When to Speak

I was incredibly impressed with Alcoff's wonderful analysis in "The Problem of Speaking for Others." It would have been relatively easy for her to simply identify the problems with speaking for others and end there. However, she pushed the insight further by describing common reactions to the critique and questioning their implications. As she points out, it is in many ways just as problematic to "run away" from the issue of speaking for others because such an action can result in discourse that is free from responsibility and critique. Furthermore, since Spivak argues that the sub-altern cannot speak, Alcoff recognizes that silence by those in positions of power can be a strong progenitor of oppression if atrocites are not made aware to the mainstream.

Thus, one issue with Alcoff is that the researcher is given a percarious positionality. We should not speak for others, but we must also not NOT speak for others in certain contexts. While this is difficult to conceptualize, I do believe that it is indeed correct. Alcoff then spends the rest of the essay making suggestions to the researcher in knowing the proper times/ways to speak for others. Namely, she contends that a great deal of attention must be made to speak WITH others and to recognize the effects that ones discourse/research has on their identity/self-worth.

This lead me to a question of application which made me remember a discussion I had with my previous qualitative professor. He said that whenever he finishes a research project/paper he gives the final manuscript to the individuals featured in the analysis. They are then able to raise any issues/concerns about not being represented accurately. The research would then be modified/revised based on their comments before being submitted for publication. Since Alcoff advocates for a discussion (which may be difficult when publishing research), do you think we should allow our research participates to see our findings and have an active process in the "final" work?