After identifying theoretical frameworks, participants were randomly assigned to four groups of six to nine persons and turned their attention to identifying research methodologies for the questions raised the preceding day. Researchers in all four groups cautioned that the application of methodologies (and theories) must be driven by specific research questions and overall research design. Rapporteurs presented summaries of the groups’ discussion in the afternoon plenary session, after which there was an opportunity for general discussion.
Breakout Group 3A
Members of this group articulated alternative ways of generating knowledge beyond traditional empirical research. One idea suggested was to combine and amplify quantitative and qualitative methods to get more information about the nuances of experience for men of color in STEM fields compared with many traditional empirical methods.
Breakout Group 3B
The discussion in this group focused on recognizing differences between standard research methodologies (e.g., structural equation modeling, hierarchical linear modeling, and classroom research) and “grassroots” methodologies (e.g., histories of scientific racism or bias). One idea suggested was to develop a new methodology incorporating both standard research and grassroots methodologies that could (a) be transformative and tied to action; (b) be collaborative, interdisciplinary, inclusive, and innovative; and (c) create new data sources.
Breakout Group 3C
Members of this group discussed the utility of a research design that supports examination of the individual, communal, organizational, and societal factors embedded in a major research area. Methodologies that would support such a broad research design would include many different types of research methods, including life event storytelling and surveying, longitudinal data collection, and ethnographies.
Breakout Group 3D
Participants in this group emphasized the need for new methodologies with appropriate theoretical grounding and pilot study validation. They emphasized the importance of broad diversity—in ethnicity, discipline, and background, as well as research theories and
methodological experience—in the reviewer pool for any grant program, and suggested that experienced researchers should nominate other experienced researchers for service on review panels. Finally, they stressed that any research program solicitation should communicate that all research methodologies are equally valued and possibly provide examples.