Abstract
We describe our ethics‐driven process of addressing missing data within a social network study about accountability for racism, classism, sexism, heterosexism, cis‐sexism, ableism, and other forms of oppression among social justice union organizers. During data collection, some would‐be participants did not return emails and others explicitly refused to engage in the research. All refusals came from women of color. We faced an ethical dilemma: Should we continue to seek participation from those who had not yet responded, with the hopes of recruiting more women of color from within the network so their perspectives would not be tokenized? Or, should we stop asking those who had been contacted multiple times, which would compromise the social network data and analysis? We delineate ways in which current discussions of the ethics of social network studies fell short, given our framework and our community psychology (CP) values. We outline literature that was helpful in thinking through this challenge; we looked outside of CP to the decolonization literature on refusal. Lessons learned include listening for the possible meanings of refusals and considering the level of engagement and the labor required of participants when designing research studies.
Highlights
Contextualized account of addressing a missing data problem.
The study of empowerment may include damage‐centered narratives.
Refusals in research can be generative for community psychology praxis.