WILL THE REAL COMMUNITY RESEARCH PLEASE STAND UP?: Some Critical Issues

WILL THE REAL COMMUNITY RESEARCH PLEASE STAND UP?: Some Critical IssuesAuthor(s): Bill LeeSource: Canadian Social Work Review / Revue canadienne de service social, Vol. 25, No. 1(2008), pp. 5-21Published by: Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41669878 .

Accessed: 15/06/2014 21:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Canadian Association for Social Work Education (CASWE) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserveand extend access to Canadian Social Work Review / Revue canadienne de service social.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.108.147 on Sun, 15 Jun 2014 21:50:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=caswe

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41669878?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


articles I I articles

WILL THE REAL COMMUNITY

RESEARCH PLEASE STAND UP?

Some Critical Issues

Bill Lee

Abstract: Community research is an increasingly popular approach to both creating knowledge and working productively with communities. In practice, however, community research is understood and applied in multiple ways depend- ing on the researcher's relationship to the community and the level and nature of community participation. There is thus not one fixed approach to community research, but rather a range of orientations that reflect a variety of needs and interests. Three broad types of approaches - research on communities, research for communities, and research with communities - differ in primary purpose, audience, role of the researcher, participation of the community, and locus of control over the research, as well as in their strengths and weaknesses and the ethical issues each approach presents. Of particular importance are the power dynamics that exist and are produced in the relationship between researcher and community. While each approach entails inherent dilemmas, these should not under- mine the important mission to link seriously with communities.

Abrégé : La recherche communautaire est une approche de plus en plus popu- laire tant à la création de savoir qu'au travail productif avec les communautés. Dans la pratique, toutefois, la recherche communautaire est comprise et appliquée de multiples façons selon le lien qu'entretient le chercheur avec la communauté ainsi que le degré de participation communautaire et la nature de celle-ci. Il n'y a donc pas qu'une seule méthode rigide de recherche communautaire, mais une gamme d'orientations témoignant d'une variété de besoins et d'intérêts. Trois grands types d'approches - la recherche sur les communautés, la recherche pour les com- munautés et la recherche avec les communautés - diffèrent quant à leur but pre- mier, à leur auditoire, au rôle du chercheur, à la participation de la communauté,

Bill Lee is associate professor (retired) in the School of Social Work at McMaster Univer- sity. This article owes much to the author's research assistant Michelle Young , not only for the very high quality of her research skills but also her fine critical eye and great sense of humour.

Canadian Social Work Review, Volume 25, Number 1 (2008) / Revue canadienne de service social, volume 25, numéro 1 (2008) Printed in Canada / Imprimé au Canada

5



6 Revue canadienne de service social, volume 25, numéro 1

au locus de contrôle sur la recherche, à leurs forces et faiblesses et aux questions éthiques soulevées par chacune. La dynamique des forces qui existe et qui émane de la relation entre le chercheur et la communauté revêt une importance par- ticulière. Bien qu'il y ait des dilemmes inhérents à chaque approche, ceux-ci ne devraient pas miner la mission importante qu'est l'établissement de rapports sérieux avec les communautés.

COMMUNITY RESEARCH is best understood as a range of approaches, a perception that has emerged from my reflection on my work as a community practitioner and researcher. I have had the opportunity to work with and in a variety of marginalized communities - among others, Abo- riginal groups, both in urban areas and on reserves, and racialized urban youth. Community research has often played an important part in deal- ing with the issues that have faced them. My sense from many discussions is that community research has oft times been experienced as an impo- sition and occasionally as empowering. The reasons for the difference in experience have been complex, but have often appeared to be rooted in very different understandings of what community experience has actually meant, to the researchers and to the people of the communities. Experience as an academic and practitioner with community research has shown me that the term "community research" has also become some- what of a catch-all for a variety of research endeavours that have important differences.

Further, while the notion of empowerment has generally come to be seen as a necessary part of community research, there is often an erro- neous assumption that it is inherent in all research falling under this label. In practice, however, community research can include approaches ranging from research in which the community is a full partner and has substantial or complete control of the process to situations in which the community merely represents a unit of study. It is a concern, therefore, when community research, or community-based research, is deemed to be empowering for communities simply by virtue of it involving or focus- ing on community. Indeed, among the variety of approaches to community research, many are not concerned with community empowerment at all. It is particularly important for students to be able to appreciate the multiple ways in which community research is understood and applied and to be able to examine critically the extent to which community empowerment is or is not the focus. A critical reflection on three broad types of approaches to community research - research on communities, research for communities, and research with communities - can help us to appreciate the extent to which each can claim to facilitate community empowerment.

A number of issues must be considered before we can speak in terms of community empowerment. Specifically, this discussion focuses on the components common to the three types of community research



Canadian Social Work Review, Volume 25, Number 1 7

approaches, as well as an analysis of how they are affected by the dynamics of power and equality. These include the primary purpose of the research, the intended audience, the role of the researcher, the role of the community, the locus of control over the research, and the potential ethical issues and dangers of each type of approach. The issue of power between the researcher and the "participating" community is particularly important. The typology presented here is reflected in the growing lit- erature on community research and has also emerged for me from my own experience as a community practitioner and researcher.

While some forms of community research are more attuned to empowerment than others, the intent of this discussion is not to assert that any one orientation is the best approach for all occasions. Indeed, research of whatever stripe is undertaken in an environment where various factors, time, funding, and political climate, for example, can con- strain or facilitate community research. The intent is instead to raise specific issues relevant to each type of research approach and to encourage critical reflection and dialogue around the challenges that can arise when undertaking various community-based research opportunities.

Central issue: Insider/outsider dynamic Those involved in community research endeavours are rarely members of the participating community. This gap in subjectivity necessarily causes the emergence of insider/outsider dynamics - between members of oppressed groups (insiders) and non-members (outsiders) - to which critically reflective researchers must be attuned.1 LaSala (2003), for example, explains the potential advantages of the insider position: "Insider researchers' personal familiarity with issues affecting their respondents' lives may enable them to formulate research questions and hypotheses that might not occur to outsiders" (p. 17). The notion of a researcher who is a complete insider is questionable, however: "Minority respondents often do not fully trust an investigator who has acculturated to the dominant group enough to become a social scientist" (LaSala, 2003, p. 22). This is especially an issue when the participating community is marginalized by structural inequalities such as classism, racism, sexism, or other factors. One intent of community-based research is to develop and advocate egalitarian relationships between researchers and participants. As Narayan (1994) urges, we need to be aware that members of marginalized communities experience the world in ways that are qualitatively different from the experiences of members of the mainstream.2 A reciprocal relationship therefore needs to be developed between the researcher and the participating community, based on solidarity, respect, and knowledge and power sharing. Of course, the achievement of such a relationship is mediated by structural inequalities that, to varying degrees, would place the researcher in a position of power relative to the participating




community. Power imbalances exist, and they remain a significant challenge for community researchers. A reciprocal relationship can and should nevertheless be pursued to the extent that the social and political context will allow. This is no easy task, as it requires courage and ongoing reflexivity on the part of the researcher.

Range of community research

Community research, though gaining currency, remains difficult to define. Practically, its meaning should articulate the primary purpose of the research, the role of the researchers, the research design, and the desired outcome; yet providing a singular itemized list can be misleading, as these components are, in practice, quite varied. The resulting ambigu- ity of what constitutes community research has rendered it highly fluid and malleable, allowing for academics, policy analysts, consultants, and activists to shape a definition that suits their own particular objectives. Unsurprisingly, this can cause confusion - especially if the researcher and the participating community define the research differently. In my experience, particularly in Aboriginal communities, but as well in two countries in Africa, community research has been coupled with notions of development, a laudable goal. The difficulty is that sometimes the actual research was more project-oriented, developing baseline data and exploring needs for work that was being planned by others for the communities. For example, there were various understandings of what would constitute participation, what action would result, and who would be responsible for action. It was all community research, but what meaning it held for those involved was contested. Community research is therefore best understood as constituting a range of approaches encompass- ing, for example, social planning research, participatory research, action research, and participatory action research.

A preliminary discussion of the common essential components of three broad types of approaches to community research - research on, for, and with communities - lays the foundation for a critical discussion of the . important issues that arise for researchers undertaking any approach to community research.

Research on communities

This approach refers to the kind of policy or academic research in which the community or its members are the objects of the endeavour while the academic or social planner is the subject. It is often useful for researchers who have time or budget constraints, such as graduate students (Corn- wall & Jewkes, 1995).3 It may also be undertaken for the purpose of uncovering knowledge that attempts to increase our understanding of how communities function (Warner, Low, Lunt & Srole, 1963). As well,




it may be undertaken in service of the government or not-for-profit organizations that may utilize the knowledge created to illuminate suc- cesses and failures in social policy. For example, research undertaken by the City of Toronto (undated) on the Regent Park public housing community was central to the development of its Revitalization Plan. In this project, while the community researchers did not set out to collaborate with or empower the community, very useful knowledge that could improve the health of these communities resulted.

This type of approach to community research has been an important first step in the methodological evolution that has led to the development of research approaches designed to benefit community, rather than solely the researcher or institution, and to encourage community empowerment. Moreover, popular groups can and do access and utilize results of this kind of research. In Aboriginal communities, studies revealing the relationship between colonial history and suicide (Wesley-Esquimaux & Smolewski, 2004), for example, have been important in pointing to the need to examine the specific effects of residential schools, not only on individual Aboriginal people, but on families and communities as well (Freeman & Lee, 2007). Indeed, grant applications can often include funds for the dissemination of information on issues that are of particular interest to various community groups.

It is not uncommon, however, for practitioners to reject the idea that this type of endeavour is community research at all (Flaherty, 1995). One reason is that, while it can potentially effect social change, such change is seldom seen as an immediate outcome or goal since the primary objective is the creation of knowledge. Academics who have received or even applied for a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant can doubtless agree that the process has little or nothing to do with community empowerment. This approach tends to be linked with "top-down," expert-driven solutions to problems requiring only minimal participation of a few individuals or a representative organization of the community. Such an approach reflects and maintains distance between a researcher and a participating community.

Another characteristic of this type of approach is that data collected by a researcher engaging with the community become the property of the researcher and his or her institution. Additionally, the audience is often limited to academic and policy or planning circles because the use of professional jargon and academic language can make the research inacces- sible to the communities being studied. For social workers and community activists, such an exclusionary approach has the potential to create or maintain social distance between the researcher and participants in the form of a subject/object binary relationship. The methodology implicitly underpinning this approach, regardless of the good intentions that may exist on the part of researchers, mirrors the existing oppressive power relations in society whereby members of dominant social groups (such as




researchers) position their power over marginalized social groups (such as the participating community). Research on communities, therefore, is a type of approach that can have the effect of reinforcing and legitimiz- ing an unjust social order.

Freire (2001) argues that such methodologies have the potential to oppress and alienate marginalized communities further by imposing researchers' views of a community's world onto the community. In this process, the subject is constructed as an object, a process that creates an ideological platform for a series of negative constructions of the community (for example, that "they" are weak/dysfunctional/deviant) and for devaluing or discrediting the community's knowledge and ways of knowing. In this tradition, researchers often seem to be representing their analysis as "the truth" that inherently excludes other knowledges. The manner in which Aboriginal people, for example, perceive, experience, and interpret the world can be either discounted or misunderstood (Smith, 1999). Essentially, researchers in this tradition have tended to fail, politically and socially, to contextualize their research and the experiences of the participating community. Aboriginal communities, for example, have often been represented as ineffectual, dysfunctional, or patholog- ical because researchers have largely failed to link their findings to communities' experiences of dislocation, oppression in residential schools, and colonialism.4

The issues raised here do not simply represent a series of academic or philosophical concerns. They contribute to dynamics that serve to maintain destructive power relationships. As long as the power to label something as true, and other things as false or unimportant, remains solely in the hands of a privileged few, the ability to articulate alternative notions of reality or to challenge restricting notions will continue to be denied marginalized people, serving as an impetus for their further marginalization.

Research on behalf of communities

Advocacy groups often conduct research on behalf of communities as a means of establishing some form of an alliance with the marginalized community and encouraging its development. Once solidarity, that is to say a relationship based on belief in and commitment to the struggles of the marginalized community, is established, the advocacy group nego- tiates with members of the community to undertake research that will further the community's interests. The ideal relationship is one based on collaboration (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995), although we need to be mindful that issues of power affect the negotiation of research goals from the onset. Shragge (2003), for example, asserts that, when groups form a partnership, that partnership is not detached from its social and political context.




Several benefits are associated with this type of approach. Because of status, access to contacts, and experience, researchers from mainstream institutions such as universities or public advocacy groups are able to obtain funding for projects not readily available to marginal groups. Since the community is more involved (it may in fact be a co-applicant for funding) than it would be in a project of research on communities, there is also the possibility that knowledge will be transferred to the community and made available to a wider audience, both of which may be of great benefit to a particular struggle.

Several challenges are associated with this approach, however. First, despite the legitimate desire to be of use to the marginalized group, an outsider status can make it difficult for the researcher to perceive the full complexity of a community situation. Sometimes researchers believe that they identify so much with the group that they feel like one of the community - like an insider (Moffatt, George, Lee & McGrath, 2005). Yet, as discussed earlier, a researcher can never fully be an insider, nor can a relationship between researcher and community really be based on same- ness (Rose, 1997).

A second challenge is that researchers can appropriate, in subtle or obvious ways, as well as in intentional or unintentional ways, the voice and knowledge of the oppressed (Moffatt et al., 2005). Two interlock- ing concerns arise. First, as indicated earlier, mainstream researchers may have access to a larger audience as a result of their more powerful voices. Although such authoritative voices can benefit marginalized communities in terms of increasing awareness, funding, and participation, having a person or group speak for a community may again reproduce unequal power relations. This can further entrench a sense among the marginalized that they are unable to influence their environment and that only "others" can do this for them. In this regard, even this form of collaboration can be disempowering (Lee, 1999). Secondly, the appropriation of voice always entails the danger of misrepresentation. The professional credentials of a strong advocacy group or researcher may overshadow the actual sentiments, experiences, or realities of the marginalized community. Thus a representation of a community can be seen to be "true" when it is only approximate at best. For example, a project on which I worked, MYLIFE (Malvern Youth, Leadership, Inclusion, Facilitation, Enabling) in Toronto (Hutchinson 8c DeGaetano, 2005), which focused on providing a process and space for the voices of marginalized and racialized youth, came about partly as a response to the portrayal of the Malvern community as one defined by racial violence and gang culture. This image of the community had often been presented by well-meaning social planners, journalists, and church authorities who were attempting to bring atten- tion to problems in the area; substituting or silencing the voice of the "other," however, even if done unintentionally or intentionally with




the belief that the end will justify the means, contributes to the main- tenance of a vertically imposed relationship.

A third dilemma is that decision-makers may assume that researchers are qualified to speak on behalf of the marginalized community, or even more qualified than community members themselves, and may thus pre- fer to deal with the researchers to the exclusion of the community. These dilemmas are not raised to negate the viability and utility of this type of approach to community research. Indeed, at times it is the best or only option. Community researchers may Hot feel comfortable, however, with the tensions of balancing good intentions with political realities. The solution is not to abandon the work altogether (Rose, 1997). Researchers can work effectively within this type of approach, but they must recognize the continual need for reflexivity, critical analysis, and negotiation of their privilege and role.

Research with communities

Research with communities is rooted in the ethic of community influence. For the most part, the idea of influence suggests community participation and action (Falls-Bòrda & Rahman, 1991; Lee & Balkwill, 1996). TTiis type of community research is espoused by feminists (Maguire, 1987; Mullings, 1999), popular educators (Falls-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Freire, 2001), and academics with an interest in diversity issues (Higgins & Met- zler, 2001; Moffatt et al., 2005). It includes reflective approaches such as feminism (Smith, 1999) and perspectivism (Tebes, 2005), which critique and run counter to traditional approaches rooted in positivism and notions of researchers as value-free, neutral observers (Falls-Borda & Rahman, 1991; Mullings, 1999). Because it is centred in issues of power, voice, and representation, research with communities is better able to ful- fil the ideal of synthesizing research, education, and action (Healy, 2001). Community research of this kind seeks to "raise the critical awareness of oppressed people and encourage collective responses to social disad- vantage" (Healy, 2001, pp. 95-96).

In this type of approach, the marginalized community and the researchers understand each other and interact with one another not only as collaborators, but also as co-learners. In the language of Falls- Borda and Rahman (1991), researchers bring their academic or techni- cal knowledge to the table while community members bring the knowledge of their lived experience. Thus the relationship strives to be reciprocal in nature. Of course, while these are areas of expertise that each is likely to bring to the relationship, this does not suggest that these types of knowledge are exclusive to the researcher or the participating community; again, boundaries can be permeable. Martha Flaherty (1995), of the Päuktuutit Inuit Women's Association, has this to say:




Real participatory research would include Inuit control over the iden- tification of areas and issues where research is needed and the design and delivery of the methodology. Inuit would participate in the collection and analysis of data and have equal control over the dissemination of the information and research findings. In my view, anything less is not participatory and it is unfair to call it such. (p. 3)

The advantage to research with communities is that the intent and structure of the relationship reflect an anti-oppressive stance by attempting to create a space for the transfer of knowledge and skills, interfering with and subverting the traditional notion of the researcher as expert and facilitating sustainable empowerment. Such empowerment, however, is not simply a by-product of egalitarian relationships. Sustainable empowerment requires that the community develop its own sense of power, in the form of skills, information, and confidence, which will allow it to act independently of the research project (Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Net- work, undated). The community group must set the research agenda, and ownership of data must be in the hands of the community so that it is able to use the findings in pursuit of its own defined interests (Canadian Abo- riginal AIDS Network, undated).

This type of research approach, as the other two, has dilemmas. Some, especially feminist researchers, argue that collégial relationships are not truly possible (Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Rose, 1997). Power imbalances will exist in the working relationship between community and researcher, and they cannot be remedied by good intentions - simply recognizing exploitation does not remove it (England, 1994). As Reason (1994) reminds us, "Many participatory action research (PAR) projects could not occur without the initiative of someone with time, skill and commitment, someone who will almost inevitably be a member of a privileged and [formally] educated group" (p. 334). We are products of our society and our social location within it; as a result, the socially constructed and undisputed expertise bestowed upon professional practitioners and research institutions may overwhelm or overpower community members. England (1994) also warns that the research process may expose the community to new risks, as research always leaves an impact. For example, it is impossible to predict the outcome of the researcher's decisions, both for the researcher and for the community. McDowell (1992) asks, "What do we do with the knowledge that we gain from our respondents that we would much rather not have?" (p. 408). Additionally, there is also the risk of believing that one is pursuing participatory community research when in fact one is not. Speaking on previous research activities in her Inuit community, Flaherty (1995) states: "Our experience has taught us that participatory research does not mean the community has a real role in deciding what the research topic will be, analyzing the data




or deciding what or how the information obtained in the research will be used" (p. 2).

We must also consider the issue of reflexivity in terms of its importance in community research. England (1994) describes reflexivity as "self-critical, sympathetic introspection and the analytical scrutiny of the self" (pp. 80-89). Striving for an equitable relationship thus requires reflexivity, but this is actually very difficult (Rose 1997; Swan, 2002). Despite good intentions, one can never know the full extent to which our experiences influence the production of knowledge, especially since we assume multiple, constantly changing roles (Rose, 1997). Nevertheless, for a variety of reasons (for example, one's length of involvement with the community or a request from some community members), researchers may fall into the trap of believing that they can authentically represent the voice of a particular community. In such a case, what appears to be a dialogical relationship is simply one of dressed-up, and effectively reproduced, oppression.

Another dilemma is that a researcher who is deeply embedded in a community may lose the ability to challenge community members' perception of their reality. One community researcher who had worked with a northern Aboriginal group told the author that at one point she found herself simply accepting whatever was said to her. Only after she had left the community was she able to see, in looking at her notes, that there were a number of contradictions. She felt that she had lost the opportunity to assist community members in reflecting on the issues in a critical manner.

Researchers continually need to recognize that power imbalances exist and that collaborating with the participating community as equal partners is no easy task (Wallerstein, 1999). McDowell (1992) goes so far as to say, "It is increasingly clear that the notion of non-exploitative research relations is a Utopian ideal that is receding from our grasps" (p. 408). Despite efforts of participatory researchers and critical social workers, it appears that unbalanced power dynamics may well persist during the research process, regardless of which approach is used. Healy (2001), speaking of participatory action research, points out, "In spite of its edict against the explicit use of power, PAR does call upon research workers to exercise power in a variety of ways, albeit differently from that associated with the use of power connected to traditional forms of research" (p. 96). Indeed, as Healy (2001) notes, "It may be inadvisable even to strive to eradicate the influence of power on the research relationship since this is the nature of the context one is trying to understand. Instead, a goal might be to gain a better understanding of the influence of existing power by observing its effects on the research collaboration" (pp. 97-98).

Implicit in this view, perhaps, is the notion that we need to strive for transparency in our relationships. In the same vein, Gary Dumbrill (2006), who works in child welfare, also advises examining the influence




of power on the client/worker relationship, but takes this a step further by highlighting the need to begin with this analysis and to attempt it from the perspective of the client. Indeed, community researchers, particularly those striving to work with communities, may benefit from applying such clinical techniques as a way of negotiating the impact of power on their relationship with the community.

Another challenge is the belief that researchers are able to empower others, and that participation of the community is often assumed to sig- nify the achievement of such empowerment. For example, at its most basic, participatory action research aims to promote change by encouraging the participation of oppressed people in building knowledge and in action, yet such participation may not necessarily be experienced as empowering. Lather questions whether it is "realistic to endeavor to empower subjects of our research or [whether it reveals] contestable notions of domination" (cited in McDowell, 1992, p. 408). McDowell (1992) suggests a more appropriate goal "may be to provide the means towards empowerment, ensur- ing that as we do so we do not make public information or strategies that may compromise the less powerful" (p. 408).

Another concern is raised by Williams (2004), who notes that these efforts can impose participatory cultures characteristic of affluence on groups who may be more accustomed to informal forms of participation, such as one-to-one aid. Williams states that we must "seriously consider the legitimacy of parachuting into less affluent populations what in effect are 'foreign' cultures of community engagement" (p. 729). More- over, researchers ought to be aware of how empowerment and community participation interact along different dimensions of oppression. Itzhaky and York (2000), for example, note how men and women may perceive empowerment in similar ways, yet may participate differently to achieve it. Clearly, there is not one formula for effective community participation.

Finally, a dilemma relating to the participation of marginalized groups lies in the idea of shedding light on insider knowledge - sharing it with the mainstream. Chataway (1997) notes that "one of the few pow- ers experienced in some traditionally disempowered groups is the possession of more information about themselves than dominant group members. Giving up this information can feel like surrendering a scarce resource" (p. 760). This is certainly a major issue in Aboriginal communities, where the ravages of cultural appropriation have been felt as part of their colonialized experience (Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network, undated; Monture-Angus, 1995).

Table 1 provides a summation of these arguments. It is important to note, however, that, as this discussion suggests, the issues raised by community research are complex, and the table simply provides an overview. It is not meant to suggest that there can, in practice, be rigid boundaries and pure approaches.




Table 1 Summary of Significant Issues in Community Research

Informing Research on Research for Research with Elements communities communities communities Research • Subject / object • Collaborative (yet • Collaborative relationship • Power-over power is mostly • Dialogue • Top-down in the hands of • Reciprocal knowledge • Exclusionary researcher) transfer

Primary • Produce new • Action for community • Community action purpose knowledge benefit • Skill development • Determine • Develop and share

"the truth" community's knowledge • Sustainable empowerment

Primary • Academia • Community • Community members audiences • Policy analysts • Solidarity groups and leaders

• Community develop- • Government • Popular action groups ment practitioners • Popular action • Policy analysts • Popular action . groups groups

Primary • Academic • Facilitator • Popular educator researcher role • Expert technician • Advocate • Organizer • Co-learner

Primary • Information • Collaborator • Popular educator community role provider • Client • Collaborator

• Co-learner Locus of • Researcher • Researcher • Shared between decision- • Advocate/solidarity researcher and making power group community Ethical issues • Informed consent • Informed consent • Broad communication

• Minimal social • Researcher may view within community change self as insider • Informed consent

• Accurate representation

• Appropriation of voice

Dilemmas / • Misrepresentation • Unawareness of other • Unawareness of other dangers of voice points of view points of view

• Perpetuation of • Appropriation of • Manipulation of oppressive knowledge voice marginal agenda • Limited audience • Limited interaction • Fully equal partner- • Reproduction and between decision- ship is not possible legitimization of exist- makers and community • New/unexpected ing social order • Reproduction and risks for community

legitimization of existing social order

Benefits • Recognizes time and • Increased funding • Knowledge transfer monetary constraints • Knowledge transfer • Community • Knowledge production empowerment • Anti-oppressive quality




Power and community research

Each of the three types of approaches to community research has its purposes. As we move from the left- to the right-hand columns of Table 1, however, we can see increasing sensitivity to issues of power and empowerment. While community-based research undertaken for the purpose of creating knowledge is beneficial on its own (as is the case with research on communities), issues of power and control that emerge in the process of making such claims are troubling for many of us. Research undertaken to support specific causes is important (as is the case with research for communities), but clearly raises the danger of recreat- ing oppressive relationships. The last type of approach, research with communities, offers the most progressive orientation in terms of challenging injustice, and yet a critical reading of this approach forces us to acknowl- edge and confront its contradictions.

Despite the challenges associated with all community research, "strategies that promote social inclusion are needed now as never before" (Healy, 2001, p. 96). We must strive to understand better the approaches that we use, including their strengths as well as limitations. Although such strategies will be specific to the context, there are several steps that researchers and advocacy groups can take to promote equitable relationships among all parties involved. First, academic researchers can negotiate with groups to ensure that the issues to be examined are of importance to the community. Secondly, solidarity groups can reach out to marginalized populations to incorporate their experiences as much as is feasible into the research. Thirdly, researchers can arrange to have their methods vetted and critiqued by appropriate community repre- sentatives, while also being mindful of hierarchies existing within marginalized groups and being careful to include a fair representation of the group. Fourthly, according to May, Bowman, Ramos, Rincones, Rebol- lar, Rosa et al. (2003), it is important to be honest in involving participants in the discussion, planning, and implementation of the program. Such a strategy encourages engagement, interest, and the desire to participate and also "develops skills and leadership within the community" (p. 1572). This form of involvement recognizes "locals as experts; they are both the bearers and gatherers of legitimate knowledge" (May et al., 2003, p. 1573). Finally, with regard to products that result from the research collaboration, England (1994) suggests the sharing of pre-pub- lication texts for feedback, co-authorship, and the use of lengthy quotations to give the community a "voice." The intent is to minimize appropriation by avoiding misrepresentation and extending the idea of alliance. Yet, without negating the benefits of this last strategy, we should not overestimate its impact. England (1994) also cautions that, ultimately, the final text remains the responsibility of the researcher, especially if it is to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Researchers such as Qwul'si-




h'yah'maht [Thomas] (2005) remind us that researchers are the ones who choose which quotations to include, which itself is the result of disrupting someone's life for our purpose.

Conclusion

Differing understandings of community research have varying impacts. While all forms of community research can have utility for communities and the academy, it would be a hopeful sign to see research with communities gain more credibility. Approaches of this type can ground researchers in the reality experienced by marginalized communities and can break down the artificial separation between academia and community. Equally, they can nurture humility within the academy by expand- ing the requirements of rigorous inquiry and encouraging academics to accept that equally important results can be accrued when uncertainty is embraced as part of the research process. According to Healy (2001) and Reason (1994), this type of research approach can also introduce and validate alternative possibilities for analysis and presentation of information. Ultimately, research with communities encourages involvement and knowledge sharing; undertaken with an awareness of power dynamics and a commitment to disrupting inequities, it can be an effective part of creating empowering solutions.

Community research, like community development, is a messy process. As has been suggested, participation is unpredictable in kind, quality, and quantity; structures of power permeate and influence all aspects of all three types of approaches, both internally and externally; and, while critical reflexivity is an essential skill, it is a significant challenge for any researcher. The point, however, is not to abandon the project. To avoid feeling frustrated and discouraged, one may find it beneficial to focus less on seeing these issues as binaries (empowering/ disempowering, full participation/no participation) and to view them as a continuum, whereby we strive for more equitable participation and more empowerment, recognizing that perfection is not possible, as each research approach is mediated within a social and political context sat- urated with inequalities. The potential for greater community empowerment, the potential to provide alternatives to expert-driven approaches, and the potential to challenge and influence the academy to be more imaginative and realistic make the project worth the effort.

NOTES

1 This does not mean that researchers are wholly outsiders or "mainstream." Rather, the notion of a complete outsider is as questionable as the notion of a complete insider, which is discussed above. Social location is a complex amalgam of class, race, ethnic- ity, ability, sexual orientation, age, and other factors; therefore, the complexities of community research in some ways mirror those of community practice in general.




2 While there may be a subject/object relationship inherent in this type of research, there is an ethical requirement for all research participants to be provided with information so that informed consent can be assured.

3 See, for example, Shkilnyk's ( 1 985) treatment of the Anishnawbe community of Grassy Narrows.

4 Solidarity organizations do not always negotiate directly with the communities of interest in whose name they are working. Campaign 2000, which lobbies the Cana- dian government regarding child poverty, for example, would find it impossible to negotiate with children or their families.

REFERENCES

Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network Inc. (undated). OCAP: Ownership , Control Access and Possession. Ottawa: Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network.

Chataway, C.J. (1997). "An Examination of the Constraints on Mutual Inquiry in a Participatory Action Research Project ."Journal of Social Issues 53, no, 4, 747-765.

City of Toronto (undated). Regent Park Community Profile [online document]. Retrieved March 5, 2004, from http://www.toronto.ca/demographics/ cns_profiles/cns72.htm.

Cornwall, A., 8c R. Jewkes (1995). "What is Participatory Research?" Social Science and Medicine 41, no. 12, 1667-1676.

Dumbnll, G. C. (200b). Parental Experience ol Child Protection Intervention: A Qualitative Study." Child Abuse & Neglect 30, 27-37.

England, K. (1994). "Getting Personal: Reflexivity, Positionality and Feminist Research." Professional Geographer 46, no. 1, 80-89.

Falls-Borda, O., 8c M. A. Rahman (1991). Action and Knowledge . London: Inter- mediate Technology Publications.

Flaherty, M. (1995). 'Freedom of Expression or Freedom of Exploitation?" The Northern Review 14, 178-185.

Freeman, B., 8c B. Lee (2007). "Towards an Aboriginal Model of Community Healing." Aboriginal Social Work 6, 97-120.

Freire, P. (2001). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Healy, K. (2001). "Participatory Action Research and Social Work." International

Social Work 44, no. 1, 93-105. Higgms, D., & M. Metzler (2001). "Implementing Community-based Participa-

tory Research Centres in Diverse Urban Settings "Journal of Urban Health 78, no. 3, 488-493.

Hutchinson, A., 8c R. DeGaetano (2005). "M.Y.L.I.F.E. Project Final Report." Wellesley Urban Health Research Program.

Itzhaky, H., 8c A. S. York (2000). "Empowerment and Community Participa- tion: Does Gender Make a Difference?" Social Work Research 24, no. 4, 225-234.

LaSala, M. C. (2003). "When Interviewing 'Family': Maximizing the Insider Advantage in the Qualitative Study of Lesbians and Gay Wien." Journal of Gay and Lesbian Social Services 15, no. 1, 15-30.

Lee, B. (1999). Pragmatics of Community Organization (3rd ed.). Mississauga, ON: CommonAct Press.




Lee, B., & M. Balkwill (1996). Participatory Planning for Action. Mississauga, ON: CommonAct Press.

Maguire, P. (1987). Doing Participatory Action Research: A Feminist Approach. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

May, M. L., G.J. Bowman, K. S. Ramos, L. Rincones, M. G. Rebollar, M. L. Rosa et al. (2003). "Embracing the Local: Enriching Scientific Research, Edu- cation and Outreach on the Texas-Mexico Border through a Participatory Action Research Partnership." Environmental Health Perspectives 111, no. 13, 571-1576.

McDowell, L. (1992). "Doing Gender: Feminism, Feminists and Research Meth- ods in Human Geography." Transatlantic Institute of British Geographers 17, 399-416.

Moffatt, K., U. George, B. Lee & S. McGrath (2005). "Community Practice Researchers as Reflective Learners." British Journal of Social Work 35, no. 1, 89-104.

Monture-Angus, P. (1995). Thunder in my Soul: A Mohawk Woman Speaks. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Mullings, B. (1999). "Insider or Outsider, Both or Neither: Some Dilemmas of Interviewing in a Cross-cultural Setting." Geoforum 30, 337-350.

Narayan, U. (1994). "Working Together Across Differences." In R. Compton & B. Galaway, eds., Social Work Processes (5th ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks Cole Press.

Qwul'sih'yah'maht [Thomas, R. A.] (2005). "Honouring the Oral Traditions of my Ancestors through Storytelling." In L. Brown 8c S. Strega, eds., Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous, and Anti-oppressive Approaches (pp. 237- 254). Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press.

Reason, P. (1994). "Three Approaches to Participatory Inquiry." In N. K. Den- zin 8c Y. S. Lincoln, eds., Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 324-339). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Rose, G. (1997). Situating Knowledge: Positionality, Rellexivities and Other Tactics." Progress in Human Geography 21, no. 3, 305-320.

Shkilnyk, A. M. ( 1 985). A Poison Stronger than Love: The Destruction of an Ojiirwa Com- munity. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Shragge, E. (2003). Activism and Social Change: Lessons for Community and Local Orga- nizing Peterborough, ON : Broadview Press.

Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous People. Dunedin, NZ: University of Otago Press and Zed Books.

Swan, T. (2002). "Anti-oppressive Social Work Practice, Self-awareness and the Rel- evance of Social Location." In B. Lee 8c M. Wolfson, eds., Introductory Read- ings in Structural Social Work. Unpublished monograph, McMaster School of Social Work.

Tebes, J. K. (2005). "Community Science, Philosophy of Science, and the Prac- tice of Research." American Journal of Community Psychology 35, no. 3/4, 213- 230.

Wallerstein, N. (1999). Power between Evaluator and Community: Research Relationships within New Mexico's Healthier Communities." Social Sci- ence & Medicine 49, 39-53.

Warner, W. L., J. O. Low, P. S. Lunt 8c L. Srole (1963). Yankee City. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.




Wesley-Esquimaux, C. C., &M. Smolewski (2004). Historic Trauma and Aboriginal Healing. Ottawa: Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

Williams, C. C. (2004). "Community Capacity Building: A Critical Evaluation of the Third Sector Approach." Review of Policy Research 21, no. 5, 729-739.



Date post:	21-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	bill-lee
View:	216 times
Download:	3 times

WILL THE REAL COMMUNITY RESEARCH PLEASE STAND UP?: Some Critical Issues

Documents