize, and honor the
youth organizers on revising their forms, so that all intake full, vibrant, complex, subjectivities of LGBTQIAþ young
demographics start with an open-ended item, “Please people who refuse to assimilate, who voice a bold critique of
describe your gender/sexual orientation/race ethnicity,” dominant categories and hierarchies, and who yearn to par-
thereby inviting people to present themselves with complex- ticipate fully in radically transformed institutions and
ity and authenticity. We have been honored to sit with youth communities.
workers, social workers, and child care advocates as they In terms of action: We have co-authored publications and
consider forms, gender-segregated units, and how to honor presentations at professional, activist, and queer organizing
the complex identities of young people in the system (juve- conferences. We are co-authoring white papers and legal
nile justice, foster care, shelter). We have worked with thera- briefs on “dignity schools,” providing regional analyses for
pists eager to help young people understand the range of policy makers, and developing a hilarious youth-designed
identities, words, fluidities that they may want to try on— card game called “Radical Wit,” produced from the clever
rather than being squeezed into categories adults find famil- banners that the more than 6,000 respondents produced. We
iar. We have collaborated with youth workers and group have written expansively about the debates we engaged, with
workers who are interested in building participatory democ- much anticipated and sometimes surprising, dissension (see
racy, governance, and participatory research into their ther- Fine, Torre, Frost, Cabana, & Avory, 2018; Torre et al.,
apeutic spaces, research spaces, youth spaces, and popular 2018). We have produced a video, centering the perspectives
education spaces, and construct with young people participa- of the youth researchers and laying out the arguments against
tory evaluations of services offered. We have consulted with categories (http://whatsyourissue.org/). We invite you to con-
lawyers about opening up legal categories of sex discrimina- sider not simply how we resolved these impossible epistemo-
tion to include a range of gender preferences and perfor- logical/political tangles but, more importantly that, and how,
mance, and we have collaborated with schools about the we opened up spaces for dissent and struggle.
importance of inviting educators, staff, administrators, and
students and their families to be their full selves in the class-
room—it’s good for the LGBTQIA+ young people, but really Conclusions
for everyone in the school community. This brief travelogue through the biography of What’s Your
Practitioners from a variety of settings have used our find- Issue? has the great fortune to sit alongside the powerful essays
ings about correlation between the presence of “out” teachers of Jeanne Marecek and Kaitlin McCormick-Huhn, Leah War-
and school staff and the inclusion of LGBTQIA+ material in ner, Isis Settles, and Stephanie Shields, in this issue, reminding
school curricula and reduced levels of school bullying, us of the wisdom of Carolyn Sherif, the power of “rich talk,”
reports of mental health struggles, and suicidality; therapists and the crucial significance of intersectionality in feminist
have asked for postcards of the amazing range of gender and research. Marecek reviews the wit and wisdom of Sherif who
sexuality identities for their clients; health care practitioners challenged categories, as our youth co-researchers do; insisted
are using our findings to think through reproductive justice on “equitable knowledge,” as PAR does; and refused the
for all young people, cis and trans, fluid, heterosexual, bisex- “boxcar” of gender binaries, as did the respondents to the
ual, asexual, lesbian, gay, questioning; child welfare and survey. Offering a rich sedimentary layer atop Sherif’s writ-
juvenile justice advocates are thinking with young people ings, Marecek invites us to consider how analyses of “rich
about gender segregation and how to better honor gender talk”—about masculinity, bodies, suicide, and mental health
expressions of trans and gender expansive youth. We believe struggles—complicate and destabilize—as Sherif would have
our findings, and our commitments to participation, can open wished—these notions that too many in psychology consider
doors for more inclusive classrooms and mental health set- self-evident. Through close discursive analysis, Marecek and
tings if the adults break the silence on diversity of identities colleagues advance thick understandings of how we live gen-
and intersectionalities and share power. der, sexuality, embodied (dis)comfort, mental health, and dis-
What’s Your Issue? revealed in statistics and stories that ease, through culture and always in context.
queer youth, especially trans and gender-expansive youth and Like Marecek, McCormick-Huhn, Warner, Settles, and
youth of color, are more likely than straight, cis, or White Shields (2019, the current issue) dedicate their essay to devel-
youth, respectively, to encounter difficulties, discrimination, oping another key feminist commitment to intersectionality.
and violence in schools and public spaces (on streets, in sub- With a simple four-part invitation to attend to power, oppres-
ways, in airports), and by public agencies (the police, service sion and opportunity, multiplicity and fluidity, and the
providers), and, too often, even at home. In many contexts, dynamics of social relations, they make evident how these
youth are also punished for speaking aloud and embodying four vectors move feminist analyses into theory, design,
the strength of their convictions. Queer youth of color are method, and analysis. We like to think that through critical
particularly vulnerable to structural violence at the hands of participation, questions of power, oppression, multiplicity,
state institutions, specifically by police and in schools and dynamic relations are visible and able to be theorized.
Fine and Torre 11

To end, we return to why CPAR—with intersectional fem- Declaration of Conflicting Interests

inist, critical race, and queer commitments—is crucial to The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
psychology as a public science for the public good. As many to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
have argued before us, feminist inquiry explores and unveils
the hidden (and woven) transcripts of desire, despair, identi- Funding
ties, relationships, wounds, and fantasies of those who have The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
been marginalized (Comas-Dı́az & Greene, 1994; Fine, 1988, ship, and/or publication of this article.
1992; Hall & Fine, 2005; hooks, 1984; Hurtado, 2003;
Romero & Stewart, 1999). And as Marecek (2019, current ORCID iD
issue) suggests, CPAR helps to destabilize taken for granted
Marı́a Elena Torre https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0864-7699
categories. By centering queer youth of color as co-
researchers, who are living and flourishing in deeply precar-
ious contexts, our research gained in validity, hilarity, References
urgency, and complexity. Without our co-researchers, we Ahmed, S. (2014). Willful subjects. Durham, NC: Duke University
would not have understood so deeply the vibrancy of inter- Press.
sectionality and the fundamental problem with categories, the Anzaldúa, G. (1987). Borderlands/La frontera. San Francisco, CA:
demands for fluidity, the tensions between structural oppres- Aunt Lute.
sion precisely carved along demographic lines, and the com- Boston Women’s Health Collective. (1971). Our bodies, our selves.
plex intersectional subjectivities embodied and enacted by Boston, MA: New England Free Press.
young people and their social movements. Cahill, C. (2007). Doing research with young people. Journal
And finally, in deeply disturbing times, as inequalities of Children’s Geographies, 5, 297–312. doi:101080/
widen, hate speech grows more familiar, the government 14733280410001720557
threatens the lives of immigrants, trans people, people of Chmielewski, J., Belmonte, K., Stoudt, B., & Fine, M. (2015). Inter-
color, LGBTQIAþ rights, sexual assault survivors, it is cru- sectional inque(e)ries: Participatory research on discipline dis-
cial for researchers in universities and in communities to ask: parities at the race/sexuality/gender nexus. In R. J. Skiba, K.
To whom we are accountable? While many of our depart- Mediratta, & M. K. Rausch (Eds.), Inequality in school disci-
mental and American Psychological Association (APA) col- pline: Research and practice to reduce disparities (pp. 171–188).
leagues engage research partnerships with pharmaceutical New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan.
companies, surveillance or testing companies, Homeland Chomsky, N., & Foucault, M. (1974). Human nature: Justice versus
Security, or the military, CPAR scholars partner with move- power. In E. Fons (Ed.), Reflexive water: The basic concerns of
ments for justice and dignity. Truth be told, all of these part- mankind (pp. 133–198). London, England: Souvenir Press.
nerships are infused with dilemmas, ethical troubles, tensions Collins, P. H., & Bilge, S. (2016). Intersectionality. New York, NY:
and, we hope, choques. The former partnerships are not Polity Press.
objective, just as the latter are not biased. We would argue Comas-Dı́az, L., & Greene, B. (1994). Women of color: Integrating
that, particularly today, solidarities between critical science ethnic and gender identities in psychotherapy. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
and social movements are crucial to our collective well-
Combahee River Collective. (1977). The Combahee River Collec-
being; they are essential for authentic, community-
tive statement. Retrieved from https://combaheerivercollective.
responsive policy making; and they are oxygen for nurturing
weebly.com/the-combahee-river-collective-statement.html
the soul of activists, policy makers, academics, and perhaps
Diamond, L. (2009). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women’s love
even the APA. Standing with INCITE (2007/2017), we
and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
recognize that working with social movements is not about
Fine, M. (1988). Sexuality, schooling, and adolescent females: The
lucrative payoffs but a commitment to justice. As urgent as
missing discourse of desire. Harvard Educational Review, 58,
they are joyful, these collaborations stand in a long, proud
29–54. doi:10.17763/haer.58.l.u0468klv2n2n8242
tradition of feminist and critical race psychology, rooted in
Fine, M. (1992). Disruptive voices: The possibilities of feminist
commitments to intersectionality, validity, and social justice.
research. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
A sweet spot in contentious times.
Fine, M. (2006). Bearing witness: Methods for researching oppression
and resistance. A textbook for critical research methods. Social
Acknowledgments Justice Research, 19, 83–108. doi:10.1007/11211.1573.6725
Fine, M., & Barreras, R. (2001). To be of use. Analyses of Social Issues
The authors would like to express deep gratitude to Allison Cabana,
David Frost, Emerson Brisbon, and the What’s Your Issue? and Public Policy, 1, 175–182. doi:10.1111/1530-2415.00012
Research Collective for their keen analysis and insights; all the Fine, M., & Cross, W. (2016). Critical race, psychology and social
youth across the country who helped create the What’s Your Issue? policy: Refusing damage, cataloguing oppression, and docu-
survey; and the Ford Foundation, Arcus, and Borealis Philanthro- menting desire. In A. Alvarez, C. T. H. Liang, & H. A. Neville
pies, without whom this research would not have been possible. (Eds.), The Cost of Racism for People of Color: Contextualizing
12 Psychology of Women Quarterly XX(X)

Experiences of Discrimination (pp. 273–294). Washington, DC: Maguire, P. (1987). Doing participatory research: A feminist
American Psychological Association. approach. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Center for
Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Boudin, K., Bowen, I., Clark, J., Hylton, D., International Education.
& Upegui, D. (2003). Participatory action research: Within and Martı́n-Baró, I. (1994). Writings for a liberation psychology. Cam-
beyond bars. In P. Camic, J. E. Rhodes, & L. Yardley (Eds.), bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Qualitative research in psychology: Expanding perspectives in McClelland, S. (2010). Intimate justice: A critical analysis of sexual
methodology and design (pp. 173–198). Washington, DC: Amer- satisfaction. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4,
ican Psychological Association. 663–680.
Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Frost, D., & Cabana, A. (2018). “Radical McClelland, S. (2017). The self-anchored ladder in critical feminist
by necessity, not by choice”: From microaggressions to social research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 451–464. doi:10.
activism. In G. Torino, D. Rivera, D. Capodilupo, K. Nadal, 1177/0361684317725985
& D. Sue (Eds.), Microaggression theory (pp. 244–259). New Romero, M., & Stewart, A. (1999) Women’s untold stories. New
York, NY: Wiley. York, NY: Routledge.
Fine, M., Torre, M. E., Frost, D., Cabana, A., & Avory, S. (2018). Stoudt, B. G., Fine, M., & Fox, M. (2011). Growing up policed in the
Refusing to check the box: Participatory inquiry at the radical age of aggressive policing policies. New York Law School Law
rim. In K. Gallagher (Ed.), Methodological dilemmas revisited Review, 56, 1331–1370.
(pp. 11–32). New York, NY: Routledge. Stoudt, B. G., Torre, M. E., Bartley, P., Bracy, F., Caldwell, H.,
Frost, D., Fine, M., Torre, M. E., & Cabana, A. (2019). Minority stress, Downs, A., . . . Yates, J. (2015). Participatory action research
activism and health in the context of economic precarity: A and policy change. In C. Durose & L. Richardson (Eds.), Design-
National participatory study of LGBTQ youth. American Journal ing public policy for co-production: Theory, practice and change
of Community Psychology, 63, 511–526. doi:10.1002/ajcp.12326
(pp. 125–137). Bristol, England: Policy Press.
Halkovic, A., Fine, M., Bae, J., Campbell, L., Gary, C., Greene, A.
Torre, M. E. (2009). Participatory action research and critical race
C., . . . Tawaji, A. (2013). The gifts they bring: Higher education
theory: Fueling spaces for nos-otras to research. The Urban
and re-entry. John Jay College, Prisoner Re-entry Institute.
Review, 41, 106–120. doi:10.1037/e6099822009-001
Retrieved from www.johnjaypri.org
Torre, M. E., & Ayala, J. (2009). Envisioning participatory action
Hall, R., & Fine, M. (2005). The stories we tell: The lives and friend-
research Entremundos. Feminism and Psychology, 19, 387–393.
ship of two older black lesbians. Psychology of Women Quarterly,
doi:10.1177/0959353509105620
29, 177–187. doi:10.1111/j.1471.6402.2005.000180
Torre, M. E., Fine, M., Alexander, N., Billups, A., Blanding, Y.,
Harding, S. (1994). Rethinking standpoint epistemology: What is
Genao, E., . . . Salah, T. (2008). Participatory action research in
“strong objectivity”? In L. Alcoff & E. Potter (Eds.), Feminist
the contact zone. In J. Cammarota & M. Fine (Eds.), Revolutio-
epistemologies (pp. 49–82). New York, NY: Routledge.
nizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion
hooks, B. (1984). From margin to center. Boston, MA: South End
(pp. 23–43). New York, NY: Routledge.
Press.
Torre, M. E., Fine, M., Frost, D., Cabana, A., & Fowler-
Hurtado, A. (2003). Voicing Chicana feminisms: Young women
speak out on sexuality and identity. New York: New York Uni- Chapman, T., & the WYI Research Collective. (2018). Rad-
versity Press. ical wills (and won’ts): Critical participatory inqueery. In S.
INCITE: Women of Color Against Violence. (2017). The revolution Talburt (Ed.), Youth sexualities (pp. 169–193). New York,
will not be funded. Retrieved from https://collectiveliberation. NY: Routledge.
org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Smith_Intro_Revolution_ Torre, M., Fine, M., Stoudt, B., & Fox, M. (2012). Critical partici-
Will_Not_Be_Funded. (Original work published 2007) patory action research as public science. In P. Camic & H.
Langhout, R., & Thomas, E. (2010). Imagining participation in col- Cooper (Eds.). The handbook of qualitative research in psychol-
laboration with children. American Journal of Community Psy- ogy: Expanding perspectives in methodology and design, 2nd
chology, 46, 60–66. doi:10/1007/S10464-015-9711-5 edition. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Levitt, H. M., Motulsky, S. L., Wertz, F. J., Morrow, S. L., & Torre, M. E., Stoudt, B., Manoff, E., & Fine, M. (2017). Critical
Ponterotto, J. G. (2017). Recommendations for designing and participatory action research on State violence: Bearing wit(h)-
reviewing qualitative research in psychology: Promoting meth- ness across fault lines of power, privilege and dispossession. In
odological integrity. Qualitative Psychology, 4, 2–22. doi:10. N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualita-
1037/qup0000082 tive research (pp. 492–515). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.
Lykes, B., & Moane, G. (2009). Whither feminist liberation psy- Tuck, E. (2009). Suspending damage: A letter to communities. Har-
chology? Feminism and Psychology, 19, 283–298. doi:10.1177/ vard Educational Review, 79, 409–427. doi:10.17763.haer.79.3.
0959353509105620 n0016675661t3n15