Listening sessions: Executive summary

On July 20, 2021, Jernigan & Associates, represented by Drs. Maryam Jernigan-Noesi, Janet E. Helms, and Carlton E. Green were hired in response to a request for proposals for the project: “Addressing APA’s Contribution to Racial Hierarchy and Inequality for Black and Indigenous People (BIPOC) in the United States.” The consultants were tasked with the coordination and facilitation of listening sessions targeting “stakeholders and representatives of groups that have been harmed by psychology’s historical and current contribution to systemic racism and other oppressions.” Findings from the listening sessions will inform APA’s implementation of a formal apology and a strategy that includes actionable steps toward healing, reconciliation, and a sustainable path forward.

As articulated in the Call for Proposals, the overall goal of the project was to collaborate with the Task Force for the Eradication of Racism, Discrimination, and Hate and the subcommittees on APA apologies to “provide a public forum to better understand the harms caused by psychology’s historical contributions that have perpetuated systemic inequities for BIPOC members and communities.”

Discussions regarding the scope of the listening sessions began prior to the engagement of Jernigan & Associates (J&A). Preliminary planning meetings with Dr. Maysa Akbar and the office of Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (EDI) Office staff provided the J&A team with the following information relative to the proposed scope of work:

Information

• Listening sessions would inform an apology from APA to communities of color regarding the historical and current ways that psychology as a field and APA as an organization and governing body have contributed to harm to communities of color.

• Listening session data would be used to illuminate a parallel process of a commissioned historical chronology in the field of psychology, detailing noted harm to communities of color.

• The purpose of the listening sessions was to elicit specific narratives regarding observations and experiences of harm to communities of color from direct sources.

Scope of work

• Coordinate facilitation of listening sessions

• Initial sessions would target psychologists of color working with communities of color
• Psychologists of color would serve as “informers” based on their professional and personal observations
• Future listening sessions might be held to engage specific community members, as well as trainees, depending on the outcomes of the listening sessions

• Develop a semistructured listening session protocol designed to elicit responses from participants regarding the harm experienced by communities of color as a result of the actions of psychology and/or APA

• Facilitate listening sessions and data collection

• Analyze and summarize listening session data to be presented in a formal report for the Task Force

• Collaborate to develop an online survey that would elicit open-ended responses from psychologists of color who were unable or declined to participate in listening sessions

Project Team

Lead team

Drs. Jernigan-Noesi, Helms, and Green served as the lead team for the project. The lead team was responsible for corresponding with Dr. Maysa Akbar, the APA EDI Office staff, Task Force members, and other designated representatives essential to the project. They collaborated with APA staff to coordinate the listening session schedule, provided oversight and troubleshooting for each listening session, submitted feedback on the language used for listening session invitations, and coordinated vetting and hiring of all facilitators and scribes. The lead team also reviewed all facilitator and scribe notes, debriefing videos, and each of the recorded listening session videos to facilitate analysis of data and the summary of listening sessions findings.

Facilitators

Facilitators served as essential staff who were charged with managing listening session dynamics, creating comfortable virtual environments for participants, and responding to participants’ needs. The lead team selected listening session facilitators based on their experience as group facilitators, background and knowledge associated with race, race-related dynamics, and racial trauma. Additionally, facilitators were chosen based on their identification as psychologists of color who work professionally with the designated communities of color. Facilitators were tasked with orienting participants to the listening sessions, using a script provided by the lead team. They were also responsible for navigating group dynamics to ensure

that participants had equal access and opportunity to engage in the discussion. Facilitators took notes throughout each session and provided debriefing information for the lead team, capturing overall group dynamics, any questions or concerns raised by participants, and their overall impressions of the listening sessions.

Listening session scribes

Listening Session Scribes were tasked with capturing notes from each designated listening session. They were asked to document the general content of the session, as well as relevant information and quotes, and to summarize information shared by participants during each session. They were also asked to observe and document interactions that may have impacted group dynamics and thereby supplement data, allowing for thicker descriptions and interpretations relative to the sole use of verbal data (Gordon, 1980). Scribes debriefed with facilitators immediately following each session. Additionally, they were instructed to edit their notes for clarity and grammar, and to submit their final written summaries to the lead team.

Design

Based on the established project aims, key objectives included utilizing feedback from psychologists, who identified as people of color and who worked with communities of color. Participants were identified as “key informants'' who would provide information and feedback based on professional and personal experiences as psychologists working with communities of color. A semistructured listening session protocol was developed based on project aims and feedback from the Task Force. The preliminary script and questions served as guidance for each listening session discussion. Decisions regarding listening session questions were informed by the need to ensure open group dynamics and synergistic relationships among participants (Kreuger, 1998).

The project lead team (Jernigan-Noesi, Helms, and Green) collaborated with APA staff to ensure the potential for thematic saturation (i.e., a clear and complete pattern of emergent data) while recognizing constraints with respect to time allotted for the overall project and the complexity of the topic. Listening sessions were organized based on racial self-identification as psychologists of color of various socioracial backgrounds, working with a range of communities of color.

The APA EDI Office staff coordinated dissemination of electronic invitations and registration for listening sessions using email listservs, as well as the EDI Office website. The potential for group size was taken into consideration, with the goal of ensuring that no one listening session exceeded 12 participants. Groups with greater than 12 participants can become challenging to manage (Krueger & Casey, 2000). As such, when registration numbers exceeded 12, groups were disaggregated into two or three additional listening sessions, during the same time period, to allow for independent facilitation and discussion.

Recruitment

The lead team collaborated with Dr. Maysa Akbar and affiliated APA staff from the EDI office to specify logistics related to the listening sessions. Based on discussions, the lead team was informed that purposive sampling would be used. The EDI office used APA’s sociodemographic membership data to send emails directly to members who self-reported their socioracial as BIPOC.

Analysis

Many decisions regarding the scope of the consultancy and listening sessions were determined prior to retaining Jernigan & Associates. As such, listening session data were analyzed using directed content analysis (Hsieh & Shannon, 2014). Directed content analysis is appropriate when existing theory or prior research exists about a phenomenon that would benefit from further discussion. Data are analyzed using inductive and deductive procedures to provide descriptive knowledge and summative understanding of the phenomenon being studied. Directed content analysis is guided by a structured process that uses existing information and frameworks to identify key concepts as initial coding categories. As proposed by Assarroudi et al. (2018), our directed content analysis included: (1) gaining familiarity with the data, including manifest content (e.g., scribes’ notes) and latent content (interpretations of group dynamics); (2) generating initial categorical codes; (3) identifying and defining categorical themes; (4) performing analyses; and (5) interpreting data.

The stated aims of the consultancy were to determine the harm to communities of color by the field of psychology and/or the American Psychological Association. The aims and information from the commissioned historical chronology of psychology were used to develop a semistructured interview protocol for listening sessions (Appendix B). The protocol was designed to seek feedback from participants about perceived harms to communities of color using probes derived from four domains documented in the historical chronology. The domains were (1) perceptions of historical harms generally, (2) standardized testing, (3) K–12 schools, and (4) assessment and diagnosis. The opportunity to discuss additional topics and perspectives was provided at the end of each listening session.

The semistructured interview protocol was used to identify key concepts and develop initial categorical codes for analysis (see Table 2). Subcodes related to the question of harm to communities of color were identified based on feedback provided by participants across groups. Additionally, codes were established to capture emergent themes based on participant responses. The lead team reviewed the qualitative data for accuracy and consistency. Data reviewed by the lead team included: a) facilitator notes and/or debriefing videos, b) scribe notes, and c) video recordings of listening sessions. Each listening session had a minimum of one facilitator and one scribe notetaker. For sessions with more than 12 participants registered, two facilitators and two scribes were present. If actual session attendance was lower than 12, multiple listening sessions were collapsed into one listening session, yielding two facilitators and two scribes notes. In sum, data for each listening session (n = 18) ranged from three sets of notes, facilitator debriefs, and session recordings to as many as five sets of notes, facilitator debriefs, and session recordings.

For each of the communities, a member of the lead team analyzed all of the listening sessions within each of the communities independently. After watching each respective listening session video, a lead team member triangulated all facilitator and scribe notes with the lead team member’s independent notes. The different listening sessions were collapsed within represented communities (e.g., the three listening sessions focused on the Black community were collapsed and analyzed as one unit).

Table 1. Categorical Codes

A total of 18 listening sessions were held over a three-week time period. 304 participants registered with APA to attend listening sessions. A total of 119 participants (39% of registrants), engaged in listening sessions across all designated groups.

Although each of the socioracial and marginalized communities reported some unique experiences of White supremacy and/or colonialism, they shared more similar than dissimilar overarching themes of oppression as described in the accompanying listening session summaries. It is the pattern of oppressors to show each oppressed group the same illusory crumbs of power and to snatch them away before either group can obtain them. Because the groups do not share their struggles in authentic relationships with each other, they keep fighting each battle separately and sometimes amongst themselves rather than recognizing that they could force the oppressor to change by joining forces in resolving areas where they obviously have the same goals and negotiating between communities how best to support each other in addressing unique goals. The Task Force could model intercommunity coalition-building given the great respect that many of them hold in the communities that they represent. The conclusions section summarizes some of the aspects of harm that our analyses suggest are common across groups.

Harm to BIPOC Communities

Across all groups, participants noted harm to communities of color by the field of psychology, as well as APA. Themes included the lack of immediate responses by APA regarding social injustices affecting communities of color. Participants also discussed the theme of silence by APA through its lack of explicit recognition of its own participation in enacting racism or colluding with racist policies. For example, participants named incidents such as the lack of APA’s response in support of AMENA communities following 9/11, which led to negative stereotyping (e.g., terrorists), increased surveillance of individuals and communities, and targeted violence.

Likewise, participants noted slow response time in offering statements acknowledging national incidents highlighting the continued police violence and killing of Black and Brown people. Other examples included APA’s apology to its membership regarding involvement in Guantanamo Bay (i.e., Hoffman Report) without explicit acknowledgment of the harm done to individuals, families, and communities directly impacted.

Participants across groups reported that the field of psychology, and at times APA, engages in practices that lead to the invisibility of people of color. Numerous participants cited examples of serving on committees, working groups, or task forces as representatives of racial and/or ethnic groups. Their reported attempts to inform discussions, raise awareness about issues affecting communities of color, and support policy changes are often met with dismissal or outright defensiveness. As a result, participants indicated that they were more often treated as tokens, with little ability to facilitate or enact change.

Participants engaged in discussions about APA’s use of racial categories that do not allow them to self-identify in ways reflective of their respective identities. Several communities noted that they are often forced to choose the category of “White” or “Other,” rendering their racial and cultural communities invisible and depriving them of access to resources specific to their community’s needs. Others noted APA and psychology’s treatment of socioracial categories of people of color as risk factors themselves rather than searching for contextual factors that place them at risk. Participants provided specific examples of perceptions of psychologists and APA’s historical and current silence and participation in racism. One example included use of the concept of Drapetomania, a proposed mental illness used to describe enslaved individuals who attempted to escape enslavement. The concept is now acknowledged as pseudoscience, but is rarely discussed in relation to the field of psychology and diagnosis. Moreover, participants discussed that the field of psychology and APA have not widely and explicitly acknowledged the psychological harms of racism. As a consequence, changes in policies and treatment guidelines for psychologists conducting research and working with people of color do not exist.

With respect to the field of psychology’s harm to communities of color, participants noted that use of standardized tests and assessment measures have consistently been documented as racially biased and as negatively affecting a variety of psychological, social, academic, and work-related outcomes for people of color. Likewise, assessments used for diagnostic purposes, as well as the clinical diagnoses taught in graduate training programs and used in clinical practice do not represent culturally sensitive practice. People of color are often misdiagnosed, overpathologized, or do not meet criteria for diagnoses that might facilitate their ability to access clinical treatments or services.

Additionally, the field of psychology has not required that White psychologists engage in developing awareness about racism and/or White supremacy and its negative impact on communities of color, nor does the field explicitly support an antiracism framework or a positive cultural framework in training and practice. Psychology as a field has not acted to disrupt White supremacy and racist ideology inherent in the history of psychology; nor the ideologies that underlie many of its conceptual models, theoretical frameworks, research, and practice. 

Standardized testing and assessment

White psychologists, who were advocates of eugenics, invented testing and assessment tools primarily for the purposes of demonstrating the mental and psychological inferiority of people of color relative to Whites. This philosophy is inherent in reliance on nonrepresentative norms and exclusion of cultural factors in the structure and interpretation of tests. These omissions have resulted in stereotyping, closing doors of opportunity, and providing clinical diagnoses that result in incorrectly treating or ignoring mental health conditions of people of color. Although APA knows that these tools should not be used to assess BIPOCs, it has taken no steps to stop such misuse and to advise the public of the meaninglessness of such devices for assessing people of color.

Clinical diagnosis

Across listening sessions, themes included the overdiagnosis, misdiagnosis, and lack of culturally appropriate diagnostic criteria to characterize mental health concerns for people of color. Participants stated that “traditional” diagnostic methods and standards do not capture the contextual and lived experiences of people of color (e.g., systemic racism), which influence mental health and emotional wellbeing. In this regard, the concerns of people of color are either pathologized or inaccurately diagnosed. When pathologized, people of color often experience negative psychosocial outcomes such as, forced involvement with social services (e.g., child welfare) and legal systems (e.g., juvenile detention). Misdiagnosis or lack of ability to capture the mental health concerns of people of color (e.g., racial trauma) leads to an inability of practitioners to provide adequate resources and culturally responsive treatment.

Schools

Participants noted that K–12 schools often lack the presence of mental health professionals of color. Their absence means that students of color interact with teachers who do not understand their racial and cultural identities and rely too heavily on test-score cutoffs to relate to them. Students of color are referred for assessment and tested by professionals who lack training in race and culture, using standardized instruments that are biased. Consequently, students of color may be connected to academic and behavioral health resources that do not accurately reflect their needs. An example is that active children of color are disproportionately given individualized educational plans (IEPs) rather than being assessed for giftedness

Participants also noted that trends in K–12 schools are also present in higher education. Undergraduate students often lack access to faculty, mentors, and advisors of color, and the few existing faculty of color must attend to the academic and emotional needs of all students of color. The lack of representation may negatively affect the ability of students of color to engage in opportunities, such as research labs, which will prepare them for entry into competitive graduate psychology programs.

Training

Although not explicitly prompted, participants across groups discussed the need to further explore the experiences of students in graduate training programs. Many professionals noted their personal experiences in graduate programs, as students of color, as overwhelmingly negative. A few community interest sessions included graduate trainees who spoke to current dynamics in training programs. Themes included: a) a lack of faculty and advisors of color to assist with navigating and completing programs; b) burdens placed on the few faculty of color to support students and champion all issues pertaining to race and diversity; and c) barriers to completion of programs and training requirements that allow for successful transition into the field.

Participants reported that the lack of faculty of color in training programs has direct implications for the recruitment and retention of students of color. Moreover, they noted that faculty of color are often those who are proponents of raising awareness, engaging in research, and training students to work with communities of color. As a result, faculty of color, who are already limited by their own conditions of oppression, are overburdened, leading to their transition from academic positions. Participants also stated that although numerous anecdotal narratives of students of color in graduate programs exist, mechanisms to accurately account for the experiences of students of color are lacking. For example, although the Committee on Accreditation (COA) may inquire about issues related to diversity, many students of color are unlikely to reveal their experiences for fear of compromising their respective program’s accreditation status. Given this, recommendations included continued listening sessions and alternate ways to capture students of color’s experiences and hold programs accountable.

Participants discussed barriers to completion of graduate programs and training requirements. Specific examples included the cost of applications, entrance exams such as the GRE, and the cost of the EPPP and preparation programs, which facilitate entry into graduate programs and transition into professional psychological practice. Additionally, participants noted barriers related to biases faced by trainees or early career professionals with academic degrees from international universities. Other examples included bias in the internship application and interview process for nonnative English speaking or multilingual trainees with noted accents.

Participants noted that APA suggests rather than requires training in diversity. Consequently, most psychologists graduate after taking no more than one multicultural course that focuses on all aspects of diversity. After graduation, psychologists are not required to acquire race-culture CEs to retain their licenses.

Pipeline

Across groups, noticed that there are few psychologists of their socioracial categories or marginalization statuses in the field, and these numbers have not increased markedly over time. Expensive testing at the entry (i.e., GRE) and exit (i.e. EPPP) points act as barriers to keep people out of graduate school and the psychology profession, respectively. Participants also reported a number of barriers related to the miseducation of undergraduate and graduate students. Miseducation barriers included a lack of theories or frameworks that are relevant to communities of color, as well as the appropriation of cultural knowledge from communities of color without proper understanding of them or attribution. Students are not exposed to the theory or research of scholars of color and are evaluated by their internalization of theories developed primarily by White men. Consequently, they graduate with little formal knowledge about how to work with their own communities and with a deficit image of themselves as scholars.

Programs further reportedly fail students by not teaching them or allowing them to teach themselves the traditional healing models of their community healers. Instead, their evaluations are based on the students’ effectiveness in using models that are irrelevant to their culture (e.g., evidence-based practice). If they are not successful in doing so, the failure is blamed on them rather than the cultural inappropriateness of the intervention. Failure to meet the unique training needs of students of color, invested in serving diverse BIPOC communities, means that community members may distrust them as service providers and they may lack the necessary culturally relevant skills.

Emergent themes

In addition to direct responses to prompts from the semistructured interviews, participants engaged in spontaneous discussion about related topics and were prompted to offer additional content at the close of each listening session. As a result, several additional themes emerged across groups.

Research

Although they labeled the experience differently, participants describing experiences of segregated communities described researchers who enter their communities, collect data from community members, and publish negative results describing them. This research is used to advance the careers of the researchers who become experts with respect to the studied groups, but the researched community receives nothing in return—not even a summary of the results. Participants described the publication process as a barrier to their career advancement in universities. Some barriers included (a) editors wordsmithing contributions or adding cautionary wording about the author’s writing style, (b) having departments unwilling to pay for access to research resources (e.g., PsycInfo) for one or two people, (c) applying different criteria for describing samples of color (e.g., education is not a believable indicator of social class), and (d) devaluing of qualitative research (e.g., knowledge through listening). Participants also described difficulty in obtaining funding for their research because (a) one has to learn to speak funding language and (b) interventions originating in communities are not regarded as worthy of funding.

Practice

Participants discussed how they engage in clinical and counseling practice with clients representing communities of color and are often informed by information gleaned outside of formal psychological training. Given aforementioned themes regarding the lack of culturally responsive assessment, diagnostic standards, and treatment recommendations, participants spoke about the need for the field of psychology to shift current conceptual models and modes of practice. More specifically, participants noted that psychology would benefit from using an interdisciplinary approach. Additionally, participants noted the importance of collaborating with community healers, faith-based organizations, and what are often deemed by the field of psychology as “nontraditional” helping professionals who are aligned with respective communities. Participants advocated for the field of psychology and APA to rethink its history and fundamental concepts, which often inform practice. According to participants, such concepts and thinking embody White supremacy and are based on norms reflecting Westernized White culture.

Ethics

Participants across groups brought up the ethical dilemmas they face when working with communities of color as psychologists. Discussion regarding the code of ethics emerged as participants reflected upon standardized assessment, clinical diagnosis, research, and practice. More specifically, participants shared that they remain in ethical conflict because the code of ethics, as specified, does not align culturally responsive assessment and treatment. Examples include using tests and assessments not normed on populations served and use of evidence-based practice or treatments which have not been researched or demonstrated as effective among people of color. Participants also noted the impersonal nature of the ethical code which does not align with their relationship-centered cultural communities. Participants across groups brought up the ethical dilemmas they face when working with communities of color as psychologists. Discussion regarding the code of ethics emerged as participants reflected upon standardized assessment, clinical diagnosis, research, and practice. More specifically, participants shared that they remain in ethical conflict because the code of ethics, as specified, does not align with culturally responsive assessment and treatment. Examples include using tests and assessments not normed on populations served and the use of evidence-based practice or treatments which have not been researched or demonstrated as effective among people of color. Participants also noted the impersonal nature of the ethical code which does not align with their relationship-centered cultural communities.

Recommendations

The report offers recommendations provided by respective communities of interest. Additionally, we highlight overall recommendations related to the overall process and future directions beyond this initial scope of work.

Considerations

The current report does not explicitly capture the gravity of emotionality communicated by participants across all focus groups (e.g., anger, sadness). As work related to identifying the impact of systemic racism on communities of color within the field of psychology and APA continues, it is imperative to engage in discussions that will allow for the space and opportunity to validate the experiences of, and hold the emotions of people and communities of color.

• Participants often noted that they appreciated the opportunity to share their thoughts and have been waiting for decades for APA to seriously undertake such an initiative. They also noted, however, that the process of asking people of color to engage in the labor of identifying, again, well-documented harms to communities of color, is traumatizing. Consequently, questions regarding how the information will be shared and used by the field of psychology and APA emerged in almost every listening session. Therefore, it is our recommendation that those identified in positions of advisement or leadership relative to this process, carefully consider how information from the listening sessions is shared with those who provided feedback, APA members, and the general community. There is no unidimensional way to offer such feedback. Intentional discussions and planning will yield ideal planning and dissemination of feedback. Such discussions may include considerations of accessibility, timing, formatting, and appropriate communicators of findings.

• Participants were very explicit about the need for APA and the field of psychology to explicitly communicate historical and current wrongs related to systemic racism impacting communities of color. Participants noted that there are many lessons that can be learned from other associations or organizations that have already undertaken the process of delivering apologies. Noteworthy considerations included acknowledging harms directly and ensuring the inclusion of action items (i.e., what will be done to atone) that will speak to reparations for such harms.

• As designated advisors and leaders engage in the process of apology and reconciliation, it is important not to engage in tokenism and exploitation of people of color for obtaining the necessary labor. Instead integrate people of color into the process in roles as advisors. Active inclusion will ensure that the voices of those, historically and currently marginalized and oppressed, are prioritized.

• Moreover, ensure that White psychologists and community members are held accountable and engaged in the emotional and literal labor of addressing harms to communities of color. 

Future Directions

The initial scope of work was conducted in a short amount of time in an effort to facilitate next steps. Ideally, a consulting team is an integral part of the process and planning of all components that ultimately serve to impact services delivered. As such, the consultants have worked collaboratively with Dr. Maysa Akbar and the EDI Office to identify potential next steps towards the goal of documenting the narratives of people and communities of color.

• An online open-ended survey of APA members regarding perceptions of harm to communities of color is underway. Data from the survey will be analyzed and triangulated with initial listening session data.

• In addition to the current scope of work, which recruited psychologists of color as “informants,” to offer personal and professional perspectives, future listening sessions may be designed to further elicit themes. More specifically, listening sessions seeking to elicit narratives from trainees of color and community members of color are ideal for expanding identified themes and expounding upon documented harms.

In sum, we conclude with a quote that speaks to the necessity of the current process as APA continues to address the field of psychology and APA’s contribution to systemic racism, racial hierarchy, and racial inequities faced by people of color in the United States.

“But until we tell the truth, we deny ourselves the opportunity for beauty. Justice can be beautiful. Reconciliation can be beautiful. Repair can be beautiful. It’s powerful to actually experience redemption. And we deny ourselves that when we insist on denying our broken past, our ugly past, our racist past, when we insist on avoiding the truth.”

—Bryan Stevenson

Disclaimer: This report includes a narrative summary of listening sessions. Participants who attended these sessions may have different recollections of events. The opinions summarized in this report are those of the participants and not necessarily of APA.