http://jax.sagepub.com/ Journal of Applied Social Science http://jax.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/16/1936724413476417 The online version of this article can be found at: DOI: 10.1177/1936724413476417 published online 26 April 2013 Journal of Applied Social Science Jessica Smartt Gullion and Erin Graybill Ellis A Pedagogical Approach to Action Research - Jan 29, 2014 version of this article was published on more recent A Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Official Journal of the Association for Applied Social Science can be found at: Journal of Applied Social Science Additional services and information for http://jax.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts: http://jax.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions: What is This? - Apr 26, 2013 OnlineFirst Version of Record >> - Jan 29, 2014 Version of Record at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014 jax.sagepub.com Downloaded from at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014 jax.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Transcript
http://jax.sagepub.com/Journal of Applied Social Science
http://jax.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/16/1936724413476417The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/1936724413476417
published online 26 April 2013Journal of Applied Social ScienceJessica Smartt Gullion and Erin Graybill Ellis
A Pedagogical Approach to Action Research
- Jan 29, 2014version of this article was published on more recent A
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Official Journal of the Association for Applied Social Science
can be found at:Journal of Applied Social ScienceAdditional services and information for
Perhaps the best training for students to apply sociology is through hands-on community work. In this article, we write about the experience of a graduate-level qualitative research methods course in taking on an action research project over the course of a semester. We provide a detailed overview of the project along with practical tips for instructors who would like to replicate this pedagogy.
Although presenting students with discourse about sociology in action helps raise student inter-est in community work, perhaps the best training for applied sociologists comes from hands-on work in the field. Seeing direct benefit of their work on the community solidifies both the need for and advantage of applied sociological work. In this article, we provide a discussion of teach-ing action research, with reference to Gullion’s Fall 2011 Qualitative Research Methods, a graduate-level sociology course. During the 15 weeks of the semester, students learned about and discussed the epistemology and ontology of qualitative inquiry and were trained in the major data collection techniques undertaken by qualitative researchers. This material was cov-ered while conducting an action research project as a class. In this article, we provide an over-view of action research as a teaching tool and discuss strategies for both community and student engagement, difficulties encountered during the project, and outcomes of this project that can be applied to other classroom settings.
Interspersed with the text are personal observations from Gullion (speaking as the instructor of record) and Ellis (speaking as a student in the course). The observations were recorded after the course ended and are intended to present a reflexive dialogue on this pedagogy.
Hurworth (2008) and Denzin (2010) note that little has been written about the practicalities of teaching qualitative research. Most course design happens in isolation (Garner, Wager, and Kawulich 2009) and there tends to be a distance between the teaching of and the practice of research (Pain 2009). While many scholars have written about how to conduct qualitative research, few have written about teaching the practice, particularly with an aim toward applied sociology. There is a need for diverse voices to deconstruct what works and what does not work
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
in the classroom and for strategies to encourage students to participate in applied critical inquiry. We seek to address those needs in this article.
Teaching Action ResearchHands-on work with a client gives students the opportunity to work directly with a real agency on a real community problem (Henry and Jordan 2007). To do so, there is a need to develop a pedagogy for participatory research that recognizes the difficulties of instructing not only the technical know-how of various qualitative techniques but also of training students to engage in partnerships with nonacademics (Taylor 2009).
This qualitative research methods course was set to two tasks: (a) the “how to” practicalities of conducting qualitative research and data analysis, and (b) understanding of the epistemologi-cal and ontological principles of qualitative inquiry. To accomplish these tasks, students partici-pated in readings and classroom-based discussion as well as collaborating with a local agency to collect and analyze data.
Webb and Glesne (1992) write about the benefits of requiring students to conduct a research project in the qualitative methods course:
The act of doing qualitative research forces most students to question their own assump-tions. Observing and interviewing puts students in close contact with the experience of others. They soon learn that the research methods serve as guides for intelligence, not as a technical substitute for thought. The act of data analysis rids most students of the naive assumption that the data will somehow speak for themselves and that researchers can avoid interpreting what they have seen and heard. (Pp. 776–77)
Indeed, Eisenhart and Jurow (2011:701) argue that “the student research project seems to have become a ‘signature pedagogy’ of qualitative research courses”; however, Raddon, Nault, and Scott (2008) note that it is less common to find discussion about class projects in which students engage in one complete project from start to finish. Utilization of the class project also helps students actualize the relationship between theory and practice: “Without getting their hands dirty, graduate students will enter the professional arena filled with great ideas, but frus-tratingly unable to do much with them” (Henry and Manoochehri 2010:26).
This connection, between theory and practice, is important for students to bridge.
Most of my classes involve writing a paper at the end of the semester with very little hope that it will ever be read by anyone other than my instructor. What I loved about the approach to this class was that we were able to engage in real hands-on research, learning how to actually do qualitative research, how to collect data, how to code data, how to transcribe, not just by reading about it, but by actually doing it. This is the first class I have had where I felt like my efforts were more about creating positive social change, and less about whether or not I got an “A.” The experiences in this class have stuck with me. I have since been asked to present and guest lecture about Participatory Action Research because of my experience in this class. I take a lot of pride in knowing that the agency was able to use our research to create new educational programs for their target audience. The whole experience was transformative to my academic career. (Student)
I wanted to do more than simply present and discuss a laundry list of qualitative tech-niques. I wanted the students to engage in a real research project—from start to finish—as a team, so that they could experience not only data collection but also have the opportunity
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
to analyze narrative data collected by others and to work with a diverse group of research-ers, with different standpoints, assumptions, and philosophies than their own, and to create a product that would influence social change. (Instructor)
The research methods course presents a ripe opportunity for students to practice applied soci-ology. Most community organizations need data collected to support program development, assessment, and grant activities, yet many organizations do not have the resources to collect and analyze that data. Action research involves a collaboration between the researcher and a com-munity group at all stages of the project, with a goal of promoting “social justice for groups that have traditionally been excluded from the process” (Miskovic and Hoop 2006:270). Local knowledge is privileged when community members are invited to participate as coresearchers (Smith et al. 2010). The role of the sociologist is to guide the work using his or her expertise in research and analysis, while ensuring that the research needs of the community are at the fore-front of the inquiry. In partnership, research is created, which meets the specific needs of the community (Baiardi, Brush, and Lapides 2010), and the community is empowered through rec-ognition of their own resources and increases in problem-solving capacity (Arieli, Friedman, and Agbaria 2009).
An underlying premise of action research is that all research is embedded in a values system. Knowledge is socially constructed by those who have the power to do so. Action researchers attempt to shift this power to community members who are typically excluded in this process through the process of cocreated knowledge (Arieli et al. 2009). They then leverage their social location to ensure findings are legitimated by outside groups.
In the research methods classroom, action research can provide students with an opportunity to work with the community on a social change-oriented goal. Knowledge is cogenerated in a nonhierarchical partnership, a collaboration to solve a social problem (Smith et al. 2010). Members of the local community are called upon to help synthesize the research questions and possibly to help collect, analyze, and interpret the data (Boser 2006).
People who are disenfranchised are often excluded from knowledge generation, even when that knowledge directly affects their lives (Freire [1968] 2000). Action researchers address this problem by valuing existing knowledge and lived experience as equal to that of the researchers themselves, and approach research with the understanding that the community members will know best what issues they need addressed.
Oftentimes, “experts” come into a community with social programs without ever asking the community what the needs are. They are surprised when those programs fail. Who are we to say we know what is best for other people? I want to encourage my students away from that sort of arrogance, to teach them to ask rather than dictate. (Instructor)
We found so much surprising data in our research that showed areas where the participants needed help, but that the agency was simply not aware of. Many of the people we inter-viewed didn’t understand the basic terminology the agency was using, so educational programs that assumed a certain baseline of knowledge were simply not going to be suc-cessful. The participants needed the agency to break down the language for them and step in and explain things that maybe their doctors didn’t have time to explain. If the parents didn’t understand the ozone colors that were used to warn of outdoor air quality, and they also were unaware that outdoor air pollution might have an effect on their children’s asthma, it didn’t matter how they came across that information. If they weren’t aware of what that information meant for their child’s asthma, whether they heard it on the radio or the news really didn’t make a difference. (Student)
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Done with care, action research is mutually beneficial to students and community partners, and over time a relationship of trust is strengthened between the university and the local com-munity. Action research projects extend sociological knowledge and advertise the usefulness of sociology outside the academy (Blouin and Perry 2009). It is crucial, however, that when using this technique as a teaching tool, the instructor must mediate between community organizations and the students. Baiardi, Brush, and Lapides (2010) note that these types of partnerships “can be fraught with difficulty, including trust issues, conflicting agendas, and unequal power dynam-ics that thwart its ability to achieve significant, measurable outcomes” (p. 290). The authors suggest that such problems can be mitigated through open communication, identification of common goals, acknowledgment of power differentials, and community empowerment strate-gies. Early in the collaboration, researchers and community members should articulate joint goals and ambitions for the project. Active communication throughout the project is needed to ensure social change objectives are met (Rajaram 2007). Moreover, as students are new to this process, it is important that the instructor monitor their activities to catch any problems early, and to let the students and the agency know the instructor is available to mediate any concerns. This requires that collaboration and team building be integrated into the learning environment.
Also at the forefront of the project was the notion of social justice. Through the use of action research, students had the opportunity to collaborate in a social justice project in a nonhierarchi-cal fashion, abdicating (to the extent possible) power roles and privileging nondominant voices. Students were invited to move beyond traditional (or “zombie”) categories of inquiry, and con-sider multiple intersecting oppressions (Beck 2003). Thus, the class project was guided by a criti-cal pedagogy, with a goal to identify and disrupt patterns of oppression (Miskovic and Hoop 2006).
The ProjectThe class collaborated with a not-for-profit, nongovernmental agency in North Texas (whose service area includes Dallas, Fort Worth, and the surrounding Metroplex) whose mission is to promote lung health and to advocate for policies to improve indoor and outdoor air quality. The organization’s needs drove the research agenda (Rajaram 2007). They wanted information from parents with asthmatic children about their perceptions of outdoor air quality and how it relates to their child(ren)’s asthma. They hoped that findings from such a project would inform their educational programming and their advocacy for governmental policies on clean air. The orga-nization’s primary research interests were as follows: (a) Do parents view outdoor air quality as a factor in their child(ren)’s asthma? and (b) How do parents change their behavior in response warnings about outdoor air quality?
The effects of air pollution on children’s health are well documented, and include factors such as the development of smaller, weaker lungs; high infant mortality rates; lower birth weight; and other health effects. Long-term low-dose exposure can be equally damaging (Goodell 2007). Children living in close proximity to roadways with a large amount of traffic have a greater risk for respiratory disease, visit the emergency room more often, and have higher rates of hospitalization, wheezing, asthma, and bronchitis (Abelsohn and Stieb 2011; Brauer et al. 2002; Linares et al. 2010; McConnell et al. 2002; Ritz and Wilhelm 2008; Suwanwaiphatthana, Ruangdej, and Turner-Henson 2010; Wilhelm, Qian, and Ritz 2009). Higher pollution rates tend to be concentrated in poor and/or minority areas, which also corre-late with higher prevalence of childhood asthma. However, previous research has demonstrated that residents tend to either downplay or are uniformed about the severity of outdoor air pollu-tion in their communities. Residents tend to rate their own outdoor air quality as better than it actually is (Brody, Peck, and Highfield 2004).
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
The organization’s goals meshed well with the learning objectives of the class, which included application of procedures for conducting in-depth interviews, collection and analysis of qualita-tive data, and writing a research report using a qualitative approach. The organization wished to determine where parents got information about outdoor air quality and their perceptions about the outdoor air quality in North Texas. The organization wished to use this information to inform asthma educational programming and outreach to parents and children.
By working with parents directly impacted by asthma and the outdoor air pollution in our own community, we helped these parents find their voice and make sure their needs were both heard and understood by the agency. (Student)
The Environmental Protection Agency has classified our region as a “serious nonattain-ment area” for ambient air quality. Not only would this project give students practical training in conducting research but it would help this organization work toward both improved lung health and advocacy for better air quality. (Instructor)
In addition to learning the practical techniques of carrying out this study, students needed some background information on air quality and asthma. The organization sent a representative on the first night of class who presented on these issues and brought literature for the students to read. The students created a database in Blackboard of peer-reviewed articles on air quality and asthma.
Throughout the project, the instructor and the agency maintained their collaborative approach to ensure that one another’s needs were being met. The agency remained an active participant in the research process throughout the semester. This ensured that project met the needs of the orga-nization, and that the findings were relevant and beneficial to the community (Rajaram 2007).
Action Research, Start to Finish, 15 WeeksOn the first night of class, after a brief introduction and review of the syllabus, a representative from the community agency we would be collaborating with presented an overview of the agency’s mission and community work, and explained the agency’s need for research. The rep-resentative also handed out a number of brochures and educational materials for the students.
Being the mother of three asthmatic children, as well as being asthmatic myself, I was really excited about the goals of the class, the idea of collaborating on an actual research project that had the opportunity to create change in the community, as well as the hands-on approach the class would take. I did hear some grumbling though from some classmates about not getting to research topics they were interested in or that could be a part of their own research for their thesis or dissertation. (Student)
Not all of the students were happy with the subject when the semester started. One student dropped the course because she felt she should not be forced to work on a topic outside her area of interest. I found that disappointing. (Instructor)
The agency and the instructor met the summer prior to the semester in the course of Gullion’s research. They built rapport and devised the concept of working together during the semester on a class-based project. From the agency perspective, this project allowed them access to data and analysis they had no practical way of obtaining. The instructor and representatives of the agency agreed that the project must meet the needs of the agency and the students, and that the agency would determine the research questions.
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
This particular course is cross-listed with a master’s-level section and a doctoral-level section in one class. In total, 20 students were enrolled in the course: 15 doctoral level and 5 master’s level. There are no prerequisites for the course, and the students had a range of backgrounds, from those with virtually no exposure to qualitative research to those who had written qualitative master’s theses or other publications. This is a required course for the doctoral students but not for the master’s students. The class was structured in the model of a research team, with more experienced researchers mentoring less experienced members of the class.
Throughout the semester, students read from the fourth edition of The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (Denzin and Lincoln 2011) and deconstructed research articles for method, technique, and research standpoint. They also read research articles on asthma and outdoor air quality as background for the action research project.
After the first night of class, students were required to obtain a National Institutes of Health–Institutional Review Board (NIH-IRB) training certificate. During the second week of class, the students and instructor completed the IRB application for this project in class, and discussed research ethics. The instructor expressed that all students were expected to abide by the ethical considerations outlined in the IRB application, such as safeguards for privacy and the well-being of the participants. Throughout the semester, the class discussed responsible research and reflex-ivity. Due to the nature of the collaborative project, the class could discuss and resolve any problems that they encountered during the research. Prior to any actual data collection, the class also constructed hypothetical scenarios in which ethical issues might arise and discussed how to mitigate or remedy them.
While the class worked on the IRB application, the agency developed an initial questionnaire. The instructor first revised the questionnaire to meet the needs of the class (primarily rewriting closed-ended questions into open-ended) and sought agency approval. After that, the instrument was pre-tested in class. The students identified several problems with the instrument, and changed the order of the questions and reworded several of them. Once Gullion received agency approval for the changes, the students began conducting interviews.
The night we practiced interviewing one another in class to make sure our instrument was correct really made me realize just how important that process is. We identified several questions that were not worded well. We also changed the order of some of the questions to make them flow better. We realized during our practice interviews with one another that parts of the interview tool were just awkward. After we made some changes to it, I think we were equipped with a much better research tool. (Student)
The students found some problematic questions. As a class, we revised the instrument tool. I then shared their changes with the agency to make sure that we kept the essence of what they wanted. (Instructor)
Students were first instructed on interviewing techniques and rapport building, and they prac-ticed interviewing each other in class. The class also discussed in more depth the target group, and read information and articles about the group. By chance, two members of the class were members of the target group. Both had asthma and one was the parent of children with asthma. They offered to share their experiences with asthma with the class. This made the issue more concrete for the rest of the students.
Even though I was very nervous to speak about my experience to classmates I had just met, I felt a sense of empowerment in being able to tell my own story in hopes that it might help the other student researchers better connect with the participants. I imagine that the
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
people they interviewed felt much the same way in being able to share their stories, their fears, their concerns, and to make recommendations that could help others within our community. (Student)
When Ellis shared her experiences as a parent of children with asthma with the class, I sensed a change in the overall attitude of the students about this project. The project became more salient, more serious. One student mentioned having friends in similar situ-ations yet she had no idea how hard it was for them. Ellis told stories about how scary it was when her children couldn’t breathe, and how she would hold them at night, waiting for the medication to kick in, whispering “breathe, breathe.” It was very powerful. (Instructor)
Each student was asked to find two parents of children with asthma living in North Texas, and conduct and transcribe their interviews. The need to locate research participants forced some of the students to stretch beyond their comfort zone. Fear of asking people to participate resulted in a few of the students making little effort to find participants. Rather, they relied on the social networks of other students in the class. One commuter student who lives more than four hours from the geographic area of interest initially had difficulty finding participants until he worked up the courage to visit a local asthma clinic. He then readily found participants, and ended up conducting three interviews in one afternoon.
To protect the data, the students removed all possible identifiers and assigned pseudonyms to the participants. This course had a dedicated Blackboard site, which proved to be a useful avenue for data sharing. Using Blackboard, students uploaded their transcripts to a shared database for coding. In class, following a discussion of the various themes the students were seeing in the data, a codebook was created for both manifest responses to questions posed by the agency and for latent content. In a tedious, but ultimately worthwhile, process, students exchanged printed copies of transcripts and hand-coded them in class. Each transcript was coded by at least two people and checked for intercoder reliability.
In writing the final report for the agency, group writing occurred via a wiki that was created in Blackboard—making the technology conform to the needs of the project rather than the other way around. This space also provided students a chance to reflect and respond and have mean-ingful input on the class project in an asynchronous environment (Henry and Jordan 2007). To write the report, students volunteered for sections based on their primary interests. For example, three students worked together to write the methods section, and an individual wrote a few para-graphs about finding the target population. Even though sections were divided, the class was told that all students were responsible for the report in its entirety, and therefore it was important for them to read and edit each other’s writing. Ideally, the workload would have been heavier for doctoral students than for master’s students. This division of labor was not without problems, however:
Gullion intended for the workload to be divided up according to experience, but the reality was that some of the students were interested in doing as little work as possible despite their previous experience because the topic simply was not something they were that interested in. The students who were most excited about the project wanted to work on multiple sections of the paper, and the others relied on them to do most of the work. (Student)
I have to give the benefit of the doubt here and hope that the problem wasn’t that some of the students wanted to do as little work as possible. But clearly the workload was not
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
distributed evenly. As an instructor, this was a difficult part of the class to navigate. I wanted everyone to contribute, but I had the competing interest of wanting to deliver the best possible report to the client. (Instructor)
At the start of the semester, the instructor had not intended to use the Blackboard, despite its availability. The tool proved to be a valuable resource for data exchange and collaboration. As the site is only available to students enrolled in the class, it also became a safe “sandbox” for students to work on the project until a polished product was created. There were, however, some difficulties with this tool. For example, only one person could actively work on the document at a time. This proved to be an issue when several of the students waited until close to the due time to finish their work. Moreover, because this format allowed students to edit each other’s work, some of the students became frustrated when others changed their words. On the instructor side, however, an ongoing history is maintained, so that every change was saved.
The writing process required many revisions and ultimately Gullion ended up doing substantial revisions to the final product to make it presentable to the client. It was also frustrating to be told that we were responsible for the whole project and should make changes if need be, and then to have other students get upset when changes were made. I experienced both sides of that equation during the class and got upset when someone copied and pasted my work into their section where I felt it did not belong. All of us became oddly territorial about “our” sections of the paper (myself included!). (Student)
This project turned out to be a tremendous amount of work for me, much more than I had anticipated. But as an instructor, it was so gratifying to see both the learning experience of the students and the impact they made on our community. (Instructor)
The agency representative maintained contact with the class over the course of the semester via email. Near the end of the semester, the representative returned to class and the students pre-sented their findings. This was followed by an open discussion between the representative and the class.
DiscussionThroughout this project, students were forced to think about the lives and stories of the people served by a community agency. They spoke with parents of children with asthma about the struggles they have maintaining their children’s health, navigating the health care system, and about the fears they have that their children will have an attack when a parent is not there to help them. They were taught to honor those stories, not just as data for a project but as voices from their own neighborhoods. The instructor continually reinforced the notion that the data were a representation of someone’s lived experience. As they were working with a local social service agency, students were confronted with real issues of equity and justice. They identified parents who lacked adequate access to health care, parents with conflicts at their children’s schools over administration of medication, and parents who did not understand medication regimens and asthma triggers. They were invited to look beyond typical social constructions and consider a variety of forms of oppression. They considered chronic illness as a source of oppression. The research was located where they live, and in some cases, the outcomes could affect them directly. They were invited to witness the struggles of people in their community, struggles which they may have not previously considered.
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Some of the more powerful things we heard from parents that made us all realize how serious asthma is involved parents telling the researcher about scary incidents where their children were having asthma attacks and did not have access to a rescue inhaler. Those are the moments that haunted us throughout the project. (Student)
Many of the students hadn’t considered living with a chronic illness as a source of oppres-sion. Yet through honoring the stories of the research participants, they discovered how difficult—how frightening—life can be for parents of children with asthma. In one inter-view, a parent said her daughter had called on her cell phone from the school restroom in the middle of an asthma attack. The school nurse wouldn’t let her have her inhaler because the nurse had decided the student was “faking it” to get out of class. Stories like these helped students understand better why they were involved with this project, and empha-sized for them the utility of applied qualitative research. (Instructor)
Community members had the opportunity to see a more positive side of college students, who sometimes suffer from negative stereotypes ascribed to them by the community (particularly in a “college town”). Previous experience of the community members with the university can pres-ent challenges. While action research projects have the potential to strengthen university ties to the community, done wrong, one risks tarnishing the university and creating difficulties for future researchers, decreasing community confidence in partnerships. Students should be social-ized in the classroom about expectations for conduct and commitment and they should be sent into the field well prepared.
This project was a community building experience for the students, both within and out-side of the classroom. Because we worked so closely together, we formed friendships that might not have otherwise happened. We also got to advocate for the agency we worked with. A lot of times students are transients who never really become part of the commu-nity, but projects like this help us become vested in the community, make us feel part of the community beyond the campus. (Student)
The culture of the town we are located in is interesting in that there is a distinct division between the college community and the rest of the community. I’ve never liked that “ivory tower” separation. This project was a good opportunity to show the community what we as academicians can offer them. (Instructor)
Students were afforded the opportunity to become public intellectuals. They wrote a final report and presented it to the agency. They experienced applied sociology. The project demon-strated to them the value of translating skills acquired in the classroom to real-world problem solving.
Several challenges are important to note. First, because of the difference in the backgrounds of the students, some were unprepared both for this level of discourse and this level of commu-nity engagement. Moreover, due to the class size, disagreements inevitably came up and collabo-ration was sometimes difficult. The necessary time constraints of the 15-week semester also presented challenges—skills needed to be taught before entry to the field, and the students needed time to build rapport and recruit participants. The IRB process took longer than antici-pated and delayed entrance into the field. Finally, this project involved intensive instructor engagement.
Student response to the project over the course of the semester was mixed; however, by the completion of the project, all expressed that the experience was positive. Although we did not
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
collect specific data about student experience, we have significant anecdotal evidence to support the success of the project. The production of knowledge of practical use to a community agency and the accompanying intrinsic value of knowing the project was more than an exercise, but of genuine value to others, was exciting for the students.
After the semester ended, students learned that their report was used by the agency to design a new educational outreach program to ensure that parents are both informed about “ozone days” and that they know how pollution can trigger their children’s asthma. The agency used the report to leverage funding from their national parent organization to create a new health educator posi-tion within the agency. It was also used in grant writing to bring additional funds to support the agency’s mission. Seeing the continued impact of their work, that they did indeed affect social change, emphasized this type of research for the students and the organization. It is hoped that this experience will encourage them to do future work with this ethic.
ConclusionThis project, while desired by the agency, would never have been conducted without the col-laboration between the agency and the university. The students found that most of the parents they spoke with were not connecting outdoor air quality as a trigger for their children’s asthma. Most were not restricting outdoor activities based on ozone alert days. These unexpected find-ings proved to be the most interesting to the agency.
Data needs of community agencies are great—outreach programs should be data driven, and funding agencies require proof that their funds are both needed and are being put to good use. Yet with funding limitations, community organizations often do not have the resources to conduct research. Establishing a partnership between the research methods classroom and community organization is a win–win. Students have the opportunity to use their skills to benefit the community.
Engaging students in community partnerships and providing them the opportunity to witness the benefits of their labors instills an attitude of public sociology. They participate in the active application of classroom-based knowledge to solve real social problems (Abraham and Purkayastha 2012). By working with community members who might have quite different back-grounds than their own, students stretch their sociological imaginations, and link social struc-tures and policies, social forces and individual lives (Rajaram 2007). A hands-on approach also reinforces students’ ability to conduct original research, and that they are not limited to reading other’s work (Rooks and Winkler 2012).
Through action research, students practice public sociology and show the social change that sociologists, with their unique skill sets, can help put in motion. They learn that scholars have the ability to make a real-world impact on their communities, and to fight for social justice and equality by putting their skills into action. They learn that they can create practical knowledge that exceeds the boundaries of scholarly journals. This is the intent behind action research pedagogy. We encourage other instructors to explore this practice in their own classrooms.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Abelsohn, Alan and Dave Stieb. 2011. “Health Effects of Outdoor Air Pollution.” Canadian Family Physi-cian 57(88):1–7.
Abraham, Margaret and Bandana Purkayastha. 2012. “Making a Difference: Linking Research and Action in Practice, Pedagogy, and Policy for Social Justice: Introduction.” Current Sociology 60(2):123–41.
Arieli, Daniella, Victor Friedman, and Kamil Agbaria. 2009. “The Paradox of Participation in Action Research.” Action Research 7:263–90.
Baiardi, Janet M., Barbara L. Brush, and Sharon Lapides. 2010. “Common Issues, Different Approaches: Strategies for Community-Academic Partnership Development.” Nursing Inquiry 17(4):289–96.
Beck, Ulrich. 2003. Individualization. London: SAGE.Blouin, David D. and Evelyn M. Perry. 2009. “Whom Does Service Learning Really Serve? Community-
Based Organizations’ Perspectives on Service Learning.” Teaching Sociology 37:120–35.Boser, Susan. 2006. “Ethics and Power in Community-Campus Partnerships for Research.” Action Research
4(1):9–21.Brauer, Michael, Gerard Hoek, Patricia Van Vliet, Kees Meliefste, Paul H. Fischer, Alet Wijga, Laurens P.
Koopman, Herman J. Neijens, Jorrit Gerritsen, Marjan Kerkhof, Joachim Heinrich, Tom Bellander, and Bert Brunekreef. 2002. “Air Pollution from Traffic and the Development of Respiratory Infections and Asthmatic and Allergic Symptoms in Children.” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 166:1092–98.
Brody, Samuel, B. Mitchell Peck, and Wesley Highfield. 2004. “Examining Localized Patterns of Air Qual-ity Perception in Texas: A Spatial and Statistical Analysis.” Risk Analysis 24(6):1561–74.
Denzin, Norman K. 2010. The Qualitative Manifesto. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Denzin, Norman K. and Yvonna S. Lincoln, eds. 2011. The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th
ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Eisenhart, Margaret, and A. Susan Jurow. 2011. “Teaching Qualitative Research.” Pp. 699–714 in The
SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. 4th ed., edited by Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Freire, Paulo. [1968] 2000. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. 30th Anniversary ed. Translated by Myra Bergman Ramos. New York: Continuum.
Garner, Mark, Claire Wager, and Barbara Kawulich. 2009. Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sci-ences. Farnham Surrey, England: Ashgate.
Goodell, Jeff. 2007. Big Coal: The Dirty Secret behind America’s Energy Future. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Henry, Lisa and Ann Jordan. 2007. “Field Project and the Dilemma of Distance.” Practicing Anthropology
29(1):16–19.Henry, Lisa and Roxanna Manoochehri. 2010. “On Becoming an Applied Anthropologist: Collaboration
and Clients in the Classroom.” Practicing Anthropology 32(2):26–30.Hurworth, Rosalind E. 2008. Teaching Qualitative Research: Cases and Issues. Rotterdam, Netherlands:
Sense Publishers.Linares, Benigno, Juan Guizar, Norma Amador, Alfonso Garcia, Victor Miranda, Jose Perez, and Rocío
Chapela. 2010. “Impact of Air Pollution on Pulmonary Function and Respiratory Symptoms in Chil-dren. Longitudinal Repeated-Measures Study.” BMC Pulmonary Medicine 10(1):62.
McConnell, Rob, Kiros Berhane, Frank Gilliland, Stephanie J. London, Talat Islam, W. James Gauderman, Edward Avol, Helene G. Margolis, and John M. Peters. 2002. “Asthma in Exercising Children Exposed to Ozone: A Cohort Study.” Lancet 359(9304):386–91.
Miskovic, Maya and Katrina Hoop. 2006. “Action Research Meets Critical Pedagogy: Theory Practice, and Reflection.” Qualitative Inquiry 12(2):269–91.
Pain, Rachel. 2009. “Working across Distant Spaces: Connecting Participatory Action Research and Teach-ing.” Journal of Geography in Higher Education 33(1):81–87.
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Raddon, Mary-Beth, Caleb Nault, and Alexis Scott. 2008. “Integrating the Complete Research Project into a Large Qualitative Methods Course.” Teaching Sociology 35:141–49.
Rajaram, Shireen S. 2007. “An Action-Research Project: Community Lead Poisoning Prevention.” Teach-ing Sociology 35:138–50.
Ritz, Beate and Michelle Wilhelm. 2008. “Air Pollution Impacts on Infants and Children.” Retrieved November 20, 2011 (http://www.environment.ucla.edu/reportcard/article.asp?parentid=1700).
Rooks, Daisy and Celia Winkler. 2012. “Learning Interdisciplinarity: Service Learning and the Promise of Interdisciplinary Teaching.” Teaching Sociology 40(1):2–20.
Smith, Laura, Lucinda Bratini, Debbie-Ann Chambers, Russell Vance Jensen, and LeLania Romero. 2010. “Between Idealism and Reality: Meeting the Challenges of Participatory Action Research.” Action Research 8:407–24.
Suwanwaiphatthana, Wiparat, Kannika Ruangdej, and Anne Turner-Henson. 2010. “Outdoor Air Pollution and Children’s Health.” Pediatric Nursing 36(1):25–32.
Taylor, Peter. 2009. “Researcher Know Thyself! Emerging Pedagogies for Participatory Research.” Pp. 153–62 in Teaching Research Methods in the Social Sciences, edited by Mark Garner, Claire Wager, and Barbara Kawulich. Farnham Surrey, England: Ashgate.
Webb, Rodman B. and Corrine Glesne 1992. “Teaching Qualitative Research.” Pp. 771–814 in The Hand-book of Qualitative Research in Education, edited by Margaret D. LeCompte, Wendy L. Millroy, and Judith Preissle. San Diego: Academic Press.
Wilhelm, Michelle, Lei Qian, and Beate Ritz. 2009. “Outdoor Air Pollution, Family and Neighborhood Environment, and Asthma.” Health & Place 15(1):25–36.
Bios
Jessica Smartt Gullion, PhD, is an assistant professor of sociology at Texas Woman’s University, where she teaches qualitative methods and medical sociology. She has published extensively in the areas of medi-cal sociology, environmental health, and epidemiology, with her most recent articles appearing in Qualitative Inquiry, Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology, Clinical Infectious Diseases, and the Archives of Internal Medicine. She is currently working on an ethnographic account of community health activism and natural gas drilling.
Erin Graybill Ellis, BS, is a doctoral student in sociology at Texas Woman’s University. Her research and teaching interests include social theory, qualitative inquiry, and human rights.
at TEXAS WOMANS UNIV on November 26, 2014jax.sagepub.comDownloaded from
