Chapter 11

The Foundations of Community Research

In this chapter, we lay the foundations of community research. We begin by clarifying the goals of community research. Next, we examine the assumptions and values of competing paradigms of community research. We end this chapter with a discussion regarding the processes of community research.

THE GOALS OF COMMUNITY RESEARCH:

TOWARDS LIBERATION AND WELL-BEING

In contrast to the traditional view of science as "objective" and "value free," we believe that community research, like any research, is value-driven. That is why it is very important for community researchers to be self-reflexively aware of their values, social position, and relationship with those disadvantaged citizens with whom they are collaborating. Reflexivity also means being attuned to the ethical and power issues that inevitably arise in community research and the assumptions that underlie the research (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000; Willig, 2001). For us, the goal of community research is to construct knowledge that challenges the societal status quo and is useful for the liberation of oppressed groups and the promotion of well-being for all (see Box 11.1 for some principles of research aimed at promoting liberation and well-being). Our aim is to collaborate with oppressed people to facilitate the achievement of their goals. Unlike mainstream psychological research, community psychology research is action-oriented and strives to create social change. As Price and Cherniss (1977) pointed out some time ago, knowledge development and action are inseparable.

In our journey of mutual learning, we are guided by the values for personal, relational, and collective well-being and liberation that we outlined in Chapter 3. Objectivity and subjectivity are both present and important in community research. In our experiences, we have found conducting community research to be passionate, creative, and personally, intellectually, and emotionally challenging. We strive to integrate our moral values into the collaborative research that we undertake with oppressed groups. The ecological principle of interdependence (Chapter 4) suggests that community psychologists can pursue these goals through value-based research at multiple levels of analysis.

Personal Well-being and Liberation

Beginning with the individual level of analysis, community research with oppressed groups can help to chart the movement from oppression through resistance and empowerment to well-being of disadvantaged people (see Table 2.1 in Chapter 2). Studies of the process of personal empowerment, the development of positive identities and alternative personal stories, and consciousness-raising that connects the personal and the political are important concerns for community psychology (Lord & Hutchison, 1993; Nelson et al., 2001; Watts & Abdul-Adil, 1999). Even if the focus of the research is on the individual, community research examines individual phenomena in their group, organizational, and macro-social contexts (Nelson et al., 2001).

Relational Well-being and Liberation

Community psychology research that focuses on the relational level of analysis can examine the liberating and/or oppressive qualities of relationships, groups, and organizations and outcomes that result from relationships and settings. For example, Maton and Salem (1995) have identified some of the following characteristics of empowering settings: a belief system that inspires growth and focuses on strengths, opportunities for member participation and contribution, social support, shared leadership, and organizational power to effect community change. Research on the relationships, informal support, and power-sharing that disadvantaged people experience in the context of self-help/mutual aid organizations is another important area of community psychology research at the relational level of analysis (Isenberg, Loomis, Humphreys, & Maton, in press; Nelson, Ochocka, Griffin, & Lord, 1998).

Collective Well-being and Liberation

The goals for social or collective change include greater social and economic equity, the development of group structures for further social change, and increased control of social institutions by oppressed groups (Bunch, 1987). We believe that community psychology research at the collective level should focus on social structures and policies that promote liberation and well-being of disadvantaged groups. Moreover, such research should challenge the societal status quo by exposing the damaging impacts of oppressive structures and policies. More community psychology research is needed on critical social policy analysis and mediating settings, such as NGOs, SMOs, and alternative settings, whose mission involves social change. These meso-level settings mediate between oppressed groups and larger social structures and policies and have considerable potential for creating social change (see Chapters 8 and 9).

ASSUMPTIONS AND VALUES UNDERLYING

PARADIGMS FOR COMMUNITY RESEARCH

Paradigms: Key Questions

Research methods in any field are guided by certain paradigms and related philosophical assumptions. In psychology, research methods are often presented to students as "givens," and the paradigms from which the methods are derived and the philosophical assumptions that underlie those paradigms are typically unexamined and unchallenged. Remember from your introductory psychology course that psychology has its roots in philosophy! In this section, we examine the major paradigms of community psychology research and their assumptions. We have to warn you that the language and terminology in this section is based on the writings of philosophers of science, and it is language that tends to be rather dense and difficult to understand. However, we will do our best to introduce complicated concepts in user-friendly ways. Like Agger (1991), we want to make sure that the political, cultural, existential and social meanings of philosophical concepts are explicit and clear. Hence, we draw their implications for practical applications in community research.

Let's begin with the idea of a "paradigm," a term that has become so popular and common place that one now hears about paradigms in TV commercials! A paradigm is a set of beliefs, a world view, a set of assumptions about the world and one's place in it. Paradigms are human constructions that represent the most informed and sophisticated view that its proponents have been able to devise to understand different phenomena (Lincoln & Guba, 2000). A dominant paradigm is one whose basic assumptions are so taken for granted by most people that to challenge them may be considered heresy. People believe that "this is the way the world is!" Once upon a time, it was widely believed that the sun and stars revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. It took some time for people to accept a change in paradigms.

In his 1962 book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, philosopher Thomas Kuhn challenged the prevailing belief that science progresses through the slow and steady accumulation of "facts." Rather he asserted that science progresses through the development of new paradigms. When the inconsistencies or problems of the dominant paradigm become evident, challenges are mounted and alternative paradigms begin to emerge. Such paradigm shifts are often met with skepticism and resistance, because they challenge people's basic assumptions about the world. In many respects the values and assumptions of community psychology, which we outlined in Chapter 1, represent an alternative paradigm to more traditional applied psychology. The power of paradigms lies in their ability to persuade audiences of the value of their arguments and principles.

With respect to science and research, paradigms represent a philosophy of science that addresses several questions (Guba & Lincoln, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985).

• The question of ontology - What is the form and nature of reality and what can be known about reality? Is reality something tangible that exists "out there" and is it independent of the researcher? Or are there multiple realities that are constructed and interpreted in the minds of the researcher and the other stakeholders in the research?
• The question of epistemology - What is the relationship between the researcher and what can be known? This question is closely tied with those related to ontology. If there is a single reality, then how can the researcher objectively capture that reality? But if one assumes that there are multiple constructed realities, then how can those multiple perspectives, including that of the researcher, be understood and interpreted? What constitutes valid knowledge? The issue of the objectivity and subjectivity of the researcher is important with respect to the question of epistemology.
• The question of ideology - What are the underlying values, either implicit or explicit, that shape the research and the phenomena under study? Again, this depends on one's view of reality. If there is a single reality, then the values of the researcher, the participants, and community members are not relevant to the research. But if one assumes that there are multiple constructed realities, then the values of all the stakeholders in the research matter a great deal. In this regard, it is important to pose and answer questions about power and the values that underlie the research, such as: Whose research and whose knowledge? In other words, whose voices are being amplified and who has control over the research agenda? Who will benefit from the research? How will the partners work together and how will conflict be addressed? (Harding, 1991; Lord & Church, 1998; Nelson, Prilleltensky, & MacGillivary, 2001; Rappaport, 1990).
• The question of methodology - How can the researcher go about finding out whatever she or he believes can be known? What tools can and should be used in the research to advance knowledge and promote change? Again, the research methods that one chooses depend upon one's assumptions about ontology and epistemology and one's ideology or values. In the next chapter, we provide an overview of the different research methods that are available to community psychologists.

Three Paradigms for Community Psychology Research

In this section, we review three paradigms of community research: (a) the positivist and post-positivist paradigm, (b) the constructivist paradigm, and (c) the critical paradigm. The distinction between the positivist and post-positivist paradigm (that emphasizes empirical-analytical knowledge) and the constructivist paradigm (that emphasizes meaning and experiential knowledge) has been made by several writers (e. g., Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). The German critical theorist Jürgen Habermas (1971) took this debate one step further by introducing the critical paradigm (that emphasizes critical, emancipatory knowledge).

Over the past decade, several researchers, philosophers, and psychologists have elaborated on the distinctions between these three research paradigms (Bhaskar, 1975; Brydon-Miller, 2001; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Richardson & Fowers, 1997; Smith, 1997; Teo, 1999). Feminist scholars have suggested that the three broad paradigms noted above capture the different approaches to feminist research: (a) feminist empiricism, (b) feminist post-modernism, and (c) feminist standpoint theory (Campbell & Wasco, 2000; Harding, 1987; Riger, 1992; Ussher, 1999). Just as there is no one, single philosophy of feminism, there is no one, single philosophy of feminist research. In Table 11.1, we contrast these three research paradigms in terms of the questions of ontology, epistemology, ideology, and methodology. This table is based upon similar, but much more detailed tables that were constructed by Lincoln and Guba (2000) and Blake Poland of the University of Toronto (in Murray, Nelson, Poland, Matycka-Tyndale, Ferris, Lavoie, Cameron, & Prkachin, 2001).






The Positivist and Post-positivist Paradigm

While you may be unfamiliar with the terms "logical positivism" or "rational-empiricism," you will be familiar with many of the defining qualities of this paradigm because it has been and continues to be the dominant paradigm of inquiry in the social sciences and psychology (remember the warm-up exercise about the scientific method). Psychology has borrowed this paradigm from the natural sciences and adopted it as the scientific approach to guide all psychological inquiry. In their review of this paradigm, Lincoln and Guba (2000) note that there has been a shift from positivism to what they call post-positivism. While these two share much in common, post-positivism is a more modest version of positivism, and most community psychologists who work from this paradigm are more closely aligned with post-positivism (Cook, 1985). We discuss positivism and post-positivism together here because of their similarities and also to show how this paradigm has evolved.

Ontology. The positivist paradigm has its roots in the modernist thinking of rationalist philosophers (e. g., Descartes), the British empiricist philosophers, and more recently positivist philosophers of science (e. g., Popper). The modernist worldview, espoused by these Enlightenment thinkers (Gergen, 2001), asserts that there is an external reality that is driven by universal laws and that can be known (described, explained, predicted, and controlled). The goal of science then is to discover these universal laws that correspond to the true nature of reality (Teo, 1999). In contrast to positivism, post-positivism holds that reality can never be fully apprehended, only partially understood.

Epistemology. Positivism subscribes to the dualistic position that the researcher and the research object (the participants and topic of study) are independent. The mind of the knower (the researcher) and what can be known (external reality) are separate from one another. To understand reality then, research must be objective and value-free, so that the biases of the researcher do not interfere with understanding the phenomenon of interest. Various methodological safeguards need to be put in place to control extraneous variables and reduce biases. Positivism further assumes that reality can be broken down (reduced) into component parts, and causal mechanisms can be determined. Researchers develop a language of terms, concepts, and theories that are believed to correspond to external reality. Theoretical constructs are operationalized or grounded in observable events and behaviours.

Post-positivism shifts this paradigm away from the position of dualism. The mutual influence of the researcher and the researched is acknowledged and taken for granted. However, it is still assumed that various methodological safeguards need to be in place to insure objectivity and the probable truth of findings about the nature of reality.

Ideology. "Facts" and "values" are viewed as distinctly different and separate in positivism. Research should be "value-neutral" in pursuit of the truth about the nature of reality. Post-positivism, on the other hand, acknowledges that the values of the researcher do enter the research process. As was noted in the previous paragraph, the goal is to reduce the impact of value biases by introducing a number of methodological safeguards.

From our perspective, values have been relegated to the background in the positivist and post-positivist paradigm. While seldom mentioned or acknowledged, the implicit value underlying positivism is that society will improve with the gradual accumulation of knowledge. In essence, this means that the societal status quo is upheld. As is shown in Chapter 14, this modernist assumption of gradual social improvement through science is challenged by systems of exploitation and colonization that accompanied the scientific revolution. In the shift from feudal and agrarian societies to industrial and urban societies, capitalism became the dominant economic system. And with capitalism came the values of individualism, profit, competition, and hierarchies of power. These values, which compete for dominance still today, are challenged by liberal-reformist values of holism, health promotion, and caring and compassion. We believe that these values, which focus on the amelioration of social problems, rather than social transformation, underlie post-positivism.

Methodology. Quantitative and laboratory methods, adopted from the natural sciences, are the primary tools used in positivist research. There is an emphasis on the development of reliable and valid scales to measure theoretical constructs (e. g., questionnaires that tap sense of community or empowerment). Moreover, hypotheses about the nature of reality are tested and verified (or falsified) through experimental and correlational research. While positivism has emphasized experimental laboratory methods, post-positivism utilizes more field research in naturalistic settings. Community surveys and program evaluation using experimental and quasi-experimental designs, which we describe in the next chapter, are typical of post-positivist community research. There is also an emphasis on using multiple research methods for the purposes of "triangulating" research findings (determining the consistency of findings using multiple methods). Qualitative methods are used both to generate and verify hypotheses.

Example of Post-positivist Research. Up until now, the discussion of the post-positivist research paradigm has been fairly abstract. What does this type of research look like on the ground? One social issue that has been of considerable concern to community psychologists is that of homelessness. An example of post-positivist research is an evaluation of a support intervention for homeless people conducted by community psychologist Paul Toro and colleagues (Toro, Rabideau, Bellavia, Daeschler, Wall, Thomas, & Smith, 1997). As an example of post-positivist research, this study assumed that there is an external reality, homelesseness, and that interventions can be causally related to improvement in that reality. Quantitative, experimental methods were used in the study.

Toro and colleagues evaluated the effectiveness of an intensive case management program called DEPTH for homeless people in Buffalo, New York. "DEPTH took an holistic approach that combined services with job training - placement and locating permanent housing and support services, all targeted to the individual's specific needs and oriented toward the long-term goal of helping the person escape homelessness" (Toro et al., 1997, p. 478). Over 200 participants were randomly assigned to the DEPTH program or to the typical services (usually emergency services, such as shelters) available to homeless people and followed up every 6 months over an 18-month period. Regardless of the program they were in, all participants improved over time in terms of fewer days spent homeless, better physical health, and fewer self-reported stressful life events. However, those who participated in DEPTH reported a better quality of housing, fewer psychiatric symptoms, and fewer stressful life events than those receiving the typical services.

Problems with the Post-positivist Paradigm. There has been a growing disenchantment with the application of the positivist paradigm to psychology. Positivism has been characterized as overly individualistic, detached, and rationalistic. Moreover, psychology has been charged as guilty of "scientism" and "methodolatory," in its slavish adherence to positivism and quantitative methods (Danziger & Dzinas, 1997; Murray & Chamberlin, 1999).

Guba and Lincoln (1994; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, 2000) have identified more specific problems of this paradigm. First, there is the problem of "context-stripping" in positivist research. In reducing a phenomenon to the selection of certain pre-determined variables, important dimensions of the micro, meso, and macro contexts are often stripped away. Second, there is the disjunction of grand theories with local contexts and the inapplicability of group data to individual cases. Research findings in the social sciences are not universally true and generalizable to everyone. Rather, they are often bound by history, culture, and social context. There are always exceptions to grand theories. Also, aggregate findings often do not relate to the unique circumstances of a single person or community. To some extent, post-positivism strives to provide a more contextual analysis, but the larger macro context is often ignored. A third problem is the exclusion of meaning and purpose. Human beings are more than material objects; we are all involved in making meaning and purpose out of our life experiences.

Fourth, the discovery dimension of research is typically excluded with the emphasis on hypothesis-testing, verification, or falsification. With the inclusion of qualitative methods, post-positivism begins to overcome these problems of exclusion of meaning and the discovery dimension. Fifth, there are the problems of the theory and value-ladenness of "facts" and the interactive nature of the relationship between the researcher and the object of study. The researcher's choice of topics (what is worth studying), theoretical perspective (how the topic and research questions should be framed), and methods (what is the best way of learning about the phenomenon) all reflect the values and priorities of the researcher. There is no way the researcher can be separated from that which she or he is studying. Like any other activity, scientific activity takes place in a social, historical, and political context, which shapes what is deemed to be worthy of study, worthy of funding, and worthy of publication.

The Constructivist Paradigm

Social constructivism has recently emerged as an alternative human sciences paradigm of inquiry in the social sciences. This paradigm is in dialectical opposition to the dominant positivist and post-positivist paradigm. Many of the early explications of this paradigm contrasted constructivism with positivism (e. g., Cooperrider & Srivastva, 1987; Lincoln & Guba, 1985). This alternative paradigm has tended to develop outside of North America and outside of psychology. However, a growing number of psychologists is importing the ideas of this paradigm into psychology (e. g., Gergen, 1985, 2001; Lincoln & Guba, 1985, 1994; Richardson & Fowers, 1997).

In comparison with positivism and post-positivism, constructivism is more phenomenological, interpretive, holistic, and humanistic (Teo, 1999). The focus is more on language, communication, subjective human experience, and the meaning that people make of their experiences in their historical, social, cultural, and political contexts. It is an approach that has more kinship with the humanities than the hard sciences.

Constructivism also rejects the dominance of the meta-narratives, dominant discourses, or grand theories of psychology and other disciplines (Leonard, 1994). For example, the French post-modernist Michel Foucault (1980) was critical of dominant, "totalizing" discourses that reflect the power of one group to dominate another group. For Foucault, knowledge and power are inseparable, and socially constructed knowledge by those in power is used for the purposes of exclusion and control. Foucault illustrated his argument with examples of how mainstream society constructs diversity as deviance. In Madness and Civilization (1965), he showed how society labels, confines, and controls people with mental health problems in institutions. This is done through the legitimization provided by the so-called helping professions whose function is surveillance and control of "deviants."

It is also important to note that social constructivism is more a family of approaches than a single entity. While there are many complexities, nuances, and differences within this family of approaches, here we present a more simplified account that emphasizes the common themes of constructivism (for more of the distinctions, see Agger, 1991; Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000; Richardson & Fowers, 1997; Schwandt, 2000).

Ontology. The constructivist paradigm has its roots in the idealist philosophy of Kant and more recently what has been called post-modernism and post-structuralism (Agger, 1991; Gergen, 2001; Richardson & Fowers, 1997). A core assumption is that there is no single, external reality, but rather multiple, mental constructions of reality, that are based on people's experiences in context (Parker, 1998). In other words, in a social and community context, individuals construct the meaning of their experiences. Thus, reality is not some absolute, universal truth that can only be understood by scientists; rather, reality is dependent on the individuals and groups who hold such constructions, with no one construction being more or less "real" or "true" than another. Reality is relative to the people who participate in the study.

Epistemology. In contrast to the position of dualism in the positivist paradigm, constructivism espouses a position of monism or holism (Montero, 2002). That is, the researcher and the research object are assumed to be interrelated rather than separate. Moreover, research is subjective, value-laden, and inductive. Since reality consists of multiple social constructions, the researcher and the participants co-construct or create the findings. Finally, language does not correspond to any external reality, but rather reflects the mental constructions of individuals.

Ideology. Values are an inextricable part of the research, as the researcher and the research participants bring their values into the research process. However, the assumption of relativism renders it impossible to prescribe one set of values over another (Gergen, 2001). Thus, the research is value-bound or influenced (Murray et al., 2001), rather than value-driven.

Methodology. Social constructions are generated through dialogue, reflection, and a close working relationship between the researcher and the participants. Primarily qualitative methods are used to elicit and understand people's constructions, and participatory processes are used to arrive at a consensus on the findings and their meaning. Qualitative methods are used to understand the values, interests, and meanings that underlie language, discourses, and texts. The primary data in qualitative analysis are people's words, not numbers or statistics.

Example of Constructivist Research. Returning to the issue of homelessness, an example of the constructivist approach can be found in an article by Boydell, Goering, and Morrell-Bellai (2000). These researchers conducted a qualitative study of 29 homeless individuals residing in Toronto, Canada. They were interested in understanding the participants' conceptions of self. Boydell et al. used the theoretical perspective of symbolic interactionism to understand the inter-relationships between sense of self and social context. A central premise of this theory is that it is through interactions with others that an individual creates personal identity. The authors conducted interviews with these individuals using an interview guide to inquire about their conceptions of self.

One of the main findings of the study was that the homeless individuals are motivated to have a positive sense of self. While they tended to construct their past selves in positive terms, they were more likely to report aspects of a devalued current self in terms of marginalization, stigma, isolation, feeling inferior to others, and ashamed of their situation of homelessness. One participant made the following comment. "I felt disgusted with myself, you know, that I messed up. I felt bad like, you know, like I was a nobody, you know? . . . There's times I just, you know, just feel what's the sense of my living now, you know" (Boydell et al., 2000, p. 31). This devaluation of self is experienced in the day-to-day contacts that these individuals have with other people. As one person said: "Well, they all think I'm a lazy shiftless, no-good bum. Take your pick. I have no choice. It's like, believe me, if I could find work, I'd be very happy" (Boydell et al., 2000, p. 32).

How is this an example of constructivist research? The goal was not to test hypotheses or generalize the findings to all homeless people. The goal was to understand people's experiences and constructions of themselves. This was done by talking to homeless people and finding out from them about their experiences. In so doing, the research generated new insights into the lives of homeless people.

Problems with the Constructivist Paradigm. The primary critique of this paradigm lies in its basis in relativism. No one construction or moral position is deemed to provide a better understanding of reality than another. What is considered to be truth emerges from a consensual process of negotiation and the ability of a particular individual or group's construction to persuade members of a community of its value. A second challenge has been mounted by realists who argue that it is sheer folly to dismiss the material nature of reality. "But there is a world out there. There is no denying the reality of the human body, of death, or that the world is round" (Gergen, 2001, p. 806). Third, the constructivist paradigm has also been criticized as overly descriptive rather than explanatory. Finally, there is a danger in the researcher having too much control over the interpretation of findings.

The Critical Paradigm

The German critical theorist Habermas (1971) argued that the critical paradigm integrates the knowledge of the other two paradigms towards the goal of human liberation. For Habermas, both the empirical-analytic knowledge gained through positivism and the historical-hermeneutic knowledge (aimed at the understanding of meaning) gained through constructivism are both valid forms of knowledge. However, he argues that these two types of knowledge should be in the service of human liberation. Critical knowledge, which the other two paradigms cannot uncover, is necessary to reveal interests, power, and ideology and to create social change (Carspecken, 1996; Flyvbjerg, 2001).

Ontology. The critical paradigm has its roots in Marxism, German critical theory, and contemporary forces for social justice and social change, including feminism, anti-racism, and queer theory (Leonard, 1994; Lincoln & Guba, 2000; Richardson & Fowers, 1997). This paradigm assumes that there is an external reality. However, unlike positivism, critical theory holds that reality is constituted of institutional and social structures that have been shaped over time by social, political, cultural, economic, ethnoracial, and gender factors. Critical theory also assumes that there are social inequalities that are contested, and that there are conflicts between dominant and subordinate groups.

Bhasker (1975, 1986) has advanced a position of critical realism as the ontology of the critical paradigm. He distinguishes between the unchanging "structures and mechanisms that generate phenomena" and changing "knowledge as produced in the social activity of science" (1975, p. 25). The former suggests an external reality, while the latter focuses on the social construction of knowledge; both of which exist, according to Bhasker (1986). He argues further that values influence and are influenced by social reality, and that values can be used to promote human emancipation and social transformation.

Teo (1999) distinguished three functions of critical knowledge. First, deconstruction can be used to critique mainstream psychological theories and research (see Fox & Prilleltensky, 1997, for critiques of various sub-fields of psychology). Critical analyses are particularly attuned to issues of values and power. Second, reconstruction can be used to reframe psychological issues through an analysis of power. Third, construction is the development of critical theories that take into account issues of oppression and power.

Epistemology. The researcher and the research object are assumed to be interrelated, and research is value-laden. Research findings are mediated through the values of the researcher and the participants. The importance of the researcher working and being in solidarity with research participants who are oppressed and disadvantaged is emphasized. Reflexivity is another important concept for the critical paradigm (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000; Willig, 2001). Since the values of the researcher shapes the research, it is important for researchers to be self-reflexively aware of their values and position in society.

Feminist standpoint theory is one example of the epistemological viewpoint of the critical paradigm (Collins, 1990; Smith, 1990). In contrast to the epistemological and moral relativism of constructivism, feminist standpoint theory "claims that all knowledge attempts are socially situated and that some of these objective social locations are better than others for knowledge projects" (Harding, 1993, p. 56). Critical feminist research is done from the standpoint of oppressed women, including women of color, poor women, aboriginal women, disabled women, and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered women. Through reflection and consciousness-raising, feminist standpoint research with women from oppressed groups has the potential to create critical knowledge that can transform society.

Ideology. Research conducted from the standpoint of the critical paradigm is value-driven (Prilleltensky & Nelson, in press). Researchers and participants begin with a moral and political position that underlies the entire research enterprise. Moreover, the critical paradigm emphasizes the transformative values that we identified in Chapter 3, including self-determination, social justice, respect for diversity, inclusion, and accountability to oppressed groups.

Methodology - There is an emphasis on dialogue and dialectical processes. Research is reflexive and transformative; findings are always a work in progress that are subject new insights and critiques as the research process unfolds. Highly participatory and social action-oriented approaches are used towards the goal of emancipation and change of oppressed groups (Flyvbjerg, 2001; Reason & Bradbury, 2001; Smith, 1999). Inclusion of the voices of disadvantaged people and democratization and demystification of the research process are emphasized in the critical paradigm (Brydon-Miller, 2001; Nelson, Ochocka, Griffin, & Lord, 1998; Stoecker, 1999). Both quantitative and qualitative methods are used, depending on the research question.

Example of Critical Research. Returning to the issue of homelessness, research from the critical paradigm begins with the assumption that homelessness is caused by social structural factors and that homeless people are an oppressed group that lacks power. Over the past several years, research by members of the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee has analyzed the problem of homelessness in Canada in terms of a social policy analysis. In a 1998 report to the United Nations, Hulchanski (1998) reported that between 1994 and 1998, the federal government of Canada spent nothing on social housing for low-income people; in spite of the development of national plans of action to end homelessness, the federal government of Canada has not created a program to address homelessness; recommendations stemming from an inquest into the freezing deaths of homeless men in Toronto have been ignored by the federal and Ontario governments; and all forms of assistance to homeless people are decreasing. More recent reports have linked the growth of homelessness in Canada with federal and provincial policies of free trade and tax cuts (Hulchanski, 2002; Shapscott, 2001). Homelessness has increased sharply, while government expenditures on housing, income support, and social services have increased. This critical research is driven by a value of social justice and focuses on a macro-level analysis of the problem.

Problems with the Critical Paradigm. There are two potential problems with this paradigm. First, there is the question of what values will be privileged over others. Values are ever-changing, and there is a danger that those who are oppressed may stifle the voices of others and become the new oppressors of those who dissent. A second somewhat more difficult problem to confront is when people's actions contradict their espoused values. We all slip from our ideals. Care must be taken to be reflexive, non-dogmatic, and non-exploitative. Habermas (1975) developed the idea of an "ideal speech situation" in which there can be an open dialogue regarding values, and participatory action researchers and feminists have likewise discussed the importance of highly participatory and interactive processes to promote reflexivity, share power, and prevent exploitation (Brydon-Miller, 2001; Flyvbjerg, 2001; Isenberg et al., in press; Olesen, 2000). We discuss these important processes later in the chapter.

Using the Paradigms

Having reviewed these three paradigms of community research, we are left with questions about their usefulness. It is not possible to determine what constitutes the "the best" paradigm. We think it is more fruitful to think about the usefulness of these paradigms for the conduct of community research. We also want to emphasize that paradigms are constantly changing, and that one can think of the three paradigms as "transitional epistemologies," rather than as fixed entities (Harding, 1987).

We believe that there are several different defensible positions that researchers can take vis-à-vis research paradigms. First, some researchers find it most useful to anchor all or most of their work in the assumptions of one particular paradigm. Second, some researchers do not dwell too heavily on underlying questions of ontology and epistemology, but adopt a pragmatic position of methodological pluralism, including a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods (Goering & Streiner, 1996). This pragmatic position often times arises, as Murray and Chamberlin (1999) noted, from the fact that some worldview clashes have been debated for centuries and remain unresolved (positivism vs. constructivism), and that researchers do not want to be caught in the "paralysis of analysis." While the idea of pragmatically blending methods may sound useful, this approach side-steps important philosophical assumptions (Rabinowitz & Weseen, 2001). We agree with Murray and Chamberlin (1999) that whatever methods researchers use, they need to be clear on their assumptions.

A third approach that researchers can take is to match their research questions with the most appropriate paradigm. This assumes that different problems or questions need different approaches. If a researcher wants to know if a social intervention causally leads to improvements in indicators of well-being and liberation, then a post-positivist paradigm is called for. But if one wants to know about people's experiences of the intervention, then a constructivist approach should be used. This approach addresses both epistemological and methodological issues.

Community psychology, like most of the social sciences, has traditionally been steeped in positivism. More recently, the field is beginning to open up to constructivist approaches. However, the critical paradigm has received the least attention in community psychology research. Our standpoint is that there needs to be greater use of the critical paradigm in community research. The critical paradigm puts values, power, reflexivity, and attention to the macro level of analysis more in the foreground (Flyvbjerg, 2001). We urge the field to use the critical paradigm to inform its research, and we believe that there is potential for both critical realist and critical constructivist research in community psychology.

PROCESSES OF COMMUNITY RESEARCH

Having outlined the goals and paradigms of community research, we now turn to a discussion of the processes of community research. In an article entitled "Tain't what you do, it's the way you do it," community psychologist Jim Kelly (1979) argued that the process of community research and action is more important than the content of the research and action. Moreover, Ed Trickett, Kelly, and colleagues (Trickett & Birman, 1987; Trickett, Kelly, & Vincent, 1985) advanced an ecological view of community research that emphasizes the dynamic relationship between the researcher and community members from the setting that hosts the research. The need for researchers to nurture this relationship through close collaboration, to attend to and strive to prevent unintended negative consequences of the research, and to promote the development of community resources are underscored by their ecological conceptualization of the research process.

In line with the main theme of this book, we believe that an important question for community psychology research is: "How do we put our values into action in the way we conduct community research?" The short answer to this question is that community psychology should adopt the approach of participatory action research, which Hall (1993) described ". . . as a way for researchers and oppressed people to join in solidarity to take collective action, both short and long term, for radical social change" (p. xiv). Participatory action research is particularly well-suited to community psychology, because it shares similar values, including self-determination, collaboration, democratic participation, and social justice (Nelson et al., 1998; Ochocka, Janzen, & Nelson, 2002).

While participatory action research is closely allied with the critical paradigm of research, it is not necessarily linked with any particular methodology. Thus, both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used in participatory action research (Reason & Bradbury, 2001). The key feature of participatory action research is that the researchers work in solidarity with disadvantaged people. Research is done with community members, not on them. Unfortunately, community psychology research has historically not emphasized participatory action research. In a review of research published in major community psychology journals and in interviews with senior community psychologists, Walsh (1987) found that community psychology research tended to emulate that of the natural sciences (the positivist and post-positivist paradigm). Few articles mentioned any aspect of the relationship between the researchers and research participants and community members. More recently, community psychologists have underscored the importance of collaborative research (Dalton, Elias, & Wandersman, 2001; Jason, Keys, Suarez-Balcazar, Tayor, Davis, Holtz-Isenberg, & Durlak, in press; Tolan, Keys, Chertok, & Jason, 1990). But it is not just collaboration that is important, but rather a long-term commitment on the part of the researcher to work in solidarity with oppressed groups towards the goal of social change (Rappaport, 1990).

While values provide a foundation for the conduct of community research with disadvantaged people, translating lofty values into practice is often quite challenging. Through our experiences working on different projects with different groups of stakeholders, we have learned that it is useful to have practical guidelines to implement a value-based approach to community research. In this section, we touch on a few practical guidelines for the community research, that we have elaborated on elsewhere (Prilleltensky & Nelson, in press).

Representation, Roles, and Responsibilities

The first step in a collaborative research project is to decide who should be "at the table" (Nelson, Amio, Prilleltensky, & Nickels, 2000). In line with the values of self-determination, democratic participation, and inclusion, the disadvantaged group that is the focus of the research should be strongly represented in the research process. Disability groups have coined the phrase, "nothing about me, without me" to capture the importance of this issue of representation (Nelson et al., 1998). In addition to the issue of representation, the roles and responsibilities of those involved in the research need to be clarified. Elsewhere, we have suggested that it is useful to create different structures for different types of participation (Nelson et al., 1998). A research steering committee can be formed to oversee the development and implementation of the project with representatives providing guidance and approving all steps in the research. One of the first tasks of the steering committee is to brainstorm the vision, values, and working principles for the research project. This is important for ensuring that everyone "on the same page" and for establishing a foundation for working relationships for the duration of the project.

The steering committee is separate from the research team, which is responsible for implementing the research. Hiring and training disadvantaged people to work as researchers on the research team is one way of ensuing strong representation of disadvantaged people. We recommend having 51% members of the steering committee and research team come from the disadvantaged community as an accountability mechanism to ensure their strong representation in the research. Finally, the larger community of disadvantaged people needs to have input into the research process (Serrano-García, 1990). This can occur through community forums and other public meetings about the research. Also, steering committee members and researchers from the host community can play an important liaison role with their constituents, so that information can be widely shared.

Decision-Making Power and Conflict Resolution

It is not just important to have the key parties "at the table," but also to have all aspects of the research "on the table" for discussion. Guidelines for decision-making need to established that promote the value of power-sharing (Nelson et al., 1998). Also, conflict is an inevitable part of any relationship and should be expected in participatory action research. We all have "blind spots," and we believe that conflict provides opportunities for learning about power inequalities. It is also important to address conflicts quickly and with clear and direct communication to minimize any potential damage. The role of the community researcher with respect to issues of decision-making and conflict is to share power, to be open to learning from conflict, and to help facilitate conflict resolution.

If oppressed groups do not have representation and decision-making power in the research, then the research can contribute to the further oppression of disadvantaged people (see Smith, 1999 for a discussion of how research has served to colonize people of Aboriginal background). Like others (Perkins & Wandersman, 1990), we have found that due to past experiences, disadvantaged people often react to researchers and research with distrust and skepticism or even cynicism as to whether they will gain any benefits from the research. The development of a written research partnership agreement, that outlines values, roles, responsibilities, conflict resolution procedures, etc., can be used to overcome these suspicions and promote power-sharing. An example of an innovative code of participatory research ethics that was developed by researchers and representatives of the Kahnawake nation in Canada can be found in Box 11.2. Such protocols can serve as another accountability mechanism for researchers to the disadvantaged community.






Community and Support

Community research should also promote community and support. We see the role of the researcher as creating a welcoming atmosphere for participation and facilitating supportive relationships among the different stakeholders in the research (Nelson et al., 1998; Ochocka et al., 1998). People need to be free to voice their concerns and issues and to have their knowledge and experiences validated and appreciated. To break down some of the built-in barriers to relationships that are normally constructed in a hierarchical fashion (researcher and participant), we have found it useful to set an informal tone to research meetings. Using "check-ins" and attending to the personal and interpersonal aspects of the research is very important for building community and support. The research relationship should mirror the larger values guiding the research project.

Communication, Dissemination, and Action

Clear communication is essential to community research. There is a need for regular and direct communication among all participants. We have found that the structures of a research steering committee and a research team, which meet regularly to share information, are important vehicles for communication. It is also important to have methods of communication that go beyond the core research committees so that information can be shared more widely. Summary bulletins, news reports, and feedback sessions on the project are other valuable methods of communication. Moreover, such written communication should be done on a periodic basis, not just at the end of the project, and should be written in accessible language that is free of research jargon. The use of videos and dramatic presentations are other more innovative ways of sharing the findings of research.

Project members also need to think strategically about the research results can be disseminated to promote action and change (Price & Cherniss, 1977). To promote change, those involved in the research need to target their message at specific audiences with specific recommendations. Mobilizing support for the recommendations and creating pressure for change are important aspects of the dissemination process.

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we laid the foundations of community research. We began by outlining some of goals of community research that are congruent with the value-based approach to community psychology that we articulated earlier. Next, we outlined three broad paradigms that underlie community research. We compared, contrasted, and critiqued each of these paradigms and discussed our standpoint regarding the value of these different paradigms. Finally, we ended the chapter with a discussion of the processes of community research. We argued for the adoption of a participatory action research and provided some guidelines for the implementation of this approach to community research. In the next chapter, we present and discuss specific community research methods that are associated with the three paradigms and provide examples of how these approaches can be used to promote social change.

COMMENTARY - RECONSTRUCTING SOCIAL RESEARCH

Michael Murray

Contemporary social research is a child of the Victorian era. This was the age of great scientific developments. The potential of explaining and controlling the power of nature seemed unlimited. Wondrous machines were developed. Psychology and social science arose in this era with similar ambitions to harness the power of humanity and to assist in the building of a new society (Rose, 1996). But whose interests were most served by these research pioneers?

The 19^th century was an age of rapid social change. In Europe, millions of agricultural labourers were forced off the land with the collapse of the traditional forms of social organization and introduction of machinery. They moved into the cities where they found work in the new factories. It was period of great social unrest as these industrial workers began to assert their role in the growing capitalist society. Social scientists were keen to assist established governments maintain their rule of order. For example, LeBon conducted detailed examination of the crowds participating in the many popular uprisings that occurred in French society in the 19^th century. His aim was to develop a scientific explanation of this threat to social order and to ensure the continuance of government by the ruling elite (see Moscovici, 1985).

This was the also great age of exploration and imperialist expansion. Social scientists often accompanied explorers and colonizers on their voyages of discovery and conquest and eagerly compiled reports of the new lands and new peoples. Museums were established that became hoarding houses to display the wonders of the new lands. Native people were captured and included in circus displays. In her critical review of character of the social sciences Smith (1999) compares traditional social research with that of the colonizer. Both were concerned with imposing their view on that of the other, of shaping the world in their image. Like the colonizer, the traditional social researchers sought to grasp for their own purpose the knowledge and wisdom of the indigenous peoples.

Throughout the evolution of social science researchers paraded their value neutrality and their desire to follow closely the guidelines of natural science. They were keen to develop a social and human science that privileged measurement and control over understanding and emancipation. The science they sought to develop would contribute to the development of a better world organized on rational grounds and freed from the reign of ignorance and superstition. However, it was also a science in which the interests of the dominant class were served in preference to those of the disenfranchised and oppressed.

In this 21^st century the challenge is to develop an alternative approach to social science that can contribute to broader human emancipation. As was emphasized in this chapter, the alternative requires adopting a clear ideological stance on the side of those who are oppressed rather than on the side of those who wish to exercise control. In this chapter particular reference was made to the work of Habermas. In this commentary I extend this critique to include the work of some Latin American scholars who have been to the fore in articulating an alternative agenda for social research. This is perhaps not surprising in view of their contemporary history of social and political oppression. However, although their critical social ideas may have evolved in that milieu they have wider currency in developing a critical social research agenda. It is important to refer to the heritage of two researchers in particular: Paulo Freire and Ignacio Martin-Baro.

Paulo Freire was a Brazilian who was born in 1921. In his work with the poor and exploited Freire came to recognise the role of the traditional educational system as one of the instruments of social oppression. It contributed to maintaining a culture of silence among the disenfranchised rather than assisting them in identifying the social and political roots of their oppression and assisting them in developing a strategy of personal and social change. Freire criticized what he described as the traditional "banking" model of education in which the student was conceived as a passive receptacle into which the teacher pored certain value neural knowledge. Such knowledge implied unquestioning acceptance of particular social arrangements within which poverty and inequality were endemic. The alternative was a "pedagogy of the oppressed" (Freire, 1973/1990) in which the teacher worked with the student to reveal the oppressive elements of social reality. Freire described this process as conscientization. Though this process the student and the teacher together begin to challenge the established truths.

Applying such an approach to contemporary society helps to avoid the trap of accommodating social research to the needs of the powerful. As Ledwith (2001) has argued, community work often seems radical while adopting a very accommodative agenda to exploitative social arrangements. Similarly, community research can ignore the broader social and political context within which poverty and oppression exist. The challenge is to attempt to link the immediate concerns of the research project to the broader political concerns. Through participatory forms of research both the researchers and the community begin to explore their social circumstances and to consider how to challenge the established social arrangements.

Ignacio Martin-Baro was a Jesuit priest and social psychologist who lived and worked in San Salvador during the recent period of military oppression until he was killed by the army there in 1989. Throughout his life he committed himself to developing a research practice that was linked to promoting the liberation of the poor and oppressed people in his country and throughout the world. Psychologists had to dispense with the false idea of value neutrality and instead place themselves clearly on the side of the oppressed. He termed this adopting the "preferential option for the poor."

For Martin-Baro (1994) the important issue was not the character of the research in terms of the particulars of its methodology but rather the purpose of the research. He saw the research process not as some sort of simple reflection of the world out there as traditional positivists might argue; it was "not an account of what has been done, but of what needs to be done."

His critique of Latin American psychology applies to much contemporary social research. He criticized it for its "scientistic mimicry" by which he meant its uncritical acceptance of the models of natural science. He also criticized it for its lack of an adequate epistemology and referred explicitly to the positivism that he condemned as underlining "the how of phenomena, but tends to put aside the what, the because, and the why" (p. 21). He criticized its individualism that ignored the social dimensions of humanity; its hedonism as an underlying motive for human arrangements that was equivalent to the assumed intrinsic nature of the profit motive; and its ahistoricism that ignored the changing nature of social reality. Instead, Martin-Baro argued for the building of a new liberation psychology from the bottom up. There is a need to redesign our psychological theories "from the standpoint of the lives of our own people: from their sufferings, their aspirations, and their struggles" (p. 25).

Today as we attempt to build a new social science these ideas provide not only an important starting point but also an inspiration. A community-based social science begins with an awareness of the grinding poverty and injustices facing so many of the world's population. It asks of privileged scholars how their work can contribute not only to a greater understanding of humanity but also to the alleviation of this suffering. The strategies that we can use are many and varied but the challenge is to place our small efforts within a broader movement for social justice. Research should indeed be part of the process of social emancipation but not for the few but for the many.

In developing our research the challenge is to work from the bottom up with particular communities. This does not mean accepting as sacrosanct their version of reality but nor does it mean imposing an alternative viewpoint. The path is one of openness and of humility to new forms of knowledge and of new social arrangements while at the same time developing collaboratively an awareness of how the broader forms of social oppression impact on our everyday lives and exploring new avenues of resistance and social change.

It means both an emotional as well as a rational commitment to change and an awareness that personal change and emancipation are interwoven with social change and emancipation. On an emotional level it means experiencing the frustrations when things do not go as easily as you would like or when people do not agree with your perspective. On a rational level it means carefully assessing the weaknesses and strengths of particular engagements. A community researcher knows both when to encourage resistance and when to accept temporary retreats. She knows that comprehensive social change may be a long-term goal but even short-term victories can provide welcome breathing space and provide time to reassess where to go. It is through such experiences that the researcher and the community can grow in self-awareness and confidence.

RESOURCES

Websites

• Centre for Research and Education in Human Services - a community research and education organization based in Kitchener, Ontario that has been a leader in participatory action research, www.crehs.on.ca
• Link to other participatory action research websites, http://www.goshen.edu/soan/soan96p.htm
• Institute of Development Studies - focuses on research related to social change, http://www.ids.ac.uk/ids/health/

Videos

• It's my turn now, available from University of British Columbia

Box 11.1 Principles and Agenda for a Critical, Humanist Social Science Choose and re-examine the political and value positions consciously an specify positions in terms of desired human conditions and outcomes. Integrate these positions into every aspect and stage of the research. Facilitate changes in the social orders which are conducive to the value position chosen. Key components of a social science agenda include: the context of patterns of social life; actual patterns of social life; forces and processes that inhibit consciousness and understanding; how to overcome those forces and processes; both theoretical and active involvement in transforming social life. Study free of all forms of domination, manipulation, and exploitation. Methods and designs follow from nature of the study and questions asked. Integrity of research design is key requirement. Integrity is intimately related to values and politics. Avoid use of professional jargon. Teach in a way that allows students a "liberated space" (a counter-reality to institutional domination and control) to develop critical thought and consciousness, insights to the human condition and a personal commitment to human liberation and social justice.





Box 11.2 Code of Ethics for Participatory Research with Aboriginal Communities Policy Statement "The sovereignty of the Kanienkehaka (the people) of Kahnawake to make decisions about research Kahnawake is recognized and respected. The benefits to the community as a whole and to individual community volunteers should be maximized by the researchers. Research should empower the community goals of health and wellness, to promote healthy lifestyles, improve its self-esteem and to fulfill it traditional responsibility of caring for the Seventh Generation. (In Mohawk tradition, the Seventh Generation represents those as yet unborn)." The Principles of Participatory Research "The Kahnawake Schools Diabetes Prevention Project is a partnership of the Kanienkehaka (Mohawk) community of Kahnawake, community-based researchers and academic researchers. In this document these three groups are referred to as the three partners. The three partners will work cooperatively and collaboratively in the design, implementation, analysis, interpretation, conclusion, reporting and publication of the experiences of the project. Each partner provides ideas and resources that come the experience, knowledge and capability of all its members. Together, through respect for each other, consultation and collaboration, they significantly strengthen the project and its outcomes. All three partners of the project share an understanding the community-based research is a powerful tool for learning about health and wellness, while contributing to the health of the community in which it is conducted." Dissemination of Results "No partner can veto a communication. In the case of a disagreement, the partner who disagrees must be invited to communicate their own interpretation of the same data as an addition to the main communication, be it oral or written. All partners agree to withhold any information if the alternative interpretation cannot be added and distributed at the same time, providing the disagreeing partner(s) do not unduly delay the distribution process." Source: Macaulay, A. C., Delormier, T., McComber, A. M., Cross, E. J., Potvin, L. P., Paradis, G., Kirby, R. L., Saad-Haddad, C., & Desrosiers, S. (1998). Participatory research with native community of Kahnawak creates innovative code of ethics. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 89, 105-108.





Table 11.1





Contrasting Paradigms of Community Research





Paradigm

Assumptions	Positivist and Post-positivist	Constructivist	Critical
Ontology	There is a single, external reality that is driven by universal laws. This reality can be described, explained, predicted, and control.	There are multiple realities that are constructed by the research stakeholders. There are no universal laws, reality is relative to the constructions of stakeholders.	Critical realism assumes that there is an external reality that is constituted of social and institutional structures The function of deconstruction, reconstruction, and construction are to challenge and transform knowledge and society.
Epistemology	External reality and the researcher are independent (assumption of dualism). Research must be objective and controls must be put in place to reduce biases. Reality can be broken down (reduced) into component parts, and causal mechanisms can be determined.	The researcher, the research participants, and community members are inter-dependent (assumption of monism). The goal of the research is to understand and interpret the multiple realities of these stakeholders.	The researcher works in solidarity with oppressed groups and strives to amplify their voices though a process of dialogue and consciousness-raising. Researchers must be self-reflexively aware of their social position and values.
Ideology	Since there is an external reality that is independent of the researcher, research that strives to explain that reality must be value-free.	Since reality is relative and multiply constructed, the values of the researcher, the research participants, and community members influence are part and parcel of their constructions. Research is value-bound.	Since there is an external reality that is shaped by competing values, then the critical researcher is morally obligated to use the transformative values that she or he shares with oppressed groups to guide the research towards the goal of social change.
Methodology	Community research is primarily quantitative and uses reliable and valid measurement scales. Both correlational (epidemiology, surveys) and causal methods (experiments, quasi-experiments) are used and may be supplemented with qualitative methods.	Community research is primarily qualitative and uses a variety of different methods, including qualitative interviews and observations, ethnographies, discourse analysis, narratives, and case studies.	Community research is primarily participatory and action-oriented in nature. Both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used in the service of value-driven research for social change.