Running
Head: CYCLE
OF PRAXIS
Improving
Community Through a Cycle of Praxis:
Multicultural
Perspectives on Personal, Relational, and Collective Wellness
Vicky Totikidis[1] and Isaac Prilleltensky[2]
Vicky Totikidis Centre for International Corporate Governance
Research Faculty of Business and Law Victoria University. City Flinders
Campus. PO Box 14428 Melbourne City MC, VIC
8001 Australia. Telephone: 9248 1069 Email: vicky.totikidis@vu.edu.au
In Press: Community, Family and Work
Improving Community
Through a Cycle of Praxis:
Multicultural
Perspectives on Personal, Relational, and Collective Wellness
Abstract
This study was designed
with three goals in mind: (a) grounding Prilleltenskys
model of wellness in a multicultural context, (b) testing a cycle of praxis,
and (c) setting in motion a community development process. In order to meet the
first two goals we conducted a qualitative study with four multicultural groups
in the St. Albans region of Melbourne, Australia. The
research involved a total of 29 Anglo, Maltese, Vietnamese and Italian
community members. The analysis of findings revealed 15 wellness ideals with
three classified as personal, five as relational and seven as collective,
lending support to Prilleltenskys model of wellness
in a multicultural context. The second aim was accomplished by asking community
members systematically about their ideals, strengths, needs, and actions likely
to produce the ideals, to capitalize on strengths, and to meet personal,
relational, and collective needs. The third goal was achieved by using the
recommendations made by the community to launch a social action project with
youth.
KEY
WORDS: Community well being; Community Wellness Model; Community Wellness Cycle
of Praxis; Multicultural; Qualitative research
Improving
Community Through a Cycle of Praxis:
Multicultural
Perspectives on Personal, Relational, and Collective Wellness
Introduction
Praxis
This paper integrates our research and action interests through the concept of praxis. It is through praxis that we combine our theoretical interest in wellness with our practical concern for action. This is a modest attempt to illustrate how our emerging conception of wellness can be applied in a multicultural context and lead to action through a cycle of praxis.
While potentially useful, the concept of praxis has often been defined inconsistently and ambiguously. In this paper we conceptualise praxis theoretically and operationally. The paper begins with a brief review of praxis and presents a framework for informing theory, research, and action. To refine and validate the model, we conducted focus groups with four culturally and linguistically diverse groups of St. Albans, Melbourne, Australia.
In Greek, praxis (praxi) means action (Hionides, 1987). However, in line Aristotles reasoning that both praxis (action) and theoria (theory) are important (OBrien, 1998), the term is most often used to refer to the combination of theory and action. Seng (1998) provides an informative summary of the historical basis and usage of the term:
From Aristotle through the Medieval
Scholastics, and on through Kant to Marxist philosophers of science and
political economy in the 19th and 20th centuries, praxis has to various extents
implied an integration of theory and practice. Today, the word praxis appears
often in feminist and critical discourse. It connotes activism and
consciousness about one's work, drawing on the politicizing of the
philosophical term by Karl Marx (1977) and Paolo Freire (1970). Key elements in
the modern and postmodern historical development of the concept of praxis
include integrating practice and theory, combining reflection and action,
working with "the people," and working to cause change. (Seng, 1998,
p.4)
The idea of working with the people to bring about change is similarly reflected in the work of Curtis, Bryce and Treloar (1999):
The role of the researcher in action research is to participate meaningfully and productively in the knowledge-generating processes of the group. The development of options for change and definitions of effective change are products of collaborative action, reflection and negotiation. In action researching approaches, the participants are themselves taken to be the experts in their own lived experiences. (pp. 202-203)
Although praxis and action research are conceptually related, OBrien (1998) suggests that praxis and action research are not the same construct. OBrien claims that action research is a method while praxis is a research paradigm. He also claims that action research belongs, epistemologically, in a praxis research paradigm rather than in positivist or interpretive paradigms (OBrien, 1998). While the positivist paradigm is mainly concerned with objective fact-finding, and the interpretive paradigm with the discovery of subjective meanings, praxis is about vision and action.
Dick (1993) also describes action research as action to bring about change in some community or organisation or program and research to increase understanding on the part of the researcher or the client, or both (and often some wider community) (p. 5). Interestingly, Dick notes that some action research focuses more on action, while in other forms, research is the primary focus. In both approaches, however, it is possible for action to inform understanding, and for understanding to assist action (Dick, 1993).
Several other theorists have identified three types of action research, including Grundy and Kemmis (1981) and Grundy (1982) who distinguished between technical, practical and emanicipatory action research. McCutcheon and Jung (1990), in turn, distinguished between a positivist perspective, an interpretivist perspective and a critical science perspective. Similarly, McKernan (1991) posited the following typology: scientific-technical, practical-deliberative and critical-emancipatory to classify and review existing theories and models of action research.
The critical-emancipatory form appears most related to the praxis paradigm as does the concept of participatory action research. Participatory action research, according to Hall (1993), "is a way for researchers and oppressed people to join in solidarity to take collective action for radical social change" (p. xiv). Discussions regarding critical-emancipatory and participatory action research are gaining strong momentum in community psychology literature (see for example, Boog, Keune, Lu & Tromp, 2003; Coenen & Khonraad, 2003; Nelson & Prilleltensky, in press; Roberts & Dick, 2003; Valkenburg, 2003).
Action research as a method involves a cycle of various stages or steps, which begins with reflection and leads to action. Most authors acknowledge the social psychologist Kurt Lewin as the founder of action research (Kemmis, 1988; Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988; Dick, 1993; Nelson & Prilleltensky, in press). Lewins 1946 paper titled: "Action Research and Minority Problems" clearly demonstrates both the use of the term action research and the method of action research as a cycle of planning and action. Lewins system consisted of a circle of activities that could be repeated in spirals, with each circle consisting of analysis, fact-finding, conceptualisation, planning, execution and evaluation (Kemmis, 1988).
Another cyclic model by Grundy and Kemmis (1981) consists of repeating cycles, with four steps (plan, act, observe and reflect) in each cycle. Another more complex model developed by Susman (1983) consists of five phases beginning with problem identification; considering alternative courses of action; selecting a course of action; studying the consequences of an action; and identifying general findings. This five stage cyclical process is repeated until the problem is resolved.
Prilleltensky (2001) has also developed a cyclical model of action; one built on critical-emancipatory theory, the concept of wellness, and praxis. According to him, praxis refers to a cycle of activity that includes philosophical, contextual, needs, and pragmatic considerations (Prilleltensky, 2001). The Cycle of Praxis begins with philosophical considerations about values that are capable of promoting personal, collective, and relational wellness. This stage probes an ideal vision and answers the question what should be? The cycle continues with research on needs or what is missing? and contextual factors or what is?. The fourth pragmatic stage is about what can be done? (Prilleltensky, 2001).
Community Wellness
The community wellness model (Nelson
& Prilleltensky, in press; Prilleltensky,
in press; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002; Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson,
2001; Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky,
2003a), briefly presented in Table 1, consists of three levels of wellness (personal, relational, collective); a series of
corresponding values; and the assumption that wellness derives from the synergy of personal, relational and
collective well-being. The authors define wellness as a positive state of
affairs, brought about by the simultaneous and balanced satisfaction of
personal, relational, and collective needs of individuals and communities
alike. These needs are satisfied by the presence of cogent values and adequate
material and psychological resources. The theory posits that there cannot be
wellness but in the synergy of personal, relational, and collective strengths.
Physical health, for example, is not tantamount to wellness in the presence of
discrimination at the relational level and lack of opportunity for economic
security at the collective level. Thus, there cannot be wellness but in the
combined presence of personal, relational, and collective well-being. We use
the terms wellness and well-being holistically and interchangeably. In either
case, we refer to a holistic state of affairs, as opposed to a particularistic
approach to either mental or physical or economic well-being (Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky,
2003a). For us, wellness is a comprehensive state of affairs.
[Insert Table 1 About Here]
Community
Wellness Cycle of Praxis
In an effort to operationalize Prilleltenskys cycle of praxis and concept of wellness, Totikidis (2003) relied on Roths (1990) theory of needs. Based on Roths work, Totikidis formulated a community wellness cycle of praxis. This model is presented in Figure 1.
[Insert
Figure 1 About Here]
According to Roth, need (N) can be defined as the discrepancy between a target state (X) and an actual state (A) as expressed in the equation: XA=N. The target state (X) in the above equation can represent an ideal state, a norm, minimal satisfactory state, desired state, or expected state (Roth, 1990). Prilleltenskys (2001) cycle of praxis reflects parallel components (philosophical, contextual, needs) with the additional pragmatic or action component.
The result of the synthesis may be expressed in two simple equations where S=I-N, and I=S+A, and where (I) are community Ideals, (N) are Needs, (S) are Strengths, and (A) is Action to address needs. Needs are the negative or missing aspects while strengths are positive and existing indicators of community well-being (e.g., low crime, adequate educational facilities, good health). For the ideals (I) to be fulfilled (A) will have to be equal to or higher than (N). If Actions are less than the Needs identified, the Ideal will not be reached. Actions may exceed the level of Needs, in which case a higher plane of Ideals is reached, but if Actions fall short of meeting Needs, the Ideal state of affairs will remain out of reach. To put it succinctly, I=S+A only if A is equal or higher than N.
Aims
and Research Questions
The general aims of the research were to (a) ground the concept of wellness in a multicultural context, (b) test the cycle of praxis formulated above, and (c) generate action to improve the community. In order to meet these goals, a qualitative study was designed to find out (1) What are the community ideals; needs; and strengths of residents of St Albans, and (2) What actions can be undertaken to improve the well-being of the community?
Method
Background and Context for Study
In 2001, researchers from the Wellness Promotion Unit of Victoria University in Melbourne initiated a project known as the Community Wellness Project. The project was in partnership with Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service. The two organizations were brought together to (a) to refine the Wellness Model by grounding it in an applied and multicultural setting, and (b) facilitate community improvement in the multicultural western region of St Albans, Melbourne. The Community Wellness Project consisted of several components and phases over a three-year period and was funded by the Australian Research Council.
Participants
The research consisted of two pilot individual interviews and four focus groups, although only the focus groups are discussed in the present paper. Participants for the focus groups were selected from the four major cultural groups who reside in the local government region of Brimbank. The participants included a total of twenty-nine people (15 females and 14 males) aged between 18-70. There were seven Maltese participants aged between 46-55 (X 47.4), eight Vietnamese participants aged 18-25 (X21.8), seven Italian participants aged 50-70 (X60) and seven Anglo-Australian participants aged between 20-47 (X31.4).
The Anglo-Australians were all born in Australia while the other three groups migrated to Australia between 6-47 years ago. Participants religions included Catholic (58%), Buddhist (19%), other Christians (10%), and 13% undecided or not stated. Nearly 10% of participants had only a primary school education, 29% attended 1-5 years of secondary education, 26% completed secondary school, 6% completed secondary and some form of other training, 26% had a university degree and one person (3%) was undertaking post-graduate studies.
Materials
A plain language statement, consent form, a page consisting of 16 demographic and background information questions (e.g., gender, age, country of birth, culture) and a semi-structured questionnaire/focus group guide were developed for use in the research. The guide consisted of four sections or themes (A-D) and ten questions which are presented in summary form in Table 2 (see first column). Table 2 also shows the corresponding parts of the praxis cycle (ideals, needs, strengths and actions) and the research questions.
[Insert
Table 2 About Here]
Procedure
Each focus group session began with informal conversation and introductions. Name-labels were distributed, and the format of the session together with matters of confidentiality, privacy and other rights were explained when participants were seated. Participants were informed that differences in opinion about well-being were common and acceptable and that well-being could mean something different to a man or woman, a younger or older person or to someone born in Australia or in another country. The questions were presented both verbally and visually using transparencies and an overhead projector to assist understanding. Brief notes of the responses were written on the transparencies during the discussion for participants to see and reflect on. A simple colourful diagram illustrating the personal, relational and collective levels of the model was shown to participants after the first two questions. The focus groups took about 60-90 minutes each and were all tape-recorded. A compensation of twenty dollars was given to each participant at the end of the discussions.
Data
Analysis
For the purpose of qualitative analyses, a social work student and a PhD psychology student were hired to produce written transcripts from the audio tape recordings of focus groups. All the transcripts were checked for accuracy (by means of reading and listening to the audio tapes) by the first author prior to analysis. The analysis of data was guided by the praxis model components and research questions shown previously in Table 2. The data analysis therefore attempted to explicate participants ideals, strengths and needs as well as possible actions that could improve well-being in the community.
Participants responses from all sections (A-D) and questions (1-10) of the interview guide were examined in order to address the first research question: What are the community wellness ideals of St. Albans community members? This involved reflecting on the research, listening to the audio-taped responses and reading the transcripts, notes and transparencies. From this, concepts or factors that could be classified as ideals were entered into four tables, one for each focus group. Some of the factors stated as opposites of well-being were also included in the tables by rephrasing them in the affirmative. For instance, if a lack of self esteem was mentioned as an opposite then self esteem was the ideal or affirmative. In this way, both directly stated and implied ideals could be included in the tables. We proceed to describe now the findings from the four groups.
Maltese-Australian Ideals. The wellness ideals of the middle-aged Maltese-Australian group are shown in Table 3. Personal well-being for this group consisted of physical health, spirituality and a wide range of positive feelings and characteristics while extended family, cultural maintenance and friendly relations with other cultural groups in the community emerged as important values for relational well-being. Some of the collective issues of importance to this group included adequate infrastructure, services and policing. Additionally, safety, ethnic clubs and services for elders and responsive local government were mentioned as determinants of their collective wellness.
[Insert Table 3 About Here]
Vietnamese-Australian Ideals. The ideals of the Vietnamese-Australian participants may be seen in Table 4. The table shows many positive emotions and characteristics valued by this young group of Vietnamese people. Ideals related to the personal domain included holistic health, adjustment, happiness and satisfaction with life. Relational ideals included positive relationships with friends, family and others, safety, tolerance, and positive community relations. Ideals within the collective sphere included adequate opportunities for education and employment, community information and a range of community and cultural resources.
[Insert Table 4 About Here]
[Insert
Table 5 About Here]
Italian-Australian Ideals. The ideals of the Italian-Australian group are presented in Table 6. This older group of people mentioned many physical factors as important to their personal well-being (e.g., health, work, activities, absence of pain) as well as a few other values such as love, faith, religion and spirituality. Relational well-being for this group meant having an understanding partner and having good relationships with extended family, friends, and neighbours. Collective issues included the need for greater support services and safety. The education of adolescents regarding respect, morals, graffiti, and vandalism was also raised as an issue of concern to people in this group.
[Insert Table 6 About Here]
Common Ideals. Thematic analyses of focus groups and ancillary materials revealed fifteen
common ideals across the various groups. As may be seen in Table 7, there are
three themes classified as personal, five as relational and seven as
collective. We elaborate in the discussion on the meaning of these aspirational statements.
[Insert
Table 7 About Here]
Community Strengths and Needs
In the community of St. Albans,
items one to six in Table 7 were identified as areas of strength whereas items
seven to fifteen were classified as areas of need. Needs and strengths were
determined by assessing whether the responses to each of one the fifteen themes
were positive and satisfied or negative and dissatisfied. For example, comments
such as the following clearly point to strength in the Family domain:
Especially
for the Italian people, la family, when it comes Christmas, New Year, Easter,
Saturday, Sunday, must be stay together! (Italian woman).
As
for myself I think I have everything I need at the moment Ive got a husband,
Ive got two children. I have the rest of the family. We are all close to each
other. If we have a problem we sort of talk it out, you know. Ive got
everything, I have my parents, theyre in their 70s, what else, you know
(Maltese woman).
The next quote illustrates the strength of Spirituality, while the one after that shows Intra Cultural Harmony.
To
love one another, to help one another, is to be true to each other. Thats
total fulfilment I believe. I mean when you talk about religion or whatever,
its talking about being one with God, or Buddha, or who ever. Its up there at
that level, above humanity, spiritual (Vietnamese man, age 22).
I
feel that we need to come to grips to [be] fully accepting of our cultural
heritage because if I dont know where Ive been I dont know where the hell
Im going youre lost. I end up
confused and Ill end up passing that on to my children (Maltese man).
The following quotes represent
community needs in the respective areas of safety, community cohesion and good
government:
The
safety is very bad here in St Albans. We need more police to look around
because the robberies happen all the time. For the older people, some people
are scared to come into the club (elderly Italian man).
I
dont see a community at all. I believe everyones [individual], I mean, all
separate identities. In our culture, your
neighbours are like your family. You know everyone on the whole street. But
nowadays, you just say Hi, thats it, you leave it there. You dont invite
each other for lunches, dinners, barbeques, nothing like that. I see it as breakdown
of community (Vietnamese male).
Well
like everyone talks about the transport [railway and traffic problems] in St.
Albans [but] when it comes to blockade here [protests] the same people turn up.
Only 20 or 30 people turn up. If more people turn up you know its not enough
(Maltese woman).
And
the Prime Minister of the country and the present Federal government are quite
happy for the gulf between the haves and the have nots to get bigger, and
bigger and bigger, and for people on low incomes, working class people - to be
disenfranchised from the political system. Quite happy for that, and theyre
doing it by stealth and the opposition is just letting it happen. Theres
ineffective political leadership! (Anglo-Australian male).
[Insert
Table 8 About Here]
Actions to Improve Well Being
Table
8 shows a summary of issues in response to questions about improving community
well-being. Twelve recommendations emerged from Table 8. The various groups
recommended that:
1.
Culturally appropriate family services and support to migrants be set up
in the community.
2.
Information regarding existing community services, resources and
benefits reach migrant communities.
3.
Mental health and other services in the area be strengthened and made
more accessible.
4.
Strategies to curb negative inter-cultural attitudes be implemented by
government and services.
5.
Local government, policy makers and community workers engage in ongoing
consultations with the community to resolve community problems.
6.
Policing of certain areas should be increased and crime prevention
measures developed.
7.
Strategies to enhance business and employment opportunities should be a
priority.
8.
Community events, celebrations and festivals be valued and
encouraged.
9.
Elderly clubs receive adequate support and funding.
10. Youth services, recreational
activities and opportunities be improved and extended.
11. Affordable education and learning
opportunities be provided to everyone in the community.
12. An ongoing community wellness
group be set up and run by community members to identify emergent areas of
need, initiate projects and monitor progress.
Discussion
The results of this study have implications for
theory and practice. With respect to the former, the findings helped in
grounding Prilleltenskys model of wellness in a
multi-cultural context. By and large, the findings support Prilleltenskys
tripartite notion of personal, relational, and collective wellness (Prilleltensky, in press; Prilleltensky
& Nelson, 2002; Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001). A look at Tables 1 and 7 reveals a great
deal of congruence between the original model of wellness and participants
conceptions of well-being. Without being prompted about specific domains of
wellness (personal, relational, or collective) in the first two questions of
the focus group guide, many participants invoked wellness components that
ranged from the personal and relational to the collective.
While most constituents of wellness in Prilleltenskys model were supported in the present multi-cultural context, the findings reinforced an aspect that was missing from Prilleltenskys original conceptualisation of wellness: spirituality. Although Prilleltensky added this dimension in recent publications (Prilleltensky, in press), this component of personal wellness was missing from his initial postulates on wellness. Another component of wellness that was implicit in earlier versions of the model, but made more explicit in this research was the importance of the family. While Prilleltensky embedded family in parts of the personal and relational domains (affection, bonding, etc.) the Italian, Vietnamese and Maltese groups made it an explicit factor in the wellness formula. It is of interest to note that the Anglo-Australian group did not address family directly, repeating the same bias Prilleltensky might have shown towards family.
In addition, the results provide further substance to Prilleltenskys notion of cultural diversity. Participants in the study talked about cultural harmony in terms of intra and inter cultural harmony, a fine distinction that enriches Prilleltenskys conceptualisation of this issue and is in line with Putnams (2001) differentiation between bridging and bonding social capital. While the latter refers to intra cultural harmony, the former pertains to inter cultural harmony.
In addition to these general and abstract contributions to the model, research participants identified issues that are unique or particularly prevalent to their community. The plethora of issues identified by the community in tables 3-8 offer a rich picture of ideals, strengths, needs, and possible actions in St. Albans associated with personal, relational, and collective wellness. While offering support for the wellness model introduced by Prilleltensky, the research framework used here also enables the identification of local and actionable issues. Indeed, there is a lesson in this research not only for theory building, but also for practice. Service providers who attend only to the personal domain of wellness may be doing a disservice to the community (Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2003b, c). Based on the results of this study, community members want and expect service providers to go beyond the personal and the relational. There is a clear expectation that the needs of the collective will be addressed by the community itself and by government and non-governmental organizations.
Community wisdom, as illustrated in this research, postulates that attending to individuals one at a time may not be enough to overcome disadvantage. Numerous examples of transportation, employment, and discrimination challenges were raised (Prilleltensky & Fox, in press). These belong squarely in the collective sphere of wellness that, as mentioned earlier, was deemed to be an area of weaknesses in this community. Practitioners should pay close attention to this finding, for it may call into question the concentration of person-centred efforts in health and human services (Prilleltensky & Prilleltensky, 2003c). If most needs are in the collective domain, and most strengths in the personal and relational, programs, policies and services need to concentrate on the former more than the latter. Personal and relational strengths need to be nurtured and continually appreciated, but no amount of caring at the affective level will increase employment or educational opportunities.
It is interesting to note that the community did not expect changes to come strictly from without, but also from within the community itself. Residents do not see themselves as passive recipients of services, but as responsible participants in the solution of problems. Calls to protest the lack of public transportation, to welcome immigrants, to support the elderly, and to enhance community cohesion are examples of community-initiated actions.
In line with the cycle of praxis, the recommendations elicited in this research have served as a starting point in a series of action projects. Based on this preliminary effort, and further search of opportunities, colleagues in St. Albans have launched several educational and social intervention projects with youth. These interventions have proven effective in enhancing the collective efficacy of marginalized youngsters (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, in press). Among the participatory action research projects that followed this research were efforts to empower gay and lesbian youth to fight discrimination, projects to increase support for immigrants, and enhanced civic participation of youth in the life of St. Albans (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, in press).
The community wellness cycle of praxis may be applicable in local government, community development, social work and applied community psychology. The fifteen common ideals may be used to guide action and further research into the commonalities and distinctiveness of communities. A cycle of praxis that engages community members to reflect on the meaning of well-being and on what is needed to achieve it is essential to the process of community improvement. In our efforts to improve community, we should engage in actions that address universal and local needs, actions that maintain and enhance existing strengths and resources, and actions that strive towards a synthesis of personal, relational and collective well-being.
Conclusion
This
study was designed with three goals in mind: (a) grounding Prilleltenskys
model of wellness in a multicultural context, (b) testing a cycle of praxis,
and (c) setting in motion a community development process. With respect to the
first goal, the results found a high level of concordance between Prilleltenskys framework of wellness and the views of four
multicultural groups. Participants confirmed the validity and synergy of the
tripartite model: Wellness takes place at the intersection of personal,
relational, and collective strengths. Furthermore, the study emphasized the
importance of a previously neglected category of personal wellness:
spirituality. In addition, the study put family front and center, making it an
important factor in the wellness equation. Similarly, the study helped to
elaborate on the notion of respect for diversity. Participants remarked the
need to foster intra and inter cultural harmony.
With respect to the second aim, the study
tested the utility of a cycle of praxis based on ideals, strengths, needs and
action. The current research dealt extensively with the first three domains and
laid the foundations for action. The process started with this project
culminated in action documented by Morsillo and Prilleltensky elsewhere (in press), thus meeting the third
goal of this action research. The cycle of praxis proved to be a simple yet
useful tool in capturing community strengths and capacity for action. The
challenge is now for the community and researchers alike to keep residents
involved and to remain accountable to them.
References
Boog, B.W.M., Keune, Lu. & Tromp, C. (2003). Action research and emancipation. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 13(6), 419-425.
Brown, D. & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and political economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research. The Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 19(3), 277-294.
Coenen, H. & Khonraad, S. (2003). Inspirations and aspirations of exemplarian action research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13(6), 439-451.
Curtis, S., Bryce, H. & Treloar, C. (1999). Action research: Changing the paradigm for health psychology researchers. In M. Murray and K. Chamberlain (Eds.), Qualitative health psychology: Theories and methods (pp.202-217). London: Sage.
Dick, B. (1993). You want to do an action research thesis? Thesis resource paper. Retrieved December 10, 2002 from: http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/art/arthesis.html
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: The Seabury Press.
Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. In S. Kemmis and R. McTaggert (Eds.), (1988). The action research reader (3 ed). (Vicki, pls insert page numbers here). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Grundy, S. and Kemmis, S. (1981). Educational action research in Australia: The state of the art. In S. Kemmis and R. McTaggert (Eds.), (1988). The action research reader (3 ed.). (pp. 321-335). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Hall, B. (1993). Introduction. In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall and T. Jackson (Eds.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the United States and Canada (Vicki, pls insert page numbers here). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Hionides, H.T. (1987). Collins Gem Dictionary: Greek-English, English-Greek. London: Harper Collins Publishers.
Kemmis, S. (1988). Action Research in Retrospect and Prospect. In S. Kemmis and R. McTaggert (Eds.), (1988). The action research reader (3 ed.), (pp. 27-39). Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Lewin, K. (1946). Action research and minority problems. Journal of Social Issues, 2(4), 34-46.
Marx, K. (1977). Theses on Feuerbach. In: D. McLellan (Ed.). Karl Marx: Selected Writings (pp.28-30). New York: Oxford University Press.
McCutcheon, G. & Jung, B. (1990). Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory into Practice, 24(3), 144-151.
McKernan, J. (1991). Curriculum action research: A handbook of methods and resources for the reflective practitioner. London: Kogan Page.
Morsillo, J., & Prilleltensky, I. (in press). Social Action with Youth: Interventions, evaluation, and psychopolitical Validity. Journal of Community Psychology
Nelson, G. & Prilleltensky, I. (Eds.). (in press). Community psychology: In pursuit of well-being and liberation. Palgrave Macmillan: New York.
OBrien, R. (1998). An Overview of the Methodological Approach of Action Research. Retrieved October 27, 2001 from: http://www.web.net/~robrien/papers/arfinal.html
Prilleltensky, I. (in press). The
role of power in wellness, oppression, and liberation: The promise of psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community
Psychology.
Prilleltensky, I. (2001). Value-based praxis in community psychology: Moving towards social justice and social action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(5), 747-777.
Prilleltensky, I., & Fox, D. (in press). Psychopolitical literacy for wellness and justice. Journal of Community Psychology.
Prilleltensky, I, & Nelson, G. (2002). Doing Psychology Critically: Making a Difference in Diverse Settings. New York: Palgrave/MacMillan.
Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., & Peirson, L. (Eds.). (2001). Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment: Fundamentals for thinking and action. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Prilleltensky, O. (2003a). Towards a
critical health psychology practice. Journal of Health Psychology, 8,
197-210.
Prilleltensky,
I., & Prilleltensky, O. (2003b). Reconciling the
roles of professional helper and critical agent in health psychology. Journal
of Health Psychology, 8, 243-246.
Prilleltensky, I.,
& Prilleltensky, O. (2003c). Synergies for
wellness and liberation in counselling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist. 20(10), 1-9
Putnam, R. (2001). Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Roberts, G. & Dick, B. (2003). Emancipatory design choices for action research practitioners. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13(6), 486-496.
Roth, J. (1990). Needs and needs assessment process. Evaluation Practice, 11(2), 141-143.
Seng, J.S. (1998). Praxis as a conceptual framework for participatory research in Nursing. Advances in Nursing Science, 20(1), 37-50.
Susman, G. (1983). Action research: a sociotechnical systems perspective. In G. Morgan (Ed.), Beyond method (pp.95-113). Beverly Hills, Ca.: Sage.
Totikidis, V. (2003). Understanding community wellness from a multicultural perspective. Unpublished masters in Applied (Community) Psychology thesis. Victoria University, St Albans, Melbourne, Australia.
Valkenburg, B. (2003). The development of an individual, demand driven approach in a
long-lasting exemplarian action research. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 13(6), 451-464.
Table 1
Community Wellness Model: A Synergy of Personal, Relational and
Collective Well-being (Adapted from Nelson & Prilleltensky, in
press; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002; Prilleltensky, Nelson & Peirson,
2001)
|
Community Wellness Model |
Personal |
Relational
|
B Pvb |
|
|
collaboration, respect for diversity and democratic participation |
Economic security, social justice, adequate health and social services, low crime, safety, adequate housing and social structures (e.g., educational, recreational and transportation facilities) and a clean environment |
Figure 1. The Community Wellness Cycle of Praxis: A Synthesis
of Theory and Practice (Adapted from Prilleltensky,
2001; Prilleltensky & Nelson, 2002)
Table 2
Focus group questions and corresponding praxis domains
Focus
Group Questions
|
Praxis Domains |
Section
A: The meaning of well-being and the lack of/or opposite of well-being
1). What does well-being mean for you? 2). What does the lack of/or the opposite of well-being
mean for you?
|
Ideals
|
Section B: Positive things about your present state of well-being
3). What is good about your present state of personal well-being? 4). What is good about your present relationships with other people? 5). What is good about the present conditions in your life and community? |
Personal Strengths Relational Strengths Collective Strengths |
|
Section C:
Negative things about your present state of well-being 6). What is not so good or missing for your personal well-being at present? 7). What is not so good or missing in your present relationships with other people? 8). What is not so good or missing in terms of the present conditions of your life and community? |
Personal needs Relational needs Collective needs |
|
Section D: Actions or changes that could improve well-being in St
Albans 9). What are some of the things that you and other people who live in St Albans could do to improve well-being in the community? 10). What
could other people (health and community service workers, governments,
researchers) do to help us improve well-being in this community? |
Personal action Collective action |
Table 3
Summary of Community Wellness Ideals in Maltese-Australian Group
|
Domains |
Issues |
|
Personal |
Physical and mental health. Positive thinking. Self-esteem. Confidence. Control. Healthy mind, body and soul. Faith/spirituality. Inner peace (vs. inner conflict). Self-acceptance. Learning Opportunities. Happiness. Contentment. Authentic self. Coping ability. Resilience. |
|
Relational |
Caring for others. Feeling connected. Good relationships with partner, family and extended family. Community acceptance of cultural diversity. Relationship with God. Intercultural cohesion and mingling (vs. cultural segregation). Community participation and protest. Responsibility. Not blaming others. Cultural maintenance or connection to roots. Respect for elders needs. |
Collective
|
Adequate infrastructure: education, hospitals, shops, higher education, employment, transportation, ethnic clubs & services for elders. Clean environment (no rubbish and beautification). Multicultural church. Responsive local government. Adequate parent, family and mental health support services. Adequate policing crime and safety. [Egalitarian] government funding to community. |
Table 4
Summary of Community Wellness Ideals in Vietnamese-Australian Group
|
Domains |
Issues |
|
Personal |
Health: physical, psychological,
mental, spiritual and social. Secure (supportive) family. Not having fear.
Positive sense of identity. Success. Self-esteem. Cultural integration
(mental). Positive adjustment. True happiness. Satisfaction with life. Education.
Hope, faith and motivation. Satisfaction of basic needs (food, rest, shelter,
procreation). |
|
Relational |
Safety. Feeling accepted in the
community. Supportive social group. Strong identification with friends.
Tolerance. Good communications family and others. Reciprocal relationships.
Positive peer relationships. Trust. Understanding. No racism/stereotyping.
Intercultural interactions/integration (vs. cultural segregation). Part of
community. Sense of belonging (community). Kindness to others. |
Collective
|
Social well-being: being able to
walk out on the street freely. Adequate meeting places. Community festivals
and cultural events. Being informed about the community. Adequate opportunities
(e.g., career, education). Adequate education and hospitals. Quality
teaching/mentoring. Services to accommodate elders and diversity. Temples and
churches. Funding to local community groups. Policy response to gambling.
Information regarding services to NES (non-English speaking) people.
Employment: basic human right. Responsive/representative government. |
Table 5
Summary of Community Wellness Ideals in Anglo-Australian Group
|
Domains |
Issues |
|
Personal |
Health. Emotional well-being. Self-esteem. Free will. Empathy. Feeling good. Feeling safe. Happiness. Loving yourself and self-acceptance. Not being greedy. Fun. Realistic expectations. Trust. Caring. |
|
Relational |
No discrimination. No racism or racial conflict among youth. Kindness to others. Respect for everyone. Golden rule. Not having fear of others. Trust with partners. Compromising. Joy in watching children grow. Political participation by community. Cross-cultural communication. Community spirit. Community cohesion (vs. individualism). Connectedness. Cultural integration. Cultural reconciliation. |
Collective
|
Employment.
Equality. Safety. Adequate income.
Access to free legal services. Home ownership. Drug free
kids. Staying alive in St Albans (no racial or turf wars). Awareness of
global issues/ecology. Fair system. Good government. Access to support
services: welfare, housing, transport. Adequate response to community issues:
drugs, gambling, smoking, violence, graffiti, dental health care, education,
GST (goods and services) burden, poverty trap, rich/poor gap, cost of living,
employment. |
Table 6
Summary of Community Wellness Ideals in Italian-Australian Group
|
Domains |
Issues |
|
Personal |
Good health. Good life. Love. Maintaining activity levels through physical work and recreation. Not having pain. Realistic expectations regarding pain/ageing. Pleasant distractions from boredom and pain. Balance between home/external activities. Not being isolated. Coping with death of loved ones. Faith, religion and spirituality. |
|
Relational |
Family health and well-being. Understanding partner. Strong (extended) family connections. Celebrations with family. Respectful relationships. Reciprocal relationships with adult children (not being taken for granted). Caring/helping others. Friendship. Social activities. Cultural maintenance and contact with own culture. Good relationships with neighbours. |
Collective
|
Adequate
support for migrants. Safety in community. Safety on transport. Policing of
drug risks to residents and crimes against elders. Adequate recreational
facilities. Support/funding for ethnic elderly clubs, churches. Adequate
response to vandalism. Adequate shopping facilities variety and quality
shops. Education for responsible adolescence (e.g.,
respect, morals, graffiti, vandalism). Employment opportunities.
Availability of specialist services (e.g., optometrist). |
Table 7
Integration of Personal, Relational and Collective Wellness Ideals in
Four Ethnic Groups
|
Personal Ideals |
Relational Ideals |
Collective Ideals |
|
1. Physical
and Psychological Health 2. Positive
Thoughts and Feelings (towards oneself and others) 3. Spirituality |
4. Family 5. Friendship
and Social Support 6.
Intra Cultural Harmony 7.
Inter Cultural Harmony 8. Community Cohesion and
Participation |
9. Human Rights 10. Safety 11. Employment 12. Education 13. Community Services, Resources and Information 14. Community Development 15. Good Government
|
Table 8
Recommendations for Action by Four Community Groups
Responsibility for
Action
|
|
Community itself
|
Government and Services
|
|
Maltese Address transport issues by
participation in protests. Welcome newcomers. Social support for the elderly. Communication with neighbours. Visiting an elderly person. |
Better monitoring by council of local services such as rubbish
collection. Returning services to certain areas. More mental health services.
Awareness of services. Support for families with mental illness and more
activities for people with mental illness. Social support groups.
Preventative community education. Policing, reduce crime and promoting
safety. Address traffic problems in St Albans. Support and help for families.
Funding for beautification of region. Cleaning of public areas. Community
education on environmental issues. |
|
Vietnamese Community needs to have a special day (e.g., festival) to bring
people together. Extend kindness and generosity to others. Contribute to improvement of education and hospitals. |
Better educational system. Gambling issues need to be addressed to
protect peoples livelihood. Local community groups need funding. Information
about services needs to be disseminated to community. Trust and friendship
among communities. Language barriers need to be addressed. Better
representation of community in local government. Dignity and pride of
immigrants need to be protected. Sense of community. |
|
Italian Safety needs to be improved. Security. Children need to be taught respect. Talk to neighbours. Build relationships with neighbours. Support religion. |
Shopping and services need to be improved. Discount for pensioners in
stores. Unemployment issues need to be addressed. Safety in general and
safety on transport. Staffing of stations. Robberies need to be stopped.
Graffiti needs to be stopped. More discipline in schools and education on
morals. |
|
Anglo Smile and do not judge others. Support family members and community help one another. Community is
apolitical more people should be interested in politics. Community needs to communicate more. |
Improve medical services. Address cultural integration issues. No
more tokenism from government. Free dental services. Employment. Education.
Cost of living for low income should be addressed. People have to have
courage to speak out against bad policies. Cease fire in St Albans among
youth groups. Effort from migrant groups to mix. |