Responses to the 2014 Police Shooting of Michael Brown: Cosmology Episodes and Enacted Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

There is much to recommend this paper.  The application of a unique theory to a complex and well known event is exciting scholarship.  I do have a few concerns, some minor and a few more noteworthy. 

On line 65 you repeated the often told myth of police are solely founded in slave patrols.  Without question slave patrols were one of the ancestors of the modern police force.  There were both domestic and international ancestors beyond slave patrols. 

On line 273 you again discussion dynamic multi-dyadic approach.  As this is new it deserves a clearer explanation than is offered.  On line 299 you offer the term again with new wording and a typo.  This is a bit confusing. 

On lines 336-7 you claim that you set aside personal assumptions.  Is that even possible?  As you are well aware many scholars would argue that is not even possible. 

Line 358 is representative of an ongoing claim concern.  The claim that some passage represents a "latent" phenomena seems contrived and overreaching.  In this specific example I thought your claim of latent white fragility was not capture in the quote passage.  I found myself frequently wondering if your were forcing the latent concept so that that the theoretical model will fit perfectly or completely.  I doubt almost all of your latent claims because your evidence was insufficient. 

Line 643 claims a result for which I saw no evidence.  I saw the same in 742-3.  This led to a specific concern of a post hoc error.  The use of the theoretical model to create new understanding was strong in this article.  Claiming the data proved the4 model or subsequent claim is post hoc.  You explicitly used the model of organize and interpret your data.  Certainly, you use of a little known model illuminates, illustrates, highlights, or reveals new aspects of this well known event.  I would suggest reviewing your claims making. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. I appreciate your thoughtful and thorough revision request. We are incredibly excited about this scholarship and understand that new methods and social justice subjects must rise to a level of excellence to be accepted as scholarship, especially in this political climate where science itself is questioned.

Article Review/Comments: On line 65, you repeated the often-told myth of police are solely founded in slave patrols. Without question slave patrols were one of the ancestors of the modern police force. There were both domestic and international ancestors beyond slave patrols. 

Authors’ Response: On line 65, I appreciate your rigor in questioning this phrasing. I realize there is a necessity to specify the police departments in the discussion are American and clarify that slave patrols and night watches were enforced by colonial policing. The sentence was misleading, and I hope the current edits clarify more.

Article Review/Comments: On line 273, you again discussion dynamic multi-dyadic approach. As this is new it deserves a clearer explanation than is offered. On line 299 you offer the term again with new wording and a typo. This is a bit confusing. 

Authors’ Response: On lines 273 and 299. I struggled to name the method, and as such, it underwent several iterations, landing on the consensual multi-dyadic method as the most transparent and accurate depiction of the work. Consensual rather than dynamic, to homage the robust discussions of the research team related to social perspectives and challenges to the accepted norms and final checking of findings with study participants. The consensus was key to our triangulation approach.

Article Review/Comments: On lines 336-7, you claim that you set aside personal assumptions. Is that even possible? As you are well aware many scholars would argue that is not even possible. 

Authors’ Response: On lines 336-7, Bracketing, analogous to Epoche, a Greek word meaning to refrain from judgment (Moustakas, 1994): “Typically viewed as the first step in phenomenological data analysis. The researcher examines and sets aside preconceived beliefs, values, and assumptions about the research topic and proposed research design” (Hays, Singh, 2011, pp. 417, 422). Bracketing as described by Ahern (1999):

It is not possible for qualitative researchers to be objective, because total objectivity is not humanly possible (Crotty, 1996; Schutz, 1994). Each person’s values are the result of a number of factors that include personality, socioeconomic status, and culture (Burkitt, 1997; Colaizzi, 1978; Porter, 1993). Despite this, in many forms of qualitative research, it is expected that researchers will make sincere efforts to put aside their values in order to more accurately describe respondents’ life experiences. The means by which researchers endeavor not to allow their assumptions to shape the data collection process and the persistent effort not to impose their own understanding and constructions on the data are known as bracketing (Crotty, 1996).

While I agree it is impossible to be objective, I believe the research findings are credible as we conducted multiple stages of bracketing throughout the design, collection, and cross-analysis. We made a painstaking effort to honor and illuminate participants’ contributions, to provide the essence of the lived experiences of a phenomenon, stripped of our own experiences of that phenomenon. Additionally, we conducted member checks with each subgroup to verify the integrity of each research claim. We established dependability by keeping a detailed account of procedures, methods, and reflections to describe the research process (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). I hope the edits to Page 7, Section 3.1, help demonstrate this methodological rigor better. 

Article Review/Comments: Line 358 is representative of an ongoing claim concern. The claim that some passage represents a “latent” phenomena seems contrived and overreaching. In this specific example I thought your claim of latent white fragility was not capture in the quote passage. I found myself frequently wondering if your were forcing the latent concept so that that the theoretical model will fit perfectly or completely. I doubt almost all of your latent claims because your evidence was insufficient. 

Authors’ Response: Line 358, The claim of “latent” phenomena may not communicate what I thought it did. I hoped to denote a difference between what was understood in the interviews despite not being directly expressed or conveyed by the participant. These indirect findings were limited to a few observations of trauma and racial phenomena observed by the interviewer or discussed during consensus coding and cross-analysis. In addition to reaching the consensus of the cross-analysis team members, the primary investigators and interviewers had doctoral and master’s level mental health expertise with specific training in trauma-informed interviewing, qualitative research, and cultural humility. Our team was uniquely qualified to recognize and attend therapeutic presentations. In both cases, each theme presented with general frequency (Hill et al., 2005; Okubo et al., 2007). Since I could not situate latent with this meaning in the literature, I have replaced the term with implicit, which I hope resolves the concern. See sections 3, 3.3, 4.1.1.1, and 4.2.5 for these revisions. Lastly, our edits have defined this more clearly in the Methods section.

Article Review/Comments: Line 643 claims a result for which I saw no evidence. I saw the same in 742-3. This led to a specific concern of a post hoc error. The use of the theoretical model to create new understanding was strong in this article. Claiming the data proved the4 model or subsequent claim is post hoc. You explicitly used the model of organize and interpret your data. Certainly, you use of a little known model illuminates, illustrates, highlights, or reveals new aspects of this well known event. I would suggest reviewing your claims making. 

Authors’ Response:

The Cosmology Episode model is exceptionally applicable to contextualizing the process of trauma response. I was deeply impressed by the variety of traumas (individual to global) that are well captured by the model and allow for the variety of outcomes possible. The model includes spiritual considerations and gave language for intangible, previously un-articulatable aspects of the experience of trauma response.

The Cosmology Episode Model was not considered in the study design. After a thorough review of the data analysis, we recognized its applicability. The model helped organize the analysis of our findings. It both clarified and appropriately situated our results with existing scientific literature. To my knowledge, none of the consensus coders and multicultural analysis team members were even aware of the model during analysis.

I have revised Lines 6-8 and 56-60 to help clarify the procedures utilized in analysis and better demonstrate how helpful the model was in organizing the findings. Line 331, I created a graphic to illustrate the episode model. Throughout the results, I have attempted to clarify each theme related to the model.

I appreciate your concern for post hoc claims, and I agree it is poor science to impose a superficial model. I have attempted to articulate better in the manuscript that this was not the case. Notably, the research questions and interview protocol were oriented to here-and-now reflections of the phenomena. However, despite this, participants overwhelmingly, across subgroups and every division of demographics, explicitly reported the historical factors as critical to understanding the current event. The social actors, participants, prompted only by the question, “1. In your own words describe what happened in Ferguson that led to rioting,” all members reported racial tension, pressure, anger building, etc. and explained this experience in relation to the racial history of the United States and specifically the city of St. Louis. Emersion in the community interventions attended by many participants assured me that this connection was organic and not the result of psychoeducation after the crisis.

We are open to hearing more about how we may have misapplied the model if these revisions do not adequately resolve the concern. With further clarification, we are willing to revise.

Again, we thank you for your helpful review, and I hope the revisions strengthen the research presentation.

Reviewer 2 Report

I have attached my comment sheet. There are some citations missing in the Reference list that are noted in the text. I have a question about 1 of the citations, as you will see in my comments. I appreciate the approach to Ferguson. I am steeped in the Ferguson issue and have read a wide range of references including Leah G. Frances and F. H. Johnson. My main concern is with explaining the results. Using Cosmology Episodes is complex so it needs a rigorous explanation of the different themes and levels. It is easy for it to confuse the reader. Especially when nothing the results. Also,  because the application to psychotherapy comes at the end, I think it could be strengthened by bringing it in a bit earlier so that the linkage is clearer and stronger. Also, did you not consider utilizing materials from the STAR program? They bring in a fresh perspective that gets at the heart of such issues and challenges.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your specific feedback on our manuscript.

Article Review/Comments: I have attached my comment sheet. There are some citations missing in the Reference list that are noted in the text. I have a question about 1 of the citations, as you will see in my comments.  I appreciate the approach to Ferguson. I am steeped in the Ferguson issue and have read a wide range of references including Leah G. Frances and F. H. Johnson.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for this encouraging feedback about the study approach. I did not notice the references were truncated before submitting; a necessary citation reconciliation was overlooked. My sincere apology for the absent references.

Strasshofer, D.R., Peterson, Z.D., Beagley, M.C., & Galovski, T.E. (2018). Investigating the relationship between posttraumatic stress symptoms and posttraumatic growth following community violence: The role of anger. Psychological Trauma: Theory, research, practice, and policy. 10(5), 515–522, doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000314

Article Review/Comments:  My main concern is with explaining the results. Using Cosmology Episodes is complex, so it needs a rigorous explanation of the different themes and levels. It is easy for it to confuse the reader. Especially when nothing the results.

Authors’ Response: Thank you for this feedback. Addressing the main concern with explaining the results, you have helped identify some weaknesses in the writing rather than the study. One of the strengths of the Cosmology Episode model is its applicability to contextualizing a variety of responses to trauma from individual to global application. However, the Cosmology Episode Model was not considered in the study design. After a thorough review of the data and analysis, we recognized its applicability. The model was helpful in organizing the analysis of our findings. It both clarified and appropriately situated our findings with existing scientific literature.

I have made some edits, Lines 6-8, and 56-60, to help clarify the procedures utilized in analysis and better demonstrate how helpful the model was in organizing our findings. Line 331, I created a graphic to illustrate the episode model. Throughout the findings, I have attempted to clarify each theme as it relates to the model.

Article Review/Comments: Also, because the application to psychotherapy comes at the end, I think it could be strengthened by bringing it in a bit earlier so that the linkage is clearer and stronger. Also, did you not consider utilizing materials from the STAR program? They bring in a fresh perspective that gets at the heart of such issues and challenges.

Authors’ Response: I am not familiar with the STAR program but interested in further information.

Article Review/Comments:  Page 2: Line 64: There is nothing in the Reference list for Isenberg. The only text she wrote in 2016 was White Trash. Was this the resource? But it was an historical source. She did write a few articles I believe.

Authors’ Response:

Isenberg, N. (2016) White Trash: The 400-year Untold History of Class in America; Penguin Books, Penguin Random House LLC: New York, New York; ISBN 978-0-14-312967-7.

Article Review/Comments: Line 68: I was quite interested in the Trawalter, et al citation because of the certainty of the argument that modern police departments originated from slave patrols, but this source is not listed in the References. I did happen to find a short article by Trawalter in ScienceDirect that contained this paragraph. While I cannot find a book for her in 2020, there have been a few articles in academic journals. So I don’t know what this source was not listed in References and why I cannot find a direct source for this information other than in this short article. I note this because this statement on the origins of modern police departments stands out quite starkly so it really needs support otherwise a reader might discredit this article overall and it is a valuable topic.

Authors’ Response:

Trawalter, S., Bart-Plange, D. J., Hoffman, K.M. (2020). A socioecological psychology of racism: Making structures and history more visible. Current Opinion in Psychology, 32, 47–51, doi:10/ghk5z8.

Article Review/Comments: Page 3: Line 150: The sentence begins “First and colleagues. . .” however I cannot find an author of that name in the References. Is this the correct name?

Authors’ Response:

First, J.M., Danforth, L., Frisby, C.M., Warner, B.R., Ferguson, M.W., & Houston, J.B. (2020). Posttraumatic stress related to the killing of Michael Brown and resulting civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri: Roles of protest engagement, media use, race, and resilience. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 11, 369–391, doi:10.1086/711162.

Article Review/Comments: Page 5:  Line 202: The wording of the sentence is confusing. Especially the words “taking undergoing. . .” The next sentence is also a bit convoluted.

Authors’ Response: Page 5, Line 202: this was a typo, it was corrected to state: “Improvisation occurs in response to undergoing a brutal audit, where old beliefs and practices are reviewed and revamped in light of the catastrophe to restore a sense that the world is an orderly place.” The following sentence, “Orton and O’Grady (2016) found that brutal audits that are infused with spiritual qualities and depth including absence-informed interpretation, emotion-filled improvisation, and open-minded inspiration, and are more powerful than brutal audits devoid of these spiritual concepts.” Perhaps is clearer with the edit above? Or, could be simplified to state, “Orton and O’Grady (2016) found that brutal audits infused with spiritual qualities and depth are more powerful than brutal audits devoid of spiritual concepts.”

Article Review/Comments:  Page 8: Table 2 is not that clear to me. It is prefaced by the comment that it shows the results.

Authors’ Response: Table 2, is consistent with Consensual qualitative research terminology. I have included this information in the methods for clarity,

Page 8: Lines 552-558. Additionally, I updated the content to reflect greater consistency between the domain categories and stages of the cosmology model. I hope this helps with ease of reading and clarity.

Article Review/Comments: Did you interview or speak with F. Willis Johnson’s community group that was formed after the protests in Ferguson with their efforts to heal Ferguson?

Authors’ Response: Rev. F. Willis Johnson’s community group was connected during the initial intervention facilitated by the BridgeLeader Network and influenced the research during the information-seeking phase.

Again, we thank you for your helpful review and I hope the revisions strengthen the presentation of the research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf