Chapter 13

Community Research Methods:

Critical Paradigm

As was shown in the previous chapter, the post-positivist and social constructivist paradigms tend to have specific research methods. What distinguishes critical research methods from post-positivist and constructivist research methods is less the specific methods that are used and more the processes and goals of the research. As is indicated in Table 13.1, community psychology research operating from the assumptions of the critical paradigm includes both quantitative and qualitative methods. The key methodological element of the critical paradigm is that research is participatory and action-oriented.

CRITICAL RESEARCH METHODS

In the previous chapter, we made a distinction between analytic and activist/interventionist research methods. Note that in Table 13.1, there is a dotted line separating the analytic and activist/interventionist types of research. This is because these two types of research are more integrated in critical research and less separated than in the post-positivist and social constructivist paradigms. Consequently, in this section, we do not have separate sections on analytic and activist/interventionist research. Rather, they are treated together.

Analytic and Activist/Interventionist Research:

Critical Participatory Action Approaches

The Foundations of Critical Research

Critical research has its roots in participatory research, action research, feminist research, and anti-racist research. Brown and Tandon (1983) have pointed out that participatory research and action research stem from different traditions. Participatory research emerged from work with oppressed people in developing countries (see Yeich, 1996), particularly Latin America (see Montero, 2000, and Murray's commentary on the previous chapter). Moreover, participatory research is based on the assumption that oppressed people must be fully engaged in the process of research, education, and change (Park, Brydon-Miller, Hall, & Jackson, 1993; Tolman & Brydon-Miller, 2001). On the other hand, action research was introduced in North America over 50 years ago by Kurt Lewin (1946), who proposed cycles of problem definition, fact-finding, goal-setting, action, and evaluation to simultaneously solve problems and generate new knowledge. Closely associated with organizational interventions, action research typically involves a partnership with organizational managers, not disadvantaged people. While having separate roots, today many researchers have integrated participatory and action research into what is commonly referred to as participatory action research (Balcazar, Keys, Kaplan,& Suarez-Balcazar, 1998; Nelson, Ochocka, Griffin, & Lord, 1998; Reason & Bradbury, 2001).

Feminism is another foundation on which critical research is based. In contrast to liberal feminism which posits that women need to have equal opportunities to men, radical, socialist, and anti-racist forms of feminism assert that more fundamental social change is required to address the structural problems of sexism, capitalism, and racism (Campbell & Wasco, 2000). The mission of standpoint feminist research, as described in the previous chapter, is to expose and eradicate patriarchy and the oppression of women (Reinharz, 1992). While feminist research and participatory action research have different roots, they share much in common.

Campbell and Wasco (2000) have identified four themes that characterize feminist research methods. First, feminist research expands the range of methods. Feminists have pioneered the use of qualitative methods (Reinharz, 1992), and they have developed new methods, like concept mapping. Campbell and Salem (1999) conducted focus groups with rape victim advocates to brainstorm how services could be more responsive to rape victims. The qualitative data were then quantified, and statistical analyses were performed that yielded a map of key concepts. Second, feminist research connects women through "openness, trust, caring, engagement, reciprocal relationships, and solidarity among women" (Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002). Third, feminist research strives to reduce power differences in the research relationship by engaging participants as co-researchers and co-analysts in the research process (Smith, 1994). Fourth, the emotionality of science is recognized in feminist research. Feminist standpoint researchers reject research dichotomies of the post-positivist paradigm, including reason/emotion, mind/body, objectivity/subjectivity. Emotion and subjectivity are treated as important sources of data in feminist research.

With respect to culture, ethnicity, and race, critical psychology takes an altogether different stance than the etic approach of post-positivism and the emic approach of constructivism. The standpoint of critical research is explicitly anti-racist and focuses on oppression and power imbalances between people of different backgrounds. Smith's (1999) analysis of how research has historically served the function of colonizing people of color by treating them as objects of curiosity that are inferior to the standard of white Europeans is an example of the critical perspective. Alternatively, Smith argues that research needs to be "de-colonized" to promote liberation and well-being by working collaboratively with people of color.

The Values and Principles of Critical Research

As we noted in the previous chapter, the critical research paradigm is value-based. Several authors have delineated some of the values and principles that underlie critical research (Balcazar et al., 1998; Kirby & McKenna, 1989; Nelson et al., 1998). In Table 13.2, we identify several values and related principles for critical research. Note that the values of critical research are congruent with the values of community psychology that we identified in Chapters 2 and 3.

First and foremost, critical research is guided by the values of self-determination and participation. That is, it is characterized by an agenda of empowerment (Rappaport, 1990; Ristock & Pennell, 1996; Yeich & Levine, 1992). This means that critical research should: (a) be attuned to issues of power and have as a goal the promotion of power of disadvantaged people, (b) begin with the experiences and concerns of disadvantaged people, (c) be democratized to maximize the participation of disadvantaged people, and (d) use qualitative methods that give voice to disadvantaged people (Nelson et al., 1998; Ochocka, Janzen, & Nelson, 2002). In this vein, Balcazar et al. (1998) assert that participatory action research has the potential to increase the "awareness among people with disabilities about their own resources and strengths" (p. 107). Second, critical research is characterized by its adherence to the values of community and inclusion. As corollaries of these values, research should: (a) strive to develop authentic and supportive relationships among all those involved in the research enterprise and (b) be directed towards the goal of solidarity for social change. Stringer (1996) captures the essence of these values and principles in his characterization of action research as "the search for understanding in the company of friends" (p. 160).

Third, social justice and accountability to oppressed groups are values that guide critical research. Social justice should be practiced within the research project itself and also in relationship to the broader social environment (Nelson et al., 1998). Internally, funds from the research budget should be allocated in such a way as to provide opportunities for employment and training for the disadvantaged people who are stakeholders in the study. Externally, the research findings should be used for education and/or advocacy to create social change. Fourth, critical research is based on the value of reflexivity (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 2000). Following from this value are the principles that critical research should: (a) use emergent (flexible) research designs, (b) provide an educational component for all stakeholders, including the wider community, (c) be demystified so knowledge is accessible to everyone, not just research "experts," (d) involve all stakeholders in the interpretation of findings and generation of recommendations for change, and (e) should provide opportunities for all stakeholders to co-present and co-author research reports, including personal experiences and perspectives (Nelson et al., 1998).

Roles for the Critical Researcher

Since critical research by definition involves active participation and control by disadvantaged groups, the traditional role of the researcher as the one who is in exclusive control of the research is clearly not applicable. What roles then can the community psychology researcher play in critical research? Stoecker (1999) has reflected on this issue and has suggested three possible roles. First, there is the role of initiator. While being an initiator appears to be at odds with the community-driven nature of critical research, Stoecker (1999) argues that often times researchers invite community members to become involved in a research project (this is similar to the role of the unsolicited change agent described in Chapter 7). While the critical researcher may "get the ball rolling," Stoecker cautions that for the research to be truly participatory, the researcher must be a skilled facilitator and organizer who is willing to give up power in working with community groups.

Second, there is the role of consultant. By consultant, Stoecker (1999) means that the professional is the person who does the research, which is a different definition of consultation than is typically used in community psychology. Stoecker (1999) suggests that a community can commission a professional to do the research but needs to put in place accountability mechanisms and to ensure that the community remains the "owner" of the research. Third, there is the role of collaborator, which is similar to what we mean by a partnership approach, in which the research is neither community-driven, nor researcher-driven, but rather some blend of the two.

Stoecker (1999) argues that each of these roles is inconsistent with a truly participatory action research approach when the research is viewed as a traditional research project. However, when one conceptualizes the research as one part of a larger and more long-term social intervention process, then the contradictions are less apparent. The choice of initiator, consultant, and collaborator roles must be made in the context of the skills of the researcher and the degree to which other functional roles (facilitation, community organization, popular education, particpatory research) in the intervention are filled. Stoecker (1999) suggests that participatory action researchers should ask themselves the following questions to help them determine what role they should play in a particular intervention: What is the participatory research project trying to do (i. e., what are its goals)? What are the skills of the researcher? How much participation in the research does the community need and want? What Stoecker is suggesting is that the role of the critical researcher is contextually dependent on the values, desires, and needs of the community, and that there are several different roles that the researcher can play.

The Process of Critical Research

As we explained in the previous chapter, the process of critical research involves a high degree of collaboration among researchers, disadvantaged groups, and other stakeholders, with constant communication and feedback loops. Research is done with people, rather than on people. Several participatory action researchers have conceptualized the research process in terms of steps that one might follow in the research (e. g., Kirby & McKenna, 1989; Papineau & Kiely, 1996; Thesen & Kuzel, 1999). For example, Taylor and Botschner (1998) have provided a very useful framework to guide program evaluation from a participatory action research approach (see Box 13.1).

Critical research is not typically a single study or project in the traditional sense, as Stoecker (1999) pointed out in the previous section. Rather, critical research more typically involves a longer-term commitment and immersion of the researcher in the issues, needs, and context of disadvantaged people (Rappaport, 1990; Jason, Keys, Suarez-Balcazar, Taylor, Davis, Holtz-Isenberg, & Durlak, in press). This means that the researcher may play different roles and that there may be different research projects over time.

Quantitative and Qualitative Methods

As we noted in the previous chapter, critical research can use either quantitative or qualitative methods or both. Some community psychologists who work from a critical perspective have argued for this methodological pluralism (Campbell & Wasco, 2000; Stewart, 2000), and others who advocate the use of stakeholder and empowerment approaches to research tend rely on quantitative methods (Fetterman et al., 1996). On the whole, however, critical research tends to use qualitative methods, either on their own or in conjunction with quantitative methods. As we pointed out earlier in this chapter, qualitative methods are particularly valuable to giving voice to disadvantaged people and in providing a contextualized understanding of people's experiences.

There are also some researchers who espouse a research paradigm that is both critical and constructivist (Denzin, 2000; Guba & Lincoln, 1989). For example, Denzin (2000) argues for the importance of gender-specific and race-specific communities to provide critical, feminist, anti-racist interpretations of research findings towards the goals of human liberation. Similarly, Guba and Lincoln's (1989) fourth-generation evaluation is explicitly concerned with giving voice to disadvantaged people who are often the consumers of human services. Since science is politically and historically situated, and not purely value-neutral or objective as some would claim, we believe that issues of ontology, epistemology, and methodology are secondary to the value base and social change goals of critical research. Therefore, there should be room for different methodological approaches to critical research, including both quantitative and qualitative methods, and combinations of the two.

Applications of Critical Research

Critical research has been put into practice in the study of different social issues facing different disadvantaged groups. Feminist research has exposed and named different facets of the oppression of women (e. g., date rape, sexual harassment) and helped to create alternative settings, such as shelters for abused women (Reinharz, 1992; Ristock & Pennell, 1996; Chapter 18). Participatory action research has also been a good fit for research concerning the issues experienced by people with disabilities (Balcazar et al., 1998; Chapter 20), including people with mental health problems (Nelson et al., 1998; Wadsworth & Epstein, 1998; Chapter 21), queer people (Gamson, 2000; Chapter 19), immigrants, refugees, aboriginal people, and people of color (Macaulay et al., 1998; Papineau & Kiely, 1996; Smith, 1999; Chapters 16 & 17), and people suffering from various health problems and diseases (Gray, Fitch, Davis & Phillips, 2000; Murray, 2000; Murray & Chamberlin, 1999).

Participatory Evaluation

Since participatory action research is action-oriented, it is not surprising that this approach has been linked with program evaluation (Taylor & Botschner, 1998). For example, Whitmore (1991) conducted a participatory evaluation of a prenatal program serving low-income women in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. The evaluator worked with a group of four of these women to conduct the evaluation. These women were paid for the work as researchers on this project, and they interviewed program participants. One of the co-researchers made the following comments about her relationship with the women who participated in the evaluation:

"You're dealing with a lot of people on social assistance and welfare. You're dealing with real hard-to-reach, low self-esteem people. And when they see anybody coming in that they think is high class or has anything to do with the welfare . . ., they are scared to death that you're going to squeal on them, that people's going to coming around bothering and hassling them because. . . It's so hard to get along with these [social workers], that . . . you're high up there so that they can't trust you cuz you're right in with [the social workers]. But we're [single mothers, too;] we're not in with them [social workers], and we're not in there to tear [other single mothers] apart. And I think [the single mothers] really know that." (Whitmore, 1991, p. 1)

Whitmore (1991) pointed out that it is the process that is critical in this type of participatory evaluation. "We spent considerable time building group trust, for the key to everyone's participation was motivation" (Whitmore, 1991, p. 5).

In another participatory evaluation, Papineau and Kiely (1996) worked with stakeholders (staff, volunteers, consumers) of a community economic development (CED) project for immigrant people in Montreal. This grassroots project provided training and technical assistance and revolving loan fund to help immigrants start small businesses. The goals of the evaluation were to promote the empowerment of the stakeholders participating in the evaluation, plan and implement the evaluation, and utilize the findings of the evaluation for program planning. Interviews with stakeholders indicated that all of these goals were met.

While there is flexibility and the use of emergent research designs in participatory research and evaluation, it is important for the reader to understand that this type of research is not a completely open-ended, unstructured process. Rather, there are typically concrete steps that evaluators follow to ensure a meaningful, particpatory process (Papineau & Kiely, 1996; Taylor & Botschner, 1998; Whitmore, 1991). Whitmore (1991) noted that having a concrete and carefully structured sequence of tasks, a written contract with the co-researchers, attention to group process, and publicity about the research findings were key factors in the success of the participatory evaluation briefly described above. Similarly, Papineau and Kiely (1996) provided stakeholders in the CED project with a blueprint for the evaluation process with concrete tasks for each phase of the evaluation.

Creating Change

How does a group use critical research to create change? We believe that there are at least five components for creating change in critical research: (a) framing and interpretation, (b) education, (c) communication and dissemination, (d) resource mobilization, and (e) action. These components are part of a praxis cycle of values, theory, research, and action that has as its object the transformation of social structures towards the goal of social justice (Prilleltensky, 2001).

First, framing and interpretation provide the critical lens through which social problems are viewed, including both values and theories. We have argued throughout this book that problems need to be framed in terms of issues of power. This first step of framing sets the stage for critical research and action. As Rappaport and Stewart (1997) stated: "In critical psychology, as in any academic/intellectual project, the power to frame the issues, define the terms of the debate, and set the agenda for discourse is win the game before it happens" (p. 307). Participatory research that involves disadvantaged people in setting the research agenda can provide a framework that is critical of the status quo and is aimed at social change. Equally important though is the interpretation of data. Facts are not value-neutral and they do not speak for themselves. Rather research findings are given meaning and are interpreted through the lenses of the various stakeholders through the context of their historical, social, political, and experiential realities (Denzin, 2000). As in any research, there is a danger that research findings can be distorted. In its explicit political agenda of social transformation, the critical perspective is vulnerable to this problem. Criteria for the validation of data, be they post-positivist or constructivist, help to guard against this problem.

Second, critical research findings also have an educational function in raising the consciousness of different stakeholders about the issues under study. Moreover, the process of learning is mutual, involving an exchange among stakeholders, and ongoing learning as the research process and findings emerge (Nelson et al., 1998). Third, in critical research, there is an emphasis on widespread communication and dissemination of research findings. It is not enough to publish the findings in a scholarly journal that will be read by only a select few. Rather, researchers and their partners need to consider all the different audiences for the research and devise multiple strategies for reaching those audiences. Single-page summaries, short summary bulletins written, and longer reports in accessible language are one method for communication and dissemination, as are oral presentations and workshops. But there is also room for more creative and potentially engaging forms of communication, including dramatic readings and scripts and video productions. Getting the message out through radio, television, and newspapers can reach large numbers of people.

Fifth, communicating research findings to multiple audiences can lead to a process of resource mobilization for change. The question for the critical researcher and partners is which stakeholder groups and organizations can be organized to use the data for change. Once, these audiences have been organized, this leads to sixth and final step of action or utilization of findings (Nelson & Hayday, 1995; Papineau & Kiely, 1996). One example of a project which utilized research findings for change is the development of a mental health housing coalition by Geoff and community partners. After conducting an assessment of housing and support needs of mental health consumer/survivors (Nelson & Earls, 1986), Geoff and his colleagues organized a community forum on this issue. All of the local candidates who were campaigning to be elected to the provincial government were invited to the forum. This forum garnered the attention of the press and led to the formation of the coalition to move from research to action. After several years of advocacy and education, the coalition, which ran on a minimal budget but with considerable representation from different stakeholder groups, was successful in increasing affordable housing and supports for people with serious mental health problems (Nelson, 1994).

Validation of Data

How does the researcher validate the data in critical research? This depends in part on the assumptions that underlie the research. The critical post-positivist researcher must be concerned with the traditional issues of reliability, construct validity, and internal and external validity, whereas the critical constructivist researcher must be concerned with trustworthiness and authenticity. However, the critical paradigm invokes an additional concept for the validation of data, psychopolitical validity (Prilleltensky, in press a). Psychopolitical validity has two components: epistemic and transformative validity. Epistemic validity is concerned with the degree to which community research and action is attuned to issues of power at multiple levels of analysis (personal, relational, collective). The more systematic the analysis of the phenomenon of interest in terms of psychological and political power, the more valid is the critical research and action. Transformational validity, on the other hand, is concerned with the degree to which community research and action strives to transform social structures. The more transformative and the less ameliorative the intervention (see Chapter 7), the greater the transformational validity of the critical research and action.

Just as Lincoln and Guba's (1985, 1986) criteria of trustworthiness, fairness, and authenticity for constructivist research were in their early stages of development just less than 20 years ago, so too are these criteria of psychopolitical validity. We believe that these concepts will be of considerable heuristic value to critical researchers, and that the criteria for these types of validity will be further clarified and enhanced over the next 20 years.

Challenges and Limitations of Critical Research

While critical research is appealing to some of us, a major challenge is that the standpoint of critical research is not well understood or respected by the academic research community. More traditional scientists bristle at the explicit political and value-based nature of this work. Relinquishing power and control over the research design and process can be viewed as compromising the integrity of the research. Thus, community psychologists who undertake critical research can anticipate resistance from their academic colleagues and granting agencies to their work (Balcazar et al., 1998; Gray et al., 2000; Isenberg et al., in press; Thesen & Kuzel, 1999). Balcazar et al. (1998) argue that traditional scientists view participatory action research and the use of experimental and quasi-experimental designs as incompatible, and Isenberg et al. (in press) suggest that power-sharing in participatory action research may actually jeopardize the quality of the research. There are at least two responses to this challenge. One is that experimental and quasi-experimental methods are not the only rigorous methods that researchers can use. As we have shown in this chapter, there is a rich tradition in qualitative research from which researchers can draw. Second, we believe that researchers can use a participatory and collaborative approach in the context of experiments or quasi-experiments. The Better Beginnings research, mentioned earlier, and a study that Geoff and colleagues are currently conducting with self-help/mutual aid organizations for mental health consumer/survivors are examples that this integration is possible. While we agree with Isenberg et al. (in press) that power-sharing in participatory action research does not necessarily enhance the quality of the research, we argue that in many cases research with disadvantaged groups would not be possible if the researchers are not willing to share power. Researchers who are unwilling to share power are unlikely to get their foot in the door with disadvantaged groups.

Another challenge is that while the values and rhetoric of critical research may be appealing to some of us, critical research is very difficult to conduct. Reflexively, critical researchers need to ask themselves if they are really sharing power. Gray et al. (2000) observed in their participatory action research with breast cancer self-help groups that there is a tendency for researchers to develop a proposal for funding and then seek input from the stakeholders. Part of the tension in this situation is that the timelines for proposal development are often short, and there is a power imbalance between researchers and other stakeholders in terms of knowledge about research. As Papineau and Kiely (1996) observed, it takes time for stakeholders to get the "big picture." In spite of these constraints, we agree with Gray et al. (2000) that researchers can and should work more collaboratively in the proposal development stage with stakeholders, because it is at this stage that the research issues get framed.

Once the research is underway, another important issue is the length of the research process and the amount of stakeholder participation that is desired and required (Balcazar et al., 1998; Gray et al., 2000; Papineau & Kiely, 1996; Stoecker, 1999). We agree with Gray et al. (2000) and Stoecker (1999) that researchers and community stakeholders need to negotiate the purpose and time required for participation. In working with disadvantaged groups, Isenberg et al. (in press) suggest that in the name of power-sharing, researchers may side-step conflictual issues in their desire to be polite and respectful. Taking such a stance compromises the authenticity of the research relationships. Elsewhere (Nelson et al., 2001), we have argued that conflict is part and parcel of partnerships between community psychologists and disadvantaged people, and that community psychologists need to engage in rather than withdraw from such conflict. Balcazar et al. (1998) also noted that it is not uncommon for disadvantaged community members to challenge and criticize researchers. We believe that criticism and conflict present great opportunities for learning and questioning taken-for-granted assumptions, because conflict often arises from a collision of world views and experiences. Active listening and problem-solving are important skills for working through conflict. In conflict situations, there is a balancing act between standing firm to one's values and being open and flexible to new learning, and unfortunately there is no easy recipe about how to maintain that balance.

One other important challenge raised by Isenberg et al. (in press) that we want to comment on is their observation that it is sometimes difficult to distinguish between who is oppressed and who is not oppressed. We believe that it is important to differentiate between where people are coming from (experiences of oppression) and their behaviour in research relationships. Understanding and acknowledging that some people have lived in oppressive conditions is crucial for critical researchers, but that does not mean that people who have lived such lives are not accountable for their current behaviour. Just as we have seen professionals act in an oppressive way, we have been in situations in which one or more persons from an oppressed background has behaved in a domineering and oppressive way in a community research or intervention project. Establishing a clear vision, values, and ground rules for participatory research relationships can be used to address this difficult issue.

One last important challenge is the tension between research and advocacy. The culture of research is to be skeptical and cautious in one's interpretations of findings, whereas the culture of social movement organizations is to use whatever means are available to create social change. An example of this is provided in Gray et al.'s (2000) discussion of different approaches to advocacy that were taken by the researchers (more restrained) and the self-help group members (more exuberant). Balcazar et al. (1998) also note that there is the danger of reprisals from other segments of the community when a participatory action research group engages in advocacy. The distinction between what "is" and what "ought to be" could be helpful in working through this tension. Researchers and community members need to be clear on what the research findings mean, as well as how to use the findings to create social change.

We have spent some time on the challenges and limitations of critical research, because we want to convey the message that since this approach is explicitly participatory and action-oriented, the research process is complex and opens up a number of thorny issues. As community psychologists and community members gain more experience with critical research, we will be more informed and hopefully wiser in how to handle the many challenges that this approach poses and to overcome the limitations of this approach.

SUMMARY

In this chapter, we reviewed research methods that derive from the critical paradigm. Both quantitative and qualitative tools can be used in the critical paradigm, because critical researchers can be either critical realists or critical constructivists. Less important than one's epistemological assumptions about the nature of reality, critical community psychology research is primarily concerned with promoting liberation and social change. Consequently the methodological tools that are central to the critical paradigm are creating value-based, partnerships in solidarity with disadvantaged people. Such partnerships emphasize a high degree of participation of disadvantaged people in all phases of the research and using the research to create social change.

In closing, we wish to point out that the research methods and research paradigms that we described in these three research chapters are transitional in nature. In the future, new and different frameworks may prove more useful for understanding the different research tools that can be used in community research.

COMMENTARY:

WHAT'S THE "RIGHT" METHOD IN COMMUNITY RESEARCH?

Rebecca Campbell

Whew. I just finished reading Chapters 12 and 13, and my head is spinning: With so many methods from which to choose, how do I know what's the "right" method? How do I decide what's the "right" approach: post-positivist, constructivist, or critical? Analytic or activist/intervention? Nelson and Prilleltensky have written a wonderfully thorough summary of the numerous methodological choices facing community researchers. But precisely because this chapter so thoroughly covers multiple methodologies and methods, I am overwhelmed. So many choices, how do I navigate the field? I kept returning to Tables 12.1 and 13.1 (the methods associated with the different community research paradigms), hoping a big red 'X' "You Are Here" sign would magically pop up and show me where I fit into the grander methodological scheme of things.

I suspect Nelson and Prilleltensky would say there is no right answer, no "right" method. Perhaps they would even say that this notion of what's "right" is something we need to let go of anyway as it is a vestige of positivist ideologies. Perhaps, but the question "What is right" is one that I think many students, faculty, and community practitioners ask themselves and are often asked by others. This question deserves further reflection because I believe the process of figuring out an answer is one of the most important developmental tasks for community researchers and practitioners. To me, the answer is: It depends. What's the "right" method? It depends on . . .

. . . Your research question. Some of the best methodological advice I ever got was from Julian Rappaport who told me that my method should fit my research question, not the other way around. I remember writing this down, sure it was good advice, yet not really knowing what he meant, but hopeful that some day I'd figure it out. I can't speak to what he meant, but with time and practice, I came to understand this issue in my own way. I saw that my thinking and my students' thinking would sometimes became constrained and narrowed because we were working within the boundaries of a particular method. There were issues we didn't pursue, ideas we didn't follow up on because the method didn't show us how to work with those alternative thoughts. When methods drive the research process, the questions must fit within the boundaries of the method. But when the questions drive the research process, methods will be selected, modified, or combined based on their utility to answer the questions at hand. My parents once told me, "Never let anyone tell you what to think." In this context, the corollary is: "Never let a method tell you what you can study." When we let our methods come first, they essentially do tell us what we can study. And consequently, we can only learn what that method is capable of revealing.

As Nelson and Prilleltensky noted in this chapter, positivist methodologies have traditionally excluded oppressed persons -- their lived experiences being outside of what most traditional methods could capture. Feminist scholars have noted that the methods of science reflect the social values and concerns of dominant societal groups (Campbell & Wasco, 2000; Harding, 1987; Nielsen, 1990; Riger, 1992). As such, research projects in the social sciences have often ignored women and other oppressed groups. To the degree that the dominant group's view is imposed on the field as a whole, the potential for "break through conceptualizations" is decreased and the invigorating creative tension between scientific perspectives is hampered (McHugh, Koeske, & Frieze, 1986, p. 879). As a result of this bias, the lives and experiences of oppressed persons have not been adequately captured through traditional scientific methods.

On the other hand, it's important not to romanticize post-positivist methodologies and assume that they will automatically capture the experiences of oppressed persons. Qualitative methods are not without their problems. For instance, Cannon, Higginbothan, and Leung (1991) noted that because it is primarily white, middle-class individuals who typically volunteer for these in-depth, self-reflective studies, qualitative research is susceptible to racial and social class biases. In other words, the choices researchers make when implementing a method may have a profound effect on the degree to which the method is successful in capturing multiple perspectives. Method is only one part of the research process--how a researcher uses a particular method is just as important.

Selecting the "right" method also depends on the researcher's identity. A researcher's values and beliefs are fundamental to the choice of methods and to how those methods will be implemented in the research process. In her book, Becoming a Social Scientist (1979), Shulamit Reinharz advocated for the "integration of person, problem, and method" (p. 369). She wrote, "All projects should generate knowledge within the three components engaged in a research project: person, problem, and method. In this scheme, self-knowledge (person) is a necessary and publicly relevant product of social research" (p. 370). Reinharz argues that the researcher's values are an integral part to the choice of method and the use of a method. To traditionalists, this is heresy as methods are supposed to be free of bias, but no part of science is value-free and objective. That we have believed for so long that methods are objective does not make them so.

As I mentioned previously, I wished my copy of Tables 12.1 and 13.1 came with a "You Are Here" sign, but that's the key issue: Community researchers must find out where they are, what they believe, and how they define their work. We have to create for ourselves our own "You are Here" sign because that sign helps you know what's "right." In the late 1990s I was working with a energetic group of feminist students to develop a community-based research project on sexual assault, and this experience was instrumental in helping me discover what was "right" for my program of research. In this study we wanted to hear the stories of rape survivors from different ages, races, ethnicities, and social classes. We spent months trying to figure out how to recruit rape survivors to participate in our interview. The academic literature suggested that the "right" method was random digit dialing or some other probability based technique. One of the undergraduate team members asked me to explain random digit dialing (i. e., households are called at random and asked if they would like to participate in a research survey). When I finished with my description, she said, "You've got to be kidding. The 'best' thing to do is to call people at random and ask them if they've been raped? Who's going to answer that question? Is that any way to talk about something so painful and important in someone's life?" Although the technique is widely regarded as the gold-standard in sampling, our research team had many reservations about whether this method was right for the goals and values of our project.

We ultimately decided to design a sampling methodology that we thought made sense, that reflected our understanding of the needs and concerns of rape survivors, particularly those who had been particularly stigmatized by society. In my field notes for this project, I wrote, "We'll just design something that makes sense and is respectful of the recovery needs of rape survivors. I'll figure out later on what the hell to call it." And, with more digging in multidisciplinary literatures, I found that what we thought made sense did in fact have a name: adaptive sampling, a technique that used primarily in the natural sciences (Thompson & Seber, 1996; see Campbell et al., in press for discussion of how and why we selected and implemented this method). Our use of adaptive sampling in our project was unbelievably successful -- we were able to hear from a diverse group of rape survivors, many of whom had never before talked about their assault (Campbell et al., 1999). The method was rigorous, yet respectful. Our decision to let our research questions, our values, our beliefs drive the method of the study ultimately improved the project. When we let go of the notion of what was "right" and tried to figure out what we needed, we found what was right for us.

Discovering where to place the "You Are Here" signs is fundamental task for community researchers and practitioners. If we let our questions drive our methods, then we need to be well-informed about various methodological options. We need to develop a scholarship of methods because not being aware of different choices is as limiting as letting the method drive the question. What is particularly useful about this chapter is that Nelson and Prilleltensky present a clear summary of the major methods of community psychology and discuss the problems and pitfalls of each method. What is "right" is difficult to determine and may vary project to project, researcher to researcher. By letting our research questions develop without the constraints of methods and by allowing our values to have a voice in the research process, we can figure out what is right--at least for a while.

RESOURCES

Associations and Websites

American Evaluation Association, http://www.eval.org/

Canadian Evaluation Society/Société canadienne d'évaluation, http://www.evaluationcanada.ca/

Centre for Feminist Research/le centre de recherches féministe (CFR/crf), http://www.yorku.ca/cfr/

Feminist Research Methods, http://libweb.uoregon.edu/subjguid/women/womenst.html

On-line Evaluation Resource Library, http://oerl.sri.com/

Outcome Measurement and Program Evaluation, http://www.ucp-utica.org/uwlinks/outcomes.html

Qualitative Research, http://www.qualitative-research.net/

Resources for Qualitative Research, http://www.ualberta.ca/~jrnorris/qual.html

Evaluation, Feminist, and Qualitative Research Journals

Association for Qualitative Research, http://www.latrobe.edu.au/aqr/offer/journal.htm

Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation/La Revue canadienne d'évaluation de programme, http://www.uofcpress.com/UCP/CJPE.html

Discourse Processes, http://www.psyc.memphis.edu/dp/dp.htm

Discourse and Society, http://www.sagepub.co.uk/frame.html?http://www.sagepub.co.uk/ejournals/ejournals.htm

Discourse Studies, http://www.sagepub.co.uk/frame.html?http://www.sagepub.co.uk/ejournals/ejournals.htm

Evaluation and the Health Professions, http://www.sagepub.co.uk/frame.html?http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/j0024.html

Evaluation Practice, http://newtexts.com/newtexts/book.cfm?book_id=895

Evaluation and Program Planning, http://gort.ucsd.edu/newjour/e/msg02720.html

Evaluation Studies Review Annual

Evaluation Review, http://www.sagepub.co.uk/frame.html?http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journals/details/j0092.html

Feminist Research Center, links to feminist journals, http://www.feminist.org/research/pubjourn.html

Forum on Qualitative Research (on-line journal), http://www.qualitative-research.net/fqs/fqs-eng.htm

Grounded Theory Review, http://www.groundedtheory.com/review.html

International Journal of Qualitative Methods, http://www.ualberta.ca/~ijqm/

International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education

Narrative Inquiry, http://www.clarku.edu/~narrinq/

New Directions in Program Evaluation

Qualitative Family Research, http://www.ncfr.org/about_us/r_t_research_and_theory.htm

Qualitative Health Research, http://www.ualberta.ca/~qhr/

Qualitative Report, http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/index.html>

http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/index.html

Annual Reviews of Program Evaluation

Perloff, R., Perloff, E., & Sussna, E. (1976). Program evaluation. Annual Review of Psychology, 27, 569-594.

Glass, G. V., & Ellett, F. S. (1980). Evaluation research. Annual Review of Psychology, 31, 211-228.

Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R. (1986). Program evaluation: The worldly science. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 193-232.

Sechrest, L., & Figueredo, A. J. (1993). Program evaluation. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 645-674.

Cook, T. D., & Shadish, W. R. (1994). Social experiments: Some developments over the past 15 years. Annual Review of Psychology, 45, 545-580.

Lipsey, M. W., & Cordray, D. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 345-375.

Special Issues on Qualitative Research

Henwood, K., & Nicholson, P. (1995). Qualitative research [special issue]. The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 8(3).

Miller, K. E., & Banyard, V. L. (Eds.). (1998). Qualitative research in community psychology [special issue]. American Journal of Community Psychology, 26(4).

Murray, M., & Chamberlain, K. (Eds.). (1998). Qualitative research [special issue]. Journal of Health Psychology, 3(3).

Rennie, D. (Ed.). (2002). Qualitative research: History, theory and practice [special issue]. Canadian Psychology, 43(3).

Table 13.1

Methods Associated with the Critical Paradigm

Note that the dashed line separating the analytic and activist/interventionist research in the critical paradigm indicates that understanding and action are inter-linked and typically inseparable.

Table 13.2

Values and Principles of Critical Research