

I knocked out 2(!) interviews today and I have 2 more planned tonight, give me a handclap because I'm on a roll:) While gathering my list of interviewees, I've been stressing over finding enough "naturals" to interview. Both of my interviews today were with women who are "natural", but not in the sense I usually think of. Both women have what would be considered "good" hair by most members of the African-American community. My project is centered around the notion of good hair, and yet I ignored what good hair is defined as in the black community. The women I interviewed are natural, in the sense that they have never had relaxers, but they aren't considered natural in the "traditional" sense. Most of the time when women have to declare "I am natural" it is because they have coarse, kinky hair. Women who are natural because they have "good" hair are not usually considered natural. This "revelation" has caused me to recognize how my "preconceived" ideas may limit research. This new found information has caused me to wonder how I can define this new category into my research because Type I natural, or good hair, is not stigmatized in African-American community. African-Americans come in many flavors with an array of ethnic heritages, which is often evident in the variety of hair textures seen within the African-American community. Good hair is celebrated in the African-American community, and the premise of my research is that natural hair is stigmatized among members of the African-American community and even society as a whole. This development adds an interesting twist to my research question and has opened a new area for exploration.