This chapter provides the reader with a depiction of the methodology involved in conducting the study of Black immigrant youth’s literacies presented in the book. I begin with an overview of who I am, how I am situated in the study, and what I bring to this book as a person and as a Black-immigrant-scholar-single-parent-mother-educator. A discussion of the (decolonizing) interpretive research design is then presented and justified. The context of the study is described, followed by a detailed description of participants and informants (i.e., secondary participants) involved in the study. The protocols for collecting data are discussed. This is followed by the procedures for collecting data from participants. The analytical discussion follows, accompanied by an example of the analytical process used to organize and narrate the data. Credibility, verisimilitude, and transferability are then addressed.

The jurisprudential tradition that created the original methods that were in effect at the time of the Constitution provides the foundation for an interpretive approach for applying the Constitution’s fixed text to changing circumstances. Across the centuries, even commentators with strong preferences for following the lawmaker’s original meaning have recognized that there are legitimate times for judges to adapt an old law to fit new circumstances. In light of that history, this chapter describes a principled approach to adapting laws to changing circumstances that has its foundation in Edward Coke and William Blackstone, and was developed over the centuries in the UK courts.

This chapter demonstrates that the search for the lawmaker’s intentions – their end–means choice – was the central element of the Framers’ “original methods” of interpretation, as discussed by John McGinnis and Michael Rappaport. It also shows that dynamic or updated interpretations have an equally long heritage, although there is a sharp distinction between updated interpretations and judicial policymaking. The history of interpretation shows how it is possible to distinguish between decisions involving interpretive adaptations to new circumstances, and results-oriented, noninterpretive decisions.