Eres Gringa?: Positionality In CBPR with Latinx (Im)Migrant Communities

Background and Purpose: “¿Eres gringa?” was one of the first questions posed by Central American mothers with Unaccompanied Refugee Minor (URM) histories, naming my outsider positionality before I did. In community-based participatory research (CBPR), such moments foreground persistent questions about who produces knowledge, whose interpretations count, and how power operates in participatory projects. These questions are central to social work research "at the service of democracy." Inclusive knowledge production—itself core to democratic practice—requires shifting who defines problems, interprets data, and controls dissemination. However, there is limited concrete guidance on how outsider researchers can conduct rigorous and ethical CBPR with Latinx (im)migrant communities under conditions of heightened immigration enforcement and fear. This paper advances an empirically grounded methodological contribution, arguing that positionality functions as an ongoing, collaborative methodological practice—rather than a static statement—to produce valid, ethical, and accountable knowledge.

Methods: This study used constructivist grounded theory within a four-tier collaborative framework: community-based agencies, a community advisory board (CAB), a community–university research team, and participants as collaborators. Collaborative practices were embedded across all stages (design, recruitment, interviewing, analysis, dissemination), including bilingual/bicultural data collection, hiring lived-experience research staff, fair compensation, and co-authorship. Analytically, the team integrated positionality memos with rigorous relationality—defined here as systematic, ongoing interrogation of subjectivity through responsive dialogues with CAB and community research partners. Data analysis combined Sort and Sift, Think and Shift collaborative techniques with iterative memo review using CBPR power and identity frameworks.

Results: Three findings demonstrate how positionality can be operationalized as a method. First, explicitly naming outsider status (whiteness, citizenship) surfaced and interrupted extractive research tendencies, resulting in concrete shifts such as renegotiated authorship practices and shared control over dissemination decisions. Second, collaborative decision-making enabled stage-specific adaptations to a shifting 2025 immigration context of heightened enforcement and surveillance conditions, including individualized safety protocols that altered core study practices (e.g., modes of communication, data management). Third, rigorous relationality strengthened analytic credibility: CAB and community-based research team members directly contested and revised preliminary interpretations, resulting in a co-developed analytic model and dissemination strategy. This collaborative process resulted in co-authored outputs (e.g., op-eds, conference presentations, manuscripts) with lived-experience collaborators. Tensions and constraints—including time, institutional expectations, and uneven power—are also examined as part of the methodological contribution.

Implications and Conclusions: Findings demonstrate that positionality, when operationalized through rigorous relationality, can function as a systematic methodological tool that enhances both analytic rigor (credibility, trustworthiness) and ethical responsibility (safety, accountability) in CBPR with Latinx (im)migrant communities. For social work researchers, this approach provides concrete strategies for embedding power-sharing across the research process, particularly in high-risk contexts shaped by immigration enforcement and surveillance. More broadly, the study offers actionable guidance for researchers, institutions, and community partnerships seeking to align participatory methods with democratic principles.