Collaborative Autoethnography and Liberatory Consciousness Framework: Facilitator Perspective

Background and Purpose:

In 2022, Rutgers University School of Social Work (RUSSW) began adopting Dr. Barbra Love’s Liberatory Consciousness Framework (LCF) as a guide for anti-racism and anti-oppression work in curriculum, instruction, department policy, and school culture. However, the implementation of anti-oppression frameworks in university departments is complex. Many successes and challenges can be opaque or need to be understood in context to the unique positionalities of the school’s community and the environment in which they are being applied. Autoethnography is a methodology where researchers use their personal experiences to critically examine and transform their cultural, social, and political contexts. A collaborative autoethnography (CAE) is a carefully organized investigative process with two or more people. It gives us unique insight into the complicated relationships between self-society, personal-political, and emotional-analytical. In the fall of 2022, we conducted a CAE to critically examine the implementation of LCF into RUSSW instruction and culture. This paper uses CAE facilitator reflections and interviews with CAE authors to identify how CAE methodology may support personal and RUSSW transformation.

Methods:

The PI of the study provided an overview and training to the participant-researchers on the project. Facilitators and authors interacted through dialogue, written responses/feedback, prompts, and follow-up questions. Over a semester, authors (participant-researchers) were asked to submit three autoethnographic entries, attend two meetings with facilitators, and 1 group collaborative analysis meeting. Facilitators sent prompts and follow-up questions to help authors ‘thicken’ and deepen their entries. Data analysis was conducted collaboratively. In the final meeting, facilitators asked each author how the autoethnography process impacted their personal and professional relationship to LCF ideas and practices. Their responses were thematically analyzed and supplemented with facilitator observation and reflection.

Results: Not only did the CAE process generate constructive insights for anti-racist and anti-oppressive practice, but the methodology acted as a liberatory consciousness tool. The authors (instructors of a clinical social work class) talked about how the process influenced their curriculum (online and in-person), their own personal liberatory consciousness, relationship to the department, and professional practice. Facilitators reflect on how social work departments may use aspects of the CAE, hoping to create a stronger culture of anti-racism and anti-oppression while also collecting important information for critical self-reflection.

Conclusions and Implications: CAE fosters a collective process through collaborative analysis meetings and shared dialogue. Through this process there was a deeper understanding of the gaps and challenges of implementing LCF. The CAE empowered participants to critically examine their personal and professional relationships with LCF principles. By embracing collaborative analysis and dialogue, institutions can bridge theory and practice, fostering a deeper understanding of implementation challenges and opportunities.