Cases and Stories of Transformative Action Research: Five Decades of Collaborative Action and Learning 2020047736, 2020047737, 9780367742454, 9780367742461, 9781003156758

Citation preview

CASES AND STORIES OF TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION RESEARCH

Cases and Stories of Transformative Action Research builds on its companion book, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research, by describing and analyzing dozens of examples of successful action research efforts pursued in the past five decades by students and faculty of the Western Institute for Social Research. Some projects are large-scale, and some are modest interventions in the everyday lives of those participating. Some are formal organizational efforts; others are the results of individual or small group initiatives. Included are chapters on community needs assessments and innovative grassroots approaches to program evaluation; the challenges of improving our decision-making during the crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic; strategies of intellectual activism in addressing the growing problem of workplace bullying; action research to preserve and share the history of the Omaha tribe; and plans for an innovative school-based project based on collaborative action-and-inquiry between students and Artificial Intelligence. In addition, there are a number of detailed stories about the use of transformative action research in such areas as somatic and trauma counseling, ethnic studies, health disparities, gender differences, grassroots popular education, and the improvement of statewide steps for preventing child abuse, among many others. This book can serve as an undergraduate or graduate social sciences text on research methods. It is also a guidebook for action-oriented research by academics, professionals, and lay people alike. John A. Bilorusky (PhD, University of California, Berkeley) is co-founder of the Western Institute for Social Research in Berkeley. For 45 years, as a faculty member there, he has guided hundreds of student action research theses, dissertations, and projects, and consulted with dozens of community agencies and colleges on action research.

CASES AND STORIES OF TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION RESEARCH Five Decades of Collaborative Action and Learning John A. Bilorusky Contributing Colleagues: Terry F. Lunsford, JD, PhD Cynthia Lawrence, PhD Contributing Authors: David Yamada, JD, PhD Dennis Hastings, PhD Margery Coffey, PhD Sudia Paloma McCaleb, EdD Marilyn Jackson, PhD Kence Anderson, BS Other Notable Colleagues: Vera Labat, MPH Shyaam Shabaka, MPH Milly Henry and many WISR Learners acknowledged

First published 2021 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2021 John A. Bilorusky The right of John A. Bilorusky to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Bilorusky, John A. (John Alan), author. Title: Cases and stories of transformative action research : five decades of collaborative action and learning / John A. Bilorusky. Description: Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2020047736 (print) | LCCN 2020047737 (ebook) | ISBN 9780367742454 (hardback) | ISBN 9780367742461 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003156758 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Action research--Case studies. | Evaluation research (Social action programs)--Case studies. Classification: LCC H62 .B5229 2021 (print) | LCC H62 (ebook) | DDC 001.4--dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020047736 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020047737 ISBN: 978-0-367-74245-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-367-74246-1 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-15675-8 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by Taylor & Francis Books

To those, no matter how oppressed or privileged, who listen eloquently and who are motivated by love, and by the pursuit of justice and collective well-being.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements About the author

xi xiii

1 Introduction

1

What is transformative action research? 1 About the “experimenting learning community” in which transformative action research has developed 7 For whom is this book written, and why? 10 What this book aims to do 12 PART I

Applications 2 Program evaluations

15 17

Evaluations in community agencies 17 Case example of some steps in agency-consultant collaboration on program evaluation 21 Toward a transformative approach to evaluation 24 Evaluation as the discovery of grounded theory 27 3 Uses of action research in community organizations An ongoing process of information-gathering and review 29 Uses of action research in community groups 30 A focus that can shape organizational “politics” 33

29

viii Contents

Community needs assessments 34 Designing pilot projects and developing concept papers addressing community needs and problems 37 Challenges and opportunities in working for significant, multilevel changes 40 4 Community-based think tanks

44

Introduction 44 A vision for community-based think tanks 45 Sample plan for a community-based think tank 48 5 Toward expert knowledge and human development—the curriculum of the “experimenting community”

51

Learning as human development, and as knowledge and skill development 51 A curriculum, based on the action-inquiry of collaborative script improvisation, to promote ego development and progressively increasing expert knowledge 54 The stages and the developmental transitions and progress—intersections of content and process 57 WISR’s curricular approach—the “structure” of scripts for improvisation 61 6 Using transformative action-inquiry during the COVID-19 pandemic: Critiquing studies and facing decision-making dilemmas

67

Action-and-inquiry during the COVID-19 pandemic 67 What “data” are relevant? 69 Our social responsibility in making decisions in the midst of a large-scale crisis, and the importance of using qualitative as well as quantitative data about the pandemic—a case study 71 The role of “qualitative data” 82 Concluding remarks 84 PART II

Illustrations 7 Intellectual activism and action research—a case study on workplace bullying David Yamada

85

87

Contents ix

Introduction to a case study of an intellectual activist using action research in addressing the problem of workplace bullying 87 From David Yamada’s dissertation: Action research and social change 88 Social change theory and intellectual activism 91 Additional resources 99 8 Multifaceted, comprehensive action-oriented research, aimed at preserving and restoring the Omaha culture Dennis Hastings and Margery Coffey

100

Introduction 100 Action research and Grandfather Remembers—by Dennis Hastings and Margery Coffey, Omaha Tribal Historical Research Project, Inc. (OTHRP), July 2009 102 9 Stories, concepts, and methods of participatory action research—Transforming individuals and groups Sudia Paloma McCaleb

118

Introduction 118 Sudia’s stories and insights—of participatory action research 118 Engaging in dialogue with Salvadoran immigrants living in California and sharing words with Salvadoran educators back home and Oaxacan indigenous communities 126 10 Getting out of the book and into the world: Ways to understand action research Marilyn Jackson 11 Teaching and learning physics as inquiry—Similarities with transformative action research

128

135

The importance of inquiry 135 Creating learning environments conducive to inquiry 138 Concluding remarks and suggestions 144 12 Plans for a school-based project to involve students as teachers, learners, and colleagues of Artificial Intelligence Kence Anderson and John A. Bilorusky

146

13 Stories of action research from WISR learners

155

Introduction 155 WISR alumni and students speak about action research 156

x Contents

Vignettes—Stories of action research by WISR learners and their reflections on what they did 159 Commentary 184 14 Autobiographical analysis of the role of social learning in transformative action-and-inquiry

185

The importance of social learning—learning from and in circumstances, and from and with others 185 Storytelling and dialogue 187 Elicited, visceral reactions 187 Negative role modeling 188 Positive role modeling—from a “twentieth century woman,” and learning to collaborate 189 Engaging with someone “different” who is willing to listen and discuss 191 Intention to seek out circumstances to change 192 Immersion in the joy of inquiry that matters 194 The serendipity of what do I do next? 195 Mentoring to support my finding my own voice 196 Berkeley in 1970 … Something different is happening? I want to find out 196 Immersed in a sea of critical preoccupations, and reactiveness 199 If you want to do it, create the circumstances, don’t wait 201 I want to learn how to “really” dance, so … 201 Intuition and listening—Act now and see what happens—I made a mess, too 203 Where are all the Native Americans? In teachable moments, teachers learn 203 Can “structure” coexist with learner-centered education?—Revising script-improvisation 204 Learning from and with one’s “children” 205 References Index

208 214

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As the subtitle of this book suggests, this book, and its companion book, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research: A Half Century of Living and Doing Transformative Inquiry, are literally the results of over 50 years of learning, inquiry, practice, and collaboration. I wish to acknowledge especially my colleagues of many years, the late Terry F. Lunsford and Cynthia Lawrence, who contributed so much to the process of developing transformative action research, and consequently, to this book. I thank Torry Dickinson and Brian Gerrard for encouraging me to write these two books. Torry has done so for many years, and Brian, gave me the last needed impetus, along with the “extra time” due to having to shelter in place during COVID-19. Brian has read and commented on a number of drafts of portions of both books, and Torry has made valuable suggestions about important points and ideas to include. The importance and value of collaboration, of learning from and with others cannot be emphasized enough. I cannot possibly list all the many people who contributed to my understanding and use of transformative action research. Many key people have been acknowledged throughout the book. Because my understanding of action research has developed especially since 1975 hand in hand in the experimenting multicultural learning community that is the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), here, I wish to acknowledge many, but my no means all, of the people who have been crucial contributors to this rather distinctive academic institution that many of affectionately refer to as “wiser.” Listed in alphabetical order are just some of the amazing students and alumni, faculty, Board, and friends of WISR with whom have I had the good fortune to collaborate. Victor Acosta, Fernando Alegria*, Richard Allen, Peggy Baxter, John Bear, Larry Berkelhammer, Robert Blackburn*, J. Herman Blake, Uwe Blesching, John Borst, Janet McAfee Bowman, Marcia Campos, Che Kum Clement, Margery

xii Acknowledgements

Coffey, Torry Dickinson, Rich Douglas, Sevgi Fernandez, Makhosazana Fletcher, Steven Fletcher, Brian Gerrard, Chuck Greene, Linda Hartling, Dennis Hastings, Paul Heist*, Milly Henry, Gabriela Hofmeyer, Marilyn Jackson, Joanne Kowalski*, Vera Labat, Cynthia Lawrence, Richard Lawrence, L.C. (Calu) Lester*, Dalia Liang, Na Limopasmanee, Larry Loebig, Terry Lunsford*, Ronald Mah, Marilyn (Lindi) Martin, Roger Mason, Eric Mauer, Michael McAvoy*, Sudia Paloma McCaleb, Agnes Morton, Antonia Pantoja*, Wilhelmina Perry, Jacob Perea, Deborah Pruitt, Suzanne Quijano, Rosa Reinikainen, Mona Scott, Monika Scott-Davis, Shyaam Shabaka, Sajad Shakoor, Jake Sloan, Anngwyn St. Just, Mary Suzuki, Oba T’Shaka, Dorothy Terrell*, James Todd, III*, Andrea Turner, Barbara Valentino*, Karen Wall, Art Warmoth*, John Watkins, David Yamada. *deceased I wish to acknowledge and thank Hannah Shakespeare, of Routledge Press, for her strongly encouraging and extremely communicative support from the initial stages of reviewing this book, and forward to completion. There are many others at Routledge, not known to me by their names, working behind the scenes, who have made important and valued contributions. Finally, the action-and-inquiry in which I have been engaged over the years, and indeed all my life’s endeavors, have been nurtured and guided by the love I have so fortunately shared with my immediate family—with my late mother, Arzelia Bilorusky, my late grandmother, Mattie Ann Butterfass, my wife of 25 years, Janet Staab Bilorusky, and my three adult children, Clark, Kyle, and Nicole. Further, the I wish to acknowledge the special experience of sharing love and collaborating with my wife, Janet, in so many ways, including in raising our twins, Kyle and Nicole over the past 22+ years.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

John A. Bilorusky, PhD John is President of WISR, was a co-founder of WISR in 1975, and has served full-time on WISR’s faculty ever since. During that time, he has supervised over 100 student dissertations, Master’s theses, and undergraduate senior theses on a wide range of topics, almost all of which have used action research methods, and he has guided and mentored students in the conduct of hundreds of other action research projects. These projects have been conducted in a variety of settings, and by students with many different interests and levels of previous professional and community experience, from all walks of life, and from many varied cultural backgrounds. After graduating with his Bachelor’s degree from the University of Colorado with honors in physics and honors in general studies (1967), John changed fields of study and earned his PhD in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley, in 1972. In 1970–71, John taught senior thesis seminars in the Social Sciences Integrated Courses and Field Major, as a Teaching Associate at the University of California, Berkeley. From 1971 to 1973, he was Assistant Professor of Urban Affairs and Senior Research Associate in the Institute for Research and Training in Higher Education, at the University of Cincinnati. There he taught the required action research course in the College of Community Services, created and coordinated the College’s Individualized Learning Program, and served as an in-house organizational and evaluation consultant for faculty at the University. Then, from 1973 to 1975, he was Director of Graduate Studies at University Without Walls-Berkeley. He is the author of published articles and papers on higher education and social change, adult learning, and practical, community-based and participatory research methods, including a co-authored book published by the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, May 1970: The Campus Aftermath of Cambodia and Kent State

xiv About the author

(with Richard Peterson). He has served as a consultant for community agencies in the area of participatory action research, including directing a major study of needs and services for low-income elders for the Los Angeles Community Redevelopment Agency, and using participatory research in collaboration with the Bay Area Black United Fund on three occasions for their African American Health Summits. In addition, he has done collaborative consultations with dozens of Bay Area groups over the years. He has conducted evaluations of colleges and educational innovations, for such institutions as De Pauw University (Indiana), Macalester College (Minnesota), Colorado College, New College of California, and Fresno State University. He has conducted feasibility studies for such groups as the California Housing Trust Fund and Cleveland State University’s Department of Human Services. He was Director of WISR’s nationwide demonstration project, under a grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) from 1980 to 1983—on extending the teaching, learning, and use of action research throughout the larger community. John serves on the Advisory Board of the global network of Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (https://www.humiliationstudies.org/).

Contributing colleagues The late Terry F. Lunsford, JD, PhD Terry’s academic career began with his earning a BA with honors in General Studies and Humanities from the University of Chicago (1951). He did pre-doctoral study in Psychology, at the University of Chicago, 1951 to1954, and went on to get the JD in Law there (1957). After beginning his academic career, he received a PhD in Sociology at the University of California at Berkeley, in 1970. Terry taught at UC Berkeley for four years, where he also was Chair of the Social Sciences Integrated Courses & Field Major, Academic Director of the Field Studies Program, and a professional researcher at the Center for the Study of Higher Education, at the Health & Medical Sciences Program, and at the Institute for the Study of Social Change. He was involved in the early years of studying the social and legal impacts of genetic research. He used his expertise in law and his extensive experience in and knowledge of interviewing when he worked on the National Jury Project in Oakland, training lawyers in methods for interviewing prospective jurors. He served on the faculty and the Board of the Western Institute for Social Research for over 30 years until his death. Cynthia Lawrence, PhD Cynthia was a schoolteacher for many years before becoming a faculty member in Teacher Education at the University of California, San Diego, with expertise in the areas of multicultural education, alternative education, and the teaching of language skills. She then earned her PhD in Higher Education and Social Change, from the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR) 1987, after which she became a member of WISR’s faculty for 25 years and is currently core faculty emeritus at WISR and serves on WISR’s Board. She is a former schoolteacher and is an expert

About the author xv

in the areas of multicultural education, alternative education, and the teaching, and learning of language skills. She is a retired faculty member in Teacher Education at the University of California, San Diego. Over the years, she has developed materials and conducted training sessions to heighten teachers’ sensitivity to multicultural issues. She has conducted workshops on interracial issues for such groups as the Family Stress Center and the National Organization for Women (NOW). She was appointed in 1991 to the San Diego Human Relations Commission.

Contributing authors David Yamada, JD, PhD David Yamada is a Professor of Law and Director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School in Boston, where he is a globally recognized authority on workplace bullying and psychological abuse and has authored leading law review articles on the topic. He is a frequent invited speaker at interdisciplinary conferences in fields such as organizational psychology, health care, and labor relations, and he has been sought out often by the media on employment relations topics, including The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Chronicle of Higher Education, National Public Radio, MSNBC, and ProPublica. David’s extensive academic and civic affiliations have included leadership positions with the Association of American Law Schools, Americans for Democratic Action, International Therapeutic Jurisprudence Project, Workplace Bullying Institute, and Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies Network. His blog, Minding the Workplace, is a popular source of commentary about dignity at work, employment and labor law, and employee relations. David has earned degrees from the Western Institute for Social Research (PhD), New York University School of Law (JD), SUNY-Empire State College (MA), and Valparaiso University (BA). Dennis Hastings, PhD Dennis Hastings is an enrolled member of the (Omaha) tribe of Nebraska and Iowa, and has dedicated his life to his people. An orphan, he grew up in North Dakota reservation boarding schools. In 1969, Hastings engaged the occupations of Alcatraz Island and Wounded Knee, which changed his life as he came to understand how his people needed to relearn their history and language. Returning home, he founded the Omaha Tribal Historical Research Project (OTHRP). Founded in 1992, OTHRP remains the most successful, grassroots-oriented, aboriginalderived, and directed group in the United States, with more than 50 major projects of local, statewide, regional, domestic, and international impact. These include award-winning books, films and initiatives (e.g., return of both human remains/ sacred objects from Harvard University and Smithsonian Institution, among others); groundbreaking state and national legislation such as the 1990 Native Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA); design of a world-class museum yet-to-be-built, winning national and international awards; providing key passages from his dissertation that faced the federal judicial system culminating in a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in “Nebraska vs. Parker” in 2016. He

xvi About the author

received his Bachelor’s degree from University Without Walls-Berkeley, and then collaborated with the founders of the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), when they founded WISR in 1975. He later earned his Master’s from WISR in 1998 and his PhD in 2009. Margery Coffey, PhD Margery Coffey was born in a Nebraskan small town on the Republican River. Margery was drawn to indigenous history when introduced to relics and human remains remanded as the Harlan County Dam was completed in 1952. Studying theater at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln for two years, she then moved to New York City. In 1975 she earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree with High Honors. Returning to New York in 1977, she started her own business while a social change activist, including aboriginal advocacy. Returning to Nebraska in 1984 to care for an elder relative, she started her formal art career as both a graphic and fine artist, with over 75 art shows including both coasts. When an opportunity to move to the Omaha Reservation came, she moved to the reservation in 1990 in order to study the Omaha. Joining OTHRP as a graphic artist in 2002 Coffey enrolled in the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR) for her Master’s degree, awarded in 2006, then turned to collaborate with Dennis Hastings in earning a PhD from WISR in 2009. Since that time Hastings and Coffey have collaborated on development of a pre-K through adult “Four Hills of Life Omaha Curriculum.” Sudia Paloma McCaleb, EdD Sudia is a core faculty member and the Director of the Doctoral Program at the Western Institute for Social Research. She received her BA in Anthropology and Romance Languages, University of Michigan and a Master’s in Education, Bank Street College, New York City, and earned an EdD in Multicultural and International Education, University of San Francisco, 1992. She began teaching in Head Start programs and Columbia University laboratory schools in New York City. She was an educator and teacher of literacy development and second language development in Oakland and Sonoma County schools. She has been a popular workshop presenter at CABE (California Association of Bilingual Educators) and NAME (National Association of Multicultural Education). She created the CA State accredited primary and secondary bilingual (Spanish and Cantonese) Teacher Education and Masters programs at New College of California in San Francisco, where she directed and taught literacy and English Language development, multicultural education, participatory action research, and environmental education for 15 years. In 2008 she created and has since served as Executive Director of the Center for Critical Environmental & Global Literacy (www.ccegl.org) which focuses on building teacher and community consciousness around environmental challenges. This work has extended to communities and school educators in Guatemala, Mexico, Romania, Hungary, Cuba, and El Salvador. At the present time, her work focuses on building collaborative relationships between Bay Area educators (and beyond) and indigenous communities in Oaxaca, Mexico, and Sonsonate, El Salvador.

About the author xvii

Marilyn Jackson, PhD Marilyn’ s academic studies include a BA in Religion from Augustana College (1981), and an MA from Holy Names College’s Institute in Creation Spirituality and Culture (1989), PhD, Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), Higher Education and Social Change, 2004. Two of her recently published articles were: “The Life of the People: The Legacy of N.F.S. Grundtvig and Nonviolent Social Change Through Popular Education in Denmark” and “Education for Life at Danish Folk Schools and Highlander.” Marilyn continues to study and work on unlearning racism and building multicultural society through dialogue, education, cultural expression, and community-based celebrations. She has organized education activities about indigenous people and has been extensively involved with Scandinavian music and other cultural activities, including translating Swedish songs. She is on the Board and staff of the Ecumenical Peace Institute, and the Board of the Folk Education Association of America. In addition to serving as a Learning Support Instructor at the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), where she earned her PhD in Higher Education and Social Change in 2004, she also is Executive Assistant to WISR’s President. Kence Anderson, BS As a Principal Program Manager, Machine Teaching Innovation at Microsoft, he researches teaching methods, and applies them to Artificial Intelligence and Autonomous Systems. As an MS student in Education and Community Leadership at the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), Kence leads a collaboration between Microsoft and the WISR to explore how teachers can use Artificial Intelligence combined with games to engage and empower underserved and marginalized students. Kence received his BS in Mechanical Engineering from the University of California, Davis (2003).

Other notable colleagues Vera Labat, MPH Vera has recently retired after a long career in the field of public health, after earning her BS in Nursing from San Francisco State University (1964) and her Master’s in Public Health from the University of California at Berkeley (1974). For many years, she was in charge of immunization for the City of Berkeley, and prior to that, she was school health consultant for the Berkeley Unified School District. She taught community health at the University of California, San Francisco, and taught in the School of Medicine at the University of Dar Es Salaam in Tanzania. She was the founding Executive Director of the Over 60 Health Clinic in Berkeley. Vera served on the faculty of the Western Institute for 30 years, after which she served on the Board for a few years. Shyaam Shabaka, MPH Shyaam Shabaka is the Founder and Executive Director, EcoVillage Farm Learning Center in Richmond, CA. An Arkansas native, Shyaam has been a resident of the San Francisco Bay Area for the past 40 years, where he has been a leader in

xviii About the author

promoting sustainable urban agriculture; public health; and environmental, social, and economic justice in low-income communities in the U.S. and in Sub-Saharan Africa. Shyaam worked for the City of Berkeley Health and Human Services Department as Director of the Office of Health Planning, Education, Promotion and Chronic Diseases for over 28 years. He holds a BS from Texas Western College (University of Texas at El Paso) and a Master’s of Public Health from the University of California at Berkeley. He currently serves on the Board of Directors of Food First, International Child Resource Institute (ICRI), California Food and Justice Coalition (CFJC), Consumer Cooperative Federal Credit Union, West County Healthy Eating Active Living Collaborative and Oakland Community Action Partnership to Combat Poverty. Milly Henry Milly Henry was an innovative educator and researcher in the field of higher education in the last half of the 20th century. She was researcher at the Center for the Research in Development in Higher Education at the University of California, Berkeley for many years. She then went onto to do many studies on innovative, learner-centered approaches to college teaching, and was frequently a consultant for many colleges and universities on teaching improvement. Then, for many years she served as Dean, and sometimes, Co-President at New College of California.

1 INTRODUCTION

What is transformative action research? This book aims to build on the book, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action research: A Half Century of Living and Doing Action-Inquiry, by providing many more specific examples of transformative action research in practice. In the companion book, I articulated what I see to be the key elements—the main concepts and methods—essential to the transformative approach to action research that I have learned to be especially valuable in contributing to meaningful changes, be they large or small. I’ve referred to this approach as transformative action research, or as a transformative approach to action-and-inquiry. As I stated in the companion book, transformative action research is about “research,” “inquiry,” and “action”—and an overall perspective on methods for bringing those together in transformative ways to make a difference. Most people use “action research” to describe and discuss research that is used in conjunction with action, whether before, during, or after the action taking place. The word “transformative” in “transformative action research” means several things. First, action-and-research, or action-and-inquiry, transform each other, where each, action and inquiry, is a different emphasis, but still part of a yin-yang sort of whole. Consider for example, “imaginative and reflective action” which refers to inquiring aspects of action, or “engaged and involved inquiry” which refers to the action-oriented qualities of research and inquiry. Second, “transformative action research” leads to some changes that “matter” and are valuable and useful for an individual, a group, an organization, a community, and/or the larger society.

2 Introduction

“Transformative” action research is not limited to cut and dried processes, but often uses improvised strategies, still based on solid principles of inquiry. Consequently, it may often lead to significant changes, for even if the changes are small, they may not merely be incremental ones along already well-known paths, but instead lead to fundamentally different directions and outcomes. (Bilorusky, 2021, p.1) Transformative action research is not a “thing”; it is more appropriately seen as a “sensitizing concept,” as an organic, evolving process. In this book, I have suggested that “it” is characterized by a coherent constellation of some key qualities, principles, and methodological approaches. Also, it is necessarily a “work in progress” that should, and will, come to mean different things to different people. It is not “my” method or approach, but rather a set of related ideas, methods, and principles that I have learned from the insights of others, as well as through my over 50 years’ of experience collaborating and being engaged with others, living and doing transformative action-and-inquiry. I have learned from a number of intellectual traditions, including especially insights from T. S. Kuhn and his modern classic, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the naturalist research methods of symbolic interactionism, the Dreyfus theory of expert knowledge, and the educational views of John Dewey and Paulo Freire, among others. Quite significantly, I have learned much from my colleagues (e.g., students and faculty) with whom I have worked on many action research efforts for the past 50 years. This book contains many varied illustrations of “transformative action research” to help the reader learn about 1) some of the key qualities of, and issues pertaining to, science and inquiry; 2) how to participate and collaborate with others in inquiry; 3) how to use and critically evaluate specific techniques and practices of action research, and 4) ways to incorporate action research and transformative inquiry into our everyday lives, and how we may help others to do this as well. This book builds on the companion book by providing in great detail, specific applications of action research (Part I), and illustrations of a wide variety of ways in which my colleagues have used action research for transformative purposes (Part II). For those of you who have not read the companion book, I am highlighting here a few of the main points made in that book (Bilorusky, 2021, Chapter 14):  



Transformative action research is about “research,” “inquiry,” and “action” and is an overall perspective for bringing those together in transformative ways to make a difference in our lives and the world. The word “transformative” is to emphasize how action research and inquiry can be used to develop fundamentally new insights, practices, and change. “Transformative inquiry” as a way of living, brings together thinking and acting in one’s life, in order to work toward personal and/or societal transformations. Action research, or action-and-inquiry, is fundamentally about learning, and my decades of experience have convinced me that, overall, learner-centered approaches to learning are most effective, especially because learners make use of what they have learned in ways that are significant and meaningful to them.

Introduction 3





Participatory research and democratic community knowledge-building will be served if we try to develop among us a steadily increasing number of professional and community participants who are knowledgeable about action research, and quite importantly, who can then help to teach others about transformative action-and-inquiry. The following strategies or considerations may often contribute positively to transformative action research: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.



To take a transformative approach, it helps if we nurture these qualities: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.



Being actively involved in the social realities, or circumstances, that we are studying. Considering alternative interpretations or hypotheses. Modifying and redirecting our research methods as we learn more. Using specific examples and stories to illustrate our concepts. Writing about our findings by “telling the story” of what we did during the research process, and how we came to our findings. In this way, we can try to be transparent about our methods, and potential biases, because when others read the story of our inquiry, they can decide whether, and in what ways, to take our research seriously. “Script improvisation” is a valuable, guiding metaphor for transformative action-and-inquiry. All theories should be used as “scripts for improvisation,” as potential starting points for further inquiry-and-action. Consciously and persistently trying to look for, find, and learn about examples that illustrate the exceptions to the rule, the variations on the theme. By understanding such “exceptions to the rule,” we can better appreciate the “general theme” or “general rule,” Through this process, we can then begin to develop a more comprehensive theory which accounts for both the examples that “prove” the rule, as well as those that are the exceptions.

a desire to look at things that don’t quite fit; an inclination to probe beneath the surface appearances of things; an openness to new thoughts; a spongy mind that is open to and in contact with others from whom we can learn; active curiosity; and a sense of wonderment about things that is not fearful of open-endedness.

Some valuable qualities that may contribute to the validity of our action research are: 1. 2. 3.

considering different situations and contexts, and the bigger picture; looking for specific examples to test out our insights; taking our own experiences and insights seriously, while also evaluating information from differing perspectives;

4 Introduction

4. 5. 

  





looking beyond ourselves for information and insights from others; and especially, collaborating with others and getting the benefit of their analyses.

Trying to adopt and practice these qualities, including transparency, is more important than whether we use numbers and statistics, more important than whether we adopt a particular research design, or any single research procedure. If we are transparent, then others will be able to evaluate our research, or action research, and decide how confident that they wish to be in our findings. Also, they can decide in what ways our findings seem to be “valid” and in what ways, limited. Sometimes emotions, as well as our idiosyncratic experiences, may actually aid the development of knowledge and expertise and be invaluable qualities of human intelligence. Transformative Action Research requires that we continually ask ourselves questions about what we think “matters” the most—about what’s valuable, and what’s useful or practical, in ways that matter to us. Science is a special version of abilities and understandings that we all have as human beings. It is a precious possession of all humans who want to participate in it. It can be reclaimed, at least in part, from the big research labs and academic departments that now dominate it. Seeing it as a social process, and as an important part of society, can be a step in that direction. Collaborating with each other in reclaiming science—that is, acting socially in another sense—is very much worth our efforts. In so many ways, our society and our culture, and especially those groups and people with the greatest power, influence, and privilege, may significantly influence, and distort, our inquiry in ways that we may not always readily appreciate. Action research cannot realize its transformative potential without a consistent and continual awareness of the challenges involved in addressing these biases. For these biases are not merely “academic” matters that influence our “research conclusions,” they impact our lives and our society, and especially the lives of those who continue to be most marginalized and least privileged people in the society. With the transformative approach, the following steps in the process of research need not always follow the usual conventional sequence, but may continue to interact and interweave with one another throughout the process of action-and-inquiry: 1. 2. 3. 4.

asking questions; sampling (where to seek data and information) and the actual datagathering; analyzing data; and communicating what has been learned during the research, as well as of course, with action research, the important, additional step of taking action!

Introduction 5

5. 











Action may happen before, during and/or after the research, and ideally, we should remain conscious, of all three options.

We all observe, take in information, store it in memory, sort it into tentative categories, re-do these categories from time to time, come to conclusions, change our minds, re-interpret the ideas and facts we are using—and go on about our business as we are doing these things. Thinking together about these activities—what is generally natural about them, and what is special to “science” is important if we are to engage in transformative action-and-inquiry. As researchers, we are continually making decisions about what to look for next, what to sample for, or who to sample for, as the inquiry progresses, as we get more information and as we do preliminary analyses of the data. The more we learn about our topic of inquiry, the more we know how to sample, to test out and improve upon our initial ideas. It is important, to the extent possible to do “diversified sampling.” That is, our understanding and ideas, and our actions, will be more informed and more “valid” if we try to get information from the range of people involved in what we’re studying, or from the range of organizations or circumstances relevant to our research questions or purposes. In using statistics, we should not fall into the trap of abdicating our responsibility for, and opportunity to, weigh the evidence from many angles and then making the best judgment that we can, for now. We cannot rely on quantitative analyses alone. Very often there is an attempt to put effectiveness, risk, and effort into dollars-and-cents terms, so we can have a neat, and seemingly definitive, costbenefit equation. But this is an artificial procedure. Instead, whenever we are in a position to decide, we need to take responsibility for making decisions, using our values and commitments, along with our best judgments in weighing what is often a very complex array of sometimes confusing, contradictory, or at least far from clear-cut, evidence. Also, rather than translating qualitative issues into dollars and cents, we can begin to translate dollars and cents into human terms, and then weigh the evidence; that is, make judgments about the information available based on human and social considerations. We—those of us doing the research, engaged in inquiry—inevitably make judgments and decisions about data-gathering and analysis, whether we are doing so qualitatively, quantitatively, or both. In all cases, the solidity and limitations of our process should be transparent and subject to critical examination and evaluation by others! In using a “both/and” perspective, our efforts in “making sense out of experiences” become all the more interesting, less frustrating, and more important and meaningful. This doesn’t mean that both perspectives have equal weight or validity, but that often, each perspective can contribute some things of value to our transformative approach to action-and-inquiry. It helps to have our perspective or “paradigm”—our valued assumptions and considerations—consciously in mind, because we, and often others, will live with the consequences of our choices—for better and for worse. We do have

6 Introduction













a lot of freedom to pick our tentative conclusions, and our facts and arguments, to fit the values and purposes we want to serve. It should be added that if we wish our action-and-inquiry to be truly transformative, then we also have the challenge of intermittently re-evaluating our values and purposes, and our overall “paradigm” by seeking out “new” information and by considering fresh and new ways of looking at the data. It is always a good idea to get additional evidence, be it more quantitative or more qualitative, or both. The primary consideration isn’t whether the evidence is “hard” or “soft”—because arguably all evidence is soft, and perhaps becomes a bit “less soft” if we are deeply and critically reflective, as well as imaginative, in weighing the evidence. Three related, important considerations in collaboration are: how to best communicate what we know to others, how and why we should collaborate with others to improve our research, and our action, and the importance to provide transparency about how we have arrived at our findings. Consequently, it is important for us to put ourselves at the heart of the “story” of the action-inquiry about which we are writing. This means sharing with our readers (or listeners) the thinking behind the decisions we make at various steps along the way when doing the action research, being transparent and engaging others in our thought processes during the inquiry. This includes writing to convey not just generalizations and abstract concepts alone, but also to connect ideas and conclusions with a variety of specific examples. This means using storytelling, case studies, and detailed illustrations—and, writing in our own voice and from our own perspective. With a transformative approach to action-and-inquiry, our goals and values themselves should become subjects of inquiry and re-examination. However, when a strong, valid, and passionate commitment creates a sort of tunnel vision, then it becomes a “preoccupation.” In such cases, we limit our own options for inquiry-and-action. Even within our strong commitments, our informed critiques and analyses of social reality, and our primary areas of activity, we must continually look beneath the surface, to discern the many layers of meaning underlying our activities and the realities with which we are concerned. If we do this, we can become more effective and informed in our actions and in the pursuit of our commitments and concerns. We are responsible for the potential impact on the society—as well as on specific individuals and subgroups within the society—of the written results of our research and of actions taken by others that may grow out of, or might be in any way influenced by, the research. We end up making value-based, cost-benefit analyses in deciding upon what action research questions to ask, what problems to address, and how to act on the findings and questions-raised by our inquiry. This is so, whether or not we are fully aware and intentional about it.

Introduction 7







When it comes to being socially responsible and ethical, it is especially important that we openly convey to others, our analyses and our decisions about competing values, different types of risks, and the potential costs and benefits. Community knowledge-building requires that we learn with and from others and collaborate actively. It also importantly involves groups of people and communities coming together as builders of knowledge. Collective action-and-inquiry is important in a democracy, and in pursuing justice and equality The result is not only “better” knowledge, but also knowledge that can matter to people, and potentially make the world a “better” place. I realize that the quality, solidity, and validity of our knowledge, and the effectiveness of the actions flowing from that knowledge, will be better if they grow out of the experiences of many people, who by virtue of their involvements, are in a position to “know.” This means that as Myles Horton reportedly once said, “we must listen eloquently”!

Throughout all of these endeavors we can try to adopt certain attitudes and frames of mind that aid this type of creative knowledge-building—highlighting here some of the previous themes. We should aim to:          

Be exploratory, rather than narrow or habitual. Be reflective, rather than rote or unthinking. Be engaged, rather than aloof. Be inquisitive, rather than disinterested or accepting. Be collaborative, rather than disconnected from dialogue and participation with others. See ideas as emergent, rather than static and conclusive. See methods as necessarily improvisational, rather than formulaic or mechanistic. Have a sense of the “bigger picture,” seeing not just the trees but the forest as well, and the landscape beyond the forest. Tell and listen to stories and tangible examples, rather than settling abstractions, alone. Be concerned with human values and social justice, rather than accepting the myth of value-free research, which very often means research that serves, even if only indirectly, the status quo.

About the “experimenting learning community” in which transformative action research has developed Most of my insights about transformative action research have grown out of collaborative efforts with students and faculty at the experimental multicultural degree-granting institution (Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral), the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR, pronounced “wiser”) in Berkeley,

8 Introduction

California. Together, with Victor Acosta, Joanne Kowalski, and Barbara Valentino, we founded WISR in 1975. WISR has remained tiny, averaging about 20 to 25 students at any given time, with ten or so dedicated and extremely capable, but mostly part-time, faculty. It is a non-profit, offering California State licensed degrees, and because of the costs and obstacles, we are only now in the process of trying to become nationally accredited. WISR’s tuition is a very affordable $7,500/year. We tend to attract a variety of students, most all of whom are eager to learn, and to find ways to become creative in making a difference in the world. Our students are ages 21 to 80, and with many varied identities, have come primarily from these groups: 

  

community service professionals, especially those who are progressive and concerned with multiculturality and social justice, and who want to create reforms and even major changes within their agencies, communities, or professions; community activists, usually with progressive agendas concerned with the needs and purposes of the marginalized groups with whom they are working, or with bringing about larger social policy and/or education for social change goals; college professors and other educators, including adult and community educators, who share some of the progressive and social change agendas noted above; and therapists who wish to pursue advanced studies in innovative areas within their profession, such as trauma therapy, somatic therapy, and therapeutic approaches that also concern social change.

WISR is a strongly mission-driven institution. We have actively welcomed people of all perspectives and from all kinds of backgrounds and positions in the society and do so without having a precisely defined ideological line. At the same time, we have been very public about the values and types of commitments we embrace and try to practice, and we have successfully attracted people interested in learning and in collaborating in an environment that has been intentionally created to support:   

personalized, learner-centered education; the study and practice of action research, to contribute to learning, new knowledge, immediate community and organizational improvements, and longer-term social change and justice; inclusiveness and affirmation of diversity and mutual respect.

Our value of inclusiveness is best illustrated in our day to day practices, and the learning and action research projects of students and faculty, many of which are illustrated in this book, especially in Chapter 13. Our statement about this says in part: WISR seeks actively to build an inclusive and diverse, including multiracial, multicultural, learning and teaching community, in which the central values

Introduction 9

are built on the worth and distinctiveness of each person’s background, going beyond our differences to celebrate qualities and needs that we all share as humans. In building and nurturing such a community, WISR affirms the importance of free and open dialogue, and to that end, students, faculty, staff, alumni and Board are all expected to 1) refrain from making comments that would infringe on the safety, dignity and respect for any group, and 2) welcome assistance in learning how to improve their interactions with groups with whom they are less experienced or comfortable. WISR core values include: Developing a multicultural, inclusive perspective. This means developing and using inclusive and multicultural perspectives to inform one’s purposes, and one’s views of social issues and challenges and opportunities in one’s chosen fields or arenas of endeavor—profession, workplace, community. Developing a sense of empathy, compassion and community toward, and with, others. Appreciating and understanding the broad spectrum of perspectives and consciousness, and how those arise out of people’s culture, gender, economic background, religious and sexual orientation. A culture of learning that respects and promotes the dignity of every person. The belief that no individual or group may rightfully prosper at the expense of others. The use of language that conveys respect for persons whose gender identity, culture, religion, sexual orientation, economic background, or political interests may differ from our own. https://www.wisr.edu/welcome/wisr-statement-of-a ffirmation-of-diversity-values/ Part of our founding mission was to provide a highly personalized learnercentered education for students pursuing interdisciplinary undergraduate and Master’s, and Doctoral degrees in the social sciences, human services, education and social change, community leadership, and counseling psychology (leading to the State of California, Marriage and Family Therapy license). Equally important to our founding mission, and continuing as core values and emphases at WISR over the years, were: 1. 2.

the importance of transformative action research to learning and to community improvements and social change; a commitment to a multicultural and inclusive learning community, as an actively supportive context in which all of us at WISR can grow and learn: a

in deepening and expanding our own, individual understandings and appreciation of matters of diversity; and

10 Introduction

b 3. 4.

use our knowledge and sensibilities to work toward a more affirmatively, inclusive society;

related to #2, an active concern for pursuing constructive social change, working toward greater social justice and equality, and environmental sustainability as well; an ever-present attention to helping students to pursue learning projects and studies that will build bridges to what they want to do next in their lives, so that students can pursue their own special interests and passions, and be encouraged to write and act in their own voice.

At WISR, faculty engage in one-on-one mentoring with students, and they develop collaborative relationships together that are a supportive and intellectually stimulating context for studying and engaging in transformative action research projects (Bilorusky & Lawrence, 2003). Students and faculty often collaborate with professionals and lay people in the larger community on action research projects, and WISR seminars are open free of charge to those outside of WISR. Our efforts to develop WISR were greatly aided in 1980, when WISR received a major, three-year grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE). WISR was one of 80 institutions to serve as a nationwide demonstration project on improvements in postsecondary education, in WISR’s case, on “teaching, learning, and using action research throughout the larger community.” Our FIPSE-funded project from 1980 to 1983 focused on working with community agency staff but included activists and educators as well.

For whom is this book written, and why? Audiences I’ve written this book with a number of audiences in mind. This book is especially for people who aim to change for the better, their communities, organizations, educational institutions, and the society. More particularly, this includes the following:     

innovative professional researchers and consultants concerned with matters of community participation, social change and justice, and diversity and inclusiveness; people working in community service agencies, whether in positions of authority and/or on the “front lines”; grassroots and neighborhood activists; intellectual activists and independent scholars concerned with both specific topics and broad issues of fundamental social change, laws, and policies; classroom teachers who wish to engage their students in action research, or even possibly include other teachers or parents in the process;

Introduction 11



 



innovatively minded college professors teaching research courses, especially those with a “hand-on” learner-centered approach, and who wish to inspire and guide their students into meaningful research activities, and still covering much of the standard research methods content found in required courses, but in fairly down-to-earth language; students and scholars interested in broadening their understanding of the many ways in which qualitative research methods can be used in action research; innovatively minded liberal arts professors, who may find much of value here— about critical reflection, imaginative inquisitiveness, self-directed learning, and writing in one’s own voice—things that address many of the traditional high ideals and missions of liberal education; and quite broadly people who wish to develop methods of inquiry, which take into account and make use of, the insights of varied perspectives—including multigenerational, cultural, and gender, and importantly also issues of privilege and marginalization.

Indeed, people from all walks of life and domains of experience might join together to form action research teams and cooperate with each other actively, and get the benefit of the insights that are so often monopolized, today, by the big research institutions and their specialized experts. The kinds of action research discussed in this book are designed so that they can also be done by non-professional researchers, who are engaged in doing rather than only studying, and who want to use their research for the improvement of their communities.

Gaps addressed by this book In writing this book, I’ve tried to include ideas, perspectives and specific illustrations that will help to fill in what I see to be gaps in many other books: 





Many books on action research are written as guides for dissertations or theses, or as textbooks to introduce students to a comprehensive set of procedures deemed essential to creating a valid and systematically designed research project. These books leave unaddressed a whole host of situational complexities which are often encountered when one wants to make use of action research in a “real world” application. Unlike this book, more practically oriented books focus only on one setting— for example on teachers working with students, or organizational consultants working to serve the goals of those in positions of authority who pay for their services. For example, the interests of workers in organizations is not at all always the same as the interests of the people with the authority and resources to hire an action research consultant. Many books on research look at things mostly from the point of view of the “person” who is “the researcher.” Here, I have written this book with the intention that those “conducting” action research should aim to broaden participation to include those who are sometimes excluded, and to collaborate, to the

12 Introduction



extent possible, with people in a variety of roles impacted by the action research. This is what many mean by “participatory action research.” The need for a book that is intellectually substantive and also down to earth and practical. This book attempts to show the relevance of deep, theoretical concepts and intellectual traditions, and also to do so in ways that will be useful to many people primarily interested in how to use research and inquiry to make a difference in the world, and in their own lives. I’m hoping that this will pique the reader’s curiosity in learning more.

What this book aims to do The first part of the book describes and discusses the details involved in specific applications of methods and principles of transformative action research—1) program evaluations, 2) community needs assessments, 3) creating community-based think tanks, 4) engaging in day to day activities to improve organizations from within while also being aware of the importance of working for change outside the organization as well; and 5) developing pilot projects and concept papers. There is then a discussion of the interconnections between principles and methods of transformative action research, with creating curricula and educational methods that support adult cognitive, emotional and ethical development, as well as higher levels of expert knowledge. Finally, of great current relevance, I discuss the application of transformative action research ideas and methods to critically reflect on unfolding research and decision-making challenges and dilemmas in the midst of the traumatic, rapidly unfolding uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapters in the second part provide tangible and detailed illustrations of the wide variety of ways in which transformative action research can be used, including: 1) intellectual activism, for example in addressing the problem of workplace bullying; 2) the preservation and restoration of the traditional culture of the Omaha tribe, and successful current efforts to support and further the tribe’s rights and the education of tribal youth (ranging from impacting a U.S. Supreme Court decision to increasing interest in and knowledge of tribal culture among Omaha children, youth and adults); 3) the use of participatory research in promoting cross-cultural collaboration among U.S. school teachers with indigenous educators, youth and other adults in Mexico and Central America; 4) one WISR doctoral alum’s story of how action research helped her to “get out of the book and into the world”; 5) the similarity of this approach to transformative action-and-inquiry with the efforts of innovative college professors to teach physics as inquiry; 6) discussion of a project under way aimed to explore how “Artificial Intelligence-student collaboration” might well provide students, especially from marginalized circumstances, opportunities to develop higher order inquiring abilities, as well as valuable, practical technological skills and knowhow—while also expanding our understanding of the uses and limitations of AI; 7) vignettes describing and commenting on a variety of action research projects successfully pursued by WISR learners over the years, along with their comments

Introduction 13

on their experiences; and 8) finally, an autobiographical analysis of how my experience and understanding of inquiry-and-action has evolved from childhood to old age, and the role of other people and social circumstances in promoting my own learning of transformative action research. With these reflections, I try to illustrate some of the many ways in which “social learning” from and with others can be key to expanding one’s abilities and understanding of inquiry, if one is fortunate enough to find their way into situations ripe with opportunity.

PART I

Applications

The chapters in Part I describe and discuss the details involved in some specific applications of methods and principles of transformative action research. In Chapters 2–4, I describe and discuss specific uses in community organizations, which are also quite applicable to schools, colleges, public agencies, and neighborhood grassroots groups. These uses include program evaluations, community needs assessments, developing pilot projects, the innovative notion of community-based think tanks, and ways to improve one’s organization, or simply one’s own daily efforts. In Chapter 5, I discuss how the qualities of transformative action research intertwine with other dynamics of learning and human development, including learner-centered open education, ego development, and expert knowledge. Then, in Chapter 6, I examine the application of transformative action research ideas and methods to critically reflect on the need to inquire into the decision-making challenges and dilemmas in the midst of the traumatic, rapidly unfolding uncertainties of the COVID-19 pandemic.

2 PROGRAM EVALUATIONS

Evaluations in community agencies (Revised and updated from an earlier paper with Dr. Terry Lunsford.) Most people who work in community organizations, schools, and colleges have heard a lot about evaluation. Many funding sources, especially foundations and federal and local agencies, now routinely demand that a group asking for a continuation of funding provide them with an evaluation, and this is sometimes required even for a first-time request. Programs that are parts of larger organizations also are being evaluated frequently, these days, as funds grow smaller and the competition for them grows hotter, especially in public, social programs, and educational innovations. For these reasons, the most common version of evaluation is a one-shot assessment of the program’s or organization’s “performance,” sometimes on a pre-set list of brief, statistical performance indicators, which are assumed to define in working terms its goals, expected outcomes and worthwhile efforts. The group or program is typically faced with a too-near deadline, evidence of unfamiliar measures of performance that they have to show they are meeting, and consequently, the need to hire someone who does “evaluation research” for a living. Alternatively, the group may have to give the job of doing the evaluation on short notice to someone already working within the organization. The evaluations produced in this way range from the ingenious to the ridiculous, and still, many do obtain some useful information. However, the insights from these spur-of-the-moment evaluations often have little or nothing to do with what the people in the organization, or the people it is supposed to serve, think is good work, or what they care about in their lives. With a transformative approach to action research, however, it is possible to start somewhere else in building a good evaluation process for a community agency or innovative program, one that will help you learn about what you are doing, make

18 Applications

some judgments about how good that is, and communicate with your staff and constituents about these things, and about what the problems are. Here are some suggestions about ways to start and use such a process, intended as starting points. Most of you have ideas and experiences of your own about evaluations, and these will provide a good starting place for any evaluation. Let’s assume that you are the person responsible for evaluation in your organization. An advantage to involving others in working with you to do an evaluation that makes sense to all of you on the inside of the organization, more than just conforming to “outside” demands, is that you can get everyone off the defensive. Having to prove that you meet an outside set of criteria usually is like proving that you’ve stopped beating up on your spouse; it’s a loaded question that’s being asked. Funding and other external agencies have their own reasons for wanting to know how many bodies you’ve processed, or how your “cost-benefit ratios” compare to some other groups that they consider “good ones.” These kinds of indicators make the funders look “objective,” even though their criteria may not fit your organization’s activities very well. Such standards help funders and other outsiders to answer the questions of people to whom they feel accountable (like their own Board members, or higher administrators) about why they’re giving you money or “official approval,” instead of some other group. In this way, funders, for example, get what look like definite, fair, impartial criteria for making their judgments on the spending of scarce resources. But such questions may have very little to do with what your community group or innovative program is trying to do, and they may distort the reality so much that its real value and distinctive benefits become unrecognizable or unseen, if your evaluation stands or falls by answering only the questions asked by others. So, one important place to start is by figuring out what questions do make sense for you. Using statements of goals and planning strategies, and other ways of being very systematic in the ways you talk about your programs and services, and their outcomes, are about as unpopular with most agency and school staff as are evaluations, these days. However, in figuring out the right questions, it’s often better to start, not with a list of questions, but with what your organization or program is actually doing. You might well begin by laying a descriptive base for your evaluation. Just set out to describe the activities you do, and why, and maybe how each of them got started, and something of how they fit together. If you do that, it can get an extremely rich, colorful description, going far beyond pre-set ideas and sterile concepts such as “categories of services.” You will almost certainly have to pare down your earliest descriptions, to make them readable and not too long. The point is, you can start by describing what your organization does as it is actually experienced by the people who are doing the work and helping to get things done, and by those who benefit from the organization’s activities. Leave articulating the formal goals and analytic categories until later. If you start with them, they could kill most of your ideas about what really goes on and push you back into the traditional kind of “evaluation.” In merely adopting other people’s standards and concepts, you may fail to learn more about

Program evaluations 19

what you’re doing well, and why, what your organization’s shortcomings and challenges might be, and even whether you might gain insights that could lead you toward some different directions that are more consistent with your deeply felt values and commitments. You’re likely to find that not everyone in the group really knows what is going on, and that different people see what is happening differently. So, you can begin to build a kind of descriptive mosaic, consisting of these varied views, with a lot of pieces fitted loosely together, but not in a tight, “logical” scheme. This less coherent, evolving mosaic will probably be more like real life than a contrived effort to begin with an artificially drawn picture that is not so accurate. You’ll have to figure out whom in the organization, and on the edges of it, to ask for their views—including likely, staff members, clients, Board members, potential clients, other informed observers, and maybe members of other similar or connected groups with whom you work regularly. It’s a good idea to get views from a range of different people who have different relationships to the agency, including those especially with strong, informed opinions. You should record much of what these people say, because you won’t know, at the start, which of the things they’ve said will prove most useful, and will make good parts in a full description—once you start to investigate further the picture they’re painting, and then go on to write your sense of everything later. It’s okay to ask people what they think the organization is doing, and why it does it that way, what they think is good and bad about it, and what else you should be doing, and why they say those things. As you get into it, a natural flow will probably come. You can ask about “goals” if you want to—but ask each person what goals they think the organization is pursuing, and what goals they think it should be pursuing. Their answers, and the other descriptions, will tell you a lot about what the group’s operational goals are; that is, what its actions indicate, as against what people say it is doing. The people with whom you talk, either informally and/or in more formal interviews can tell you what they see to be the organization’s important constituencies—workers, clients, supporters, and others— and what those people think the organization should be about. The standards they use, in talking about the organization, will tell you a lot about how they think about the organization, and its priorities. You will probably learn a lot you didn’t know about what people really care about, as against what they think is the answer you want. The more open and conversational you can be about these discussions, the more you’re likely to get insights and observations that matter. Both group discussions, where people spark each other’s thoughts, and individual, private discussions can be helpful in laying this descriptive base. As you build up your base of information, you may find you are naturally working backwards from this description of what has been the group’s values (goals, ideals) and what, at the moment, various people in the group think should be the values and guiding ideas. Further, over time, you’ll have a lot more information on which to make such judgments, than you did at the start. You’ll probably find that you have learned a lot that you didn’t know about things that you thought you were

20 Applications

on top of. You are likely to realize that you now have thoughts, insights, and feelings about the agency’s activities that hadn’t ever occurred to you before. This is a big dividend that often results from this kind of open, descriptive research, even before you get to the explicitly evaluative part. After a while, you may want to ask people in your organization’s subgroups to write evaluations of it, and to make a practice of doing this every so often. In the process, they can set the standards they use, and use their own words to describe the good and the bad. That’ll make it easier for them to contribute to the evaluation, and you may find they think about the whole idea of doing “an evaluation” in new ways. Furthermore, you will almost certainly get a lot of rich material that isn’t pre-digested by you, or unintentionally “parroted” by others because they think they know what they “should” say. This can build toward a real evaluation that can make a difference—a difference that is likely to be meaningful to you, and to others in the organization, and to those who may benefit from what the organization does. Whether your organization is a community service agency, a school, or a neighborhood group, you can mobilize broad participation involving many people in a potentially valuable evaluation, not just by dutifully performing a perfunctory task. You have the opportunity to critically reflect on what you actually are, and aren’t, doing, examine some new options, and then decide if you want to initiate some creative improvisations. Ideally, you, and others, will come to see “evaluation” as something that can, and should, be done continually. For example, it’s perhaps valuable to think in terms of a doing a continual series of evaluations, none of which has to be the “perfect” evaluation. As you do some evaluations, whether large or small, it may be a good idea to pull such evaluations together, periodically, and to share them with the important constituencies of the organization. Share only a digest or highlighted summary of what you learned, if you like, but make it an honest one, and a good basis for a series of discussions of what each evaluation means, and why. For one thing, that will tend to make people think more deeply about the criteria of judgment that you should be using in evaluating your group’s work. It may make people feel a lot better about what they are doing, and this often happens. It may bring to light some hard criticisms, and some tough issues about how and where the organization is going next. In any case, it will usually be an important educational process in self-evaluation for the group and can be a major step forward in improving the ways you operate, and a very substantive basis for group planning. I’m not saying do this mindlessly, setting up a mutual put down session, or stirring up submerged enmities in the group. Still, taking a chance, in the right context with this kind of frank, full information, can be a powerful builder of self-confidence and cooperation, if the group is basically a healthy one. From such written descriptions and evaluations, from your interviews and group discussions with important constituencies, and from your own efforts in pulling these together, you should be able to formulate your own standards, acceptable to the necessary constituencies, of what the organization is doing right, what its problems are, what priorities make sense for the coming period, and what the organization means

Program evaluations 21

to the people who put effort into it, and/or depend on it, or who hope to benefit from it. In these ways, you can write a better, one-shot evaluation than most deadline-driven, reactive “studies” will allow. You can combine this richer description, which fits your own values and goals, with whatever, additional, needed formal goal statements, outcomes, and indicators of effectiveness that your funding sources, or other external agencies require of you. That is, don’t let the formally stated requirements imposed by others, along with their expected indicators of success, take the initiative away from you. Make it clear that your richer version of the organization is the more real one and that any others, while they may be reasonable from other points of view, are “outsiders’” versions. No need to be defensive here, either—just keep on the affirmative, and speak your mind with confidence and full facts. In that way, you really put your best foot forward, showing that you care about what your organization is doing, and that you aren’t afraid to look at it. This can be much more impressive to an external source than any hasty, on-demand reaction to its categories and criteria, no matter how expertly you try to manipulate “the data” within the frameworks determined by others. This means, of course, that evaluation should start well ahead of any deadline that you will have to meet from the outside. Ideally, you should aim to build evaluation into your organization’s operations, as an ongoing thing. Make it okay to talk openly about the values and the shortcomings of the agency—not in a carping, negative way, but constructively, trying to be helpful with one another, to learn, and still willing to do some self-criticism as well. If periodic, written evaluations are accepted in your agency, as an expected thing, and if people know that they will have a chance to get their voices heard, they may be a lot more willing to make commitments to the group, to do work, and to care about the community that you are a part of. And, when an outside demand comes, you’ll be prepared. Not because you have started far ahead of the deadline, but because evaluation is a part of your organization’s life, not a semi-fraudulent response, done at the last minute, to keep someone else off your back. That may feel a lot better, too.

Case example of some steps in agency-consultant collaboration on program evaluation One approach to working with community agencies who wish to do a program evaluation is for the outside consultant to collaborate with agency staff. I’ve done this a number of times with different groups, and it has some advantages. I do bring to the collaboration the benefit of having gone through the process of program evaluation a number of times. More importantly, the staff of the agency are intimately aware of their purposes and challenges, have deep commitments, and have a large body of knowledge about and experience in addressing the problems which are at the center of what they are trying to do. Together, we then design the goals of the evaluation, and the best ways to conduct it. Quite commonly, such evaluations serve two, needed purposes, to provide information to funders and other outsiders about the

22 Applications

successes and outcomes of the program, and most significantly, but often overlooked in many evaluations, to build and articulate a base of valuable knowledge growing out of the experiences and insights of agency staff and participants. The pressures to be accountable to an outside funder, for example, all too often can overshadow the importance of other kinds of information beyond “outcomes assessment.” What works and doesn’t work? Why do some strategies work sometimes, but not always? What insights about agency successes can be useful not only within the agency for their future practices, but also potentially to people in other organizations working on similar problems. For example, with one agency, focusing on the reduction of gang participation and violence in the community, here is a very brief outline and discussion of some of the things we did for their program evaluation. (This project was done in collaboration with my colleague, Shyaam Shabaka, MPH.) First, of course, we began with the agency staff’s initial ideas about their formally stated goals and objectives, and what they had told the funding agency would be their criteria for measuring success. Beyond this, we spent a lot of time discussing what substantive ideas, questions, and concerns that staff members had about the work they were doing on an everyday basis, to try to reduce and also prevent violence in the neighborhood in which they were located. From a very practical standpoint, we knew that the funding agency would want to know how many gang-affiliated individuals that they had conversations with, during their efforts. How many of these individuals did they end up having an ongoing relationship with, and what were the outcomes of their relationship with these individuals, for instance, in terms of referrals to other agencies, or case management-type of assistance to those gang-affiliated members who eventually became regular participants in the agency’s “gang-reduction project.” Did some gain access to subsidized transitional housing for ex-offenders, for example? Quantitative data about outcomes like this were of critical importance in submitting their formal evaluation to their funder, and of some interest to agency staff, as well. Beyond this, through the evaluation process, agency staff came to appreciate the value of their considerable knowledge and experience. We discussed questions and issues that they identified as critical to doing successful outreach, and then getting people into an ongoing case management process. The two of us who were acting as outside consultants asked each staff person to take notes for just several minutes each week about their core questions and insights from the week. Then, in weekly staff meetings they would discuss and share their notes with one another, and once a month they would discuss their ideas and questions with the two of us, “outside consultants.” Through these discussions, we would then try to identify together three to six key areas or themes among the insights and questions. We strongly encouraged staff to look for key programmatic challenges, as well as noteworthy “breakthroughs” and successes. Staff were also asked to share specific examples and stories that illustrated these challenges and breakthroughs, without including details that would violate client/participant confidentiality and anonymity with outsiders. It should be added that although some staff had some traditional professional

Program evaluations 23

training in social work and related fields, many staff had been chosen mostly because of their life experiences of being “street smart,” coupled with personal maturity and wisdom. We used the following structure to guide the gathering and analyzing information and insights noted above—both qualitative and quantitative information:       





Staff will have primary responsibility for gathering the necessary data/information. Staff will record data on contact record forms, intake and referral forms, and other project management/case management forms. Each staff person will spend 5–10 minutes per week writing notes of the main insights, stories, ideas, observations, questions and/or challenges that have come to their attention during the previous week. Staff will meet together at least once per week for 30 minutes or more to discuss their notes and data gathered. Evaluation consultants will meet with staff once each month. These discussions will review with staff the data gathered, and their discussions of the insights from the data gathered, during the previous month. Through these discussions, consultants and staff will organize data and insights according to each of the goals, objectives, criteria, ideas, questions, and concerns previously identified, as well as using any newly identified goals, ideas, questions, and concerns (see below). Consultants and staff will note those areas where there is insufficient data and information—to see what’s missing and what’s needed—and will discuss strategies for gathering additional, needed information during the coming month. Consultants and staff will note/identify new, additional goals, objectives, ideas, questions, criteria, and concerns that need to be addressed—areas not previously noted that, in light of new experience, should be evaluated and attended to.

Although not appropriate to discuss the details of the specific content in this book, the following are just a sample of the areas in which staff generated insights and questions:     

How to achieve outreach goals, how to build positive relationships on street and get referrals. How to develop a street mentoring system to generate a steady stream of valuable referrals for people with unmet needs and at risk of becoming involved in street violence. How to build community into a matriarchal culture of sharing and ethics. How to develop perception-shifting strategies to recondition the dysfunctional thought and behavioral patterns that allow some to get caught in a cycle of violence. How to create a safe passage transportation system within the neighborhood where one might need to travel through the turf of a different gang.

24 Applications

   

How to achieve intake goals—to develop a comprehensive system and make sure participants, and in most cases their parents as well, understand paperwork and expectations for program participation. How to achieve family advocacy goals—to create support systems for families affected by violence. How to achieve educational goals, to develop an education/resource system to insure the educational/career success of all participating youth. How to achieve the program’s “zoning goals,” to have offices in different sections of the city.

We all knew that a report at the end of the project was needed for external accountability, and in the process, staff became aware of the value that such a report might also serve for agency self-improvement, but potentially as well, as a resource for people in other communities working on similar problems. We agreed on the following guidelines for report writing: 

  

Project report writing will be based on the data and discussions growing out of our monthly meetings. Staff are to provide consultants with highlighted summaries of information gathered—especially pertaining to deliverables expected by the funding agency. Consultants will take notes in monthly meetings and use these notes, along with reports provided by staff, to use draft periodic evaluation reports. Drafts of reports by consultants will be reviewed by staff for accuracy and relevance, and staff and consultants will together make the necessary revisions. Reports will be used not only for external agencies but also to further internal discussion among staff program improvements and discussion between staff and evaluation consultants to further the program evaluation.

This case example is merely an illustration of one approach—in the design of an overall approach to evaluation. Especially regarding the specific strategic details of evaluation and implementation, one must always be mindful of the specific circumstances, project purposes, and participating individuals.

Toward a transformative approach to evaluation Since 1975, in our efforts to create, and to continue to develop, an innovative institution of higher learning, my colleagues and I at the Western Institute for Social Research have tried to practice what we have come to call, “Transformative Evaluation.” Here, I will provide a brief introduction to our philosophy and practice of “transformative evaluation.” I believe that this approach, like all the various methods of transformative action research, is very much worth considering by people in a variety of settings—community services agencies, governmental organizations, neighborhood groups, activist networks, and educational institutions, among others.

Program evaluations 25

In the field of evaluation, most people make the important distinction between “summative evaluation” and “formative evaluation. “Summative Evaluation” answers the question of whether or not an individual or a program meets a certain level of standards—in conventional colleges, students receive letter grades, and in some nontraditional programs, like the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), students are graded pass/no pass or credit/no credit. These are both summative approaches to evaluation. With regard to a particular program, such as, for example, one of WISR’s degree programs, faculty, advisory committee members, or outsider evaluators (e.g., the state or an accrediting agency) might evaluate the degree program in terms of whether it meets certain standards—either WISR’s own, stated standards, or the standards of some outside agency. This type of evaluation is important in determining whether a program, or a student, for example, is performing “good enough.” “Formative Evaluation” is concerned with using evaluation to determine how an individual or a program can improve. Based on the evidence obtained in evaluating the individual or program, we use the evaluation process to come up with some evidenced-based suggestions, or strategies, that will help the individual, or the program, to improve. In these cases, for example, evaluation is used to help students make better progress in their studies, learn more effectively and more deeply in terms of some stated outcomes or goals, or improve in the pursuit of their own learning goals and interests. Further, formative evaluation of WISR’s degree programs gives faculty and students insights into strategies and improvements that will help them to improve the degree programs, to better achieve their stated, program objectives. One of the challenges to maximizing learning is that sometimes the need to grade, that is, the need to perform a summative evaluation, distracts from learning, which requires formative evaluation—or better yet, transformative evaluation (which I will introduce, shortly). There are many well-documented cases of how grading can detract from learning, going back over a half-century to the well-done study in the 1960s by Becker, Geer and Hughes on Making the Grade (Becker, Geer, & Hughes, 1995). The sometimes contradictory purposes between formative and summative evaluation, are related to what I’ve referred to in the domain of higher education as “Learning-Certification Contradictions” (Bilorusky & Butler, 1975). Specifically, the need to do summative evaluations as part of the credit-granting and degree-granting process sometimes results in students and faculty paying attention to the demands of certification, of the summative evaluations, rather than primarily focusing on learning and formative evaluation. At WISR, we try to consciously confront, and discuss, the tensions between learning and certification, between summative and formative evaluation, in our approaches to working with students and evaluating student learning. Being mindful of this tension, and some of the contradictions involved, does not completely remove the problem, but it does enable students and faculty to put as much attention as possible on the pursuit of learning and the role of valuable, formative evaluation. You might say we try to “accentuate the positive qualities of formative evaluation, and minimize, without denying, the pressures of summative evaluation.” In many other settings as well, it is important to be aware of the contradictions and tensions

26 Applications

between the demands of doing summative evaluations and the challenges and opportunities provided by formative evaluations. Whether one is working in a community organization, governmental agency, school, or even a neighborhood group, it is important not to allow efforts on doing “summative evaluations” to detract from the value, insights, learning, and changes that can come out of a well-done formative evaluation. This leads to the discussion of an even more ambitious, third concept of evaluation that we try to practice here at WISR—”Transformative Evaluation.” Several of us involved in founding WISR in 1975 articulated this notion, and it has been a guiding perspective on evaluation and learning at WISR for over 45 years now. Transformative Evaluation, quite importantly, is the pursuit of an inquiring process of evaluation that attempts to not be “paradigm-bound.” That is, the evaluation process is to include questioning and inquiring into the assumptions that underlie what is being evaluated, for example, the evaluation of learning at WISR. As noted above, an underlying dynamic is the inherent contradictions between learning and certification. This means that at WISR, we attempt to evaluate the systemic assumptions and the values embedded in our operational policies and practices—the impact of our academic requirements, of the structure of our courses and programmatic curricula, and of our academic methods of evaluating student performance. Also, we try to re-evaluate, continually, our very goals and purposes, as well as how we think about them and try to pursue them. Our efforts to accomplish this include continually asking our students about the ways in which our academic requirements both impede and facilitate their learning. As one might expect, we sometimes get different answers from different students, and we try to be mindful of this complexity in making decisions about our overall curriculum, as well as about how to work better with individual students. Especially, unlike summative and formative evaluation, transformative evaluation involves a conscious re-evaluation of our mission, goals, and outcomes, rather than only addressing how well we are living up to our mission, pursuing our goals, and achieving our intended, currently stated outcomes. For example, the process of transformative evaluation enabled us to realize, after our initial 20 or so years, that an important, but not initially stated, part of our mission has always been to help our students to “build bridges to the next important things they want to do in their lives.” Consequently, we have since worked to flesh out and elaborate on our articulation of this “new,” explicitly stated part of our mission, as follows. For now, we have settled on this statement: We believe it is important to consciously and continually help students to design learning activities—action projects, research, and writings—that help to build bridges to the student’s desired career and life paths, oftentimes while also working toward a more sustainable and just future. We believe that people should not have their visions limited by the definitions of existing jobs and careers, and that they can, and should, be encouraged to be both visionary and realistic in pursuing a life path that makes sense to them. Consequently, WISR’s educational programs are suited for learners with many different types of future goals, including but not limited to: changing careers, pursuing

Program evaluations 27

advancement in one’s existing career, becoming more capable and more meaningfully engaged in one’s existing job or career niche, writing books and articles, organizing people and networks for social change, or creating new organizations and programs. https://www.wisr.edu/prospective-students/wha t-is-special-about-education-at-wisr/ In the spirit of transformative evaluation, this statement continues to be subject to re-examination, refinement, and if needed, major, redefinition.

Evaluation as the discovery of grounded theory Related to the value that we at WISR place on transformative evaluation, we have learned from, and drawn on, the merits and qualities of those approaches to research which develop, and continually re-evaluate and revise, concepts, theories, questions, tentative courses of action, and working hypotheses from specific examples and stories. We have learned much from sociologist, Herbert Blumer’s book Symbolic Interactionism (Blumer, 1969), and from the medical anthropologists Glaser and Strauss in their book, The Discovery of Grounded Theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). One approach to doing this kind of grounded theory-based evaluation, is to look for “exceptions to the rule” as was discussed in this book’s companion on Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research (Bilorusky, 2021). Others taking a highly similar approach are those who practice a “positive deviance approach.” Bouman, Lubjuhn, & Singhal (2014) summarize it this way: The Positive Deviance (PD) approach to social change is an innovative method that enables communities to discover the health wisdom they already have and to act on it. The premise of PD is that in every community there are certain individuals or institutions whose uncommon behaviors or practices enable them to find better solutions to problems than their peers who have access to the same resources. The behaviors and practices of these individuals or institutions are ‘positive’ because they are doing things right, and ‘deviant’ because they engage in behaviors and practices that most others do not. (Singhal, 2011) In doing transformative evaluation, as in all sorts of action research, Blumer’s notion of “sensitizing concept” is especially valuable. (See Chapter 3, of the companion book, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research.) The “sensitizing concept” is always in the process of being re-evaluated and reformulated in light of emerging evidence and experience. This is a transformative process of evaluating and re-evaluating the concepts which guide and explain our actions. Such concepts are not merely stated in abstract terms but are also coupled with a rich variety of examples that illustrate the complexity, situational variability, and nuances of the concept. In line with Glaser and Strauss’ research approach, new experience and evidence provide new examples, and counterexamples, so that the

28 Applications

sensitizing concept can be refined and revised over time. The application of this approach to the field of social work has been discussed by my lifelong friend and colleague at the University of Cincinnati in the early 1970s, the late Harry Butler (Butler, Davis, & Kukkonen, 1979). At WISR, we use the perspectives provided by the “discovery of grounded theory” and notion of the “sensitizing concept” to try to do transformative evaluation of learning at WISR. We state our learning outcomes in terms that are “measurable,” not in numeric or letter grade terms, but in ways that help to guide us in observing whether or not a student has accomplished or achieved a particular outcome. Over time, we pay attention to the variety of specific examples and cases that will necessarily be both distinctive and perhaps idiosyncratic and also illustrative or indicative of the stated outcome. We do not use narrowly defined, quantitative indicators, nor do we settle for vague, global abstractions. Instead, our evaluation process is a continual inquiry into how well evidence, drawn from the written papers and observations of the learning and efforts of different students and in different circumstances, help to build an accurate, albeit complex and nuanced, picture of how well, and in what ways students are (or aren’t) learning. In the process, we may come to realize that we have overlooked some important outcomes, or that some outcomes are either not so important as we previously thought, or that we need to revise the ways in which (for now) we articulate these outcomes. That is, even though the outcomes do guide our evaluation process (as is the case with formative evaluation), we consciously realize that new evidence—new experiences and/or newly arrived-at insights—may require that we revise the outcomes themselves. That we allow that outcomes will often need to be changed, or at the very least refined, makes our evaluation process, “transformative.” This approach to evaluation, and its related approach to learning—as emergent and growing out of the experiences of learners is very much in line with John Dewey’s philosophy of education (Dewey, 2015; Dewey, 1968).

3 USES OF ACTION RESEARCH IN COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

(Revised and updated from an earlier paper with Dr. Terry Lunsford.) In Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research (Bilorusky, 2021), I introduced the value of building action research into your community organization, as an ongoing practice shared in by most of its participants. Now, I aim to summarize and describe what that might mean—some of its uses, and issues that it tends to raise.

An ongoing process of information-gathering and review Once you and the other people in your community organization get a sense of action research, as an activity growing naturally out of the needs we all share for more knowledge of what we are doing, and the abilities we all have for gathering, analyzing, and synthesizing information, it should make sense that these needs are around all of the time, and these activities can be made more or less ongoing. All too often, research in community groups simply crops up now and then, as the occasional “research study” that someone wants to do on our operations, or as the “evaluation” some outside agency demands of us. By contrast, action research can become a continuing, shared activity in most community groups, and where this is done, it can provide a kind of collective focus on what the group is doing, how it is being done, what we hope to accomplish, and how our practices can be improved. If you have a task-group on action research, for example, or a person assigned to coordinate action research, with a committee to advise them, you can ask that group to do much of the detailed planning of what is to be studied about the organization, how to do it, what the priorities are. You can then use their suggestions, and the information they uncover, as the focus of discussions at staff meetings, Board meetings, and sessions with your community participants and constituents. These broader meetings are important in making the action research a

30 Applications

product of the whole agency, not the private preserve (or the political tool) of any small group. Such an ongoing process, which includes both information-gathering and its frequent review, re-design, and assessment, can become one of the central mechanisms that make your community group a lively, dynamic, useful one to the people it serves, and to the people who work there. Having and using that kind of process involves more than creating an official “research policy,” of course. It means that the people in the organization are willing to take regular, collective looks at what it is, who its people are, what they are accomplishing, and what is going on beneath the surface. In many organizations, this is tightly controlled by a leadership or management group, or sometimes by a single person. Or there might be clear factions, each of which has its own, special-pleading version of what goes on in the agency. Here, I am suggesting, a view of community organizations that assumes they exist to serve community purposes, and that all of the participants in such an organization, including those served by it, have some legitimate voice in its affairs. Probably, that’s the way most community agencies want and try to operate, although many don’t come very close. An action research process can help a community group to see itself clearly, in a continuing way, and to make its attempts at open and shared responsibilities to be more frequently successful.

Uses of action research in community groups Seen in this light, the broadest and most important use for action research in community groups is the enrichment of a continuous flow of realistic, descriptive information about the organization, itself. That information may be about its goals and basic structure, but also its actual work, the activities people are spending their time on, what problems are corning up again and again, what things are working especially well, what patterns of problem-solving are being established, and what new needs, demands and opportunities the group is facing. However, we often think of research as a luxury, to be attended to later, when we have more time, or only when some external demand forces us to do a study of some kind. That often turns out to be a short-sighted view. One reason has to do with communication in organizations, generally. As organizations do work, and grow, and become more complicated, in the effort to do that work better, there is also a natural tendency for communication to break down. Since people are busy working and talking about their work, they may only think about how it will help with the immediate problems they are facing. Another challenge is that each person also tends to talk much more to some people than others, within little subgroups. As work is divided up, communication about work, and about the organization as a whole, tends to follow suit and to be divided up, also. That is especially a problem in big, complex organizations like labor unions or schools or businesses or government agencies, but it can also happen within a small community agency. Leaders and managers, especially, can get isolated into dealing with administrative matters, and lose their opportunities to talk or think with their co-workers about anything but the balance-sheet and the upcoming Board meeting, or the forms that have to be filled out. What is worse,

Uses in organizations 31

they often don’t realize this is happening, and continue as if they knew intimately what is going on in daily operations and staff relationships. But it can happen to any sub-group in an agency, when they get used to talking only among themselves about the important issues, and to just having chit-chat with other people, over coffee or lunch. So, organization-wide communication is something that must be worked at, especially across subgroups, and in a way that gives each group’s members real, substantive information about what the others are doing and thinking. Action research can be one part of this effort, by providing regular descriptions of the organization’s life from everyone, about its priorities and people’s varied aspirations, and making these matters available for shared discussion and change, if the group doesn’t like them. Having some facts to communicate about, and going through the process of deciding which facts are important, makes more difference than it may sound like, at first. One reason is that we all “lose” facts, rather rapidly, after we get them, forgetting about them or allowing them to fade into the background, no longer noticed. And then, we re-invent, adapt, and just assume substitutes for the ones we lose. Facts get out of date, fast, when a group is wrestling actively with how to stay alive, define its community’s needs, meet them, deal with conflicting ideas of how to do it, and respond to the outside pressures. Because we have to assume some things are stable, while we pay attention to others, each of us tends to stereotype and simplify our assumptions about what other people are doing, especially if they are outside our immediate awareness. Or we just go on the gossip we happen to hear, often from the same people, over and over. And these “facts,” although perhaps extremely limited in painting a well-rounded picture of the organization’s realities, shape our expectations of what is corning next, and what is important to our co-workers. Further, we tend to do this, without seeking much verification. Simply having periodic, group meetings to raise agency issues, and clear the air with discussion, can help a lot to counteract this tendency. But some issues are harder to clear up with a brief discussion. They need an effort that—whatever it’s called—amounts to a kind of action research. For example, what do we know about:      

How many people have called in for help, over each of the last few months? Are we still spending our time and effort on the goals we spelled out in our charter? How satisfied with our work are most of the people we serve? What suggestions do they have for changes and improvements? How satisfied are most of the organization’s staff and volunteers with their jobs and working conditions? What are the major, recurring problems—not just the ones that happen to come up in a brief discussion?

Issues like these can be opened up in a staff meeting, but in-depth information often requires doing some digging, some interviewing of people, some study of documents, some analysis and organizing of results. That is a part of an ongoing action research process.

32 Applications

A lot of action research can be merely be a description of what is going on. For example, it can teach us a lot, and incidentally keep us honest in our thinking, if each of us has to describe, every so often, what we are doing and why, what our problems are, how we are solving them, and how we would improve things. Consequently, we often come to realize things that we didn’t realize before, when we write such things down, and especially if we know that others will read them. Frequent sharing of such operational descriptions can help to correct the natural drifting apart, and the build-up of discordant practices, that occur as each of us goes about doing their own job, and meeting new, unforeseen circumstances. Formal rules won’t solve this problem, although they can help to keep it within bounds. However, formal rules make their own problems, especially when there get to be a lot of them. Action research on what people actually are doing, and how they would improve it, can help to keep rules to a minimum. By doing action research, we can help by substituting updated, factual knowledge of people’s activities, feelings, and thoughts for formal regulations. In the process, action research efforts allow everyone to make reasonable judgments about how the circumstances of other people’s work ask each of us to change and adapt, to keep things in our organization working harmoniously. That way, formal rules about what must be done may be needed only in a few, special cases, and most people working in the agency can adapt to one another, because action research can help everyone to better understand one another’s situations, as well as their own. This may sound like I am simply talking about that universal cure-all of “good communication,” rather than about action research, specifically. Not so. Doing action research can imbue our communications with some special, valuable qualities. There are lots of kinds of communication. Here, I am talking about basing our discussions of organizational life on carefully gathered and considered facts about the ongoing operations and relationships among people that actually exist. Further, those facts are not so easily available as we often tend to assume. Everyone knows, for example, that the organization chart doesn’t describe the real, working relations between people in positions on the staff, because when doing jobs, people are also naturally meeting with each other informally. Some discussions of good communication assume an unreal, abstract, idealized portrayal of ongoing organizational life. All too often, attempts to improve communications within an agency fail to account for the real-life conditions, in more than a small, partial way. This may include an overreliance on formal statements of goals, official policies, rules, and summary descriptions in brochures. In contrast, by doing action research we can base our decision-making about communications on useable, factual descriptions of what our actual, working activities are like, including the different ways that people see and experience these activities. As organizational practices reveal themselves in observed patterns found in looking at our repeated problem-solving efforts, then we can together formulate practical, “working hypotheses” about our organization. By continually doing action research, and communicating with one another about our emerging insights, we can obtain regularly updated, thoughtful, and sometimes subtle observations

Uses in organizations 33

and sensitive interpretations about our agency’s activities. Using a transformative approach to action research doesn’t guarantee success, but it does create a strong likelihood that our collaborative efforts will help us to identify problems and directions, to solve problems together, and to communicate meaningfully and effectively. In these ways, our work is likely to be more systematic, more productive, and indeed more enjoyable and engaging, as well. Very much related to all this, by having an ongoing action research process, we can help our organization to “find its own voice.” This means working together to develop our own answers to questions about how well we are doing our jobs and allowing us to anticipate problems that otherwise might appear suddenly, or oftentimes not so usefully, from an external evaluation. It helps to make sure that we have our own version of our organization’s efforts and realities, and our own evidence for those things, ready to rebut any unfair or one-side versions of our work that outside observers, even when well-intended may make. So, an action research process has a lot of valuable uses, and among them are to define for ourselves directions and decisions about how to preserve, and strengthen, the integrity and sustainability of our own organization, while remaining open to new directions and needed changes.

A focus that can shape organizational “politics” Once you learn about ways to do action research on an everyday basis, you will likely be able to help others in your group to come to like inquiry as a focus for your operations. Indeed, with practice, enough of your co-workers may like action research so well that they will want to make it a major activity in which all segments of the organization and its constituents engage regularly. For many people in community work, this kind of involvement, in gathering and defining and interpreting the facts of what everyone is doing, can be a reassuring, even an exhilarating, experience. It can mean having a part in the group’s policies, in the decisions about what is to be done, and doing so, without wrangling over who has the authority to say what, or what their credentials are, or what their “place” in the organization is. When the focus of a group is inquiry—is finding out what is happening, interpreting it, grounding their interpretations in real events—many people can contribute, and often with nearly equal force, based on their own knowledge and experience. It is a reminder that the organization doesn’t belong to the professional researchers, or the group’s formal authorities, alone. It should also be clear, however, that inquiry, or action research more specifically, is not a substitute for other organizational processes, such as some kind of decisionmaking structure, and some ground-rules for working and treating each other civilly. Like anything else, inquiry can be degraded into just another tool of power struggles and selfish purposes, if it is blown out of its proportion in the priorities of a community group. For example, it makes no more sense to give a researcher or research committee the final say over what is studied, or the interpretation of its meanings, than to give unchecked power to any other special group. The larger group’s political processes should shape its research policies, as they do other kinds of policies. Further, those processes, themselves, can sometimes be improved, and the level of discussions

34 Applications

elevated out of old conflict-patterns, by a group that places a high, clear value on knowing a lot about its operations, on keeping struggles rooted firmly in facts and explicit values, and in the purposes of the organization. The number and intensity of symbolic stand-offs and conflicts, between those who support different emphases and priorities, can sometimes be reduced, if clear, specific accounts of what is actually done are kept in the forefront of a community group’s discussions. An ongoing action research process, including established ways to identify issues, gather and interpret facts, and bring them to bear on the group’s purposes, can be a very positive factor in seeking to keep organizational discussions both realistic and reasonable.

Community needs assessments An important challenge facing many community agencies is the matter of assessing the needs of people in their community and/or of their clients. Indeed, the idea of doing “needs assessments” has become an increasingly popular one. Very often this conveys the image of developing a questionnaire which will then be circulated among a number of community people, or students or teachers in a school, followed by a statistical compilation of the results. This may lead to findings like, 40% of our clients need jobs, or 25% have high blood pressure, or 65% have children and of these 70% need day care services. That is, the findings may document problems facing the people surveyed, or specify some of the services they need. These kinds of findings can be very useful, but quite frequently they tell us those things we already know. Of course, many of our clients need jobs, we know they are under stress and that many of them have high blood pressure, and because almost all parents are working to make a living and have young children, day care services are critical. Certainly, it can be important to test out the conclusions we have arrived at from experience, and it is useful to be able to document these needs by a “scientific” survey, which can then be presented to funding agencies and other organizations to which our agencies may be accountable. Still, how can we do needs assessments in creative ways which will do more than tell us things we already know? First, it is important to begin by asking, what are our purposes in doing a needs assessment? The specific answers to this question will of course depend on the circumstances of the particular agency, and on the concerns and values of the people doing the assessment. Some general purposes include: 1. 2. 3. 4.

to help the agency set priorities and make decisions about which unmet needs should be focused upon; to identify target groups and populations to be served by the agency; to generate ideas for new programs; and to formulate refinements and improvements in existing programs.

When serving such purposes, needs assessments involve gathering data, and making sense of the data to come up with ideas, recommendations for action, and questions.

Uses in organizations 35

In addition, needs assessments can be seen in another light, as well—especially when they are done through direct contact and dialogue with community people, such as through interviews, conversations, and meetings. They can be seen not only as “research,” but also as a way, in and of themselves, to take “action.” Some general purposes of needs assessments which emphasize their value as immediate action include: 1.

2.

3. 4.

as an outreach tool for contacting community people, for example, for making the agency visible, for recruiting potential clients and Board members, for networking with people from other community groups; using the dialogue involved with the needs assessment as a way of educating community people and getting them involved in thinking about their own needs and also about the needs of others in their community; as an opportunity to organize community people to become involved in acting on their own behalf (empowerment); and as a way of helping agency staff to come into contact with community people outside their usual role of “service provider.”

These varied purposes are just a few of those that can be aided by needs assessments, and, of course, a single, creatively designed needs assessment may effectively serve many different purposes. A variety of techniques may be used, and many good assessments will use more than one technique. Methods which involves direct contact with community people or our participants, such as one-on-one interviews, group interviews, meetings, and informal conversations, as contrasted with questionnaires and telephone surveys—have some definite advantages: 1.

2. 3.

it is possible to adapt the specific questions asked of each person or group, spontaneously and improvisationally, to the comments they make, to the information they have given, and to the concerns they express; it is easier to develop a positive rapport, to demonstrate that we genuinely care about what they have to say, and that we can be trusted; and to provide those interviewed with information that will make them aware of what kinds of alternatives are under consideration, and in doing so, to help them in answering the questions.

For example, many people often assume that their own “wants” are not valid needs, or that their needs and wants cannot be feasibly addressed. If they get a questionnaire from a community health center, they may comment on the kinds of needs they would expect to be addressed by a health center. But perhaps the center could respond to other needs, as well, such as the need for emotional support through contact with other people. In the absence of the kind of exchange of ideas which can take place in a conversation or an interview, the interviewee might give us the information, they assume we are looking for. Through dialogue, we can help people to stretch their imaginations, and their images of what’s feasible and possible.

36 Applications

A possible risk, here, is that this more imaginative approach to needs assessment may create high expectations among those whom we contact, which are then beyond the capabilities of the agency. However, needs assessments can potentially address this risk by educating people about the likely constraints and limitations, and then by problem-solving with them on ways of addressing these constraints and limitations. In this light, needs assessments might first identify those realities that are preventing people from having their needs met, and then organize them and/or work with them to change those realities. Extending this approach, sometimes, needs assessments may effectively involve community people, or the participants in our organization, as “action researchers” who are conducting the needs assessment. For example, if one aims to develop educational options for low-income women that would address the challenges they face in their lives, one might involve some of those women in conducting one-on-one interviews and/or group interviews with other low-income women regarding what kinds of education might help them to address their needs. Group interviews, especially, may sometimes be used as a way of eliciting dialogue among people, so that they can compare their points of view with one another and comment on each other’s ideas. Through such methods, people may be encouraged to reflect more critically on their own needs and also to think about the needs of others in their community. A basic issue in doing a needs assessment is who are the “community people” or the “participants” with whom we are concerned in this particular case? What is the definition of the population of people whose needs are to be assessed? How can we decide whose needs to assess? The answers to such questions depend in large part on our purposes in doing the needs assessment—the goals of our agency or organization, and our social and human values. Once a plan for doing the needs assessment has been thought out, and once we have actually begun to carry it out, we will almost inevitably discover that we will have to make changes in the plan, which take into account things that we have learned in the initial phases of the needs assessment. We may become aware of new questions to ask, which we hadn’t thought of earlier; or, we may learn of additional groups and people to talk to, as a result of suggestions and comments given by those people with whom we initially talk. Generally, it is a good idea to plan on bringing all the action researchers (e.g., interviewers) together periodically to discuss the ideas and information, which have come to light so far. These discussions can be used to critique and pull together information, and then to make decisions about what steps to take next in order to go after the additional information needed to fill in the gaps, to answer important, remaining questions, or to reach out to other groups. Although needs assessments can be complex projects, there are ways we can practice some of the basic principles of needs assessments on an everyday basis. One person with whom I have collaborated in learning about uses of action research told the following story about how she used some of things she has learned in her family life. Every year she has a simple little birthday party for her daughter. One year, she decided that she would sit down with her daughter and her daughter’s

Uses in organizations 37

friends, and ask them, “What do you like most about birthday parties? What do you like least about them?” With time, but not a lot of money, she planned a party that was such an acclaimed success that the parents of all the neighborhood children now want her to be an expert birthday party “consultant” for them. Her response to all this is that she will help them learn to do what she did, but that they don’t need to have someone else do it for them. They only need to give thought and care to finding out about their children’s needs and desires. This is a good example of how transformative action-and-inquiry can become part of our everyday lives, and in ways that are not limited to our work and our efforts to bring about organizational improvements or social change.

Designing pilot projects and developing concept papers addressing community needs and problems Sometimes, to explore the value of a proposed action, it is useful to design an “pilot project” to test out the idea on a small scale. Or, alternatively, it can be helpful to draft a “concept paper” that discusses the rationale and goals of some proposed solutions to a particular problem or some unmet community needs. The crucial first steps involved in selecting which project to pursue, from among a variety to topics and areas of personal interest, are to design the main goals and dimensions of the project. There are no neat formulas for getting through these initial steps to design a pilot project or produce a proposal or concept paper, but there are some considerations that we can try to take into account in order to construct, a project which is 1) personally meaningful, and interesting, 2) significant in its potential contribution to the lives of others in the larger community, and 3) one we can feasibly hope to accomplish. In selecting and defining the project to be pursued, we should give special emphasis to our own previous experiences and reflections on the problems and needs with which we are most concerned. Insights can be gained from our own observations, from conversations and interviews with others, and from readings. But in the final analysis, we must make our own judgments about the implications and relative significance of the insights gained from these various sources. We are the ones who will have to live with and be responsible for the design, implementation, and completion of the project. If the professional literature says a certain problem area is significant, but it doesn’t “feel that way” to us, based on our own thoughts and experiences, then we shouldn’t pursue a project centered on that concern. If, on the other hand, we feel an area is important, but no one else seems to feel so, we must ask ourselves some hard questions about this discrepancy, before going ahead with the project. We might of course decide that the project is worthwhile, and that one of its goals is to help others to become aware of important things about it, which have not previously been so visible to them. Next, I will discuss some considerations involved in going through the steps of 1) generating options for possible projects, 2) examining each of the project topics and options in more depth, and 3) then focusing in on the detailed definition of one or two projects.

38 Applications

Generating options One good place to start is to make a list of topics or projects of personal interest. These topics might be taken from thoughts while doing your job, reading, or talking with others. It is a good idea to keep such a list on an ongoing basis. You can proceed to write down your first thoughts about each topic or possible problem, especially about why each is of interest to you. After this, you should critically examine these various options.

Examining the options It can be helpful to layout the main dimensions of, or questions to ask about, each possible problem or project area:  



What about the topic interests you? That is, specifically, what problems, issues, questions, and needs are likely to be addressed by the project? What do others need to learn about the topic, and, for that matter, what do you need to learn about the topic or problem? That is, what concepts, problems, and issues, strategies, and practices, questions, and needs do you want to help others to learn about? What misconceptions do you want to correct? Who are your principal audiences? What are the main obstacles to addressing the problem? How do these obstacles function to impede progress in this area?

Secondly, and of considerable importance, what is the feasibility of pursuing each of the possible projects? More specifically: 



What are likely to be the main difficulties encountered while pursuing each project? What will you have to do to surmount these difficulties? Or with whom might you talk in order to learn more about how to overcome these difficulties? Talk to some people who can help you think about these difficulties and strategies for dealing with them. Also, talk to people who know about the project area and can help you anticipate difficulties in doing the project of which you might not yet be aware.

At this point, you are ready to do some further inquiry that will enable you to make some decisions about one or two specific projects, which for now, will be your primary focus.

Focusing on the design of one or two projects Based on the above considerations, you will have to make some judgments about the dimensions, significance, and feasibility of the possible topics and how all these

Uses in organizations 39

factors, taken together, influence your interest in each possible project area. You are then able to narrow your thinking down to one or two likely alternatives. Next, you probably should identify some specific goals, as well as some of the specific, possible outcomes for the project(s). These specific goals and outcomes may be derived from common activities involved with doing of pilot projects and writing concept papers, such as:  

     

to illuminate new perspectives and approaches to the problems or community needs with which your project will be concerned; to improve awareness of the problems or unmet community needs among community leaders, institutional officials, practicing professionals, and public groups who may have been assuming that such problems are lessening or “solving themselves”; to help mobilize those people most directly affected by the problem(s) to become more aware of the nature and causes of the problem(s), and to help them discover ways in which they can begin to address the problem(s); to help stimulate new forms of cooperation among people who can help solve these problems and to generate untapped energies to find breakthrough points in reaching solutions; to summarize the available data, and various insights, about the needs of the marginalized or underserved groups and the severity of the problems these groups are suffering; to assess the impact of current social and economic conditions on the health, educational opportunities, and general quality of life of these groups; to test out, on a small scale, the feasibility and relevance of new, innovative approaches to solving the pressing community problem(s) and thereby addressing important community needs; and to write evaluations of the results and insights from the project and disseminate and share the evaluations with others.

A next important step is to identify what is being done now and what ideas you have for dealing with the problem. You might well do each of the following: 



From readings, from notes and reflections on your previous experiences with the problem, and from conversations with key people who know about or have experience with the problem, gather and summarize information about differing views of how present approaches to the problem succeed and fail. Especially from your notes and reflection on your own experiences, but also from readings and conversations others, identify and describe some promising, possible new approaches to the problem.

By now, you are almost ready to write up the design for the pilot project, or to articulate in a concept paper some of the key next actions steps and the goals and rationales for those steps. In summary, you should discuss what do you hope to learn

40 Applications

from doing the project, and why would pursuing the project matter to you? That is, which of your values, concerns, interests, and commitments could you pursue through the project? With this sense of direction defined, you can then outline some specific action steps, beginning with the most promising one or two sequences of steps that might be used to implement the project. You should be sure to discuss, what considerations are important in arriving at a useful or logical sequence of steps. Which people, readings, and other sources of information can help you to plan out the details of project implementation? Having gone through these various stages of action-oriented inquiry and planning, you should be able to write the proposal, or concept paper, outlining the design of one or two specific pilot projects that you wish to pursue. You may submit a proposal for funding, or you may wish to try to implement the pilot project on a very small scale, without funding, and then use your experience with that small-scale pilot project to make the case for larger-scale funding to expand and continue the project. At WISR, this is exactly what we did to receive a very substantial and prestigious grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) from 1980 to 1983. For three years, we submitted a proposal, with no success. However, in a moment of insight and determination, I thought, “We’ll show them, we will work with a few community agencies without funding and do so as though we had been funded.” We did this, we learned more from the experience of doing this and obtained strong and tangible letters of support from the half dozen or so participating groups. The next year we were funded. I realized then that we should have done that sooner!

Challenges and opportunities in working for significant, multilevel changes This chapter has intentionally focused on how we can use action research methods to improve the quality and effectiveness of what we do within our groups and organization—especially community-based, non-profit agencies, but also very much applicable to public agencies, neighborhood groups and schools and colleges. Generally speaking, such organizations have missions aimed at improving the lives of a group or groups of people with whom they are primarily concerned. Homeless agencies are concerned with improving the lives of homeless people, day care centers are concerned with the well-being of the children and parents whom they are serving. Schools are designed to educate children, their students, in particular and also in some cases are concerned with the well-being of their parents or even others in the nearby community. A public agency concerned with child welfare is of course primarily concerned with the welfare of the children whom the agency aims to protect or improve their lives. To some extent, these groups, schools, and organizations are usually also concerned not only with individuals but also families, neighborhoods, the larger community or even the entire society. A basic principle of transformative action

Uses in organizations 41

research is that it is important to look at the group’s or agency’s immediate activities and also to consider longer-term and “bigger picture” implications beyond the organization’s immediate and primary concerns. So, here, I am asking us to be mindful of the importance of our being aware of working toward improvements and changes at more than one level. Certainly, first and foremost, we should focus within our organization, and on the individuals or groups we primarily aim to serve. Moreover, we should think about our direct and indirect impact on a wider range of individuals, groups, and communities who may benefit, or not, from our organization’s endeavors. In particular, we should also look at larger “macro” level, of possible systemic changes in the society, if we want to maximize the transformative potential of our action-and-inquiry. That is, we should also try to address, in some ways at least, the large societal consequences, or at least potential “bigger picture” consequences of whatever it is that we are concerned with. In contrast to most community groups and agencies, and to the vast majority of schools, and public agencies, profit-making organizations (unless they are a B corporation with a social mission) have as their major mission to make a profit, although they may embrace other secondary, social missions. For the purposes of this book, I am not focusing on action research in profit-making organizations, although insights about transformative action research might be used by those who are concerned in important ways with any social mission of their profit-making organization. For them, a challenge would be to address the potential and likely conflicts between making a profit and pursuing a social mission or some importantly held ethical values. In a similar way, people who work or volunteer for, or with, non-profit organizations and public agencies, may be motivated primarily by their belief in the organization’s mission and activities, or those employed may be motivated primarily by the pay they receive, or by the status they gain, their possible career advancement, or the satisfying working conditions. Or, quite likely, they may be motivated both by the organization’s values and mission, and their own needs and desires. It is not a bad thing to have personal agendas and motivations, but it is important to understand how these impact on one’s behavior and decisions. So, ideally, and although it may not be so obvious, and even if not part of the stated mission, organizations may also be concerned with the well-being of those who work, or volunteer, in the organization. Certainly, there is a whole field of study about the importance of “worker satisfaction.” However, all too often, the consultants who promote “action research” within organizations do so by following the directives of those with the greatest authority in the organization. So, they may knowingly, or not so knowingly, design the action research to please primarily, or exclusively, the agendas of those in authority. Depending on the motives and values of those in authority, and depending on their own values and motives, the consultant may, or may not, end up feeling good about what they’re being asked to help with. It is quite easy to jump into some consultation or action research effort, or even to mobilize staff to participate in such an effort, without asking some hard questions. What are my values, and the values of various groups of people within the organization—the officially stated ones, the ones embodied in

42 Applications

what people actually do? Are there agreements or disagreements among those in the organization? Are they conscious or not? Stated or not? If action research is to be transformative, it must acknowledge and explicitly consider such matters of values and authority. This is not always easy, and consultants may easily listen to concerns and directives from their “point of contact” in the organization, typically a person with considerable authority, without later hearing from the views of those within the organization, or those served by the organization. Having been the employed as an “in-house” organizational consultant at the University of Cincinnati in the early 1970s, I know from firsthand experience some of the challenges and opportunities of being in such a consultant role. The chair of an academic department may indicate that they are only interested in our helping their faculty in delivering more engaging lectures. But what if students feel that faculty should be more accessible outside of class, or if students are concerned that certain topics are not being adequately addressed in the curriculum? What if some faculty feel under so much pressure to publish that it’s hard to devote a lot of time to improving their teaching? I believe that it is the responsibility of a “good” consultant to elicit, and facilitate the discussion of concerns of all participants, even if they are not the main authorities in the organization. These are all examples of the challenges that one may face in designing and conducting action research within an organization. These challenges may be seen as opportunities as well. Perhaps there is the possibility of bringing people in the organization together to discuss and collaborate, even amid their differences, on the multiple agendas and concerns represented by people in the organization. Admittedly, sometimes this is simply difficult or impossible to accomplish. Not all conflicts can be resolved cooperatively, especially if there are significant power differences among those in the organization, and the powerful are simply unwilling to budge. So, action research should not be seen as a “cure-all” and indeed, in my experience a misuse of action research is to believe it can and must result in consensus and uniform cooperation. In many cases, what appears to be an outcome of “willing cooperation” is really either effective “co-optation” of those who disagree and who have little power, or it is an illusion because people are afraid or reluctant to disagree openly. A further complication involved in using action research within an organization is that no organization, agency, or school exists in a vacuum. All exist in the context of the larger society, and in relationship with other organizations and people who are not the primary members of that organization. Schools impact not only students, teachers, staff, and parents, but also the larger society. Schools use resources (funds especially), and they can provide resources (e.g., open spaces and playgrounds outside of school hours) for the nearby community, or not. They can intentionally develop activities to educate the larger community and provide opportunities for community dialogue, or not. Homeless agencies can focus only on serving the needs of homeless people, or they can also advocate for such larger systemic issues as the creation of more affordable housing. So, for action research to realize its transformative potential, it is crucial that we keep in perspective how our organization, school or agency, and its mission and activities, impact on and are impacted by

Uses in organizations 43

the larger social context. Making organizational improvements without this larger awareness may be inadequate or even counterproductive. Consequently, transformative action research involves inquiry, and action, that are “multilevel”—that is consciously aware of the micro- (individual level), mezzo- (group or organizational level), and macro- (societal-level or systemic) issues. Indeed, by considering the issues, possible actions, and consequences, at each of these three levels or arenas—individual, group/organization and society—our action research efforts can have maximum impact and have greater transformative potential. The better we understand how to contribute to the lives of many individuals, with an awareness of the different needs and interests of individuals, the better we will be able to improve our organizations and groups. Further, we will learn more by paying attention to the diversity of individuals affected, which in turn may alert us in more nuanced ways to the sorts of macro-level systemic changes that are needed. Essentially, the more we understand the dynamics at each level, the more we can understand, potentially at least, what we might best do to impact the other levels. Actions focusing on one level, if carefully evaluated from a multilevel perspective, may reveal actions that might then be implemented at another level. How does the organization’s activities impact individuals and how do the experiences of individuals matter to the organization? How might it impact, or should it impact individuals for the better, be they clients, employees and volunteers, or other individuals? How does the organization impact other groups and organizations, and how is it influenced by them? How can we collaborate with other groups to improve the organization’s effectiveness, and contribute to those group’s effectiveness? How can the organization contribute to needed systemic changes in the larger society, and what challenges and difficulties from the larger society impact on the organization? These are just some of the issues and questions that are raised by this “multilevel” perspective that should inform transformative action-and-inquiry.

4 COMMUNITY-BASED THINK TANKS

Introduction According to the Wikipedia (Think tank, 2020), the concept of “think tank” may go back over a thousand years, and over a hundred years in the U.S. However, mostly it is a post-World War II phenomenon that initially focused on military advice and on formulating “non-partisan” social and economic policy recommendations. Think tanks have been relatively few in number, and usually exist only with extensive outside funding from government, foundations, private donors, or corporations. Often, think tanks have rather specific ideological perspectives. There are some cases in which “think tanks” from different countries have attempted international collaborations, especially with the rise of globalization. The primary participants in think tanks are “well-educated” professional elites. Some have suggested that think tanks promote pluralistic, open, democratic decision-making. By contrast, critics have said that at worst they are ideological propaganda tools or thinly veiled efforts to promote corporate agendas. At best, they are beholden to their (usually private) funding sources, and at least, indirectly influenced by the values and agendas of these funding sources. By contrast, there seems to be no precedent for a democratic and grassroots approach to the development of think tanks, whether to elicit participation and input from a mass of citizens or to support and stimulate more informed inquiry and participation by a large number of citizens. In line with the values and qualities of transformative action research, I believe that developing community-based think tanks is one good strategy for encouraging more broad-based and more informed citizen participation in inquiry and advocacy. Before proceeding, I should add that in this book I use the term “citizen” to mean any person living in a particular community or country, regardless of their “documented status” or lack thereof in the eyes of the government. The term, “citizen” is therefore used to affirm that

Community-based think tanks 45

each person has rights and responsibilities for participating actively in the decisions in the society and community in which they are living. Community-based think tanks can be an important, untapped vehicle for creating a stronger democracy in the U.S., and in other countries, especially in the midst of the growing concentration of power during the rise of neoliberalism over the past 40 years. In 2008, I, and many others, had high hopes that the election of Barack Obama to the President of the United States might usher in a new era of hope and greater citizen participation. Despite President Obama’s history as a community organizer, once he took office, he failed to adopt strategies that encouraged citizen participation, but returned to the usual political negotiations among the power elite as the primary modus operandi for decision-making. In the past five years, Bernie Sanders has inspired and involved many in efforts to try to lessen inequality and bring about greater citizen participation. The slogan of his movement, “Not Me, Us!” is a call for greater participation in democracy. His campaigns have failed to result in his receiving the Democratic Party nomination. However, enthusiasm for greater citizen participation continues to grow, as is seen with Bernie Sanders’ movement-like organization, “Our Revolution,” and in other movements in the U.S., such as those initiated and inspired by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Together, these movements may very well be flowing into one another, and joining together, like mountain streams that sometimes become roaring rivers, giving rise to hope and greater citizen participation for our country. Especially, in this context, many people may be interested in the notion of “community-based think tanks” using methods of transformative action research, as one strategy for pursuing this country’s, as yet unrealized founding ideals of justice and democracy.

A vision for community-based think tanks Conventional “think tanks” look at the “bigger picture” from the perspective of the expert researchers and policy-makers who participate. There are advantages, and limitations, to their dual emphasis on the “bigger picture” and the use of expert researchers. Certainly, in formulating social policy and strategizing among options for societal change, it is crucial that one looks at the longer-term, bigger picture implications of the alternatives being considered. However, it is not always so easy to engage in inquiry that is critical-minded and imaginative without taking into account a wide range of perspectives, including the experiences and concerns of “everyday” people from many segments of the society, including marginalized groups. Even when “experts” are not limited by a narrow ideological commitment nor by self-serving (e.g., corporate) interests, they are still limited by virtue of their professional education, privileged life experiences, and perspectives. To be sure, most think tanks attempt to employ a range of views by bringing in “interdisciplinary” teams of researchers. Still, the perspectives of people from the various walks of everyday life is missing. It is not that these varied, and even often competing, “everyday” perspectives are necessarily “better” than the “expert” perspectives—it is just that they are

46 Applications

different—often in subtle ways that experts do not readily appreciate even when they “interview” people to learn about their thoughts, experiences, and viewpoints. More engaged collaboration and ongoing dialogue among a variety of groups of people is needed to create a democratic society. Such collaboration and continuing dialogue that strives to benefit from a truly wide variety of life experiences and perspectives has two advantages over the usual approach taken by “think tanks.” First, this may eventually result in deeper insights for improving the longer-term, “bigger picture,” and secondly, it may also result in improved communication and understanding among people from different walks of life. Consider, for example, that even those experts and professionals who know and care about the lives of “everyday” people, often tend to use jargon-laden language when communicating with their professional peers. Indeed, by way of self-criticism, let’s consider that I could have phrased the previous phrase, written in italics, in a more down-to-earth and comprehensible way, by writing “use big words, known mostly only to others in their line of work, when they are talking or writing to people in their group.” When the problems to be solved affect a particular community or group of people, then community-based think tanks should bring together, especially, people from specific communities or affected groups, who can then have dialogue with one another, while also having the stimulation and benefit of engaging in dialogue with professional experts, scholars, and policy-makers. The idea here is to not just get “input from” one particular group or community, but to work toward “dialogue and inquiry with the community.” Those who are affected by a problem, or certain area of decision-making, should be integral in formulating alternatives and possible solutions. These “grassroots” contributions should not be tokenism for appearances, or merely seen as “supplementary” information. People should be respected and taken seriously as sources of insight and creativity. All too often, people learn to assume that others, but not they themselves, are makers of knowledge, especially if they do not have a postgraduate formal education or professional status. Even professionals will sometimes assume that they are makers of knowledge only in their specialized field. For example, a chemical engineer who is the parent of two children may not realize that they can be a builder of knowledge in the fields of parenting, child rearing, and education. Furthermore I would add that all of us, regardless of our level of previous formal education or professional status, are limited in our ability to build knowledge in any domain of action or policy-making, relevant to the future of our communities or country—unless we have the opportunity to engage in inquiry with others. With regards to action research there are many important things we need to do together, with one another, that we cannot do alone, especially when isolated from one another by the boundaries of our professions, subgroups, or our neighborhoods. For example, we need:  

to pool our knowledge; to critique our own knowledge and sense of what it means for what we can learn with others;

Community-based think tanks 47

 

to brainstorm with others about visions of what is not yet but what could be; and to scratch our heads together about the challenges, and the opportunities, in moving from where we are to where we could be.

All too often, we have not had the opportunity to have others outside our communities, neighborhoods, professions, church groups, or social circles ask us questions, and to do so, with respect and curiosity. Collaboration out of mutual respect and a shared enthusiasm for curiosity, can help us to learn from the knowledge that others have, that we all have, so that we can broaden our knowledgebase. A more inclusive knowledgebase is a stronger foundation for problem-solving and for envisioning better alternatives. Similarly, cutting-edge inquiry in the natural sciences today relies on the development of a broader knowledgebase. For example, biologists studying the origins of life on earth now collaborate with experts from many other fields (Hazen, 2005). Today, we have:    

geologists asking, did certain rocks and minerals provide hospitable environments for early life? astrobiologists asking, what can we learn about life by looking beyond our own planet, and did the early earth benefit from essential compounds transported here in meteorites? chemists, organic and even inorganic chemists, asking questions about life forms that live deep in the oceans in extremely cold, high pressure environments; and physicists asking questions about thermodynamics in giving rise to and sustaining life, studying energy and entropy, for example.

In the realms and aims of social policy that are crucial to the future of our country—economic survival, justice, democracy, environmental sustainability, global relationships—we need to benefit from the broad spectrum of knowledge, experience, wisdom, and imagination found throughout our entire populace. We need everyone’s insights, talents, and engagement, not just professionals and specially trained “experts,” but from as many different groups of people as we can mobilize to collaborate with others. Those collaborating need not agree with one another, but they should be recruited for their eagerness to engage with others out of a shared sense of curiosity to learn, respect for others with whom they may differ, and sense of responsibility to the future of our country and the world, and the well-being of the living and the as-yet-unborn generations. Nurturing such collaborative inquiry among a diverse population will not be easy, but we must begin now to make concerted steps to engage a much larger and more diverse cross-section of the people in each community, and throughout our country, in community-based think tanks that aim to guide us toward a better future. I would add that, eventually, such efforts must eventually move ambitiously toward transnational, global collaboration. Again, global collaboration should involve not just elected officials and designated leaders, but a wide range of people, including notably, the “have-nots.”

48 Applications

Sample plan for a community-based think tank The following is an example of a plan for a community-based think tank initiated by an innovatively minded educational institution, grassroots activist group or community agency—or better yet, a collaborative partnership among several organizations—in a highly populated, ethnically diverse urban area such as the East Bay surrounding Oakland, California. The think tank organizers might begin by mobilizing and organizing several different small, community-based think tanks in different communities. In the lower-income, but increasingly gentrified West Oakland, there could be a “think tank” including especially long-time residents, many of whom are being forced out of their community by gentrification. In collaboration with people from the organizing partnership collaborative, they would identify the several problems that they first wish to address—to learn more about, discuss, and begin to identify some initial steps toward solutions. The think tank would come up with its own definition of the problems, but it would not be surprising if they identified such problems, as lack of affordable housing and the impact of gentrification, income inequality and employment, access to health care, and environmental injustices due to toxins in the community. In nearby Richmond, which includes a significant portion of lower-income neighborhoods, there might likely be similar problems identified, most notably pollution from nearby oil refineries, but also perhaps other issues such as street violence, or underfunded schools. Not that these issues might not well be the decided upon emphases in West Oakland, or any other East Bay neighborhood or community. The above stated, possible problems of concern, are only for purposes of illustration. The point of a community-based think tank is not to begin with “what the problems are” without community participation, but to mobilize and organize one or several community-based “think tanks” that includes a diverse crosssection of residents. However, practically speaking, community participation may be mobilized more easily if people know that problems that they already care about can be the focus, if that’s what they decide. The think tank organizers will likely be more successful in their efforts if they identify one or two problems, based on input from community leaders, that are likely to be of concern. Then, they can solicit participation from people by stating that they will be working on solving one or two initially stated problems, and that community participants will have the option of identifying additional problems, and giving priority to those additionally identified problems, if that’s what they decide. The process will not be a short one. To be successful, a community-based think tank must involve a “critical mass” of people who are willing and able to be engaged in ongoing deliberations and in reaching out to others in their community for their insights and viewpoints. A critical mass would probably require at least a dozen or more community participants and could easily involve a couple of dozen or more, throughout the entire process, along with perhaps five to ten people from the “organizing” groups. These numbers are not hard and fast, but estimates based on my past experience with other planning and organizing groups. Over time,

Community-based think tanks 49

experience in trying out this idea will be the best guide of what number of people to try to start with. The think tanks may likely begin with a smaller “core group,” who will then reach out to others, as part of this process of inquiry, dialogue, and engagement. Community participants will be asked to frame issues for investigation largely out of their experience, knowledge, and sense of what’s important. In addition, organizers of the think tank could also bring up issues and ideas to others in the think tank as “food for thought.” An important role for the organizers will be to encourage equal and mutually respectful dialogue among these all-too-often unconnected groups of people. Conscious efforts should be made to nurture, multigenerational and multiethnic participation and dialogue, and to involve people who are marginalized in different, or even unanticipated ways, including besides age and race, also gender, income, sexual orientation, and able-ness, among others. The think tank should make use of the sorts of principles of transformative action research that are being discussed in this book. To start with, participants must be valued as having the wisdom and experience to create knowledge, to identify and solve problems. They should be given support and guidance in learning how critically minded and imaginative inquiry can be down-to-earth and understandable, as well as powerful and useful. The following are highlights of some key principles to keep in mind in creating a “culture” of transformative action research among think tank participants. Participants should learn how to:  

  



become more conscious of the processes by which they build knowledge; wrestle with complexities of judging the evidence, learning that so-called “data analysis” is a rich, textured, necessary and also uncertain process of judging and weighing evidence that comes from many sources and often points in many, sometimes competing, directions; discover ways of broadening their experiences, so participants aren’t limited to their previous, even though still quite important, experiences; benefit from collaboration with others, whether through informal conversations, formal interviews, or reading what others have had to say; communicate what they know to others, which may often include articulating broad ideas and recommendations that may have general applicability, while also sharing tangible examples and telling stories that can make abstract ideas and alternatives “as big as life”; and engage in thinking and dialogue that aim to probe beneath the surface, looking at the immediate task as well as the long-term and “bigger picture,” and continually asking new questions and imagining new alternatives.

I would expect that any endeavors to develop community-based think tanks will be worthwhile in and of themselves—in generating ideas and strategies which may be useful food for thought for other community residents, professional service providers, educators, and community leaders, public officials and policy-makers. Beyond this, in experimenting with community-based think tanks, I expect that

50 Applications

we will learn about the challenges and difficulties, as well as the promises and opportunities that come to light along the way. As discussed in Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research (Bilorusky, 2021), one of the best examples I’ve seen of something like a “community-based think tank” were the several “African American Health Summits” organized and conducted by the Bay Area Black United Fund (BABUF) in the early 2000s. At that time, under the leadership of their Executive Director, Dr. Woody Carter, BABUF was intently engaged in an “African American Health Initiative.” This project had many facets to it, including the four, “Health Summits” focusing on different aspects of the problem of health disparities that have been weighing heavily on African Americans. Related to this, BABUF was also training grassroots “critical mass health conductors” (named in honor of Harriet Tubman, Conductor of the Underground Railroad during slavery). The “health conductors” were engaged in educating friends, neighbors, and family members in ways to take initiative to preserve and advance their health, including strategies for preventing such chronic illnesses as diabetes, hypertension, and obesity. The weekend-long “Health Summits” brought together hundreds of professionals and lay people—to share information, learn from and listen to one another, and develop networks and connections for follow-up actions. Each health summit had both a structure and a theme, such as mental health for example, as well as an open-ended format designed to elicit any and all ideas that any participant wanted to bring up in a workshop, topical session or informal conversations during some of the rather ample time to mingle and associate with one another. I, and a few WISR colleagues, and especially Vera Labat, MPH, had the privilege of being involved to collaborate with members of BABUF in the effort to plan and then evaluate the effectiveness of three of the four health summits. This included working together to document and record the many invaluable ideas, recommendations for actions and suggestions for further inquiry put forth by participants, be they medical doctors, public health professionals, educators, therapists, social workers, or lay people from many walks of life (See: Bay Area Black United Fund. Bay area African American Health Initiative, 2003, 2005, 2007). This is merely one example of a very noteworthy, “community-based think tank-type” effort. It is a good one, and of course, others might well design something that would look quite different, using the principles outlined and discussed in this chapter. I do believe that trying out this idea more often, in different communities and on various issues, is long overdue.

5 TOWARD EXPERT KNOWLEDGE AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT—THE CURRICULUM OF THE “EXPERIMENTING COMMUNITY”

Learning as human development, and as knowledge and skill development Educators of adults, and of those emerging into adulthood, whether they are college faculty, high school teachers, or contributing to non-degree adult learning, can make use of the principles and methods of transformative action-inquiry. Their domains of concern may include:    

how students learn the “content” of their courses of study; related to this, how people develop expert skills and knowledge in their main areas of focus; how curricula, how programs of study, contribute to the intellectual development of the learners; how colleges, schools, and adult learning programs contribute to the “overall” development of the learners, as “human beings,” including by aiding their progress or transition to the next stage of human development, in the context of lifespan human development.

Typically, these domains are treated separately, and usually educational innovation, and the research aiming to contribute to educational improvements, focus on only one of these areas, or at most perhaps two of them. In this chapter, I will suggest that efforts to address all of these areas might well be aided, in part at least, by examining the potential contributions of the principles and methods of transformative action-and-inquiry. In Volume 1 of these two books, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research (Bilorusky, 2021), I discussed the parallels between the Dreyfus theory of expert knowledge, Jane Loevinger’s theory of ego development, and learner-centered

52 Applications

open education curricula. In this chapter, I will suggest some ways in which transformative action research, with its emphases on “script-improvisation” and collaboration, toward progressively more holistic and contextual inquiry-and-action, can contribute to the practice of learning and development in all of the above-mentioned domains. There need not be a dichotomy between the development of knowledge and expertise in a chosen field of study, on the one hand, and the pursuit of a “liberal education” and the development of the “whole person” on the other hand. I’d like to begin with a brief consideration of some relevant research and theories. When I initially entered graduate school in the field of higher education in 1967, I was especially interested in what was then referred to as “college student personality development.” At that time, I thought I might pursue a career within colleges and universities as a director of student activities of a dean of students. I felt very strongly that my undergraduate experience had contributed greatly to my own development as a more well-rounded, engaged, and inquisitive human being, as a result both of extra-curricular involvement and some small interdisciplinary honors program seminars at the University of Colorado. During my graduate studies, I became very familiar with the research of the 1960s on the “impact of college on students” and on “college student personality development.” A landmark book, in 1962, entitled The American College by Nevitt Sanford (Sanford, 1962) opened the eyes of many in higher education that the strongest learning of value to many college students was due to factors very much outside of the regular classrooms. Furthermore, Sanford and his colleagues suggested very pointedly the importance of doing research to learn more about how much students learn and develop as human beings during college, and further, what aspects of the college experience have the greatest impact. This resulted in a dramatic increase in the research, and theorizing, on this topic; and a major summarization, critical analysis and synthesis of the research in the 1960s resulted in the book The Impact of College on Students (Feldman & Newcomb, 1969), and a later update (Feldman & Newcomb, 1994). This body of research sometimes drew on such theories of human development as Erik Erikson’s, for example, and given that most of that research was on the “traditional” college student population of young adults, ages 17 to 22 or so, some of the research focused on how well, and in what ways, did students successfully navigate the challenges of the “identity crisis” noted by Erikson as a common feature of issues faced when young adults transition into adulthood by forming a solid identity—sometimes based on “choosing” a career for themselves, and other times, selecting an “adult role” that may or may not be based on career, including among other things, deciding on the importance of eventually becoming a parent. The theory suggested that sometimes, young adults make a “decision” about their identity, “prematurely” without the benefit of ample exploration of alternatives, and this was referred to as identity “foreclosure.” Other developmental theories were sometimes considered, as well. Relatively few researchers paid attention to the ego development theory which came to my attention as a result of my collaboration with Harry Butler, while faculty colleagues at the University of Cincinnati, involved together with students, in initiating a small, successful “Individualized Learning Program” in the College of Community Services

Toward expert knowledge and human development 53

at the University of Cincinnati from 1971 to 1973 (Bilorusky & Butler, 1975). I will soon discuss further the value of Loevinger’s theory of ego development in helping us to make use of that integrative perspective across several domains of learning and development, mentioned above. Another strand of research was focused more pointedly on the intellectual, and related ethical, development of college students. This research, and discussion of its applications to education, was stimulated in the 1970s and 1980s by Laurence Kohlberg’s theory of moral development (Kohlberg & Mayer, 1972; Kohlberg, 1981). Kohlberg’s theory was an extension of Piaget’s theory of cognitive and moral development beyond childhood, and into emerging adulthood and adulthood. Some critics of Kohlberg’s theory noted that it was overly focused on reasoning and gave little or no attention to emotional considerations in general and to the development of empathy, in particular. Carol Gilligan, especially, wrote eloquently and convincingly about this limitation, and discussed the gender bias in both Kohlberg’s and Erikson’s theories (Gilligan, 1982). In a similar vein, in 1970, William Perry (Perry, 1970) wrote a book focusing on his studies of the intellectual and ethical development among young, emerging adults during college years, based primarily on his studies of Harvard undergraduates. His nine positions of development are meant to be descriptive, but also as a perspective that can be used by educators, including faculty and college counselors, alike, to promote the development of college students. Perry’s theory has much in common with Kohlberg’s theory, and also with Loevinger’s, as well as the Dreyfus theory of expert knowledge that will be considered in this chapter. Perry’s theory is based on the notion that students oftentimes seem to develop increasingly sophisticated epistemological views of the world. In many cases, they may enter college with a dualistic view of things, “advance” to greater appreciation of different relativistic formulations, with the more advanced versions of relativism also including an awareness of the value of making commitments in the context of some relativistic view of things. This has some similarities with Kohlberg’s theory, but is even more aligned with the Dreyfus theory of expert knowledge development, and with Loevinger’s theory of ego development. These theories of human development seem, at first glance, to be more in line with what faculty are concerned with in terms of students getting a “liberal education” and not so much the learning of skills, knowledge and “content.” Further, they do not seem particularly relevant to older adults. This leads me to suggest the relevance of Loevinger’s theory of ego development and the Dreyfus theory of expert knowledge, in combination with one another, and with an examination of the relevance of these theories to principles and methods of transformative action-inquiry. Loevinger’s theory of ego development does have some similarities at the earlier stages with Piaget’s, Kohlberg’s, and Perry’s theories. However, more than these other theories, Loevinger’s conception of her stages have two very strong advantages: 1) her depiction of each stage is not only based on cognitive advancements but also on how these cognitive advancements are very much associated with emotional challenges and advancements (which Perry also acknowledges to an

54 Applications

extent); 2) her theory was developed by including research on women in general and mothers in particular (Loevinger, 1976), and as a result her theory has less of the gender bias of the other theories. At first glance, the Dreyfus theory of expert knowledge (Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1979; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1985; Dreyfus & Wrathall, 2016) seems more concerned with “content” and not so much with “human development.” Its parallels with Perry’s theory, focusing on progressively more sophisticated and complex stages of epistemological reasoning, are quite apparent. I have been interested in this theory since the 1980s, because I immediately saw connections with WISR’s learner-centered approach to the education of the “whole person,” and I appreciated the subtleties of how, in each Dreyfus stage, there are emotional challenges to be addressed in order to move toward the higher stages. This has been pointed out in a very compelling way by the research in the field of nursing education by Benner (Benner, 2001). I’d like for us to now consider 1.

2. 3. 4.

some of the close, interconnections between stages of ego development and cognitive development, with the Dreyfus theory regarding increasingly expert stages of knowledge and skills; the emotional qualities and challenges often involved in making transitions from one stage to the next; and how different curricular models tend to have an “upper limit” on the development that they most easily and commonly support and encourage; and the role of “script-improvisation” and collaboration in creating greater opportunities for and likelihood of greater development.

And, by reflecting on all four of these matters together, we may gain a greater appreciation of how attention to the “process” and “content” of learning can work together, rather than seeing “content” and “process” as fundamentally different.

A curriculum, based on the action-inquiry of collaborative script improvisation, to promote ego development and progressively increasing expert knowledge After our two years of experience in developing and practicing a very innovative, “open” curriculum at the University of Cincinnati, my colleague Harry Butler and I developed what we considered to be three critical insights: 1. 2. 3.

the importance of a leaner-centered curriculum that is not unduly restricted neither by pre-packaged courses nor by procedurally oriented learning contracts; the value of a learning community that supports and nurtures collaboration and continuing attention to the value of “script-improvisation”; and the parallels between “script-improvisation” with the qualitative research methodologies advocated by Blumer and by Glaser and Strauss …

Toward expert knowledge and human development 55

As I’ve discussed in the companion volume, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research (Bilorusky, 2021), and also previously in this book, those intellectual traditions have contributed to “transformative action research” as an approach. We referred to this curriculum model as the “experimenting community”: … the nature of the experimenting community is probably best captured by the concept of “script-improvisation.” The learning process involves a continuing dialectic between script and improvisation. This method avoids learning by exemplar and the rigidities of paradigms. Script-improvisation has direct implications for connecting theory and action, since such distinctions are not inherent in the learning process. The experimenting community differs from mere experience-learning in which individuals, believing they are operating without theory, may impose implicit personal theories or scripts on the world. In fact, this is the pitfall which theories are supposed to overcome. Theories and scripts bring their own pitfalls of reification and overgeneralization. By participating in the dialectic of script-improvisation, individuals learn the process of interaction between theory and action. By continuously examining and constructing scripts and theories in an action context, distortions become apparent. A parallel research methodology may be found in the works of Blumer (1969) and of Glaser & Strauss (1967) (Bilorusky & Butler, 1975, p. 152). I also soon saw how “competency-based” approaches generally tended to be as limiting as most contractual methods: … Although competency-based education, like contract curricula, was designed to free students from the rigidities of conventional, standardized courses, it still imposed subtle, but significant limitations on student learning. Typically, educators defined competencies narrowly, and not as useful guides and with considerable heuristic value. So, in practice, competency-based learning was not conductive to transformative action-and-inquiry, because it employed precisely defined criteria to assess student learning, rather than using “competencies” as scripts from which to improvise, and as food for thought. (Bilorusky, 1975) Harry Butler and I went on to discuss parallels of our four models of progressively more open curricula with Loevinger’s stages of ego development. Also, over the years, I have increasingly appreciated how “the most open curriculum” is not merely “open” but incorporates some “structures” or methods that promote the processes of scriptimprovisation and collaboration both to aid ego development and the learner-centered approach of the “experimenting community” curricular model. Furthermore, like John Dewey, Harry Butler and I viewed the “content” and the “processes” of learning to be very much interconnected, and I have learned how much the curricular openness, along with

56 Applications

the attention to script-improvisation and collaboration, not only aids the process of learnercentered education but also contributes to the learning of content and the development of greater expert knowledge and skills. Indeed, over time, I have come to value and appreciate the parallels with the Dreyfus theory of expert knowledge. That is, this approach to learner-centered education, which is not overly burdened with pre-packaged curricula or contractual procedures actively facilitates the development of expert knowledge—that is, the learning of what some people would call “content.” The collaborative and script-improvisational qualities of transformative action research are essential ingredients in ego development, learner-centered education, and the development of expert knowledge. The interested reader may want to read Chapter 3 of Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research (Bilorusky, 2021) to consider the more detailed discussion of the parallels between Harry Butler’s and my conceptualization of curricular models, with the theories of Loevinger and Dreyfus. For now, I will highlight some of our qualifying remarks about the uses of any stage theory, as well as to present a table outlining an overview of the similarities among the three theories. As I state in Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research: … some words of caution are in order. Stage models only apply to certain domains of experience and behavior and not to the totality of “who” people “are,” so we should not use stage models to “pigeonhole” people. Further, I am only noting some potentially useful parallels between three theoretical models—Harry Butler’s and my progression of increasingly open curricular models, Loevinger’s stage theory of ego development, and the Dreyfus brothers’ articulation of a progression of stages toward increasingly expert knowledge and skill development. In keeping with a transformative approach to action-and-inquiry each of these models, and the parallels that seem to exist among them, are scripts for improvisation. They are not to be seen or used as definitive frameworks to explain neatly and unequivocally human behavior and experience. As this book is aiming to emphasize, all theories should be used as “scripts for improvisation,” as potential starting points for further inquiry-and-action. Furthermore, any one of us is likely to be operating at “more than one” stage at any given time. So, in some ways, I may take a rather conformist approach in some aspects of my life, conscientious in other ways, and once in a while experience and behave in some of the ways characterized as “autonomous” by Loevinger. Using the Dreyfus model, I may be “novice” in some area of knowledge or skill (for example, in my case, in drawing or painting with watercolor), “advanced beginner” in other areas (e.g., use of the Google Education Suite), “competent” (in driving an automobile), “proficient” (as a ballroom jazz dancer), and perhaps getting close to “expert” (in using action research). (Bilorusky, 2021) Now, I’d like to turn to a more detailed discussion of the strong interconnections between ego development as studied and articulated by Loevinger and the development of expert knowledge as researched and conceptualized by the

Toward expert knowledge and human development 57

Dreyfus brothers. As I do this, I want also to note the developmentally facilitative role of open curricula with a learning context that encourages collaboration and script-improvisation. (Remember, collaborative “script-improvisation” is a quality of transformative action research.) Finally, and still very much related to these several stage-like theoretical frameworks, I also suggest that there are some key emotional qualities characteristic of the living and learning that people experience in each successive stage. Table 5.1 attempts to highlight and summarize these interconnections and parallels:

TABLE 5.1 Parallels between Dreyfus Theory of Stages of Expert Knowledge, Loevinger’s

Stages of Ego Development, four curricular models, and key emotional qualities at each stage Stages

1st

2nd

3rd

4th

Dreyfus/ expertise Loevinger/ego development Butler/Bilorusky—Curricular models Key emotional qualities

Novice

Advanced beginner Self-conscious

Competent

Proficient and expert Autonomous

Closed Contract

Open Contract

Curiosity

Responsibility

Conformist Conventional/ Prepackaged Comfort

Conscientious

Experimenting Community and script-improvisation Commitment and finding one’s own voice

The stages and the developmental transitions and progress—intersections of content and process Let’s consider the transitions, or progressions from one “stage” to the next and note how these transitions are matters of action-and-inquiry that also inevitably involve human emotions, values, and intellectual perspectives on the world. An important emotion, central to the transition from novice to advanced beginner, is “curiosity.” This emotion is both a pre-requisite for and an outcome of questioning rules. Loevinger’s idea of the “self-conscious” stage is that we experience a transition from where we are mostly conforming to general societal values and rules to where we are developing an emerging awareness of their limitations. This curiosity tends to aid us in becoming aware of “exceptions to the rule” and in realizing that rules are not cut and dried, but often need to be qualified because of the “situation.” Consequently, in our new-found appreciation of “relativity,” we may, for a time, be disinclined to take on responsibilities or make commitments, or at the very least we are likely to see most things as “a matter of each person’s ‘opinion.’” In terms of the Dreyfus model, the learner’s expertise tends to be that of an advanced beginner who now sees rules as guiding principles that must be applied situationally. They will also likely begin to see that there are some

58 Applications

interconnections between micro-level circumstances and macro-level dynamics, between everyday immediate experience and the “bigger picture.” Many years ago, in the 1980s, I saw an excellent example of how engaging in script-improvisation supports making connections between micro-level circumstances and macro-level dynamics, when my friend and colleague, Shyaam Shabaka, a WISR doctoral student, began talking about violence as a public health issue long before anyway else was doing so, at least not vocally and assertively. Shyaam was an experienced public health professional with a Master’s in Public Health. Perhaps, because of his work also as a grassroots activist, he was not overly restricted by the prevailing paradigms, or “scripts,” of professional practice, in the public health field. So, he was able to improvise from what he had learned in his professional role, and develop and work to implement improvised, new “scripts” defining and addressing problems of violence as a matter of public health concern. He initiated and supported significant community-based efforts trying to address some of the root causes of violence. Since then, others have finally developed a similar awareness. Transformative action-and-inquiry—through collaboration and because of its emphasis on improvising from scripts, of critically evaluating theories and practices, and making revisions in them—can be a critical ally for people less expert than Shyaam, so that, as “advanced beginners” they can move further developmentally. Indeed, if nothing else, transformative action-inquiry encourages “curiosity”—an emotion that is crucial through the developmental processes at all stages, but especially so, in terms of making the initial “break” from ego conformity and novice expertise. At this point they can be active learners in the “self-conscious” or “advanced beginner” stage, and then with encouragement to learn about and critically reflect on a variety of “scripts,” they may then begin to improvise on their own. That is, especially with encouragement, the curious person, who is an advanced beginner, and at least aware of the limitations of the rule-bound conformity of a novice, will begin to consider new theories and practices. If they are a teacher, they will be curious to try out new methods of instruction and to think about how various different ideas about education might be tried out in practice. A social worker will actively seek out and seriously consider some different ways of looking at their clients’ problems, whether they are working with homeless people, survivors of domestic violence, or people with addictions challenges. In each case, they will be interested in learning a variety of “scripts”—different concepts and different strategies for framing and addressing the problems with which they are concerned. We often move into the next stage, “conscientious” in Loevinger’s framework, and “competent” in the Dreyfus theory by choosing or adopting some values and perspective. So for example, a medical professional will often put the norms and values of their profession over that of “general” societal norms, as will an attorney who is a public defender follow certain values, a corporate attorney another set of values, and a public interest attorney concerned with environmental destruction or racial injustice yet other values. Obviously, in each case an individual may choose to modify their values despite their profession or chosen job. Still, for most of us, the choice of a specific profession, community or group, with which to align ourselves

Toward expert knowledge and human development 59

is a critical decision. It has implications for our ego development and for the development of our knowledge in a field of expertise. That is, as a “conscientious” person who has moved beyond the “relativism” of “simply” being curious, we will choose the group(s) whose values with which we most strongly agree. We may continue to be curious, but are so, for now, within the “paradigm” or framework of the group with which we have identified most strongly. We have made a choice, among available alternatives, and we are now emotionally invested in our choice and feel a strong sense of responsibility to act “competently,” realizing that our actions affect others. This identification of alternatives and engagement in choosing among alternatives emerges during the “competent” stage of expertise. Whereas the advanced beginner is fascinated and even preoccupied with their (often newly found) appreciation for being “curious” to learn about the world, the competent person becomes engaged in “decision-making”—in making choices. This is closely intertwined with feelings of responsibility—a strongly felt sense that one’s choices matter in the world, have consequences, and therefore, feelings of responsibility become important. To what should I be committed? And why? Still, the conscientious person, aiming to be “responsible” remains curious and inquisitive, and as a result, they can often feel overwhelmed by the awareness that no decision is “perfect.” There are so many choices to be made among so many alternatives. Indeed, open-minded inquiry and inquisitiveness now enables us to perceive a variety of options, and with that, the ever-present possibility of “making mistakes.” The conscientious person is so emotionally invested in their choices that this may raise so many questions about challenges, dilemmas, uncertainties that they can become emotionally immobilized. However, just as the collaborative social learning and script-improvisation of transformative action-and-inquiry got us into this “predicament,” over time, it can help us work through these challenges and continue to develop. If the competent person remains engaged in action-and-inquiry, collaborating with others in trying to learn from what they experiences as “successes” and “failures,” and if they continue to pursue their commitments, despite their frustrations, feelings of uncertainty and doubt, they will eventually become the “proficient” expert in the Dreyfus model. This is a matter of “practice”—not just a quantity of practice and further experience, but practice that is informed by an engagement in transformative action-and-inquiry. As I noted in the companion book (Bilorusky, 2021): The best trainings are probably “apprenticeships” or “internships” where experts provide trainees/learners/apprentices with opportunities to learn with them, with opportunities to experience on their own, as well as to observe the experts, and quite importantly also, opportunities to “scratch their heads” with the expert and talk and think out loud about “problems.” Notice that this is different from the expert simply “telling” the apprentice what they should learn in the situation. Not that there is anything wrong with some such instruction, “notice this, learn from that, see how this principle or circumstance played out here.” That can be valuable, but it is very, very insufficient. It is ideal for the apprentice to be with the expert while the expert continues to be engaged in their process of becoming more expert. The expert still scratches their head,

60 Applications

runs up against problems, sometimes feels undecided, and the apprenticed learner sees how the process of fine-tuning and creating knowledge and expertise is always ongoing. (Bilorusky, 2021, Chapter 8 p.143) When this is the case, the competent person does indeed become proficient. For instance, I see this all the time with the alumni of our counseling psychology program. Their solid academic understanding, along with hundreds of hours or supervised practicum, has positioned nearly all of them in the “competent” stage of expertise. They may be aware of the strengths and limitations of a number of counseling theories as well as of a variety of strategic interventions. Nevertheless, it is only through extensive further practice, and critical inquiry on what works and doesn’t work in many, many different circumstances with many clients, that, over time, they can become, “proficient.” Those who appreciate the value of collaboration and who have previously practiced script-improvisation are likely to progress further and faster. Consequently, the proficient person will perceive complexities and nuances of the varied situations that they have encountered in ways that are much more developed and subtle that than the perspectives of the competent person. The proficient person may appreciate the values of the groups with which they most strongly identify, but they will no longer need to conform to any one group or any several, chosen groups. They may appreciate the values of a number of groups, but they will feel free to disagree, so that a public interest attorney will not always agree with other environmental activists or civil rights groups, for example, with which they feel an affinity, but will be inclined to disagree, usually respectfully and oftentimes assertively and strongly. As we become “proficient” in terms of the Dreyfus theory and “autonomous” in Loevinger’s stages of ego development, we begin to find our own voice, and have both confidence and humility. We have the confidence to search for “meta-perspectives,” for scripts from which to improvise. We are now on a quest in the pursuit of such larger values as “justice,” and for identifying new theoretical and practical alternatives and in critiquing and evaluating those alternatives, and at the same time, with the humility to be ever open and eager to collaborate with and learn from and respect others. Further, our engagement in collaboration with others, in combination with our improvisational inquisitiveness, nurtures the empathetic capabilities noted and valued by Carol Gilligan, and the respect for others important in Loevinger’s stage of “autonomy.” The importance of these emotional qualities is quite strikingly ignored in Kohlberg’s theory. These are essential qualities for the creative, and very social, inquiry that transformative action research aims to nurture. Our strong, internalized sense of direction and commitment exists in creative combination with an openness to change and respect for others, and an eagerness to collaborate. There are many WISR learners who have exemplified the commitment to continual inquiry and some larger values and concerns, and who in the process also demonstrate their own distinctive “voice” in what they do. Their internalized sense of self-assurance and clarity is combined also with great openness to and respect for

Toward expert knowledge and human development 61

others. The succeeding chapters in this book are written by authors who demonstrate this: David Yamada (on workplace bullying), Dennis Hasting and Margery Coffey (preserving and advancing the Omaha culture), Sudia Paloma McCaleb (learner-centered education that is multicultural and for social justice and environmental sustainability), Marilyn Jackson (an experienced and distinctive voice on religion, spirituality, and societal responsibility and well-being), and Kence Anderson (the use of Artificial Intelligence for learning, inclusiveness, and social justice). Further, as you read through the vignettes in Chapter 13, ask yourself what you can see in these vignettes that provide insights into how transformative action research may be manifest in different ways in the learners’ personal and expert development. At the proficient stage, we may not yet have attained the expert’s “Zen-like” and intuitively integrated ability to act in the moment with confidence and consistent (even if imperfect) effectiveness, but we have now internalized the practices of transformative action-and-inquiry, to collaborate with others and to direct ourselves on that path. We may possibly continue to develop and learn through many, many hours and years of practice and experience. That is, transformative action-and-inquiry can work hand in hand with our efforts to develop educational approaches toward those that are the more open, more collaborative, more learner-centered, and more consistently encouraging of script-improvisation. The application of these ideas and methods are especially relevant if we are concerned both with aiding learners to become more knowledgeable and expert, and to further develop as thinking and feeling human beings. So, open, learner-centered education, contributes to our progress toward greater expert knowledge and skill, and higher levels of ego development, particularly because of our increased appreciation of and ability to engage in “script-improvisation,” on our “own” and in collaboration with others. Also, the challenges and opportunities for human development are now seen as a lifelong process, and not just something for younger, emerging adults.

WISR’s curricular approach—the “structure” of scripts for improvisation There are undoubtedly many, many ways to incorporate, and indeed even, integrate, transformative action research into any college or school curriculum, as well as into a less institutional community-based context. I urge anyone reading this to experiment and collaborate with others in doing this, and do let me know, if you wish, of your efforts. Here, I will briefly allude to what we’ve tried to accomplish at the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR) (https://www.wisr.edu) since 1975 (see Chapter 1 for a better overview about WISR). Throughout, we have been informed by Harry Butler’s and my early effort at the University of Cincinnati and by our growing understanding and practice of the transformative action-inquiry. In the early years, as was the case in Cincinnati, our students designed, in consultation and collaboration with faculty, a series of individually developed learning projects.

62 Applications

Also, over the years, this process at WISR has relied heavily on the enthusiasm and creativity with which many faculty and students have collaborated in practicing and continuing to develop, “learning the WISR way.” From 1980 to a bit after 2000, Dr. Cynthia Lawrence and Dr. Terry Lunsford of the WISR faculty were the two colleagues with whom I was regularly engaged in the script-improvisation further developing WISR’s curriculum, learning methods and action research approach (Bilorusky & Lawrence, 2003; Bilorusky, Lawrence, & Lunsford, 2008). Since then, others taken on significant leadership roles as well, including Dr. Brian Gerrard, Dr. Ronald Mah, and Dr. Sudia Paloma McCaleb, among others from WISR’s faculty, staff, Board, and also students and alumni. In WISR’s early years, we formulated our academic degree programs as a series of “independent study” projects, but informed by our institutional mission focusing on the following “meta-competencies”:       

Developing Skills as a Self-Directed Learner, including Becoming a Conscious, Intentional, and Improvising Learner Gaining Expertise in Methods of Participatory Action-Inquiry and Qualitative Research Developing a Multicultural, Inclusive Perspective Developing Skills in Making Connections with the Bigger Picture and Inquiring into Ways of Creating Change for Social Justice, Greater Equality and Environmental Sustainability Communicating Clearly to One’s Audiences, in One’s Own Voice, and on Topics that Matter to the Oneself, and to Learn to Collaborate with Others Developing the Capability of Pursuing Employment Opportunities and/or Community Involvements, Appropriate to One’s Capabilities, Experience and Interest Becoming Knowledgeable in One’s Major Field of Study, and in One’s Particular Area(s) of Specialization (https://www.wisr.edu/academics/sample-pa ge-2/grading-and-awarding-academic-credit/meta-competencies/)

Being a very small institution by design (two dozen or so students at a given time), we have remained for many years as a California State licensed degree-granting institution and without seeking accreditation. A few years ago, the state passed a law, designed primarily to weed out large, unscrupulous profit-making diploma mills, that now requires we seek accreditation. Consequently, we have had to wrestle with the challenge of maintaining our distinctive qualities and approach to learning, while also meeting the criteria of this added external agency. This is a “real world” problem, and our own knowledge of transformative action research has helped us to rise to the occasion to try to address it. We do not yet know if we will be successful, but it is worth sharing here the gist of what we have been doing. We knew right away that we would have to develop “courses”—a series of independent study projects would not be acceptable as a “valid” curriculum. So, we had to ask ourselves, “how do we do this, and remain learner-centered and

Toward expert knowledge and human development 63

committed to “script-improvisation?” First, we embedded in the “structure” of our newly created courses, a combination of required readings and optional readings among which students would make choices, along with evocative written assignments. The content of the courses, including the readings, has been informed by the above meta-competencies growing out of our mission. Learning outcomes, course content and learning assignments relevant to these meta-competencies have been integrated into virtually every course. Most courses give students the opportunity to pursue their specific interests in greater depth through an action research project of their own design that they also relate in some way to the course topic. There is a lot of writing, and students are supported and encouraged to write in their own voice, and in ways that also involve considerable self-reflection on the value of what they have done and learned in the course. In various ways, each course, contributes both to the “content” of what students are learning for their specific degree program and also hopefully to the student’s particular areas of interest and concern. They do this by virtue of the sort of action research project the student designs to pursue, and by virtue of how they write about what they learned through the course readings and any discussions. The content of our courses, the ideas, perspectives, and strategies, are always treated as scripts for improvisation—not as something to be memorized or merely adopted, but as potentially valuable starting points for further action-and-inquiry. Figure 5.1 is a graphic depiction of the curriculum we have developed over the past five years that we believe builds on our experiences and endeavors since 1975 to promote transformative action research, and collaborative, learner-centered education. Many courses have content that relate to multiculturalism and inclusiveness, and to issues of social justice and social change. In the spirit of script-improvisation, we do not have a rigidly defined or “politically correct” perspective on multiculturalism and social change, but in very affirmative ways we do very actively engage ourselves in collaborating to become more aware of the challenges faced by various different groups of marginalized people, and in thinking and working toward changes that might lead to greater equality and justice. We are committed to addressing matters of culture, “race,” gender, sexual orientation, ableness, and any circumstance that results in differing types of privilege and marginalization. We are aware of the importance of how combinations of these circumstances intersect, and act in combination with one another in how they play out in the lives of people. None of us can adequately be characterized by the “groups” of people with whom we have much in common, and yet it is still extremely important to be aware of how these commonalities and differences play out, both in the lives of individuals, and in the deeply rooted systemic injustices and problems in our society. So, our curriculum, and our discussions, also invite all of us to think about the things we have in common, or at least how we all are “together” importantly involved in matters of social justice, equality, human dignity and inclusiveness, and environmental sustainability, among other considerations.

64 Applications

FIGURE 5.1

Curriculum map used by the Western Institute for Social Research to depict learning outcomes emphasized in various ways throughout the curriculum

Students do not have a set course schedule, but there are at least four seminars offered every month, open to students in all degree programs, and designed with student interests and needs in mind. In addition, students are encouraged and aided to develop informal collaborations or even continuing learning groups with one another. Throughout each student’s studies, faculty engage students in actively

Toward expert knowledge and human development 65

thinking about how the student can design portions of their studies to help them to begin to develop, during their studies at WISR, bridges toward the next important things they wish to do in their lives. We do not want students to “study” now and wait until after graduation figure out what exactly to do. Indeed, we enroll many students in their 30s through 50s, and as young as 21 and as old as their mid-70s! They may of course change their minds about their specific purposes and their sense of direction, but these matters should be at the forefront of their thoughts from the beginning of their studies. We help our students to understand that there are things that students can do during their studies, such as seeking out people to interview, or to work with, that will begin to create bridges or a foundation for themselves, right now, toward their futures. In these ways, we try to nurture collaboration, and do so by providing semi-structured “scripts” from which students can come together and improvise. These “scripts” can be found in the theories and strategies that we ask our students to read and learn about, in the action research projects that are conceived and defined by the students themselves. These scripts also emerge from our seminars which we design and plan in response to our students’ interests, current issues, and suggestions from groups with whom we collaborate. Recently we have had series on such topics as the Green New Deal, Black Lives Matter and Racial Justice, Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies (in collaboration with the global network of 5,000+ people highly concerned with these fundamental human matters (https:// humiliationstudies.org/). I recently came across an excellent example of how WISR students become engaged in considering the strengths and limitations of different theories and strategies, based on what they have learned about transformative action research. One WISR Master’s student, who had just finished her introductory study of action research (reading and discussing with other students the drafts of these two volumes I have just put together), was asked to write about how she might use action research on a topic of special interest. Here’s what this student (who was happy to be quoted in the book but preferred not to be mentioned by name) wrote: … considering [my interest in] the question of—why learning disabilities can sometimes go undiagnosed from some people—here’s how each of the above four perspectives might be helpful. An idea from Kuhn might be that we should listen to different people’s views or observations, in order to not look at the question from just one lens or perspective. Blumer would suggest that we should talk with individuals who have experienced both being diagnosed with a learning disability and those who might feel they have an undiagnosed disability. He would also suggest that the researcher get involved in schools, and learn from teachers, counselors, students, and parents. Using the Dreyfus theory, one might take a more rule or principle-based statement of knowledge, such as the DSM, and then how they evaluate and define a disorder. Beyond this, they would look for examples, or situations or specific cases, where the DSM diagnosis doesn’t

66 Applications

work or perhaps overlooks certain people. Vygotsky would suggest talking with experts in the field and working in a team with. This was very helpful learning from them because it made me further think about the different types of research I could do and what to look at within those topics. So, at WISR, with our conscious attention to both how students learn and what they are learning, we continue to wrestle actively with how best to integrate “content” and “process.” The processes of collaboration and script-improvisation are critical. We are learner-centered, and we also greatly value social learning. These processes are a sort of “content” to be learned, and they contribute both to the learner’s ego development as a human being and to the “content” of their knowledge and skills as a developing expert. The distinctions between content and process, between being human and becoming expert, are not clear cut, and that is yet another aspect of the nuances of transformative action-and-inquiry. Liberal education, and the development of the “whole person” need not be seen as completely different from professional education or the mastery of content, although, to be sure, they may have different emphases. This point is further developed in the Chapter 11 on “Teaching and learning physics as inquiry.” Further, we have come to appreciate how much cognitive development, “emotional intelligence,” and “ethical development” are interrelated. Ethical decision-making and scientific inquiry both involve our emotions, and both are best done in collaboration with others rather than “by ourselves” thinking and acting as if we are isolated individuals. Transformative action research is very much about “learning” and very much about our endeavors to realize our human potential, and to do so by learning and collaborating with others.

6 USING TRANSFORMATIVE ACTIONINQUIRY DURING THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC Critiquing studies and facing decision-making dilemmas

Action-and-inquiry during the COVID-19 pandemic Transformative action-and-inquiry has important applications to our everyday life. The principles and methods can be used by leaders and people from all walks of life, alike. One aim, indeed, is to encourage many people to participate in community knowledge-building. Such involvement in critically minded and ongoing inquiry is especially important in times of crisis. Under duress, all of us are understandably prone to be driven by lots of emotions, and in ways that we may not be fully aware of how we are making our decisions. Our emotions cannot be eliminated from inquiry, for they are important to who we are as people. Further, our emotions can make valuable contributions to inquiry. From empathy we can become curious to learn about the experiences of others, learn from others, and be compassionate, as well. From a sense of responsibility, we can be motivated to be deliberate and circumspect about our decision-making processes. Even worry and anxiety can mobilize us to inquire. At the same time, anxiety, fear, and stress may sometimes compel us to make “snap decisions” or to push dilemmas and worries to the side—much like we may sometimes do if we feel like we must jump into bed and pull the covers over ourselves and try to forget about everything. In other cases, we may lash out in anger, if the expression of anger feels more comfortable to us than expressing fear or doubt. In the past several months, since March 2020, we’ve been in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, and almost everyone has been faced with these sorts of challenges, although the responses have been quite varied, indeed. Some of us are sheltering in place, going out mostly only for walks in the neighborhood, oftentimes wearing face masks, and carefully staying at least six feet away from those not in our household. Others are forced to be out and about—by

68 Applications

their circumstances, for example, either because of their responsibilities to their job (e.g., doctors, nurses, firefighters, police) or because of the pressing need to keep earning money to get by (e.g., working as clerks in grocery stores or delivering food). Others still are angry that their “rights” are being infringed upon, and some are aggressively (even a few with guns!) demanding that they be able to go about their business however they wish to do so— including crowding together in close quarters in public places for recreation. These are only some of the responses. For the past several months, lots of ideas and information are swirling around regarding causes, and possible solutions, of an easily contagious virus that seems to act in ways that are very much outside the realm of what we experience with various strains of flu viruses… How do we “know” which information to pay the most attention to? What should we believe? Why? Experts say something one week, emphasizing that the main dangers are damage to our lungs, then a couple of weeks later, it seems a risk is blood clotting and even strokes? Maybe both are true—probably they are. How do we think about these unfolding “facts”—scientists and medical professionals themselves are challenged in their research laboratories, and those of us who are “lay people” have to decide which precautions to take—to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and strangers as well. These issues of “inquiry” have “action” implications, and inevitably we make decisions that are emotional—if I go outside to walk, or even jog, should I wear a face mask, or should I just keep my distance? Should we wait to go back to business as usual until there is a strongly proven treatment? And, if so, what does “strongly proven” mean? Should we wait until there is a proven vaccine? What’s “strongly proven” to one person may be tenuous to another. How do we decide? Some believe there is nothing to really worry about unless you’re over 60 or 70 or have a significant chronic health problem. Similarly, government leaders and policy makers have to make decisions about what laws and guidelines to pass. There are ethical dilemmas in many of our everyday actions, and right now, people are making decisions about how much to risk more deaths, as compared with increased unemployment, or alternatively, with a major decline in the stock market. (Bilorusky, 2021, p.2) Each of us are making important decisions, and many of us realize the weight of our choices, whereas others perhaps seem not to so much. Whether we are aware of this, or not, our decisions almost inevitably impact not only us, but our loved ones, and others throughout our communities. Here, I hope to show how ideas and perspectives of transformative action-inquiry can be used to improve the quality of the ways in which we make difficult decisions and judgment calls during this extremely difficult time. I will consider some of the challenges involved in sorting through complicated, uncertain, and conflicting information about the

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 69

pandemic, as well as examining the difficulties and possible approaches to making personal and policy decisions during the pandemic.

What “data” are relevant? With any inquiry, people begin with their assumptions, and generalize from previous experiences, about “how things work in the world” to look for certain kinds of information that their assumptions indicate are important, and in the process they ignore, or at least give less value to, other kinds of information. T. S. Kuhn discussed this in how scientists use their theory or paradigm to guide their research (Kuhn, 1970). This is inevitable. The best we can do is to ask ourselves questions, continually, about whether or not we should re-evaluate the relevance of the information we’re relying on, and ask how we can seek out or pay attention to some other kinds of information, as well. Because the COVID-19 virus is so unusual and seems to act very differently than other viruses, and because no one in our population has natural immunity to this new virus, it has been especially challenging to know what information, what data, to rely on. Early on, the widespread view was that those most at risk were those with serious existing health problems (e.g., diabetes, heart disease) and those over 60 and especially 70 years of age (I’m “very healthy” but 74 as this is unfolding). Then, over time, more and more younger people, and many healthy ones at that, were not only becoming severely ill but in some cases dying. The “statistical trends” were still that older people, and especially those with pre-existing health conditions, were most likely to be hospitalized or even die. However, the “exceptions to the rule” began to pile up. At first, doctors noticed that the biggest danger was to the lungs, resulting from a second wave of the infection, the “cytokine storm,” an inflammatory response in the aftermath of body’s initial efforts (that may had before seemed successful) to fight off the virus. Quite a few people were hospitalized, and many died from Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Quite appropriately, doctors were then on alert for this attack on the lungs later in the progression of the disease. Data relevant to heading this off were what doctors started looking for. After a month or more, doctors were taken aback when they learned that many people were instead having blood clotting problems, sometimes resulting in strokes or heart attacks, even in previously healthy people. They had not been looking for this. So, this became “new” data to look for once they became aware of it. Consequently, medical professionals have increasingly approached the virus with an active open-mindedness and curiosity, realizing that they don’t know nearly as much as they need to know about the virus. These matters of medical practice and inquiry are not themselves the focus of this chapter, but they are relevant in two ways. First, this demonstrates how, even in the natural sciences, especially when we encounter something “new,” we have to be very conscious of the possibility that we may not be looking at all of the relevant types of data and information. Secondly, these medical issues impact the decisions individuals make about their behavior and their lives, and it impacts policy

70 Applications

and group decisions regarding the well-being of the society as a whole. So, for example, even though younger people are less likely to become severely ill or die, that possibility is not as remote as we first believed. When healthy middle-aged, and occasionally young, adults began to become severely disabled or even dying, even if somewhat rarely, experts still maintained that the immune systems of children seemed to be such that children rarely were even getting flu-like symptoms. Then, with enough time passing, more than several children became quite ill, and some died. Even though the likelihood of these tragedies remains much, much lower than for elders dying, these new facts have become a wake-up call for some (but still not for others). Medical professionals are continuing to realize that we have a lot to learn about this virus and need to get solid treatments and better preventive measures in place before we can return to business as usual. Depending on the risks we feel like “tolerating,” it may not be enough simply to suggest that elders and those with preexisting conditions should go into isolation, sheltering at home, while others resume business as usual. Further, we are learning more about what information is relevant to minimizing the spread of the virus. Some people haven’t worried about it much at all, and others of us have been uncertain about what the best steps are to minimize our likelihood of getting the virus, or to avoid unknowingly spreading it to others, since some people may be asymptomatic. Considerable research has shown that the virus lives for hours or even days on many surfaces. Subsequent research revealed that although this is the case, by far the most likely way to spread or contract the virus is through the air, and especially when in close quarters with others indoors. For instance, one person in a choir practice infected almost the entire choir—singing in close quarters apparently spread the virus throughout the choir very effectively, resulting in some severe illnesses and two deaths (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm 6919e6.htm). Also, about two months into the pandemic, research began to show that unpredictable patterns of airflow indoors, especially, can result in people becoming infected at distances considerably greater than the 6 foot standard being used to practice “social distancing” (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ how-coronavirus-spreads-through-the-air-what-we-know-so-far1/). Consequently, over time, as more people—researchers, medical professionals, and lay people, alike—have taken this seriously, there have been conscious efforts to seek out more kinds of information, and to look at the circumstances under which the virus spreads, from many different angles. The questions that people are asking are becoming increasingly complex, with many of us realizing that many variable and circumstances must be considered in combination with one another. How important is distance? Very much so, but depends on air flow, it seems, especially when contained indoors. Do face masks help? Most likely, but they are especially important to wear indoors. How much of a risk is touching surfaces or food? This might matter, but may not be such a big risk, especially with frequent hand washing. Is outdoors safer than indoors? Very much so, it seems, and now understanding this, some restaurants are re-opening, but doing so only outdoors, and also with tables spaced six feet apart. So, then, how do all of these

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 71

considerations “add up”—how do they act in combination, and what should we do with the bits of knowledge that we think we know? Undoubtedly, in the coming weeks we will continue to learn more. Just as collaboration is a key quality for transformative action research, it helps to have people discussing this, and especially if the discussions nurture attitudes of curiosity—to seek out new information, an eagerness to think outside the box, and the motivation to think critically. These discussions are taking place online, over the phone, within families, and in the news media. Unfortunately, at the same time, a significant number of people are either digging their heels in, refusing to be inquiring, or even suggesting that the rest of us should just get over it, and get back to business as usual. For many, perhaps the biggest dilemma involves inquiring into, and weighing the risks of ill health and even death from the virus as compared with the devastating economic impact of suspending business as usual. For how long should we do this, and to what extent? From the perspective of transformative action-and-inquiry, it is extremely important that scholars, medical professionals, and people from all walks of life become engaged in trying to address these sorts of questions. We cannot choose to not act, because even “inaction” is a chosen course of action. The ways in which we go about our inquiry and our decision-making—especially in terms of the potential consequences for others and the larger society—are matters involving not only questions of looking for “good data” and doing critically minded evaluation of the data, but also of acting with a sense of “social responsibility.”

Our social responsibility in making decisions in the midst of a large-scale crisis, and the importance of using qualitative as well as quantitative data about the pandemic—a case study (Note: this section was initially drafted in April 2021, relatively early on during the pandemic. Then, the developments, and further research into the complexities of the transmission and significant, but not immediately observed, negative impact of COVID-19, as discussed above, were not considered when drafting this section. If anything, the more recent trends and latest research in the ensuing five months to October 2021, give even stronger support to the analysis articulated in this case study.) After dramatic reports of the death toll due to the coronavirus in such other countries as China and Italy, the pandemic began to spread throughout the U.S. California was perhaps the first state in the U.S. where business as usual was suspended in an effort to blunt the pandemic’s force. Large numbers of us were sufficiently worried that we agree with the directives of the Governor of California, and at least some other leaders, with only a few exceptions that we should stay at home, or as it has been called, “shelter in place.” This meant closing bars, cancelling public gatherings and events, and even closing restaurants, except for take-out food. Except for some “essential” businesses, people have been required to work from home. Schools and colleges have closed for the last three months of the school year. It has meant banning large gatherings of more than a dozen or so people, and more than just this, requiring that we generally stay at home, except to shop for food, and when going outside keep at least

72 Applications

six feet from everyone except those with whom we are living. Some believe that these strong measures have been taken too late. By contrast, there are those who think this amount of worry is not warranted, and that a bigger concern is that it will likely throw the U.S. into an unnecessarily severe depression, and also create a global-wide depression. History will tell whether this crisis ends up being as bad, or worse, than many fear. If nothing else, it is an exceptionally dramatic disruption of “business as usual.” However, we do not know at all what the future holds with regards to this potentially very serious crisis, and research on the virus from the beginning has been controversial and debatable. The actions and the inquiries which have been, and which are currently being, pursued on this pandemic will have short- and long-term outcomes. We do not know what the future holds, so we should take seriously that our action-and-inquiry will have consequences. So, what can we learn about our social responsibility in doing action research? And, with the stakes so high, any kind of research (as is often the case) is really action research! Here, I am asking us to reflect on and critique, from a “social responsibility” perspective, conflicting interpretations of research and the action implications of research on the pandemic. At the time of this writing, the actions resulting from how we decide to interpret and use research could have life-and-death consequences for who-knows-how-many human beings, as well as other, major consequences for many individuals’ employment and livelihoods, and the society and economy more generally. Epidemiologists and public health officials have been scrambling night and day to gather elusive information about rates of infection and track the rates of hospitalization and death. As noted above, they have been looking for patterns among different age groups, and people with or without pre-existing serious medical conditions. At first, they had relatively little information about the social interactions that led to the transmission of the disease but did believe that the disease can be transmitted very easily. The symptoms have also been very puzzling. Some people (very few in the general population have been tested for the disease yet) are asymptomatic; many have relatively mild symptoms; and quite a few have serious complications, not uncommonly requiring oxygen from a ventilator or even resulting in death. Death rates are estimated to be as high as 4% overall among those infected, and over 10% among the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. Yet, some have argued that the death rate might actually end up being under 1% and only a bit higher than the seasonal flu. As noted above, it was first believed that the disease is fatal only for elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. Fairly quickly we saw an increasing number of anecdotal reports of healthy young people, especially medical professionals caring for those ill, who have become seriously ill, sometimes dying. When the pandemic was first spreading to the U.S., some public officials became alarmed when they saw the exponential increase of illness among the people of Italy, with their hospitals and medical professionals becoming completely overwhelmed and unable to attend to all those seriously ill. Some doctors in Italy (and reportedly elsewhere) tragically have had to decide to only put people

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 73

under 60 on the limited, available ventilators in a difficult life-and-death decision to save those most likely to survive, and perhaps then likely to live for many years. Certainly, medical professionals on the front lines and many of those seriously ill have been in panic mode. Others of us are anxious and trying to take serious precautions (e.g., self-isolation with immediate family), and yet, others are going out and partying and rubbing elbows with others believing that they may at worst get a “regular” case of the flu. They may be right, although they might spread the disease to those who are more vulnerable. Looking at recent research on this pandemic—whether it using the best currently available, quantitative data or tries to make sense of all the “qualitative” and varied anecdotal reports—it’s hard to know what the “reality” is. So, this is a good “case study” for us to ponder. Why? Even in times when we are not in the midst of a massive, rapid, and poorly understood crisis, we often really know much less, rather than “more,” about the important things we wish to study. A further, and very important, circumstance here is that no one—neither research and medical professionals, nor ordinary citizens trying to make their own decisions during this crisis—have the luxury of doing longterm studies or deliberations over an extended period, in order to decide what to do. Some believe that there has been too much inaction, and others believe there has been an “over-reaction.” So, I raise the question, in the midst of this crisis, what considerations or criteria should we have in mind in trying to pursue socially responsible action and research, in order to evaluate our approaches to using research, today, in making decisions? The crisis demands that our research must be immediate, albeit imperfect, and still, in the face of less than conclusive evidence, we must try to make “socially responsible,” mindful recommendations. Transformative action-and-inquiry must pay attention to issues of “social responsibility.” Well-intended people can disagree, and I will discuss some contradictory research and recommendations, and also suggest a few of the criteria that are likely important to keep in mind, if we aim to be intentionally “socially responsible.” To use as a case study, I will focus on one research analysis and resulting statements in the mass media put forth initially in March 2020, during the first month of the unfolding of the pandemic in the U.S. One well-known epidemiologist and statistician, Dr. John Ioannidis of Stanford, raised the following question in an article written for laypeople—“A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data?” (Ioannidis, 2020b). Briefly summarized, he criticized the methods by which some researchers had arrived at what he believed (and still believes as of June 2020) are likely inaccurate, inflated estimates of the likely death rate. He also expressed concern that the emerging efforts to close restaurants and non-essential businesses would likely pose a greater, negative impact on the society and the economy than the eventual number of deaths from the virus. He concluded that article with the dramatic statement, “If we decide to jump off the cliff, we need some data to inform us about the rationale of such an action and the chances of landing somewhere safe.” In other words, what he concluded to be our over-reaction to prevent the spread of the virus would be akin to jumping off a cliff when there is no significant danger. At the same time, he published an article in a scholarly peer-

74 Applications

reviewed journal, where he presented some of the same questioning of the evidence and interpretations in this current research, then makes his arguments and expresses his concerns, but concludes with a more measured, and inconclusive, “academic” tone. In the scholarly article, he concludes If COVID-19 is indeed the pandemic of the century, we need the most accurate evidence to handle it. Open data sharing of scientific information is a minimum requirement. This should include data on the number and demographics of tested individuals per day in each country. Proper prevalence studies and trials are also indispensable. If COVID-19 is not as grave as it is depicted, high evidence standards are equally relevant. Exaggeration and over-reaction may seriously damage the reputation of science, public health, media, and policy makers. It may foster disbelief that will jeopardize the prospects of an appropriately strong response if and when a more major pandemic strikes in the future. (Ioannidis, 2020a) As one might expect, major media, and especially media leaning toward ending the shutdown of businesses and resuming the economy, such as The New York Times picked up on the popular, lay version of the article and ran stories about it (BokatLindell, 2020). The tone of these mainstream media articles was much like that of The New York Times, and that of Ioannidis’ article for lay reading—”Is This Really the Best Way to Fight Coronavirus?” The article goes on: Is ‘the cure’ worse than the problem? No society can safeguard public health for long at the cost of its overall economic health, The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board writes. Resources to fight the virus aren’t limitless, the board says, and the costs of this national shutdown will soon cause “a tsunami of economic destruction” that will cause tens of millions to lose their jobs. Almost immediately, in my own neighborhood of Oakland, California, an online community forum post commented on Ioannidis’ article and questioned those of us who have been practicing “social distancing”—staying at home with family members and staying at least six feet from others when going out for a walk in the neighborhood. Shouldn’t we perhaps consider getting back to work? Isn’t it too much of a burden for parents that schools are closed? These are legitimate questions, and also it is important to note that Ioannidis’ reputation and privileged access to media coverage helped to spread the word that perhaps we were indeed overreacting. Because of the hardships involved, government leaders were already struggling to justify having people stay at home, so in this case, one consequence of Ioannidis’ lay article criticizing initial research on the death rate was that it supported the views of those who were already questioning the wisdom of governmental directives for people to generally “stay at home” and not continue with “business as usual.” Was Ioannidis aware of the possible impact of his article? How did he weigh the risks and advantages of publicizing his critique at this stage of the escalating

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 75

pandemic? Certainly, we don’t know for certain. However, during such a charged situation and crisis, I believe that there are especially significant ethical dilemmas involved in when, whether and how to put forth one’s research recommendations. In doing transformative action research, we should always be quite aware of matters “social responsibility.” Furthermore, those of us who are in the positions of authority and respect have especially great responsibilities to be circumspect about the possible impact of our actions, as well as of course, the possible consequences of inaction. Perhaps Ioannidis was concerned that if he didn’t immediately publicize his criticisms, his failure to take action would have dire consequences. Each of us might well think more about what we might have done, the same or differently, had we been “in his shoes.” I’d like to think about this further. I do not presume to know his thought processes beyond what I can infer from what he has written and done in the past few months. I do believe that a critically minded examination of his efforts may help us to think about how and why we may choose to take action, or not, in participating in action-and-inquiry in the midst of a crisis such as this. This could involve asking ourselves such questions as, “What is the likely, larger impact in the society of the research we publish, of our critiques of the published research?” Also, how do we compare the risks of waiting to say something with saying something right now? Further, is it better to make a strong statement, or perhaps suggest the need for further inquiry? These are important questions for all of us to consider, whether we are lay or expert, but arguably especially important for experts and leaders whose views are likely to receive widespread publicity and likely impact. If each of us were faced with this dilemma about the use and criticism of current research on topics related to the pandemic, what are some guidelines we could use to reflect more deeply on matters of “social responsibility”? Ioannidis’ analysis and critique were of research estimating a death rate of about 3% among those who get the virus. He stated that his analysis of their evidence suggested that 3% would be an extremely large, incorrect overestimation of the death rate. Ioannidis suggested that the shutdown of many businesses, the fall of the stock market, and a domino effect as more people stay home, spend less, earn less, and anxiously wait to see if the virus spreads might in other ways create illness or even death among their family members. We have possible “trade-offs” hinging on our decision-making and competing possible errors of judgment based on imperfect research and an uncertain future. With all this in mind, we are unavoidably having to wrestle with issues to which there are no clear-cut answers, and which highlight dramatically how strong values and ethical issues can impact on how we evaluate research and the uses of research in choosing a course of action.

Transparency Let’s begin by considering the principle of “transparency.” Certainly, any of us may pursue research-and-action that someone else may view as “not socially responsible,” just as any of us may pursue research-and-action that another may view as

76 Applications

“not scientifically rigorous.” Such evaluations are of course subject to debate. Consequently, we should be very mindful of the value of the principle of “transparency.” This means that we should make public to others how and why we have arrived at our interpretations and recommended courses of action, so that we can allow others to reflect critically on our inquiry, and try to learn from one another, and then “do better” as we proceed with our research-and-action. Ioannidis, in his publication in a scholarly peer-reviewed article (Ioannidis, 2020a) seems to take his readers through his process of inquiry and arriving at his solutions. However, this is not so much the case in the initial popularized version of the article (Ioannidis, 2020b) and in the articles subsequently written in the popular media for mass consumption. Readers learn about his conclusions and recommendations, but not so much about how he arrived at the conclusion. Some would argue that lay people would not appreciate or understand the process of inquiry. I would at least raise the point that the most socially responsible course of action is to make strong efforts to convey transparency to all of one’s readers, including one’s doubts about one’s own conclusions, especially if one’s recommendations may influence their decisionmaking in important ways. Fortunately, over the past three months, other experts have stepped up and examined Ioannidis’ process of inquiry and put forth their own, oftentimes, different views of the data with opposing recommendations. Such open dialogue and debate is in the best tradition of scientific inquiry and very importantly part of transformative action-and-inquiry as well. Still, during this crisis, there have been some other factors which have made the practical realization of transparency more challenging. The benefits of transparency are reduced in this crisis, due to several, extremely challenging factors:   

the pandemic, the topic of our research, is rapidly changing and evolving; it is quite new and there is much we can’t possibly yet adequately understand; and we are trying to make decisions when most of us feel extremely anxious or even traumatized.

Awareness of how different groups might either misinterpret or use our research and recommendations In light of these factors, even if we try to be transparent, we must be mindful of how others may use or misinterpret what we say. It is easy for people to “grab onto” one piece of evidence or one conclusion and focus on that. Dramatic language such as Ioannidis’ image of a someone jumping off a cliff mostly likely detracts from transparency, because people may focus on that image rather than on the process of inquiry leading to that conclusion. It is troublesome that Ioannidis used much more dispassionate and measured language in the academic journal but made more of an emotional appeal in the popular media. When interviewed, Ioannidis is polite and honest about the difficulties in getting “good data” about the actual death rate from the virus, and about his disagreements with other experts. However, arguably he has allowed those with narrower, and

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 77

pointed political agendas to make use of his well-intended critiques of the research put forth by others. This is especially apparent in his interviews on Fox News (https://video.foxnews.com/v/6150670357001#sp=show-clips; and https:// video.foxnews.com/v/6151202533001#sp=show-clips)—a network that has consistently argued for a return to business as usual, and that has a history of questioning the validity of scientific studies, even for example, regarding the climate emergency.

Equity and Justice Does the risk-benefit analysis of the consequences of the Ioannidis’ research explicitly consider the possibility that the risks will weigh unequally and/or unjustly on some groups more than others? Unfortunately, this issue does not seem to be addressed explicitly at least, for the most part. Ioannidis does emphasize that the elderly, people with pre-existing health conditions and lower-income groups should be especially protected. However, his recommendations, while they suggest perhaps isolating the elderly and the ill, don’t address the risks to lower-income people who are middle-aged and who have jobs that will regularly expose them to the virus if we return too rapidly to business as usual. Furthermore, he suggests that it is quite likely that many who die from the virus would have possibly died fairly soon anyway. Again, this statement, which I don’t believe Ioannidis is stating in an unconcerned, cold-hearted way, does easily play into the views of some politicians, including President Trump, who have stated that getting the economy back to normal is very important, and that’s a risk that the older segment of the population may have to take to benefit the rest of us. There is a slippery slope here—those most vulnerable to the virus (older people and those with pre-existing medical conditions) can be seen, implicitly or explicitly, as “expendable” for the “larger good,” even if the qualifying statement is that we should “protect” them. If their risk is great enough, then it still may not be so easy to isolate them effectively. Of great concern to many of us is that, since March, there has been overwhelming evidence that African American people are especially at risk for becoming ill or dying. There is a strong disparity in the numbers here. It is highly likely that many lower-income workers, such as grocery store clerks or people working in meat packing plants, are at greater risk. Finally, medical workers—doctors and nurses especially—are at great risk. Although Ioannidis’ quantitative, statistical analyses (in conflict with others) suggest that the likelihood of most healthy, middle-aged, and younger adults becoming ill is quite low, qualitative data suggest otherwise. During the normal flu season, there are not numerous instances of doctors and nurses dying because they contract the flu from the patients. During COVID-19, such stories, even if statistically “low” are commonplace, and this is not true in the midst of flu seasons. So, attention to qualitative data like these are very important, especially when there is so much debate about the validity of quantitative data reported by experts with competing viewpoints. To be sure, the disruption of “business as usual” puts at greatest economic risk those who are in poverty, with no cash reserves, no adequate health insurance,

78 Applications

and/or easily laid off without benefits. This issue has been raised by progressive politicians in arguing for economic and other support and relief for these groups. Again, some leaders are especially concerned about the economic impact on those most marginalized, and yet, all too many are focused on the “general economy” or more specifically, on the stock market. So, as to how soon, and in what ways, to return to business as usual, the questions of social responsibility are not answered so much by “who’s right” but rather by looking at how well we have tried to be transparent, aware of the uses and possible misinterpretations of what we are saying, and sufficiently taking into account equity and justice. There are other considerations, as well, about which we should try to be mindful and which we should discuss with others.

Using qualitative, value-based decision-making As noted in a few places above, oftentimes, Ioannidis and others have focused on the quantitative data and have arrived at very different conclusions. In contrast, I would suggest that at the very least, the qualitative data has been so powerful and so puzzling that we should be engaged in serious inquiry, and start off with decisions that err in the direction of “caution.” Some of these qualitative data are:     

The devastation in Italy, with hospitals overwhelmed with too many severely ill patients to care for. Doctors and nurses dying in New York City and other “hot spots” in the U.S. Children dying from COVID-19, unlike what we see with the seasonal flu, as well as healthy young and middle-aged adults, sometimes dying and sometimes becoming significantly disabled for life. People becoming ill like they often do with the flu, and then later experiencing a more severe later impact, resulting in a trip to the ICU, or even dying. All of these things happening, even when some areas of the U.S. have mostly closed down, and although that seems to help, even that has not eliminated these rather striking, and observable tragedies.

All of this suggests to me that the qualitative data from this crisis are quite compelling, at least enough to raise questions about any tentative, hastily, and imperfectly gathered quantitative data. With good intentions I’m sure, Ioannidis believes that the benefit of reporting his research findings questioning existing research, outweighs the cost of holding back on reporting his criticisms, because he strongly fears that the dangers of suspending business as usual for any significant period may result in costs of social and economic devastation. For him, this appears to be more important than the cost of immediately and forcefully reporting this. However, if he is incorrect with his criticism, this might lead to a premature return to business as usual and an escalation of the virus and the death toll. Although I, and his critics, disagree, this doesn’t mean his assessment or decision is wrong. One of my concerns is that his

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 79

critique fails to mention, or consider at all, the powerful, “qualitative information” about the pandemic. Given this, I do have a serious concern about his rushing to publish his “statistical critique” of other research that he believes inflates the likely death rate. He fails to discuss, or account for, in any way, the large body of “qualitative evidence” that should have been taken into consideration. Let’s turn to a “qualitative cost-benefit analysis”—and indeed, one principle of transformative action research is that all decision-making must ultimately be qualitative. Even though we may wish to consider quantitative data, ultimately, we must weigh the significance of the number by making qualitative judgments in arriving at our decisions. In this case, some people have argued that the “biggest” danger is the number of possible deaths from the virus, whereas others have maintained that the biggest danger is the potential economic damage and societal disruptions. Nevertheless, some have made the point that a higher death rate could further damage the economy—thus suggesting that we might well think in terms of “both/and”— saving human lives and saving the economy, rather than seeing the two necessarily at odds with one another. Transformative action research reminds us at least to consider that it is oftentimes better to frame things as “both/and”—although to be sure, this may not always be the case. In summary, all too often, disagreeing parties are more focused on presenting their conclusions than they are in engaging people in a serious, and thorough, even if necessarily very inadequate, consideration of alternatives.

Weigh the likelihood of costs, benefits, errors In addition to weighing the importance of the costs in comparison with the value of the benefits, there is also the matter of which “type of error” is most likely. The likelihood of our making a “wrong” decision, in “either direction” is important, as is our consideration of the gravity of the error. What is the likelihood that Ioannidis is incorrect in concluding that we are overreacting and should be more concerned with social/economic impact? By contrast, what is the likelihood that others are incorrect that this pandemic could have a large-scale impact on the health of people, thereby resulting in far more deaths than usual happen during flu season and limiting access to hospitals and medical care for those who need assistance with other medical problems and conditions? The likelihood of each error is hard to assess, but we still must consciously examine what we “believe” to be the likelihood of each kind of error. Research results will not provide us with a clear-cut statistical estimate as is the case with controlled laboratory studies. I’m going to improvise off of a comment recently made by my colleague, Dr. Brian Gerrard, regarding matters of life and death, which is at least part of what I am talking about in this case. Brian posed this question, “if someone told you that the plane you are boarding has ‘only’ a 1%? 4%? 10%? likelihood of crashing, at what percent would you decide not to get on the plane?” In other words, how much “error” are we willing to accept in the various recommendations we are considering? At what percent level, by contrast, would we not go out to buy a new TV or car, if we had the money to do so,

80 Applications

if someone said the likelihood of an extended downturn with major unemployment is 1%? 4%? 10%? Which type of error would we accept in this situation? Clearly, the gravity or severity of the consequences will influence how much error we are willing to risk or tolerate. In other words, would we take a greater risk of getting onto a potentially defective plane, or a greater risk of making an expensive purchase at a bad time, economically speaking?

Avoid influence of sources of funding or those with authority and power It’s not obvious that either group in this debate is unduly influenced in this way, but it’s worth thinking about, and it’s important for those of us engaged in inquiry and research to ask ourselves such questions. It was not a good idea to take seriously research on the health effects of cigarettes that was funded by the tobacco industry. In May 2020, one whistleblower claimed that a recent study by Ioannidis and some associates into the rate of death caused by the virus had been funded in part by the founder of Jet Blue, who has an agenda of ending the lockdown and getting people out and about and traveling by air (Lee, 2020). Many scientists had already been raising serious criticisms about Ioannidis’ study, and although there is no evidence that this funding influenced the study, it is an accepted practice that researchers are supposed to disclose such funding, so others will at least know that the study might have been biased by the funding source. At this time, the allegations have not been conclusively substantiated, and even if they are, Ioannidis has maintained that he was unaware of who funded the study, although one might argue that social responsibility requires that researchers should always be sure to know about where their funding comes from.

Bias in seeking data and making interpretations All of us bring our perspectives and potential biases to our research, and one of the important functions of the principle of “transparency” is to give others the opportunity to see our biases, even if we are not able be aware of them, as is almost always the case. Indeed, Ioannidis has earned a highly respected reputation because his career has been based on having a “contrarian” point of view. He is famous for his ability to pick apart entire bodies of many research studies, which usually have been conducted over a long period of time. He is expert at revealing how and why their conclusions are incorrect. This is an exceedingly valuable role for any researcher—scientist or layperson—to embrace, even those of us who are less expert than Ioannidis. All too few people do this. However, I believe that perhaps, in this case, Ioannidis has played his role of the “critic” perhaps in too much of a “rote” sort of way and done so inappropriately. Here’s what I mean. Although I’m only familiar in a general way with his research, it seems that he usually is critiquing research not in the midst of a fast-moving, quite unique crisis. Oftentimes, he does this after there have been many of studies done, some of them using fairly well-defined, painstaking procedures over an

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 81

extended period of time. With the benefit of being able to re-evaluate a large number of studies, and studies that have been done for quite a while, Ioannidis is reviewing research that has matured to the point that the time may then be more ripe for the critical eye of re-evaluation that Ioannidis so skillfully seems to apply. However, in this case, Ioannidis isn’t “stepping back” from a long-term, oftenresearched health issue, and one about which we have a substantial qualitative understanding. Nor is he doing this critique in a relatively calm moment. I believe that given the uncertain and dramatically changing crisis, Ioannidis should perhaps moderate the strength with which he debunks these emerging studies to which we should perhaps pay more attention. This does not mean keeping quiet and not putting forth his criticisms. Indeed, in his initial scholarly article, his criticisms are stated in more tentative terms, as questions and food for thought, and less so as requiring a major change in public policy (Ioannidis, 2020a). His dramatic comments in the popular media, and his appearance on Fox News, a media outlet well known for being reluctant to consider scientific research, suggests to me that in this case it was perhaps not well-advised to play his contrarian role so dramatically and so publicly. His usual role and approach are to critiquing the research, and this is what he does best, but usually he does this in very different circumstances than the current crisis. It is possible that Ioannidis’ bias is that he is not so mindfully playing his “usual role,” since now we are in circumstances that may require him to assume a different role, with a more cautious approach to criticizing the current research. Like most of us, Ioannidis may be well-intended, but unaware of his “bias.”

Self-serving motivation Those who are concerned with ethics and social responsibility in research say that we should try to be aware of, and put aside, any self-serving motivations. The point made immediately above about Ioannidis’ forceful and dramatic statements in the popular media, as contrasted with his much more measured tone in scholarly publications, suggest that knowingly or unknowingly he may be “playing to his audiences” differently, in order to gain their approval, or have impact with them. The tone of his article to laypeople presents himself as the expert holding a loudspeaker to his mouth, shouting “beware!” In the peer-reviewed article, his tone is much more measured, reserved, and suggests similar concerns, but without any sense of dramatic urgency. Perhaps this difference is an astute awareness of the importance of writing with one’s audience in mind. However, it can also be interpreted as “scholarly” tone with openness to other views respectfully submitted to one’s peers, and by contrast, with laypeople a rather different tone of “I’m the expert at the podium, and listen to me—‘there is a fire in this movie theater, run!’” For many of us, it’s satisfying to have others pay attention to us, especially in times calling out for creative leadership. It’s possible for any of us to have a combination of well-intended motivations and self-serving motivations. We should try to be mindful of this, but since we may often not do such a good job of this, it is

82 Applications

especially important that we be transparent, and attend to some of the other considerations involved in trying to be “socially responsible.” In any case, it is extremely important for us to be more mindful of how people may interpret and use our research, whether by reading a formal study or by being persuaded by our own, informal inquiries. Specifically, I’m suggesting that we all try to put ourselves in roles like Ioannidis’ and ask ourselves, with each action research project in which we are involved, what do I think about my own approach, here? Am I being socially responsible by MY standards, and by some of the standards and criteria listed above? Am I being sufficiently self-aware? In each case, we might ask ourselves, “can I use some of the principles listed above to evaluate what I think about my own action and research?” This real, and quite relevant, current case study of the dilemmas involved in trying to use research-in-action reveals some of the always-present ethical complexities in trying to be “socially responsible.” By the time, this book is published, we may be able to look back with the benefit of hindsight and second guess what would have been best to do. For now, we must make decisions as best we can in the face of this potential viral tsunami that is sometimes deadly and puzzlingly sometimes innocuous as it inundates countries around the world. In any case, we must always make difficult decisions about our social responsibility in the present, not after the fact, although hopefully, we will learn from experience.

The role of “qualitative data” Early on in the pandemic, it became apparent to me, based on the “qualitative” data that not only were we faced with an enormous, and immediate crisis, but also that the crisis had exposed further a number of long-term “bigger picture” challenges which could no longer be avoided or deferred indefinitely. The qualitative, and revealing stories, were initially that the hospitals in Italy did not have enough ventilators for all those in need, and many died because of this who might or might not have lived. Then, we later learned that COVID is not just a respiratory illness, but one that can result in blood clotting, sometimes with severe negative impacts on many other organs of the body (e.g., kidneys) and even occasionally, the brain. Then, as noted above, even young children, albeit rarely, have been dying from COVID, unlike with the “regular” flu. Some people have argued that the number of cases doesn’t matter, just fatalities. However, most recently, there has been an observed incidence of cardiac inflammation in young athletes and middle-aged men with no pre-existing health conditions, and this suggests that even those with asymptomatic and mild cases may potentially suffer long-term health problems (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cov id-19-can-wreck-your-heart-even-if-you-havent-had-any-symptoms/). Qualitative observations and follow up on how people get COVID-19, have pointed to the great impact of what have become known as “super-spreading” events—especially indoor events where large numbers of people come together. As is often the case in doing transformative action research, we are learning that the more we learn, the more we know that there is much we don’t know.

Transformative action-inquiry during COVID-19 83

Obviously, panic is not a good response, nor should we ignore the impact of “sheltering in place”—e.g., greater suicidal ideation especially among younger adults. Undoubtedly some people are suffering and even dying because of lost employment and wages, family stresses and perhaps conflicts, feelings of anxiety and despair, loss of social support networks and more. All of these important dynamics must be assessed in part, at least, through qualitative inquiry that “probes beneath the surface.” My perspective is not that I, or anyone, has “all the answers,” but that this crisis, involving “new” dynamics not previous experienced (i.e., the pandemic due to a new virus, COVID-19) requires much more than numbers crunching about the number of deaths. Nor can we only look for and rely on easy, overgeneralizations, such as the proven, especially great vulnerability of older people and those with chronic health challenges.

Food for thought on the immediate tasks and the bigger picture in addressing the coronavirus pandemic In an effort to stimulate discussion and reflection, I wrote the following in early April 2020 and posted these thoughts on WISR’s website (https://www.wisr.edu/). As a very general, but not detailed, strategy, I suggested that during the crisis, people should mobilize and come together to address the immediate problems arising from the pandemic’s impact, and also to begin to address the longer-term challenges revealed by the pandemic. Here’s what I said: The Coronavirus has killed more people, by far, than the horrific act of terrorism, 911. What hasn’t been discussed is that it is quite likely, even if not definitively proven, that our destruction of the environment is the act of terrorism that has given rise to this pandemic, not to mention the role of environmental destruction in leading to many other deaths every day (Vidal, 2020). The destruction of the natural habits of many species is a likely cause of pandemics such as this one. Consider also the ways in which poor air quality impacts our ability to breathe, fracking pollutes groundwater, toxic industrial by-products create cancer, and the climate emergency creates droughts and other forms of extreme weather leading to forest fires, hurricanes, and more. Farmers in the Midwest are more prone to suicide as are other groups because of the deteriorating social and environmental conditions brought on by our destruction of the environment … environmental destruction must not only be stopped, but also reversed, partly to reduce dramatically some of the conditions that are likely to give rise to more frequently occurring pandemics, as well as other newly recurring natural disasters such as raging forest fires in the Western United States. This pandemic should be a wake-up call to not only mobilize ourselves to the immediate tasks before us—such as socially responsibly staying at home to the maximum extent possible, covering our faces when going out to prevent spreading the disease, and mobilizing support for homeless people, prisoners, and others at high risk for becoming ill with the Coronavirus—but also to ask what do we need to do about “the bigger picture.” It will not be enough to breathe a sigh of relief

84 Applications

and return to “business as usual” in another 12 to 18 months, when hopefully there will be an effective vaccine for the Coronavirus. The Coronavirus has made the most persuasive “campaign speech” possible that our country immediately must have: 1) Medicare for All; 2) A Green New Deal, and beyond any such set of policies, a united commitment by everyone to work to sustain rather than destroy our environment; and 3) Policies and practices to improve the lives of those most marginalized and whose economic wellbeing, health and dignity are most vulnerable, including addressing systemic inequality and racial, gender, and other forms of injustice (Raymond, 2020). (Bilorusky, 2020)

Concluding remarks Now, in late September 2020, over six months into the pandemic, I still see the value of applying the principles and methods of transformative action research, as we try to inquire into, and make sense out of, what to do in the midst of COVID-19. In particular, I believe we should rely neither on our own personal experiences and impressions (e.g., “nobody I know has died”) nor the total number of cases or deaths (although I think most people finally realize that those numbers are truly worrisome, and perhaps alarming). I do believe that we should look for qualitative, clinical studies, even if done only with relatively small groups of people. I have been spending an average of 30 minutes or more per day, looking online for studies and reports from front line medical professionals, and if nothing else, there are strong indications that we need to learn much more about COVIID-19 before we can be confident that we know all the dangers involved with COVID-19. How careful to be and how much risk to take is the big question? Should we take aggressive action to prevent the spread of the virus, or to take some risks with the virus to avoid some of devastating consequences (financial disasters for many, and mental health and other difficulties as well) of continuing to scale back from business as usual? I cannot justify a definitive conclusion, but since it is impossible to choose to not decide anything, I have chosen to be very cautious, and believe that government action should provide safety nets for those who are most marginalized and who are suffering financial, mental health, and other health challenges because of the pandemic and the suspension of business as usual. Again, I will reiterate and emphasize my view that our decision-making should be strongly informed by qualitative, clinical evidence, especially when we cannot do largescale, systematic studies. Further, and related to this, we cannot rely on data about “death rates” alone (even though the death rates should, by now, be very disturbing, having now exceeded 200,000 in the U.S.). Qualitative, clinical data suggest that healthy younger people can die from COVID, even if in smaller numbers than the elderly and those with pre-existing conditions. Further, recent research points to the strong possibility that many people, even with minor bouts with COVID, may have lasting, and potentially permanent, damage to their health (especially cardiac related). Beyond this, over the long-term, once the pandemic is “under control,” we should learn from this crisis, not only how to better respond to another, future pandemic, but also by paying attention to what we can learn about the long-term challenges and systemic issues revealed by the pandemic. In these way, big challenges become opportunities as well.

PART II

Illustrations

The chapters in Part II provide tangible and detailed illustrations of the wide variety of ways in which transformative action research can be used. Chapters 7 through 10 have been written by five of my colleagues, and all are different from one another in how they have used, and are using, action research. Each chapter shows some valuable and distinctive uses of action research. David Yamada is a professor of law who focuses on the broad strategy of intellectual activism, especially grounded in his experience with and major commitment to addressing the problems related to workplace bullying, a field in which he has deservedly earned national recognition. Dennis Hastings and Margery Coffey are two scholar-activists who have made enormous contributions in preserving and restoring the history of the Omaha people and the preservation of the Omaha language. They have accomplished this through their writings, through the preservation of photos and recordings from 19th century Edison cylinders, and in change efforts, such as in contributions to the content taught in local school rooms. As the leaders of the Omaha Tribal Historical Research Project (OTHRP)—which the Omaha Tribal Council has designated as their cultural authority in perpetuity—they have demonstrated with their tireless, scholarly, and activist capabilities how much can be accomplished by unsung heroes. Between their museum work, both in the U.S. and also in France and Germany, as well as their work on the Internet, they are well known in specific areas. Their museum project has been covered in Turkey and introduced in an architectural classroom in Egypt. They are also well known to the Nebraska legislature and the University of Nebraska. Hopefully, Chapter 8 will give them even more visibility and support for their efforts. In Chapter 9, Sudia Paloma McCaleb shows great creativity and multicultural finesse in the various ways in which she has used participatory action research—in classrooms in the U.S., including with Salvadoran immigrants, and in cross-cultural learning efforts among Oaxacan indigenous communities and U.S. school teachers.

86 Illustrations

Many of her exemplary endeavors grow out of the organization she has founded, the Center for Critical Environmental and Global Literacy (CCEGL). In Chapter 10, Marilyn Jackson reflects on how her own dissertation at WISR, over 20 years ago, was moved forward when she added interviews and an action research perspective to her already solid understanding of creation spirituality. She also brings to the discussion, the relevance of the Danish Folk School movement to our appreciation of the breadth of action research. Chapters 11 and 12 use the perspective of transformative action-and-inquiry in working toward educational improvements in the realm of the physical sciences, mathematics, and Artificial Intelligence. Chapter 11 is a description and analysis of how innovatively minded, expert college physics professors have endeavored to improve physics education by “teaching physics as inquiry.” Chapter 12 is an early report on my collaboration with a WISR graduate student, a researcher in the field of Artificial Intelligence at Microsoft, Kence Anderson. Together, we have developed some promising insights on the central role of collaboration in moving toward higher levels of learning—specifically, on the necessity and value of humans as essential colleagues of Artificial Intelligence machines. In this book, and the companion volume to this book (Bilorusky, 2021), I’ve stressed the importance of “social learning,” of collaboration, in enabling us to progress in our inquiring capabilities. So, Kence Anderson and I are engaged in showing how it is that only with the benefit of collaborating with people can “Artificial Intelligence” help us to progress toward higher and deeper levels of expert inquiry. Furthermore, we believe that this process of social learning with technology can be used in school classrooms, to educate youth. The idea is not merely that youth can “learn from” AI, nor that the main goal is for them to develop technological skills, although both are valuable. More importantly, youth, can develop and further their own inquiring abilities to a much greater extent by being engaged as colleagues who are involved in pushing forward the learning of AI machines. In Chapter 12, then, we share some of our ideas in progress, and our plans to try this out in one or several school classrooms in the not too distant future. Next, and quite significantly, in Chapter 13, I present examples of a wide variety of action research projects done by WISR students, oftentimes for a thesis or dissertation, and sometimes resulting in a published book, and/or significant practical consequences. Beyond the examples of what the students “did,” there is a lot to be learned from that chapter on the students’ many experiences of and perspectives on what they did. We hear from these former WISR students what they have to say about the process and outcomes of what they did, and what, in retrospect, they see to be the significance of what they did and learned. Finally, Chapter 14 is an autobiographical analysis of how my experience and understanding of inquiry-and-action has evolved from childhood to old age, and the role of other people and social circumstances in promoting my own learning of transformative action research. That is, I aim to illustrate some of the many ways in which “social learning” from and with others can be key to expanding one’s abilities and understanding of inquiry, if one is fortunate enough to find their way into situations ripe with opportunity.

7 INTELLECTUAL ACTIVISM AND ACTION RESEARCH—A CASE STUDY ON WORKPLACE BULLYING David Yamada, JD, PhD

This chapter is adapted from the December 2009 Doctoral dissertation by David Yamada: “Combating a hidden epidemic: Multidisciplinary responses to workplace bullying.” PhD Dissertation. Western Institute for Social Research. Berkeley, CA (Yamada, 2009). Dr. Yamada is currently a tenured Professor of Law and Director of the New Workplace Institute at Suffolk University Law School, where he is a globally recognized authority on workplace bullying and psychological abuse. He wrote the first comprehensive law review article on workplace bullying (Yamada, 2000), and his model legislation—known as the Healthy Workplace Bill has become the template for enacted and proposed workplace anti-bullying laws and ordinances in the U.S. (Yamada, 2013).

Introduction to a case study of an intellectual activist using action research in addressing the problem of workplace bullying (Introductory section by John Bilorusky) This chapter draws on the scholarship and action research done by David Yamada, JD, PhD, in conjunction with his WISR PhD dissertation in 2009. At that time, and since then, Dr. Yamada has viewed his research as an example of intellectual activism, as expressed in his work:   

addressing the growing problem of workplace bullying, mobbing and abuse, as frequently discussed in his popular blog, Minding the Workplace (https://new workplace.wordpress.com/); supporting the non-profit Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies network (www.humiliationstudies.org/) on whose Board of Directors he serves; and, building the non-profit International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence (https://www.intltj.com), for which he served as founding Board chair.

88 Illustrations

This chapter, then, uses writing from Dr. Yamada’s dissertation to show how action research methods supported his studies and work as an intellectual activist committed to addressing both the consequences and causes of the growing problem of workplace bullying. The first part is Dr. Yamada’s discussion of his views and uses of action research, and the second part is his articulation of the role of intellectual activism in working for larger-scale, longer-term social change. Note that Dr. Yamada, in a somewhat autobiographical mode, shares with us the story of how his process of inquiry-and-action unfolded over time. This sort of tangible storytelling and transparent disclosure of how and why one gets to their insights and actions, are two key principles that have been emphasized throughout this book. We’ll now learn, in the rest of this chapter, from what David Yamada has to say about action research, intellectual activism, and workplace bullying. First, by way of introduction, the following is the abstract of his 2009 dissertation: This dissertation examines the phenomenon of workplace bullying and considers how we can fashion multidisciplinary preventive and responsive measures. It begins by describing and analyzing workplace bullying and the history of an emerging anti-bullying movement. It then discusses various institutional and individual responses, grounded in public education, organizational advocacy and change, and legal and public policy reform. It is the product of some ten years of the learner’s educational, scholarly, and advocacy work concerning workplace bullying. Accordingly, it closes by considering how the learner will continue to be involved in this work and build on it in ways that affirm human dignity at work and elsewhere. (Yamada, 2009a)

From David Yamada’s dissertation: Action research and social change My dissertation (Yamada, 2009a) incorporates various forms of research, ranging from traditional forays into books, journal articles, and reports, to personal experiences and observations. This chapter is based on my dissertation’s Appendix, slightly edited for clarity and with small corrections, and is on “Action research and social change” and discusses the role of action research in shaping the dissertation and the social change initiatives discussed within it.

WISR and action research In a 2002 seminar paper, WISR co-founders John Bilorusky and Cynthia Lawrence articulated a working definition of action research this way: Action research …   

Is exploratory (rather than narrow or habitual). Is reflective (rather than rote or unthinking). Promotes engagement (rather than aloofness).

Intellectual activism and action research 89

      

 

Is inquisitive (rather than disinterested or accepting). Is collaborative and participatory (rather than disconnected from dialogue and participation with others). Is emergent (rather than formulaic or mechanistic). Is concerned with the “bigger picture”—with other theories, readings, larger societal issues and implications (rather than focusing on trees to the exclusion of the forest and the landscape beyond the forest). Promotes telling and listening to stories and tangible examples (not just abstractions). Is concerned with human values and social justice (not with so-called value-free research, or with research and efforts which only serve the status quo). Involves taking one’s own experiences and insights seriously, as a basis for thinking, writing, conversations with others, and larger action (rather than relying only on the knowledge from books and the ideas embedded in existing policies and practices within organizations). Involves looking beyond oneself, as well—as in doing reviews of literature and interviews with others (rather than assuming we can’t learn from others, even those whose thinking or purposes we believe to be flawed in important ways). Involves writing and rewriting in our own voice—to think out loud with oneself, to communicate and share with others, to stimulate collaboration and participation with others, and to refine ideas and strategies (writing is part of an ongoing creative process, rather than an end point or an opportunity to set knowledge “in stone”).

Two forms of research—action research in the way of personal experience, observation, and inquiry on the one hand, and tapping into an array of multidisciplinary sources on the other—have served as mutually reinforcing components towards building this dissertation. For this ideal pairing I must credit my experience in the WISR PhD program. I first discovered WISR in the mid-1980s, when I read a short profile about it in a popular guide to alternative degree programs. I sent away for information and was intrigued by what I received. I had recently graduated from New York University School of Law and was working as a Legal Aid lawyer in New York City at the time, and WISR’s social change emphasis was enormously appealing. However, in terms of life experience and maturity, I was not ready for WISR. And fortunately for me, WISR was not as ready as it was when I eventually enrolled to work with students outside the Bay Area. But by the fall of 2000, however, WISR was the right opportunity at the right time. It has taken me a long time to finish this degree, but the extended association has been enlightening and affirming. My learning projects have reflected a slow, occasionally halting, but mainly steady progression of uniting “mind and soul” in a way that runs counter to traditional academic culture. Not until late into my doctoral program did I realize that I wanted to write my dissertation on workplace bullying, but once I did it seemed like a perfectly natural decision. It has taken the progression of my WISR experience to understand the centrality of this work to

90 Illustrations

my own life’s purpose and to envision how this dissertation can serve as a springboard to future scholarly, public education, and advocacy efforts towards addressing this problem. WISR’s community-based focus also has supported my inclinations to reach beyond the walls of academic institutions to learn and grow. I have noticed that all too many academicians are willing to interact with practitioners and the public only to the extent where they “hand down” the results of their research or solicit people to be part of their studies. The idea that there may be a mutually beneficial and enriching exchange of information, opinion, and insight seems foreign to many of them. By contrast, I have found myself grateful for what I have learned about workplace bullying from those outside of academe. Without that benefit, my work would be more removed from the real world and lacking in necessary understanding and insight. Nonetheless, it took me a long time to internalize the practice of action research into my degree program. Trained as a lawyer and legal academician, my road to tenure as a law professor was paved with long, heavily footnoted law review articles emphasizing the analysis of law and public policy, often lacking in personal voice. I believe there is a useful role for that type of scholarship, and it has contributed greatly to the work I have done. However, that mode is now complemented by an action research orientation that is evident in this dissertation and even more prominent in other work that I am doing concerning workplace bullying, employment law, and employment relations. Consider the essential terms from the Bilorusky/Lawrence characterization of action research: exploratory, reflective, engaging, inquisitive, collaborative, and participatory, emergent, concerned with the “bigger picture,” storytelling, valuesoriented, experiential, interactive, and personal. My work in my WISR degree program led to a dissertation that, while incorporating a considerable amount of traditional research, has embraced all of these qualities:  



This dissertation is deeply personal and values-oriented. I have been changed by involvement in this work; it has become a central part of my life’s work. Qualities of exploration, reflection, engagement, inquisitiveness, and emergence are explicitly and implicitly present in this dissertation. Workplace bullying was a new topic for American employment relations when I first became familiar with it in 1998, and it has not yet fully entered the mainstream. The work that I and others are doing remains on the cutting edge, involving recurring cycles of thinking, planning, doing, and evaluating. Although my dissertation has been completed in a more conventionally solitary mode, the underlying work I have been doing concerning workplace bullying has been collaborative, participatory, and interactive, involving scholars, practitioners, and activists across many fields and from around the world. Conferences, roundtables, meetings, email and blog exchanges, letters, phone calls, and sharing of drafts and published work are regular pieces of this ongoing fray.

Intellectual activism and action research 91







The stories of severely bullied workers have inspired this dissertation and continue to drive my work. Individual stories have taught me more than research studies (however valuable) about the acute suffering caused by this form of abuse. Only considerations of privacy and confidentiality have precluded me from sharing them in this dissertation. More implicit than explicit in this dissertation is its experiential dimension. My grasp of workplace bullying, employment relations, and organizational behavior has been enhanced immeasurably by my experiences as a worker. I could not have written this dissertation some 25 years ago; my understanding of the experience of work would have been too shallow. Considerations of the “big picture” have infused this work. They have directed me to take a multidisciplinary approach in defining the subject-matter parameters of this dissertation. They have inspired me to delve more deeply into how employment law and legal practice in general can affirm the importance of psychologically healthy workplaces.

Social change theory and intellectual activism Somewhat haphazardly and unconsciously at first, but during recent years with direction and intention, I have used my WISR doctoral program to develop an approach to social change work that I have labeled “intellectual activism.” Intellectual activism involves the application of ideas and research towards marshalling social change, with a heavy dose of exchange with and among scholars, practitioners, and the general public. It calls into play the pairing and blending of sometimes seemingly opposite, but often complementary, perspectives and concepts.

Scholar practitioner mode The intellectual activist operates in a scholar practitioner mode, and each role informs the other in an ongoing interaction of research and practice. Here is an excellent description of the term: The term scholar practitioner expresses an ideal of professional excellence grounded in theory and research, informed by experiential knowledge, and motivated by personal values, political commitments, and ethical conduct. Scholar practitioners are committed to the well-being of clients and colleagues, to learning new ways of being effective, and to conceptualizing their work in relation to broader organizational, community, political, and cultural contexts. Scholar practitioners explicitly reflect on and assess the impact of their work. Their professional activities and the knowledge they develop are based on collaborative and relational learning through active exchange within communities of practice and scholarship. (Charles McClintock, “Scholar Practitioner Model” in DiStefano et al. 2007, p. 393)

92 Illustrations

This conceptualization imagines the ideal of an integrated practice of research and reflection, and application and action. I have found through personal experience, however, that this is easier said than done. Good scholarship often requires time and a place to think, reflect, write, and rewrite. It means being away from the phone, email, and other everyday distractions. Good practice often requires an attitude of engagement. It may mean being accessible by phone or email. Intellectual activism frequently calls upon an individual to be in scholarly and practitioner modes simultaneously, as the real world is not set up to accommodate cycles of deliberate reflection followed by deliberate action. Depending on one’s personal flexibility, this may be difficult. When I am in “scholarly” mode, I meander, think, and rethink. The writing may come fairly easily, or it may be an excruciatingly painful and slow process. Once I have sorted through these ideas, however, moving into practitioner mode is fairly easy. I know what I want to say, I am pretty good at boiling down complex ideas (at least those I understand!) into understandable prose, and a different sort of energy kicks in. However, when I am attempting to operate simultaneously in both modes, I am sometimes less effective in each. I feel tugged in two, seemingly opposite, mental directions. It leads to feelings of stress and distraction, as well as anxieties that both scholarship and practice are being improvised “on the fly.” In any event, both the scholar and practitioner modes are necessary parts of intellectual activism. Building one’s base of ideas and knowledge lends understanding, insight, and, frankly, authority. Taking action allows one to put these ideas into play, refine and revise them as necessary, and hopefully participate actively in achieving positive change. One example of how I have tried to operate in scholar practitioner mode is the drafting of anti-bullying legislation. Some 10 years ago, I began researching and analyzing potential legal protections for workers who had been subjected to severe workplace bullying. I concluded that many of these workers were not adequately served by existing employment law. I presented my findings and the outline of a recommendation for a workplace bullying law in a long law review article that was published in 2000. It then dawned on me that I actually should draft a proposed workplace bullying law. This may seem like an obvious next step, but it is the culture of legal scholarship to move rather incrementally. For a junior law professor to be not only suggesting, but actually drafting, a comprehensive bill on a “cutting edge” topic of law that someday might be introduced in a legislature could be regarded as somewhat presumptuous. But relative anonymity has its benefits: I figured that I had little to lose by giving it a try. So I went to work and came up with the first version of what since has been dubbed the “Healthy Workplace Bill.” It has served as the primary template of workplace bullying bills introduced in 12 legislatures since 2003. The Healthy Workplace Bill was not drafted in a vacuum. My initial draft was circulated to several experienced employment lawyers, and their feedback was incorporated into subsequent drafts. Even recently I did a moderate revision of the basic bill language after a very useful exchange with a legislative committee attorney in a state legislature.

Intellectual activism and action research 93

This tweaking and revising have been in response to interactions with practicing lawyers, not other law professors. Here, then, is one of the critical benefits of operating in scholar practitioner mode. Ideas can be tested, and revised, based on feedback from those in the practice community. As my commentary on the role of public intellectual in this chapter will further develop, an effective intellectual activist interacts with the public to learn and grow. Ideas developed and sealed in an Ivory Tower may or may not work well when unleashed upon the real world. This ongoing process of feedback and revision is consistent with the directive of Plan, Do, Evaluate, discussed immediately below.

Plan, Do, Evaluate Intellectual activism involves planning, doing, and evaluating. My introduction to this mode of thinking came in the early 1990s, when I taught in the Lawyering Program at New York University School of Law, an intensive, full-year skills course for first-year law students. The director of the program was Anthony Amsterdam, a civil rights lawyer and law professor who is celebrated within the legal profession for (1) crafting and pursuing a national litigation strategy against the death penalty in America; and (2) developing innovative approaches to clinical legal education through both simulation training and live-client representation. As a civil rights lawyer, Tony argued the case of Furman v. Georgia before the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1972 led to the temporary halt in executions across the country. He has long been considered the architect of the legal fight against capital punishment. Even today, well into his 70s, he maintains a grueling schedule of writing and reviewing appellate briefs on death penalty appeals across the country. Lawyers representing Death Row inmates regularly fly in to consult with him and to run through mock oral arguments in preparation for presenting their cases to state and federal judges. As a legal educator, Tony has been a leading voice in supporting clinical education. Perhaps his signature contribution to this effort is his development of the Lawyering Program, which combines instruction in legal research and writing (a staple of the first-year law curriculum at any law school) with an ambitious series of simulation exercises that introduce students to the skills of interviewing, counseling, negotiation, and advocacy. Many of the simulation exercises are videotaped and extensively critiqued in small group tutorials. At NYU, Tony introduced the Lawyering Program as a first-year elective. In the mid-1980s, it became a required course for all first-year students, and a growing number of schools have adopted this model. I taught in the Lawyering Program from 1991 to 1994 and served as a program co-coordinator during my last year. The basic mantra of the Lawyering Program is Plan, Do, and Evaluate. Too many lawyers do too little planning, and even more neglect to properly evaluate their work. Consequently, they are less effective at the “doing.” This is not a blanket criticism of lawyers. A busy practitioner in any profession or trade often experiences time pressures that can make it easy to downplay planning and

94 Illustrations

evaluation. It is not always easy to follow the lessons I am preaching, but I continue to see the wisdom behind them. They are especially compatible with the idea of intellectual activism and the dual mode of scholar practitioner. Furthermore, it bears emphasizing that good evaluation leads to more thoughtful planning. Effective evaluation can be a painful process, like a football player watching tapes of a game in which he performed very poorly. However, like the football player watching those videos, the intellectual activist benefits and learns from this evaluative process. The importance of this cyclical process is underscored in reference to workplace bullying. For example, it is more or less accepted that we have not developed ideal, in-house workplace bullying policies and protocols for employers who wish to adopt them. Although a growing number of employers are including workplace bullying policies in their employee handbooks, there is no consensus “best practice” on what to put in them. Thus, it remains necessary engage in this cycle of planning, doing, and evaluating until the most effective approaches become evident.

Pedagogical and andragogical public intellectual roles (This section is drawn largely from Yamada, 2009b.) The practice of intellectual activism involves operating in a public intellectual role. One cannot be a change agent without finding outlets for the exchange of ideas and information. However, borrowing terms from higher and adult education, it is important to distinguish between a “pedagogical” public intellectual mode and an “andragogical” one. The standard-brand public intellectual operates in the pedagogical mode. The “pedagogical model assigns to the teacher full responsibility for making all decisions about what will be learned, how it will be learned, when it will be learned, and if it has been learned (Knowles et al. 1998, p. 62). Granted, the typical milieu of the public intellectual – the print and electronic media – may suggest that the “student” has some degree of choice in the manner and means of her learning and (obviously) does not face a final examination at the end of the article or interview. Regardless, the “teacher” retains virtually complete control over the content and mode of its delivery. In terms of outcomes, the public intellectual seeks mainly to inform, and at times to persuade, her audience. Notwithstanding differing political ideologies, subject areas, and media outlets, the tie that binds most contemporary public intellectuals is that they deliver information and opinions drawn from their expertise. Books (usually non-fiction), op-ed pieces, and media interviews (print and electronic) are their typical venues. Public lectures and keynote addresses may add to the mix. In most instances, public intellectuals have limited opportunity (and, often, equally little desire) for ongoing exchanges with her audience. A letter to the editor, an unsolicited email, or perhaps a question or comment during the “Q&A” portion of a talk is usually the extent of the active feedback. Thus, the public intellectual’s role is like that of a college lecturer who is addressing a group of students in a large hall.

Intellectual activism and action research 95

It can be a particularly good thing for someone to operate in this pedagogical mode. We should be pleased when individuals who have extensively studied a topic share the fruits of their intellectual labor in an accessible manner. The world benefits from the dissemination of specialized knowledge and insight gained through the blending of intelligence and hard work. A thoughtful book, lecture, blog post, or op-ed column promotes understanding, stimulates thinking, and nurtures an open society. Although the typical public intellectual delivers her work in a more or less instructional and directive format, so long as means exist to preserve it, it can be the catalyst for learning and discussion months or even years after its original appearance, even if the author herself is not present. However, there is a second mode of being a public intellectual, one that I will label as andragogical. Definitions of andragogy abound, but the conceptualization that best fits this discussion was formulated by the Nottingham Andragogy Group, defining it as “an attempt to assist adults to become the originators of their own thinking and feeling” (Brookfield, 1986, p. 100). The group identified 12 features “essential to the andragogic process”: “a nonprescriptive attitude, issue-centered curricula, problem-posing, praxis, continuous negotiation, shared responsibility for learning, valuing process, dialogue, equality, openness, mutual respect, and integrated thinking and learning” (Brookfield, 1986, p. 100). The inspiration for my model of the “andragogical” public intellectual is the late John Ohliger, a pioneering and iconoclastic adult educator, writer, and activist. John was a different kind of public intellectual, one whose methods were more facilitative than instructional, more andragogical than pedagogical. Although he spent a number of years teaching at traditional universities, much of his most compelling work was done without a full-time academic affiliation. His most dramatic break with the academy came in 1973, when he resigned his tenured position as an adult education professor at Ohio State University. In the years that followed, he engaged in many activities related to adult learning. Chief among these was co-founding and directing Basic Choices, a small non-profit think tank devoted to exploring social and political alternatives, which served as his base of activity. He also co-founded the WORT public radio station in Madison, Wisconsin. He hosted the “Madison Review of Books,” a WORT radio program that invited members of the public to conduct onair reviews of books of their choosing; and taught on a part-time and visiting basis at several universities, though he would never again be a permanent faculty member. The “Ohliger Method” of being a public intellectual was intensely personal, involving plenty of individual outreach, networking, and intellectual exchange. In addition to pursuing an active intellectual life in the Madison community, Ohliger maintained a voluminous correspondence with dozens of independent scholars, activists, academicians, and lifelong learners across the country, first through the Postal Service and then via email. In this pre-Web era, many came to him through word of mouth, while others tracked him down after reading some of his work. Some discovered Ohliger and Basic Choices through listings that he placed in periodicals such as Factsheet Five, the legendary review of “zines.” More than a few of these exchanges ripened into close friendships, including in-person visits

96 Illustrations

with Ohliger and his wife Chris Wagner. My own association and eventual friendship with John were forged in exactly this manner. Since his death in 2004, John has been described much more often as an adult educator than as a public intellectual. After all, ABC’s “Nightline” never sought to interview him, The New York Times never invited him to write an op-ed piece and typing his name into Google will yield only a modest number of “hits.” But Ohliger’s personal, intellectual interactions with members of the public, in ways that often led to ongoing associations and friendships, made him a truly unique public intellectual. Ohliger carried out his work in a largely andragogical mode, and thus he stood as an important counterpoint to the dominant paradigm of a public intellectual. For much of his life, he was an independent scholar and intellectual activist, working through various media to encourage public dialogue and raise important questions about society, learning, and current events. His approach was personal, interactive, and engaging, not hierarchical, directive, and detached. To be an effective intellectual activist, it is useful to operate in both pedagogical and andragogical public intellectual modes. With workplace bullying, I have found the pedagogical mode to be very useful in introducing the topic to interested readers and listeners. For example, I have a short, standard talk on workplace bullying that I adapt for different audiences. It covers a basic definition of workplace bullying, frequency and common types of bullying behaviors, profiles of bullies and targets, the human and organizational costs of bullying, and potential responses. Based on feedback I have received, it has proven to be informative and useful to people. However, I also have learned from, and been able to help people through, operating in the andragogical mode. Interactive exercises, roundtable discussions, informal conversations and feedback, and email exchanges have all been valuable learning experiences for all parties involved. Much of what I know about the effects of bullying behaviors has been obtained through these interactions. I also have been able to help people operating in this more facilitative mode.

Social change and individual change Do we create a false dichotomy by using the terms “social change” and “individual change”? The work I have been doing concerning workplace bullying has led me to believe this may be so. So much of the “social change” work we have been engaging in—such as public education, law reform advocacy, and organizational counseling—is designed to effect change at the individual level. Ultimately, if individual behaviors and lives do not change for the better, we cannot achieve social change in the aggregate. I believe that America’s social culture of the last half of the 20th century encouraged this false dichotomy. In the 1960s, social change movements for civil rights, women’s rights, and the environment were prominent elements of our popular culture. As these movements waxed and waned during the 1970s and 1980s, society turned its attention to individual change and fulfillment, with a strong emphasis on self-help programs and activities. We see this line still drawn

Intellectual activism and action research 97

today, distinguishing between “political work” and “personal growth.” All too often, it leads to “political” people not thinking enough about individuals, and “personal growth” adherents not thinking enough about the political implications of their work. Ideally, the practice of intellectual activism, while focusing on social and systemic change, understands the importance of individual experience and change. With regard to workplace bullying, there are many illustrations of this social change/individual change dynamic. Treating workplace bullying as an issue of employment relations, workers’ rights, and public health frames it as a “social change” topic. But ultimately it boils down to individuals. We want workplace bullying to permeate sufficiently the world of corporate America so that a single human resources director will assist an individual employee who appears to be enduring a horrible course of mistreatment at the hands of a co-worker. We want the mental health community to be so aware of workplace bullying that if a bullied employee seeks counseling for what he is experiencing at work, a therapist will understand his plight.

Disciplinary depth and cross-disciplinary depth The intellectual activist needs to balance disciplinary depth against cross-disciplinary breadth. Disciplinary depth offers an opportunity to make signature contributions relating to a specific expertise. Cross-disciplinary breadth helps to ensure that one’s work will connect with that of others and will not succumb to tunnel vision. Both perspectives are necessary in order to be an effective change agent. My forays into the worlds of psychology, organizational behavior, business management, and related topics, combined with the deference sometimes (erroneously) extended to me as a generic “expert” on workplace bullying, have led me to speculate that developing a complementary career in counseling or organizational consulting might be in the offing. For example, the fact that I may know more than the average person about, say, the effects of bullying on organizations, has led to fancies about marketing myself as a consultant to employers in fields I am familiar with, such as law offices, public and non-profit organizations, and universities. These imaginings have been fueled by positive feedback to short talks about workplace bullying that I have delivered in such settings. Ultimately, however, my work on this dissertation has called to mind the words of another prominent Enlightenment thinker, essayist Alexander Pope: “A little learning is a dangerous thing; drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring: there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again (Pope, 1765)” Pope wisely understood that a small amount of knowledge about a given topic can cause us to believe that we have more expertise than we actually possess. At times in the process of working on this dissertation, I have fallen into that trap. Fortunately, after trying to “drink largely” into subjects such as organizational psychology, “sobriety” of judgment has prevailed. I now understand that even with additional academic training, I would be starting close to the beginning in terms of understanding and proficiency in a new field. Furthermore, I have reminded myself

98 Illustrations

that I would not want to become the kind of consultant who takes “a little learning” and tries to sell it as expertise, later billing the unwitting client for an unwise expenditure of funds. Thus, much of my work following the completion of this dissertation will return to the law and the legal system. I want to build on the work I have done on the legal implications of workplace bullying. This is my area of expertise, it is where I have made a signature contribution as a scholar and an advocate, and there remains much important work to do. However, the most significant difference between now and, say, ten years ago is that my work will be greatly enhanced and improved by those multidisciplinary insights that I have gained from other professional and academic disciplines. Hopefully, I can share these insights through my work with lawyers, judges, and policy-makers, as well as the general public.

Mainstream and alternative Intellectual activism often involves straddling a precarious line between the mainstream and the alternative. Ideas too disconnected from the mainstream may be the fodder of enriching discussion within a certain group, but they may never receive a serious hearing from a broader constituency. Too much immersion in the mainstream, however, may well co-opt meaningful alternatives, or even cause one to be oblivious to their possibilities. Questions of mainstream versus alternative often relate to one’s institutional affiliations. In the context of intellectual activism, this may include advocacy and political groups, trade and business associations, media outlets, government agencies, and educational institutions. “Alternative” groups can help to propel a change agenda, but “mainstream” groups often must ultimately be a part of achieving social change objectives. The tensions between alternative and mainstream have been very much a part of my education and advocacy efforts concerning workplace bullying. My initial affiliation was with Drs. Gary and Ruth Namie, whose homebrewed Campaign Against Workplace Bullying (later to morph into the more mainstream sounding Workplace Bullying Institute) was the first North American initiative dedicated to addressing this problem. I remain affiliated with the Namies and their work. Fortunately, however, as workplace bullying has started to enter into the vocabulary of American employment relations, more mainstream institutions, including corporations, universities, labor unions, conventional media, and now state legislatures, are taking note. This means that workplace bullying is starting to emerge from its niche status and beginning to enter into the mainstream of our discussions about work and workers. We are not quite there yet, but during the past decade the progress has been palpable.

Action research and intellectual activism: Sides of the same coin? Especially in view of my affiliation with WISR, it may be something of a selffulfilling prophecy that the practice of intellectual activism as outlined here is very

Intellectual activism and action research 99

compatible with the practice of action research as it has evolved during WISR’s institutional lifetime. Action research has been characterized as being “exploratory,” “reflective,” engaging, “inquisitive,” “collaborative and participatory,” “emergent,” “concerned with the ‘bigger picture,’” storytelling, values-oriented, experiential, interactive, and personal [from a seminar handout by John Bilorusky and Cynthia Lawrence, “Introduction to Action research Seminar Series,” Nov. 6, 2002] These qualities are very much a part of my conceptualization of intellectual activism. Indeed, as we consider these two terms and compare their essential qualities, it may be that the main difference between them is one of syntactical emphasis, with “action” modifying “research” and “intellectual” modifying “activism.” It is not my intention, however, to pick sides here as to what is the best term. After all, quarrels over naming and labeling should be reserved for the most mainstream of academic institutions.

Additional resources Dr. Yamada has since developed and published his ideas on intellectual activism, scholarship, and social change in two law review articles and a book chapter (Yamada, 2010; Yamada, 2016; Yamada, 2019).

8 MULTIFACETED, COMPREHENSIVE ACTION-ORIENTED RESEARCH, AIMED AT PRESERVING AND RESTORING THE OMAHA CULTURE Dennis Hastings, PhD and Margery Coffey, PhD

Introduction (by John Bilorusky) Over the years, students at WISR have done many outstanding action research projects as part of their studies. Especially for their thesis or dissertation, these projects have often been valuable and transformative for the students themselves. In addition, some of these projects have been published as books on such topics as human trauma, adult literacy instruction, U.S. civil rights and labor history, therapeutic strategies, and mindfulness methods to supporting the health of at risk people, among others. Oftentimes, also their projects have often made a difference in the lives of others, and sometimes in contributing to organizational innovations and change, or even modestly building toward larger societal changes. This includes, for example, contributions to statewide policies and practices to improve the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect, health education of young people, prisoner education, and strategies for addressing bullying by those in positions of power, just to mention a few different examples. Some such examples with be briefly highlighted and discussed in Chapter 13. This chapter will focus on one particular noteworthy and massive undertaking— the collaborative doctoral dissertation research of Dennis Hastings and Margery Coffey, September 2009, Grandfather Remembers, Broken Treaties/Stolen Land: The Omaha Land Theft. This 1,500-page dissertation has been acknowledged by academic experts and tribal members as the definitive history of the Omaha people in the midst of the European invasion. Various spin-off publications are in the making— aimed especially at developing accessible paperback print versions of readings and graphic novels for Omaha children and adults, alike. Efforts are still underway to fund the production of these much-needed, remarkable educational materials, but one, “Dancing for Peace,” has recently been made publicly available as electronic

Preserving the Omaha culture 101

pdf files, at: https://www.gofundme.com/f/othrp-book-publishing-fundraiser (Hasting, Coffey & Chilton, 2020). Quite notably, the dissertation was key in setting the historic tone for the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling (March 23, 2016) in favor of the Omaha people. More information about the Supreme Court case and ruling, and about other projects pursued by Dr. Hastings and Dr. Coffey can be found at: https://www.wisr.edu/ inquiry-and-social-change/wisr-publications/social-change-and-multiculturality/oma ha-history/. This chapter is drawn from the action research methodology chapter of the Hastings–Coffey dissertation. Hastings and Coffey each, separately, pursued and earned their MA degrees at the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR). They subsequently pursued and earned their PhD degrees at WISR, and in the process did nearly a dozen outstanding research-action projects, then culminating with their dissertation. It should be added that Dennis Hastings, who is a member of the Omaha tribe, is the founder and Director of the Omaha Tribal Historical Research Project (OTHRP), and Margery Coffey is European American, culturally Irish, who is highly respected by the Omaha and the Assistant Director of OTHRP. OTHRP is the Cultural Authority for the Omaha tribe of Nebraska and Iowa in perpetuity by Tribal Resolution. Its mission is: to promote, encourage, and conduct research regarding the history, heritage, language, religion and other aspects of the culture of Umonhon (Omaha) Indian people for the purposes of encouraging the preservation of materials and the information collected and perpetuating the Omaha culture and traditions, and to serve as an educational resource for Omaha people and other people who may be interested in the culture and traditions of the Omaha Tribe of Nebraska. Before learning about the comprehensive research methods used by Hastings and Coffey, it is important to at least read the abstract of their dissertation. Grandfather Remembers is a kaleidoscope of Omaha culture and history. It covers five centuries of history, completely illustrated. There are ten sections of photo albums in addition to the photos within the script, altogether over 1,500 pictures. It starts after the NISHU’DE KE section and ends just before the ELDERS RETURN section. It is arranged in the order one would approach an Omaha village. Inserts appear throughout the ten sections of the narrative. These serve several functions. They will sometimes give color of the Omaha culture, information of interest to the ongoing text, side bars of local history and a break from reading a very rich often tragic story line. The inserts are drawn from news stories, books, articles, and Internet web pages. Tribal thinking goes back and forth from Indian to Euro-American, as a result of forced education. The book also goes back and forth between Omaha and Euro-American history. It is not enough to simply tell what happened; one

102 Illustrations

must also understand the context in which it happened. It makes it more comprehensible to the reader in the 21st century who is looking back several centuries. It does not excuse the evil that was done but knowing the logic behind the evil explains why it happened. Grandfather Remembers is a way of bringing the historical information for the proposed Omaha learning center/ museum to the people directly while the work continues with the development of the plans for a physical museum. It is a tip of the iceberg as to what is waiting in the collection and what is available through Euro-American and Francis La Flesche’s documentation of the Omaha culture a century ago. This book is a beginning of a journey for those who want to learn from the past and about the Omaha and their section of the prairie called Nebraska. It is also a blueprint of America’s foreign policy.

Action research and Grandfather Remembers—by Dennis Hastings and Margery Coffey, Omaha Tribal Historical Research Project, Inc. (OTHRP), July 2009 Writing a specific people’s history is a large undertaking even when the overall population of the targeted group is relatively small, comparatively. The following four points of action research was the starting place for Grandfather Remembers. 1 1. 2. 3. 4.

Is exploratory Is reflective Is inquisitive Engagement involves looking beyond oneself, as well.

Each of these points are necessary when crossing into another culture as well as when dealing with a familiar one. The research methods listed above were all used by Grandfather Remembers. Grandfather Remembers’ research began with an exploratory search to determine what resources were available. Library research started with Hastings’ and Coffey’s own personal libraries collected separately over a lifetime of working on both Indian problems and specific Omaha history and issues. Hastings had collected an amazing amount of material from a variety of sources that augmented the actual book materials both of them had found. It included unpublished papers from a variety of colleges as well as published and unpublished works by specific Omaha such as Dr. Susan La Flesche Picotte and her half-brother, Dr. Francis La Flesche, Esq. There were newspaper clippings, correspondence, material copied from school files as well as rare Indian Movement books and booklets on both Alcatraz and Wounded Knee. Hastings had collected copies of historical maps, brochures and a wealth of notes in addition to at least a couple of thousand photographs both modern and historical. Hastings had researched professionally gathered photos and resources on the Omaha in the Library of Congress, the Smithsonian, the Museum of the American Indian—

Preserving the Omaha culture 103

Heye Foundation, Peabody Museum at Harvard University, the libraries at Hampton VA, Berkeley CA, Lincoln, and Omaha NE and almost all points in between. Coffey had not only worked at the New York Public Library’s Card Catalog Division in her youth but also had spent six weeks on a Newberry Library Fellowship grant in Chicago for her MA studying their Omaha and the Five Cognate Tribes’ collection. She had taken a close look at the listings of the Omaha holdings in both the Field Museum in Chicago and the Museum of the American Indian—Heye Foundation. Both Hastings and Coffey had notes from their research at all of those abovementioned institutions that now became the base as well as their own combined libraries of more than 300 volumes on Plains Indians upon which to weave a history. As a professional artist, Coffey had accumulated several hundred volumes each of books on art: historic, multicultural and multi-gender; and nature: prairie flora and fauna specifically. Hastings had two four-drawer file cabinets that had overflowed into four boxes, all full of potential material on his tribe. In addition, there was the Internet. Anything they were lacking was just a click of the fingers away. It gave both modern news information and historical facts as well as military records and scientific explanations. There were both text and graphic images available. For two scholars located in the back regions of a prairie state, this was manna from heaven. It filled in missing gaps and corrected their memories as well as allowing them to communicate with people across distances. The Omaha were one of the most studied of tribes and therefore well documented. The historic anthropological standard that birthed an academic industry, 27th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, 1905–1906 by Alice C. Fletcher and Francis La Flesche, was the obvious place to start. Hastings and Coffey worked both forward and backward from that point, reaching back through time with archeological studies for the prehistory period. Later government records, school reports, and newsletters were used to follow careers and the early newspapers locally, regionally, and nationally. Hastings had a long history of talking with his people. Oral tradition was also an important research component. He was inquisitive about all things Omaha: the language, experiences, history, cultural knowledge, relationships, and politics. It was very important for him to find out where people were at and what they knew. Hastings had left the tribal community as a child. It was the teachings of his greatgrandmother, Mary Burt Hastings, at a formative age that caused his return years later as an educated adult. He needed to reconnect as well as understand. By using his skills as a researcher, he was able to delve into tribal knowledge to augment his own understanding of the same from the teachings of his great-grandmother. His activity with tribal institutions integrated his background and knowledge with the reality of his people. Based upon what Hastings learned through his research with the tribe, he was able to pick projects that were relevant to the tribal culture. Once involved with a given project, new information from the actual doing of projects emerged. For instance, the Wax Cylinder Project brought back historical songs to the tribe,

104 Illustrations

many of which had been forgotten. The first voice Hastings heard from the cylinders was that of his great-grandfather. Such a moment transcends all the work involved. At the same time, the cylinders disintegrated after they had been rerecorded which certainly proved that the timing was correct in doing the labor. Another project Hastings initiated was the public display of quality historical photographs. This Historical Picture Project had already been started by Hastings when Coffey joined his work. With her Photoshop skills, the project expanded far beyond the original 17 photographs Hastings had divided between both the Macy school and the local health center. With each addition to the community, excitement grew among tribal people as relatives were both recognized and speculated. Non-tribal people were drawn to the photographs as well. There are now over 100 historic photographs displayed in public places on the reservation. Hastings and Coffey slowly established a workable communication system between them. When in public, Coffey became the spokesperson with Hastings interjecting commentary along the way. This is a typical way for tribal people to teach. A teacher must have full confidence in a student to have the student recite in public, especially in a spontaneous setting. Afterwards Hastings would sit down with her over a cup of coffee and they would discuss her presentation, his comments, and the reactions they had gotten. Overtime, this built a collaborative understanding between them based upon common experiences. Such engagement involves looking beyond oneself, as well as being honest in one’s own evaluation. It was this sort of established action research preparation that Hastings and Coffey utilized within their creative work. The manuscript was written one step at a time because it was necessary for Coffey to familiarize herself with the written material first. She would read and then ask questions or respond to points that Hastings would bring up for discussion. Coffey would write the basic text based upon their discussions and the materials at hand. Hastings would edit it where necessary to make it culturally correct. Sometimes they would work out the phrasing by carefully picking the right words together to make sure a difficult concept would be understood by a reader. Since it was not Coffey’s culture nor her people, Hastings’ expertise was the final word, but very rarely did it come to that. Coffey had spent a lot of time working within the community before she started work with Hastings, particularly in studying the language. She had also spent a great deal of time studying the prairie and had a full art background. Hastings would defer to her expertise in these things but felt free to express his ideas within them as well. His own keen artistic eye and cultural understanding would find solutions to visual problems as well as Coffey’s. Hastings and Coffey were united in purpose. They understood that Grandfather Remembers was what the Omaha community really needed and that such an undertaking would further their own work in the field at the same time it satisfied the school requirement. Coffey started with the land since that was an integral part of the Omaha psyche. She and Hastings had both grown up with the generation that still walked the prairie. Love of the land was a very necessary ingredient.

Preserving the Omaha culture 105

Most people are not familiar with the high plains and especially the Nebraska sector. Seeing the prairie along I-80, which follows the very flat floodplain valley of the shallow but wide Platte River across the state, one would think that is all there is to this region. In actuality the state has a very diverse landscape with many rivers and creeks, each with their own personal signature bluffs, buttes, and gorges, as well as the unique sandhills and toadstool formations in the badlands. It was necessary to show the natural Nebraska in order to understand what the European influence upon the prairie had truly been over the short time they had been living on it. Coffey understood early on that Euro-American history had to be a major theme as well in the Omaha history. Hastings agreed and suggested the photo albums as a necessary ingredient given the popularity of their picture project. With his ability to find interesting stories that were germane but not crucial to the text, the boxes were added to give a bit of entertainment while serving as informative relief to the main text. Both agreed that all the treaties had to be included verbatim. Coffey, who had a background in creating collage art, began to weave the story line as a visual/verbal collage that slowly revealed the history from the Omaha point of view. The weaving of themes meant that Coffey had to continually go back over the manuscript to pull out several ideas that had their roots in one era and the repercussions of that given moment reverberating down the centuries. Standing Bear’s trial involved people who were already affecting change in the Indian world years before the trial. The friendship between Francis La Flesche and Alice C. Fletcher became possible due to the result of the trial. Another example was William Peebles playing fast and loose on the frontier long before he illegally preregistered Omaha land for the town site of Pender. Additionally, the buffalo and the land had their own story to tell. All such themes and many more are threaded carefully into the story tapestry. Coffey found that she had to suspend a lot of her own culture’s beliefs and teachings from both schools and churches that she had grown up with and had automatically accepted. One such case was the life of Robert Furnas, a governor of Nebraska and first president of the Nebraska State Historical Society. Reading the description published by the Nebraska State Historical Society one would have thought Furnas to have been a successful hardworking career man who used his hard work and Yankee ingenuity to further himself: a real self-made man. What they left out was the detail and ramifications from his brief stint as Indian Agent. In spite of the meager salary as an Indian Agent, for the two years: 1864 to 1866, Furnas was able to not only fund his future livelihood from it—both a nursery business and a newspaper—but also his political ambitions; not likely for an honest man. In addition, he had thrown an Omaha Indian off his own reservation and arbitrarily ended the Omaha traditional government with Furnas’ own hand-picked “chiefs.” If the evaluation of only one culture was used to chronicle the man, it would give a skewed picture of his career, but using both cultures together, one understood exactly how Robert Furnas dealt within his own world by exploiting the ancient cultures differing from his own.

106 Illustrations

Suspending one’s belief system is very difficult to do. All of us are very fond of what we believe whether the facts support it or not. In fact, our entire life is wrapped around our belief systems so to work ourselves beyond it becomes difficult but not impossible. Belief systems are based on faith not facts. Sometimes they work and sometimes they don’t. It takes a conscious effort to rise beyond a belief system that tugs at one’s own emotions to see clearly how others view it. This book is about showing history from an Omaha cultural point of view. There will be times when the reader is uncomfortable over the choice of words. This is the action result of the research. Sometimes the truth makes us very uncomfortable including real pain. Culture clash is a shock. It is a psychic shock of true change, which when worked through, creates illumination and clarity and when it blocks reason, the psychic shock produces severe pain. That is why it becomes such a problem. Wars are fought over it. It is a worldwide problem. Culture shock was not a one-way road in this manuscript. Hastings, too, had to come to terms with some of his own beliefs as facts and figures about the European way of life for the common man were revealed by historical research. For instance, it puts into context the inability of the white world to see Indians as humans when it is known that at the same time, they did not see the physical abuse of their own children as wrong because they did not see them as human either. Just as Standing Bear’s court case was necessary to prove that Indians were human, it took the newly formed (1874) Humane Society in NYC to mount a court case to bring the issue of children being human to a head by using the new anti-abuse animals law to cover the situation. If a society’s own children are not considered human, then it is more understandable that such a society could not see another culture as human—not acceptable but at least understandable. Since this particular period lay both within the world of slavery and the brand-new post-slavery one, it puts a whole new layer upon the thinking of that era towards anyone who was different from the European Protestant ruling class. That legacy is still active within American society today, in spite of court decisions. Hastings and Coffey’s greatest strength was their ability to focus their work together on a common goal: to tell the history of the Omaha from the Omaha point of view as honestly as they knew how to do. The fact that both of them had independent careers in anthropology and art as well as coastal experience (Hastings on the West Coast, Coffey in the East) on top of a rural Nebraska childhood gave them each a rich reservoir in which to delve and their grassroots experience and mutual love of the prairie, common ground. The two biggest limitations experienced was lack of time and inability to revisit earlier research to revise or expand upon what was on hand due to lack of funding. This was particularly felt when critical research notes had been damaged by indiscriminating mice or sloppy Xeroxing by bored workers that cut off critical lines from important manuscripts whose originals were completely done in by the mice.

Preserving the Omaha culture 107

Piecing together the remains and agonizing editing gave them the base for the Feeding Frenzy section. Hastings particularly felt the lack of time. There are so many stories and we kept finding out new things as we worked. For example, after the dissertation was done, I came across a picture of the actual boat used to transport the Omaha across the Atlantic in World War I. Then I discovered more information about Father Schell, that he was born in Germany and ended up being institutionalized in South Dakota for the remainder of his life, etc. A project of this nature usually is one of many years of duration both in the research and the writing. While they were covered fairly well by their cumulative research over the years, it was Coffey’s ability to work almost non-stop on a project while Hastings continued the research via the Internet at almost the same pace that enabled them to complete it in a timely fashion. There was no way that one could adequately state a people’s history of even a small tribe that would please everyone. Hastings and Coffey both understood this from the start. What they endeavored to do was to create a research book on Omaha history that could be used by the tribe as a basis for further studies. They touched on every major part of the history that they knew about and illustrated it with photos and stories to weave a sense of the people and their land. With all of the reference notations it becomes a jumping off place for the serious student to explore in dozens of different directions. It is neither definitive nor is it complete, but it is a start and as a two-volume set, it is a proper companion piece to the 27th Annual Report written a hundred years ago by Fletcher and La Flesche.

Action research approach It is one thing to think or plan and quite another to do. The following six points are a guideline to the action research approach as to the actual production of a grassroots book:2 1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6.

Is collaborative and participatory. Ideas as emergent involves writing and rewriting in one’s own voice. Have a sense of the bigger picture. Promotes telling and listening to stories as well as tangible examples. The preservation of thought, the way to record field notes, ethnographies, theories, and concepts, the validation of personal knowledge, all enter into it. Concerned with human values and social justice gives content that adds to society’s body of knowledge. Involves taking one’s own experiences and insights seriously, as a basis for thinking, writing, conversations with others, and larger action. The clarification of thought, the encouragement of communication with others, the

108 Illustrations

format for dissemination and the proof of what one learns brings commitment to paper of ideas, values, philosophy. Grandfather Remembers is both collaborative and participatory before and during its production. Within the papers completed for the PhD prior to tackling the dissertation Hastings and Coffey wrote on a variety of aspects that would ultimately appear within the text such as: “Lewis & Clark,” “Steamboats on the Missouri River,” “Hiram Chase, the Man and His Language” and the “Macy School Report.” An earlier version of their “Lewis & Clark” paper had been published within the 198th He’dewachi booklet for the annual harvest dance of the Omaha in 2006. OTHRP submitted a copy of their paper for publication to UCLA American Indian Studies Center. It received a turndown accompanied by two anonymous critiques of the work, one that was simply rude and wrong and the other one was so vague as to be useless. So, Hastings and Coffey analyzed then critiqued the rejection, rewrote the article both expanding it and renaming it so it would more accurately reflect the contents which solved the one or two valid objections. The two versions together along with the commentary and correspondence became their paper. “Steamboats on the Missouri” was a history of the old riverboats, including the number that sank and accounts of what it was like to be on one that did. Two commercial boats and one military steamboat sank within the reservation segment of the river. The paper looked at the way the Missouri River had been used, comparing such usage with modern usage. It included Coffey’s painting of Blackbird Bend landing with actual Omaha from an 1883 trip to Paris peopling the scene at the river dock which was based upon an engraved cartoon of the 19th century. Hiram Chase, Esq. was the first Omaha to create a practical way of writing the language which he used in his law practice since most of his clientele spoke only Omaha and therefore he needed to take his notes in it. The paper looks at the man and the language. The Omaha language has been heavily studied with funding for state academia but not for Omaha speakers. As a result, there are many people who tried to figure out ways to write Omaha. Only two of them were Omaha: Hiram Chase and Francis La Flesche. In 2007, Hastings and Coffey were asked to put together a workshop on the Omaha Culture and Language for the Umonhon Nation Public Schools in Macy. They created a workbook of resources, information, and teaching aids to give out to both faculty and staff along with a performance rating sheet by the participants. The entire project was then written up for WISR. This gave Hastings and Coffey a good practice run for the dissertation as well as direct feedback from the community. All of these projects were excellent ways to test materials and reactions from the local community and those who worked within it. Emergent ideas flowed from both the materials studied, the auxiliary papers written and the interactive experiences of both writers within the tribal community. Writing and rewriting in one’s own voice became a combination of Quaker simplicity and prairie pragmatism for Coffey. The Quaker influence from the ten years of work in

Preserving the Omaha culture 109

the Northern Superintendency in the 1870s can still be found within the Omaha since it echoes a lot of what the Omaha already believed. The idea that everyone is equal along with Progressive Peace struck deep chords in both cultures. A simple approach to life also was there although it had been interpreted differently by friends from the Omaha. Hastings would add the appropriate Omaha touch. Coffey was well read as far as the Euro-American-Nebraskan culture was concerned. Bess Streeter Aldrich, Willa Cather, Loren Eiseley, Wright Morris, John G. Neihardt and Mari Sandoz set a high standard in literature as well as formulating a prairie voice from Nebraska. Prairie pragmatism comes from the land as does Omaha theology. Living far from everything gives a certain perspective as one waits for the parts to come and makes do in the meantime. Being totally dependent directly upon the land at your feet for everything you own also enters into play. Coffey took the Quaker ability of “speaking truth to power” which she learned directly from her monthly meetings and melded it with prairie pragmatism to came up with a direct voice that reflected both Hastings and her. It became a natural when dealing with the material and weaving all the different voices from quoted passages into one text. Having a sense of the bigger picture was always present in their thinking. “How would tribe best use this information?” “What do we use that will educate and still be respectful of family ties?” After all they were not speaking of just historical figures. Many of those figures, hero, or deadbeat dad, were directly related to present-day Omaha. By keeping one eye on the bigger picture, they avoided passing judgment on specific people unless their behavior was particularly bad. Walking away from one’s wife and children leaving them with no visible means of support was considered bad. Choosing to “Return to the Blanket” over the Euro-American’s racist society was not a judgment call. It was also recognized that humans are capable of both good and bad and usually do both. So, while they may have called someone on their bad behavior, they also praised the same individual for doing something really good as well. It was a rare individual that was either all bad or all good. Most of the judgment calls were left for the reader to make on their own. In the same manner Hastings and Coffey dealt with the behavior of other tribes towards the Omaha which in some cases, were murderous and exploitive only to eventually become, in many cases, partnerships as well as cross-relationships. They chose to speak the truth as best as could be done about what happened in the past without condemning present individuals or tribes. The big picture in this case is the fact that in spite of everything, the Omaha survived. By using a storytelling motif, Grandfather Remembers promotes the telling of stories as well as giving tangible examples. Such documentation preserves thought, theories, and concepts. It becomes the validation of personal knowledge in the process. As the use of the material by others in the tribe expands, long-standing problems can be addressed and understood. “We are using history to solve the problem.” Hastings explains.

110 Illustrations

Hastings recorded his field notes in a journal while Coffey used a stenographer’s pad. Ethnographies created by other scholars were consulted. New life was given to old material as personal writings of those who lived through the days of the early frontier were pulled back into service. Thomas Tibbles, A. P. DeMilt, and Judge Snow each understood their times as well as their own point of view and certainly gave a flavor to the period they were reporting. Grandfather Remembers is concerned with human values and social justice that the Omaha tribe received from the dominant culture very sparsely, if at all. By framing historical events with their legal import, it gives content that adds to the greater society’s body of knowledge as well as the Omaha. Much information that was included was either buried on back shelves or so isolated that it seemed insignificant when in reality such bits and pieces of information became important pieces of the overall picture. Hastings and Coffey bring to the scholarly process a hands-on, grassroots approach that has not been represented nor done by others in speaking of the Indian world, tribal specific. Combining the visual with the text in almost equal proportions is important to people who still think visually and to whom English is still a second language. If they could have managed it, Hastings and Coffey would have included a DVD with Omaha music and culture depicted to accompany the manuscript. Hastings and Coffey took the story of the Omaha and elevated it as an example of how the Euro-American culture has used this same violent physical and psychological approach forged with the Native Americans to force their economic interests around the world taking over the path of exploitation first forged globally by the British Empire. This ties history to future actions showing graphically that when one does not understand history, they are doomed to repeat it. The most important aspect of this work that truly charts new grounds is the creation of it within the tribal community showing that higher education is possible without leaving the reservation. Time will tell whether this one example will encourage others to do the same. Such an approach would bring higher education to a reservation that is weary of constantly losing their young population through boarding schools and colleges that strip culture from their Indian students. The kind of background it takes to do the kind of research that was done for Grandfather Remembers is one of total emersion with the society one is studying. For Hastings it was a return to his roots, for Coffey it was a matter of finding out how to remember her own tribal roots from Europe, the British Isles and Ireland. This could only have been achieved by long-term study of a people over many years of directly interacting within their society. Hastings has spent 35 years in such studies while Coffey has been studying with the Omaha for 15 years. It takes that kind of dedication and dependence upon the studied society itself to truly understand the forces at work and their direct effect upon the people controlled by them. Such life experiences contributed to the quality of the book by being able to understand the basis of the history studied. These grassroots methods are prime examples of participatory research that, once engaged, result in high quality

Preserving the Omaha culture 111

understanding and meaningful interpretation. For example, Omaha spirituality cannot be understood without participating in sweat lodges or peyote meetings. Hastings and Coffey both have spent time with these activities. Additionally, Hastings and Coffey have spent time employed by tribal agencies. As it happened, both taught classes at the Macy campus of the Nebraska Indian Community College, although not within the same time period. Coffey also taught at their Sioux City, IA campus which introduced her to the local Urban Indian world. These experiences in turn enabled their understanding of Indian economics on a practical level as well as even more interaction with the tribe itself. For the conceptual student of another culture or their own, one must take one’s own experiences and insights seriously, as a basis for thinking, writing, conversations with others, and larger action. The clarification of thought, the encouragement of communication with others, the format for dissemination and the proof of what one learns ultimately brings a deeper commitment to the writing of a paper of ideas, values, and philosophy. Such personal absorption of both experience and studies enables the student to not only understand but also to communicate that which is understood. Education should not be divorced from life experiences but should instead involve the student directly with them. Tribal education did just that. Euro-American education needs to understand that if the tools of the educational process cannot be directly used in the real world, there is no purpose for education to exist. One of the problems with Western education is that it isolates the institution from reality with its hierarchal structure and obsessive rules creating in its process useless documentation regurgitated and problems not properly understood thereby continuing mistakes of the past. Time was a serious factor in a work the length of Grandfather Remembers. It was understood by both Hastings and Coffey that what they were proposing was far beyond what a “normal” dissertation would be. If cost were not a factor, they would have slowed down the process to a reasonable rate which would have allowed them to include more material. Of course, if that were true, it would have become a three or four volume set rather than two and would have taken ten years instead of two. More time could have been spent in both the writing and the editing. Had they had funding to back their research, more research could have been done on all the sections. For instance, they could have gone to Carlisle’s records and researched them as thoroughly as Hastings had done the Hampton files. It would have helped to be able to check the other institutions: Wahpeton, Flandreau, Haskell, and Genoa not to mention the archived records of both the Presbyterians and Quakers. More photographs could have been restored. As it was the restoration of photographs was a painstaking process even with technology or perhaps even more painstaking because of it. Pixel by pixel changes can change a person’s face from familiar to unfamiliar in an instant. Translating the edges of what you think you are seeing being used in the backgrounds can be exacting. Coffey

112 Illustrations

learned about the people as she worked on the pictures. It was also a teaching in beadwork and shawl design. Sometimes personal observations took on new meaning. Coffey studied a photograph of Dr. Susan Picotte for a formal painting, but it wasn’t until she looked at other pictures of the doctor that she understood that Dr. Picotte carried her head at a slightly odd angle. Recognizing it from having nursed her own youngest son through several years of chronic middle ear infection with his sporadic periods of inability to hear, she realized how deaf Dr. Picotte must have been all her life. How much more difficult schooling must have been for Dr. Picotte to have to deal with this problem on top of her own culture shock. Hastings and Coffey understood that time was restrictive, so their approach was to set the book up as a resource book. It is far more than an annotated bibliography and yet not a complete history. It functions on multiple levels. It is the beginning of a long journey.

Further actions for thought and study It is difficult to suggest actions that could possibly be successful in combating the problems set forth in Grandfather Remembers. The American courts only deal compromise not justice. The compromise is always for the Indian not the government. There is no real recourse there. The World Court or United Nations is the next logical step, but the United Nations is beholden to America and the World Court cannot enforce its judgments upon a country, certainly not one with the world standing that the United States has. The best possible action is to take the Omaha case to the American public which has been much more understanding than the government. It was the American public that made Standing Bear’s victory possible even though it took more than 50 years to implement it. It was the Nebraska public that made the returning of Human Remains for Burial possible. The state institutions fought it tooth and nail. If the United States were to undertake paying their debts to the Omaha with appropriate interest and damages, true economic development could be undertaken by the tribe. Land could be given back in lieu of cash. Restoration of the Reservation stolen lands is not impossible over time. Funding should be restructured so that government grants could be gotten without having to hire someone from the dominant culture with precious resource money in order to get a share of the pitiful handouts aimed at Indian communities. At the very least, grants could be automatically given to each Indian tribe for the express purpose of researching their history and language so that it could be incorporated into the school system starting with day care. Forcing tribes to constantly work through complicated grant writing in order to gain some money for purposes that may or may not fit the tribe’s true needs puts such funding opportunities out of the reach of most tribes and their tribal agencies. Grandfather Remembers is the first step in reaching out in detail to the American and world population with the Omaha story. More needs to be done to educate

Preserving the Omaha culture 113

everyone involved. Tribal Council in their endorsement resolution included the endorsement of creating a curriculum for the book in order to put it into the tribal schools and college. The Omaha story belongs in every school in Nebraska and the Plains states. As an American story it belongs in every library in the country. If the Tribal Museum can be built within the 21st century’s economic climate, it would be the ideal place to set up series of studies both for the tribe and visiting scholars and interested students. For instance, the whole legality of the railroad scene and its relationship with the tribe needs further work as does the gas lines and electric lines that run through the reservation. The mapping of all the important Omaha historical sites has yet to be done either on the reservation or in their former lands. Creating culturally appropriate literature for young Omaha students that could be used in Plains Indians Studies on a broader basis needs to be developed. Language courses in Chase, La Flesche, and Dorsey systems need to be done. The first one for usability, the last two because of the sheer amount of documentation of the language that exists in both. A user-friendly grammar book is needed. As to more studies on the culture and language itself, this should be done by Omaha students not outsiders. There is much that can be found. Old designs in beadwork and ribbon work on old regalia and shawls are available in the photographs. Reintroducing these in a usable form would revitalize the He’dewachi into something that would more closely resemble what was uniquely Omaha. Creating the arbors that once surrounded the drum circle would also help cool the arena in the summer heat of the prairie. Serious studies of contrasting and comparing various types of government, educational approaches and economic development need to be done. Alternative ways in all three have been successful elsewhere and could be used on the reservation. Consensus government can work on the local scale; it is a modern form of what Native America once had. Cooperative approach to student learning instead of competitive would be much more appropriate and help resolve a lot of emotional problems of isolation and victimization. Reorganizing the Clan structure would build cooperation between clans. If that were to happen, old clans with few members could take in clanless families so that the new system based upon the old one could work, or new clans formed within the clanless population. By dividing the work up between the divisions of the Omaha: Earth and Sky, cooperation is established. With Umonhon-ti: Sacred Pole back home again, the people of the pole would be complete, and healing could begin on a real scale. Local skills need to be built within the Indian community so they could take care of themselves. Health issues need to be dealt with directly with improved food sources other than commodities which cause a lot of illnesses with their emphasis on white flour, bad cheese, white sugar, and over-processed foods. Alcohol and drug damage have to be faced and dealt with directly. All these suggestions would help build self-esteem so that the Omaha could stop internalizing the oppressor and rebuild themselves in the same manner their forefathers and foremothers once did. A real stimulus package on this reservation would eliminate

114 Illustrations

most of the problems since poverty truly is simply a lack of money that is forced on arbitrarily labeled groups of people within the American Dream turning it into a generational nightmare.

Reactions While it is too early to start fielding local reactions on a systematic basis, OTHRP has selectively handed sections of the work in progress, as it nears completion, to some of the locals on the reservation and interested parties beyond to review. Negative comments are as important as positive ones for the teachings involved. OTHRP does not reveal the sources of the comments other than a brief description that gives an indication as to the background of the speaker. Tribal Council members have expressed a keen interest in the book especially the histories of the legal situations and treaties. One young Omaha woman was very excited over it. “It fills in information that I was not taught in school, but I would hear the elders in my family talk about.” In one case, a reservation Euro-American read the book, her husband and son read it and so did a neighbor. They apparently all went into culture shock. The woman returned the book, spoke not a word and fled at the first opportunity. A retired librarian who had worked in both the Macy and Winnebago communities is currently reading it. Her enthusiasm was such that when her computer couldn’t handle the software necessary in order to read it, she had it printed out at her own expense so that she could help with the editing. This is not a small expense: estimated costs of $100 for a black and white copy. She feels that this is an important book to have published since it tells a true history of a people and a region. A college art teacher from Sioux City started reading it and her first comment was: “you certainly don’t soft petal it, do you?” A WISR faculty member responds: When you talk about the French traders, I got a little lost in all the detail. I think more paragraphs in between sections, explaining how what you are writing relates to the big picture would help. Like why you are talking about French traders or why this trader was significant or “you will recall, this trader was mentioned earlier …” for the uninitiated, this would be helpful. This comment shows a struggle within this Euro-American in viewing familiar material from a different point of view. Omaha readily understand the connection: the French names are now tribal ones as well. This becomes clear as one progresses further into the story. It is exceedingly difficult to get Euro-American’s to lay down their belief system. Most have only experienced history, stories, drama, and art from a Euro-American centric point of view and do not understand that it is not a universal perception. When two cultures are the reverse of each other, this becomes even more difficult. Here’s a comment from another European American:

Preserving the Omaha culture 115

Early on you mention the Salem Witch trials as going on at or just before the time of the expansion west toward Omaha land. I had heard that not that many people were actually killed at Salem and looked it up and I think the figure was “9.” The big killings of witches happened in Europe before this and the Salem trials were the tail end. You might check into this and incorporate a more accurate reality in your writing. Again, this is a similar problem. It was not mentioned as to how many “witches” were killed in America in the book, the point was that the mindset that accepted this behavior had been imported along with the individuals who made the trip over not how many were actually killed. Either way, it is not an Omaha concept. Numbers are a strange phenomenon particularly important to the Euro-American culture. In fact, it does not take many violent public executions to subdue a population. One is usually sufficient. It could be pointed out that it only took four Quakers being hanged in Boston Commons to shut down religious freedom in Massachusetts. For martyrdom to occur is an entirely different matter. For that one needs popular support for a cause within the population which witchcraft did not have nor were the Quakers a big enough faction in the “New World” at that time. In fact, the larger the number of people murdered the greater the acceptance by the population at large. This is what makes war acceptable. Consider this response: Also, there was a section early on when you talk about how the extended family system was superior in Native American culture than the nuclear family system of whites or something like that. I thought you were a little hard on people in nuclear families and assumed they don’t have extended families as well. I think if you emphasize that the clan system made the extended family stronger, and then you I think proceed to talk about the clan system, which is not in Western society though could probably be compared to family reunions or crests and that sort of thing. I wouldn’t bash people with nuclear families, I would focus on what you are going to tell about and why you think the clan system and extended family structure of Native American/indigenous culture was superior. No need to make the reader more uncomfortable overtly. You want to keep them reading and focus on your story, which you do very well in whatever else I’ve read. Actually, all European cultures come from tribal societies which had clan structures. It was this series of societies that were first beaten by the Celts who married into them bringing their culture to merge and replace the aboriginal ones and later these societies were pummeled by the Romans only to be finally eradicated by Christianity through their war against women. All of which happened so long ago that culturally Euro-Americans have completely repressed the memories of it happening. The difficulty in language causes misinterpretations. The extended family of a nuclear family can be made up of both related and unrelated members. However,

116 Illustrations

in today’s world, it is usually more unrelated members since the beginning of the migrating nuclear family following jobs instead of staying within their natal communities. Blood-related family is often a long distance away. In tribal culture, the extended family was completely blood-related to each other with occasional extension reaching out to non-related people who were then adopted into a family. Traditionally, in modern Euro-American cultures, blood-relatives will take care of an individual who is either incapacitated or down on their luck whereas extended family or friends will share experiences but not money or resources. The Omaha have a different way of seeing who one’s relatives truly are. It would take a book to explain the Omaha system of kinship to an outsider. There really is no need to explain why one system is better than another. The current chronically rising divorce rate of the dominant culture says it all: something is drastically wrong with the way the status quo is behaving. Here’s an affirming comment: Please know that I value your work tremendously. And from past reading I doubt I would have much to add beyond saying I think the work is stunning. When I did look at part of it last month I was impressed by the style and flow—and did appreciate the nice way you handled the issue of the first peoples. So, not all Euro-Americans have a problem with the script. It makes a difference as to how intertwined one is with one’s inherited culture or whether one can rise easily above their primal indoctrination. Discussing the intricacies of culture both pro and con would take another book as would taking on a debate as to whether culture has played a healthy role in human development. OTHRP was privileged to meet, at the request of the Omaha Tribal Council, with Dr. R. David Edmunds3 from the University of Texas’ School of Arts and Humanities where he serves as the Anne and Chester Watson History Professor. Dr. Edmunds was hired by the Tribal lawyers to do a background report on one of the land disputes still being fought within the courts over Pender, NE. Since Grandfather Remembers deals with the historic periods that covers both the illegal acquisition of the property and the attitudes stemming from this period as they irrupted over the centuries afterwards, OTHRP had a lot to say. It was a three-hour interrogation on Omaha history, Pender applicable, by both Dr. Edmunds and the Tribal Council members. Hastings and Coffey were clearly at home with the material and repeatedly pointed to sections of Grandfather Remembers that were germane to the subject raised. Again, and again, they explained what happened and why until ultimately, they presented Dr. Edmunds with his own copy of Grandfather Remembers, which he was delighted to receive. Later, on February 24, 2016, Dr. R. David Edmunds sent the following letter to OTHRP in reference to the use of Grandfather Remembers as key evidence that resulted in the Supreme Court victory of the Omaha people in the suit brought against them by the town of Pender, Nebraska:

Preserving the Omaha culture 117

I found your dissertation to very, very useful—particularly in illustrating the Omaha presence in the disputed area and in Pender in the post land sale period. I must say that I have never worked harder on any court case in all my life, and that at first I thought it was an uphill battle, but as I was able to delve into all the materials I realized that we had a very strong case. But what a record of fraud and chicanery perpetrated on the Omaha people. As you probably know, I’ve been working in Native American history for over 40 years, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen as much questionable dealing by the government in relation to a single tribe. Hopefully the Pender case will put a stop to some of it. I can imagine that none of us are very popular with the modern “Penderites,” but some of their predecessors in Thurston County (and past politicians from Nebraska) probably should have been jailed. And the Omaha people have continued on. In Oklahoma we have a term that applies to tribal people who have the grit to persist in the face of trouble and hardship. We say they’re ‘red dirt tough,’ and It’s a valued compliment. And in this instance, it certainly applies to the Omahas. Excitement about the book continues to bubble up from a variety of sources. Professionals in the field have expressed keen interest, veterans and history buffs are eager to read it, a retired librarian and other educated folks have expressed avid interest. Grandfather Remembers may well be unforgettable.

End notes 1, 2

The ten principles of action research were taken from the following two WISR papers: 2002–03 Action Research Seminar Series, “Writing in Your Own Voice,” Dr. Cynthia Rose Lawrence, Jan. 30, 2003, pp. D-1–2. Session 1 of WISR Action research Seminar Series, “Overview of Action Research Methods: Introduction to Action Research Seminar Series,” John Bilorusky and Cynthia Lawrence-Wallace, Nov. 6, 2002, p. A-i. 3 Dr. Edmunds is the recipient of one of the most distinguished awards in the field of history, the Francis Parkman Prize, given for the best non-fiction historical writing as literature. He has written or edited ten books, including The Potawatomis: Keepers of the Fire, which won him the Parkman Prize in 1978, and The Shawnee Prophet, awarded the Ohioana Prize for Biography in 1984; and coauthored The Fox Wars: The Mesquakie Challenge to New France, which received the Heggoy Prize from the French Colonial Historical Society. Edmunds has received prestigious fellowships from the Guggenheim Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Newberry Library, and the National Endowment for the Humanities. He has won five teaching awards from four separate universities. He has consulted with museums, film makers and tribal governments engaged in land disputes against state and local governments. Edmunds received his PhD from the University of Oklahoma.

9 STORIES, CONCEPTS, AND METHODS OF PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH—TRANSFORMING INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS Sudia Paloma McCaleb, EdD

Introduction (by John Bilorusky) This chapter is an outstanding illustration of the transformative power of participatory methods of action research. I have had the opportunity for about five years to have Sudia as a colleague and a friend. The stories, ideas and methods that she shares in this chapter, are powerful and moving, but still, just the tip of the iceberg of transformative power—for individuals and for families and communities—of collaborative participatory research that she does with others in the U.S. and abroad.

Sudia’s stories and insights—of participatory action research My life as an educator began as a child growing up in our apartment above the pre-school that my parents operated throughout my young life. I can still remember the swings, slide, and climbing bars in our front yard. My career took many twists and turns, but I eventually ran an innovative pre-school in my own home, got a Master’s degree from Bank St. College in NYC and became a professor after earning my EdD at USF in San Francisco. My learning is always evolving in collaboration with my students and their families and with the international educators I have worked with and have come to know. Through participatory research I came to respect and love the groups of parents and educators with whom I have done my most important and personally fulfilling work. My professor and beloved mentor Alma Flor Ada, helped me understand deeply that “Participatory research is a philosophical and ideological commitment which holds that every human being has the capacity of knowing,

Stories, concepts, and methods 119

of analyzing and reflecting about reality so that she or he becomes a true agent of action in her or his own life.” For many years, I have worked with families in California public schools, engaging in dialogues with young people and their parents. Many students in our classrooms have been uprooted from their home countries and as a result don’t feel wholly connected to their new country culture, or even neighborhood. Most of their families have neither the resources nor the traditional family support systems formerly available to them in their own countries or native communities. In their new lives, they often feel helpless and lacking in personal or group validation. Participatory research invites parents to tap into their internalized traditional sources of knowledge and wisdom and begin to feel whole again while contributing to their children’s education. In an early research project, my initial question was: How can educators create a partnership with parents and young students that will nurture literacy and facilitate participation in the schools while celebrating and validating home culture and family concerns and aspirations? Five families volunteered from a first-grade classroom to participate in that project, and I was invited to conduct the dialogues in their homes. Because many ethnic and linguistic minority parents have not experienced the school as a welcoming environment, dialogue on their territory provided an opportunity to equalize the perceived power relationships, I felt that the home environment would provide a better opportunity for the parent’s voice and knowledge to emerge. Some of the guiding questions were: 1. 2. 3.

What have been the educational experiences of linguistic and ethnic minority parents in formal schooling and out of school learning? How do parents view their own children’s educational experiences in the context of family, community, and school? How can educational bridges be built between the home and the school that validate the home culture and community?

I transcribed the initial dialogues from a cassette recording of the session and then shared the text of our dialogue with each of the participants, inviting them to revise or correct any parts that did not represent what they really wanted to express. Each received his or her printed copy to keep. This step was an essential part of the collaborative effort and advanced the reflective process to a level of greater depth. Upon receiving the text, the participants expressed surprise that they had so much to say, that it had appeared in print, and especially that their words and thoughts were considered worthy of publication in the creation of new knowledge. Here I was reminded of what Freire said in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed: Self-deprecation is another characteristic of the oppressed, which derives from their internalization of the opinion the oppressors hold of them. So often do they hear that they are good for nothing, know nothing, and are incapable of

120 Illustrations

learning anything, that they are sick, lazy and unproductive, that in the end they become convinced of their own unfitness. (Freire, 1972, p. 49) During the next stage of the project, I analyzed the texts and extracted common or “generative themes”—the recurring threads of thoughts that are woven throughout the dialogues and that signify important issues in the lives of the participants. These themes were going to be used for the next phase of the project which was a family book development. Because the themes were recognizable and important to the participants, the parents were highly motivated to use them in creating a book. Each family received a box full of supplies that contained magic markers, crayons, watercolor paints, glue sticks, pieces of fabric, stickers, and construction paper. Here is a synopsis of some the books that were created: 1.

2.

3.

4.

Childhood Friendships. Participants begin by brainstorming what is important to them in friendship. Children hear about the childhood friendship of their parents and grow quite interested. They talked about friends they walked to school with along country roads. Some parents expressed concerns about the kinds of friendships their children might develop that would lead the down the “wrong” path. The children focused on friendship qualities as “they are nice, you can play with them, they can come to your house, they share, and they hug.” Families Building Together. Parents spoke about wanting to do things with their children that are fun, like watch TV or play Nintendo games. I developed an activity where a family would receive a small suitcase filled with blocks, cars, trains, trucks, tracks, farm and forest animals, and a multiracial group of persons. They were asked to build a structure or scene and create a story with members of the family where they could be the main characters. The building was the stimulus for the story and then they were asked to take a picture of the building with the builders. Everyone said they did have a camera. Each family photo and story was used to include in a group book. Families as Problem-Solvers through Struggle and Change. In a group conversation, we spoke about the word “struggle” and what is means to each. Many parents of children in urban schools have had only limited formal schooling, but this does not mean, as educators sometimes believe, that they have not learned and gained knowledge from the experiences of the many challenges and struggles in their lives. All parents are by nature problem-solvers, and while coming up with solutions, they often weave many pieces of information together and reflect on them before making a decision. Children can come to see their parents as problem-solvers and learn by hearing about their struggles. During my dialogues with parent participants, all of them described how they have struggled in their lives and continue to struggle in the present. The children made drawings of what they heard from their parents. Codification Based on Community Life. I collaborated with parents in creating a book, through a process that was explicitly informed by my understanding of

Stories, concepts, and methods 121

the pedagogical approach of Paulo Freire. Freire observed that the evolution of culture is marked by its passing through epochs, each of which is characterized by a series of “aspirations, concerns and values which man is searching to fulfill, as well as the obstacles to their fulfillment.” The themes of the epoch” in turn indicate the tasks to be carried out (Freire, 1972, pp. 91–92)” These themes must be understood in order for change and transformation to take place. Freire believed that when the themes are not understood, then men and women become “dehumanized.” Through the dialogues I did with parents, I chose recurring themes of importance that emerged in those discussions, and then I selected words that Freire called “generative” words. I asked an artist friend of mine if she could take 20 words and create a simple drawing. Freire called drawing like this a “codification.” A copy of the drawing was given to each participant and from the drawing they created a story. The drawing contained familiar themes from their lives and the themes we had already discussed in our group sessions. Freire actually used the idea of codifications in what he called “literacy circles” where a facilitator after discussion with a group of pre-literate adults takes their ideas, challenges, life themes and creates a simple drawing or codification which the adults in the circle used to generate a dictated text that was used for teaching reading. The underlining philosophy is that people can learn to read more readily from stories that they have generated (or dictated to the facilitator) and that reflect their own lives and reality. I have also worked with older children exploring the concept of knowledge and wisdom. In one instance, I was working with a middle school group of students for about three months. We began with a rap that was written by a good friend, Kerrigan Black called, “History Rap.” Chorus: You’ve got to know something ’bout history So the world isn’t just a mystery (after each verse) For thousands of years we’ve been making our way, To get to where we are today Now. Some folks don’t think that’s very far But they don’t know how wrong they are History isn’t just facts and dates It’s different ways of thinking to appreciate It’s what was happening long ago. And what’s going down in the times that we know History is me and history is you It’s your mother, father sister, brother Grandparents too

122 Illustrations

It’s the stars in the sky, the beat of the drum. It’s where you live, it’s where you come from. It’s religions and rivers and mountains and kings Fashions, inventions and crazy things! It’s art and music. war and peace Revolution evolution that will never cease. The kids loved it and wanted to sing it again and were bouncing all around. I have found in all my work as an educator that music, singing and rhythm can really motivate learning at all ages. So let’s do it! Our questions motivated by the rap were: What does knowledge and knowing mean to me? What do I really know well? What is wisdom? Who are wise people? Am I wise? These questions were discussed, and students asked each other the questions and also went home and asked parents and other adults. Results were compiled, compared, and discussed. The following is a list of five other topics appropriate for any age to investigate, share information gained and turn into written individual or group books. These topics are essential “points of departure” for transformative inquiry-and-action, for participatory research that is driven by the curiosity, experience, and knowledgebuilding capabilities of the participants. 1.

2.

Teachings from My Childhood The project can give adults the opportunity to think and talk about memories of the place they spent their childhood. Memories may be vivid, nebulous, or even painful. Thinking about these memories gives the children the opportunity to know more about their parents, and also to think about their own communities, with guiding questions like: Is the community multiethnic or multilingual? Where do people get their food? Where do people go when they want to have fun? What may be dangers in the community, and how do young people learn to protect themselves? The Wise One Through this research children will recognize and come to know a person who possesses “wisdom,” and parents will also take time to think about someone they have known who possessed a non-traditional form of knowledge. By “non-traditional,” I mean knowledge that often does not receive the public respect and acknowledgement that it deserves. This research can be a way of honoring and validating alternative knowledge gained through living and reflection. Participants are asked to begin by brainstorming the meaning of the word “wisdom.” They are told that: 

You may look up the meaning in several dictionaries.

Stories, concepts, and methods 123

   3.

4.

Read some folk tales where an important character is a wise person in a village and think about where do their powers lie? Children can ask their parents about wise people they have known, and the children in class can share and compare qualities and abilities that the parents shared with them at home. Invite a person to the classroom that is consider “wise” in the community and generate questions in advance to ask them.

The Most Frightening Time in My Life Fear is a common feeling in most children and young people’s lives. Adults may consider a child’s fear unimportant or irrational, but for the child, it seems very real and may cause great anxiety. This can take the form of fear of strangers, the unknown, new situations, or bad dreams. Some children’s fears prevent them from learning. During Halloween season when scary images appear everywhere, children cling more to their parents to be assured that some things are just pretend. When parents are asked to share times in their lives when they were frightened, children become more aware of fear as a human emotion. When both children and adults share experiences of fear in a supportive community, sometimes they can eliminate the fears that immobilize them. Participants are asked to make a list of the fears that students share and talk about ways for dealing with or overcoming them. Parents are asked to share with their children fears they have experienced in their lives, and what have been some of the scariest moments they can recall from their childhood, and then of course, how they have overcome them. An illustrated book of fears can be put together by children and parents. This often becomes a very popular reading text based on information gathered through dialogue. Words of Advice from Our Parents The transmission of values has been at the core of every civilization. Students need to know what their elders think is important and what expectations they have for their children. What words of wisdom do parents feel obligated to pass on? What words does each new generation receive from its family or cultural group through advice, ritual, and tradition? The project begins with a letter that is sent home to parents, asking them to pretend that they are going on a long journey and aren’t sure when they are returning. So, they want to give their children some important advice before leaving. For some parents, this is very matter of fact, while for others it brings tears or causes them to do some deep thinking. When the responses are then brought back, children share with others in the class the similarities and differences among the advice given by their parents. They go on to talk about whether they knew these things before, and if they felt they could meet their parents expectations. Turning the responses into a class book reminds the students each day of who they are and how much they are loved.

124 Illustrations

5.

Book for Peace We use this project as an opportunity to find words or short phrases that concretize the feeling and idea of peace. We ask people, “visualize what peace means for you?” Think about, “How can we broaden the framework and look at peace in the family, peace in the community, peace in the world and the concept of peaceful co-existence?” People may say such things as, “Around the winter holiday season we see and hear a lot, ‘Peace on Earth and Goodwill towards All.’ However, these words may be meaningless unless we take some time to talk about them.” With this participatory research project, we sometimes see that with older children, they may learn about many areas of the world that are not at peace and try to understand what the problems and conflicts are. We often ask people to explore the concept of “conflict resolution,” or suggest that they find out about local, national, and global organizations that are working for world peace.

After many years of research with multicultural and multilingual communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, a few of us who had been doing these kinds of participatory research began to take what we had learned to find ways to implement some of the ideas while working internationally, particularly with communities of educators and indigenous environmental and language activists. The most recent projects have been in Oaxaca, Mexico, and El Salvador. Previously we also did work in Guatemala, Cuba, Rumania, and Hungary. Below, I’ll describe two activities we’ve done.

Dichos (sayings) or proverbs Everyone grows up hearing their grandparents or other elderly family members or parents repeat frequently some words or phrases that represent values or teach some valuable lesson. A commonly heard one in American culture is “an apple a day keeps the doctor away” or “the early bird catches the worm” or “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” What lessons about how to live do they teach us? What cultural values do they imply? In this activity we ask people to share some of the dichos (or sayings) they have heard frequently in their lives. What do they actually mean? What are the belief systems represented? Are these sayings that we want to teach to the next generation, or perhaps would rather not? Lively discussions invariably follow. We also show beautifully illustrated dichos (sayings) from a book we found that was written bilingually in English and Spanish. Participants write down on “post-its” as many dichos as they can recall hearing and then choose one that they would like to illustrate. Lively discussions and much laughter is part of the conversation. It is like researching deeply hidden values, comparing, sharing, and reflecting on their usefulness in today’s world. Some of the dichos are specific within one cultural context while others seem to cross cultures, countries, and languages. A lot of cross-cultural learning happens with this activity. Some examples we have heard are: 

You reap what you sow, which is very popular in corn-based agricultural societies.

Stories, concepts, and methods 125

     

If you wait for tamales to fall from the sky, you will only get the (banana) leaves. What you don’t like in others, you may find in your own house (so, look at yourself). The bully is only as powerful as the coward who allows him to be (so, stand up for yourself). The wise person does not say everything he thinks but thinks before he says anything. The devil is not wise, because he is the devil, but because he is old. If you keep your mouth open the flies will come in (This dicho has been particularly conflictual. Some believe it has to do with advice to not gossip, but others find it offensive because they assume that it does not allow people to express their ideas and should just keep their mouths shut and not speak up, especially if their ideas are considered too radical or unpopular!)

Foto voz (photo voice) This is a visual, dialogic, and writing activity that allows participants to express themselves through a foto (photo) or painting. A large collection of visuals are laid out on the floor, and participants are asked to choose one that speaks to them— one they can see themselves in—that somehow expresses a thought, a dream, a relationship. They sit with this visual for a few minutes thinking about why they chose it, and then while sharing in a small group of two or three, they discuss why they chose it and what it means for them in their life. Is it about themselves, about someone they know, about a wish, a dream, or perhaps a place they have always wanted to visit? The possibilities are endless. The sharing sometimes brings the speaker to tears. We learn a lot about each other, and many cultural life stories emerge during this activity. The final exercises ask that each person, after sharing, then write down what they shared about, why they chose the foto, and what it means for them. We have found that many people are blocked when asked to write, but if they proceed from visual to dialogue, to writing, this often creates a powerful bridge. One teacher of upper elementary school in Oakland carried out this activity with his students. He took fotos in the community of familiar places and incidents and also used pictures he found in magazines and picture books. His pictures included a policeman handcuffing a Black man, two parents having an argument in the house with a child listening and covering his ears, and a church with the Virgen of Guadalupe and a foto of Cezar Chavez on the wall. Students had very profound reflections, and he put together a book with the visual chosen by each student and the student’s words below. He made copies of the book for each child in the class and gave me one too. I have incorporated this book in our workshops, and participants are able to see how they could also do this, and how easy it can be. This activity has been one of the most popular in our international work. Further, whenever we extend our workshop to incorporate a family night, then when the participants can choose which activities they would like to share with the parents, “Dichos and Foto Voz” are always first chosen. I think this is

126 Illustrations

because the activities allow people to find out how others think, see the world, and express emotions, and then together they learn about their similarities and differences.

Engaging in dialogue with Salvadoran immigrants living in California and sharing words with Salvadoran educators back home and Oaxacan indigenous communities A colleague introduced me to the concept of “narrative therapy” which has many qualities and methods that overlap with participatory research. Briefly the idea is that if people with similar experiences come together and have supportive conversations about their lives, their challenges, their sadness, their set-backs, then they can stop blaming themselves, internalizing their failures and find support in realizing this is an issue bigger than just themselves. Talking together, understanding systems, brainstorming solutions is like a group healing. On one occasion, I was able to conduct individual dialogues with five Salvadoran immigrants living in the Bay Area. Two women were sisters with several children and were engaged in domestic work. One man worked for a company that assembles office furniture. Another man was a truck driver for that company. The fifth person, an indigenous man, and a self-described Buddhist had been in the revolutionary army during the 12-year conflict in El Salvador. He married an American woman who was with him in the mountains and was severely wounded when shot in the face. They now live together in Oakland where they run an organic cleaning business. All five have very different backgrounds, but still, also, with many similarities, and all traumatized and challenged in many ways. After conducting individual dialogues with each person, we all then came together so each person could hear the thoughts of others. At that time, I was also able to share what I learned from what they said. Here are some of the highlights of what they had to say—in their words:  

 

All immigrants know how to work, struggle, and move on. If we do not work, we have no money and neither does our family. We all have certain fears about living here. I cannot walk out at night, and I always have to take precautions, and I always have the fear that the police will stop me and I will lose my car. A car is not a luxury but a tool to pay our bills and send money home to our mothers in El Salvador. What I do is send money to my mom. I lived and benefited from her efforts, and if she needs something, I do everything to get it for her. We talk every week on the phone, but it is not the same as seeing her. It has been 12 years. One spoke about how life had been good until one day ICE arrived and took away 11 members of their family. The security that they were beginning to feel disappeared and desperation and anguish set in. The money they were earning was now going to pay lawyers.

Stories, concepts, and methods 127

  

How sad is an immigrant’s life! The American Dream almost always ends in a nightmare. Why seek happiness in a little bit of money, when no amount can pay for a kiss on the cheek from our loved ones? A hug to comfort when times are not very good. In the end, if together we are strong, happy, and lucky, and we don’t long for luxuries, wealth, or travel, that we will one day regret. Our family unity is the most important thing,

We took the immigrant words and thoughts back to El Salvador for our next workshop with teachers and asked them to respond to what the immigrants had said. They took turns reading the immigrant words with many tears, and then each wrote a short letter to respond to the immigrant words. Some admitted that they did not realize how difficult life was in America and how hard they had to work. Many said how much they missed them and that they would always be welcome back, and that Christmas has never been the same since they left. Some talked about how it is important to “struggle in the company of the Supreme Being who has given us life, because he is the only one that can help us to succeed and achieve the dreams that we desire … Do not be discouraged my brothers and sisters.” They were told that their pain and their sacrifice for the love of their people was understood. We ultimately turned the immigrant words, and in-country responses, to a kind of call and response dialogue. When we were working in Oaxaca, we told of the project that we had done with the Salvadoran immigrants. We knew that many of their relatives had emigrated and were perhaps having similar experiences. We explained that in our schools we have many Salvadoran and also Mexican/Oaxacan immigrant students—and that often there is a kind of competition between them, who is better, or who is tougher? We see our challenge as educators to help them to see their common challenges and to work and struggle together. We asked permission to share the dialogues, and they were enthusiastic. They were very moved, lots of tears, and then they shared their own experiences of family members who had left. The process also created a sympathetic bond with Salvadorans as brothers and sisters and sparked a desire to accompany us to El Salvador the next time we went. In conclusion, participatory research has infused my lifelong practice with a philosophical tool, an attitude, an ability to provide deep sharing with many communities. I have learned so much about people and their lives. People have been very generous in sharing, and we have created lasting bonds.

10 GETTING OUT OF THE BOOK AND INTO THE WORLD Ways to understand action research Marilyn Jackson, PhD

To understand action research, I find it helpful to think of that ancient folk tale narrative of a person, often young, who asks or is asked a question, often going on a journey to find the answer. The reward may be practical such as the daughter of a king to marry or just the quest itself or for greater wisdom. The questioner asks each person they meet, and a new adventure ensues which leads them down another road to encounter a new person, whom they ask, and so on. Eventually they find an answer, and the answer itself is often not what they would have expected. Another model is the detective who interviews everyone possibly connected to a crime, tests for DNA, examines, smells, tastes, asks questions, then comes back with more questions like the television detective Columbo. He attaches himself to the principal people involved, becomes their best friend and sticks to them like glue until he gets a confession. The heroic detective stays with it to find the truth and make sure the wrong person isn’t arrested! As a student at the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), and even before I enrolled, I was often told that the result of my research may be something different than what I thought I was planning to learn. While working at WISR as staff at the same time as being a student, I noticed that other new or potential students would be eager to begin and had a long list of topics to study too. However, there is a finite list of course that we can each take on in a lifetime, and it has to start somewhere, in one place at one time and it proceeds from there, like going on a journey. This reminds me of the analogy of women doing theology, that once the toothpaste comes out of the tube, you can’t put it back in. Likewise, with new knowledge, it changes everything (Lawless, 1996, p. 175). Another good story about this kind of learning is often discussed at WISR about the group of blind men who describe what they learn from touching an elephant. Each man finds one part of the elephant’s body like the rough side or the long snout, shares their findings and each has come up with a completely different

Getting out of the book and into the world 129

answer. When we enter dialogue with a variety of people to see different sides to a question, we can put together a picture, like completing a puzzle. It becomes important to not judge each other’s answer as wrong immediately, as we come to realize that the answers may be much more complicated than what we originally thought they were. When it came time to do my dissertation in the Higher Education and Social Change program at WISR, I picked a topic that I knew the most about and in which I was deeply interested, in order to expand upon it. I related Lutheranism to Creation Spirituality and popular spirituality in the U.S.A as I saw myself and others drifting away from a strong religious tradition and wondered if there was any middle ground. When I first moved to Oakland in the 1980s, I got a Master’s at Holy Names College in Oakland, CA in Creation Spirituality as defined by the radical and later former Catholic priest, Matthew Fox, having to do with a theology for life in this world of living creatures, not just about salvation after death. After writing the bulk of the dissertation first, based on my readings and knowledge of Creation Spirituality as well as Lutheranism, having 10 or so pastors in the family and a religion major for my BA, I then conducted over 50 interviews. Later, I realized that this was a lot. I have since regretted not getting into the habit of doing interviews from the very beginning of my WISR studies. Fortunately, students are now guided and expected to do this, from earlier and throughout their WISR studies. When I first moved to San Francisco, California in the mid-1980s, I met my friend Jenny Guediri (now of Boca Raton, FL), who was a student at Friends World College, started by Quakers in New York City. She told me she would interview Joe on the street as part of her research. Joe on the street interviews are what we hear on the nightly news with people who are just responding to current crises but may not have the best facts. However this can be a reality check to hear what they say and a useful tool in social research, not just interviewing experts but finding out what the general public does or doesn’t know or that they may have knowledge from life experience to contribute. Having an introverted tendency, doing interviews was like diving into water, but once I got in the water, it was fine and fun to be swimming around. Some of the interviews were done in person, some over the phone. It was always enjoyable to meet people in person, especially if I didn’t know the interviewee well, though I found it easiest to type up their stories while talking over the phone. The live interviews worked much better than an email exchange, which were an exception in a few cases. The written emailed exchanges didn’t work as well as they didn’t allow for the spontaneity of live dialogue and hampered my ability to ask questions to bring out their life story. I thought about recording the conversations, but never did as my on the spot transcription skills were adequate, especially when followed later by getting the interviewees’ edits. A large percentage of my interviewees were of Lutheran background but not all. I reached out into my circle of friends and acquaintances and beyond. I asked for referrals for other people to interview and found I could interview a lot of people I already knew. I originally set up meetings to interview people about their religious

130 Illustrations

faith journey, and also to see if they knew anything about my subject, Creation Spirituality. I realized during the process that most of the interviewees knew little about my topic and many thought it meant a concern for the environment linked to their religious faith when there was more to the meaning of Creation Spirituality. For one thing, Lutherans haven’t traditionally emphasized the term “spirituality” which Catholic clergy are known for. Fox taught four Creation Spirituality paths— the way of the positive, the negative, creativity and transformation, and the organic processes of nature that can be applied to spiritual growth. Even though I tried to explain and provide some literature, my course changed a bit, and I mainly asked them to tell their story of how they developed the religious beliefs they hold today. Their stories did fit into my work even though they may not have known it. I wrote up the stories, shared the write up with interviewees and got their corrections back. This became a mutually enjoyable process as they revealed some of the most important aspects of their life’s story. I used a somewhat journalistic style of reporting, by often including how I knew the interviewee, how I came to interview them and related background information. Often the interviewees discussed their family members as well. I realized that every person is a book of knowledge like that old African saying that “when an elder dies, a library burns to the ground.” Some of the interviewees have since died and family and community members have told me they really appreciated the write ups. The listening skills I had gained while volunteering for Conciliation Forums of Oakland, CA in the 1980s, came in handy. We were taught to value and respect that everyone had a right to whatever it was they believed or felt. Applying careful listening skills was important to increase my objectivity. It is so important not to project one’s own ideas onto another while transcribing peoples’ stories in order to relay it correctly, especially when one is going to ask them to edit it; most of the time they thought I had recorded them accurately. This became a valuable participatory element where they could read the result and make corrections, which could be considered one model for participatory research. This process of interviewing people about their religious beliefs, based on their life’s stories, could also be seen as an oral history project. It was a valuable process that could well be applied to get to know a community of people as a foundation from which more could later be accomplished by way of action and/or inquiry. When interviewees were not sure what to say, I asked a few additional questions to help them. More often, however, I asked follow-up questions to clarify for myself what they were saying, as well as to help them develop their stories. Of Lutherans and those who had more to say about theology or church history, I asked for more information on those topics I did not know much about. I let them talk a short time or a long time, depending on how much they had to say or how the conversation developed. I felt I was using an ancient method of inquiry and dialogue to learn from the wisdom of their life stories rather than asking for a long list of data. I took note of their ethnic and religious upbringing in most cases. In the process of doing the interviews, I learned about several important theological

Getting out of the book and into the world 131

ideas, books, and ways to connect Lutheranism to Creation Spirituality, as well as religious history, names, and terms that were new to me. It didn’t occur to me that I could have summarized their comments and didn’t need to include them verbatim in the dissertation. It was pointed out to me that I then needed to ask for consent to publish the interviews verbatim in the dissertation. I had to come up with a consent form. There were several who preferred that I just use their first name or change their name and other parts of the story, because of the personal content of the interview or because they didn’t have time to edit it to express all they would want to say. A few didn’t consent to their comments being published other than in the dissertation. If I had started with a specific list of questions that I planned to ask of everyone, no matter what, I don’t think things would have flowed as well. As it was, I did come up with some statistics by making a chart just for myself afterwards for analysis, such as the demographics of interviewees and common themes of interest. I shared these results in the dissertation, pointing out patterns such as how many were Lutherans, Catholics, or Buddhists. I noticed that more people who lived on the coasts or in the mountain states had adopted a newer faith than the people in the Midwest, where I grew up. I realized that frequently, people are told what to believe. Further, seldom are they asked what they believe, except by children or occasionally, their teachers, but in those instances, they may not feel free to share their real beliefs. For this reason, it was courageous for interviewees to say what they actually believe, which sometimes included their sharing their doubts with me. By the time I had done most of the 50 plus interviews, it was hard to stop. People I had committed to interview generally wanted to follow through, as did I. I got feedback from several who really enjoyed the process, as well as reading and discussing the resulting transcript. It allowed them to organize and bring forth their knowledge and experience in a way I doubt would have happened otherwise. If I had done the interviews earlier, before finishing the draft of ideas from readings and my previous learning, I would have found more material to explore and it could have changed the direction of my research. Perhaps, I could have involved some of the interviewees earlier on and had more time to contact others. I might have realized that since they didn’t know much about my subject, perhaps I should go in a different direction. But this was my first major action research project and that didn’t occur to me yet. I had decided to think through as much of the subject by myself first, as I already knew quite a bit, before feeling comfortable talking about it with others. I didn’t intend my paper to be the final word but through asking for new input, learned about aspects of theology such as the Lundensian tradition in Sweden and more about Danish hymns and Lutheran authors such as Joseph Sittler, a pioneer in linking Christian theology to ecology. I also met new fellow travelers with the possibility of further ventures. In addition to opening new avenues of inquiry, what I learned from peoples’ stories confirmed some themes I was already writing about.

132 Illustrations

I realized the value of wisdom to be gained as a key benefit of action research by opening our ears and minds to other peoples’ stories. During this project, while on a trip to Minnesota to visit my family, I was reading a book about developing one’s intuitive mind, called Sixth Sense (Nadel et al. 1992). This was an intuitive, or serendipitous, choice for me, for it turned out the book had something to say about scientific research. The book tells about Archimedes’ realization of displacement theory while taking a bath, from which he jumps up and runs down the street naked, shouting “Eureka,” meaning “I’ve found it.” There is a part of the brain that can access information, beyond that reached by the five senses. The brain can put things together for us, and to take full advantage of this, we need to let the information seep into our consciousness, through daydreaming as well as nighttime dreaming. We can often receive this information by relaxing and taking a bath or going for a walk or even washing the dishes. When the body is comfortable and relaxed, the mind is free to connect ideas when not hindered by linear thinking or stressful activities. Brain researcher MacLean wrote that “Intuition is what the brain knows how to do when you leave it alone” (Nadel et al. 1992, pp. 24–25). Although creativity and visual thinking were important for Albert Einstein, intuition was key. He wrote, “the intellect has little to do on the road to discovery. There comes a leap in consciousness, call it intuition or what you will, and the solution comes to you and you don’t know how or why” (Nadel et al. 1992, pp. 22–23). Intuition can be a guiding force for developing anything. Although inquiring into the meaning of data and writing a research paper involves both linear and creative thinking, for making judgments it is helpful to have some integrative advice from our intuition as well. I have had many Eureka moments where I ran to the computer to add key comments. When I think of what future activities my completed dissertation may still inspire, I know I will have to lean heavily on intuition for direction, then test those ideas out. So, another benefit of action research is that it encourages us to take seriously what we can learn from our intuition. Matthew Fox coined the term, “extrovert meditation,” which could range from doing art to social change work. Perhaps “extrovert research” could be a term to describe action research, as well—for getting out of the book and into the world and finding out more about what’s “really there.” For us introverts, sometimes we just need a little direction for how to get there. It’s good to come back to our books though, but both kinds of experiences are needed to get the best picture. From my Scandinavian Lutheran background, I knew about NFS Grundtvig, an important Danish thinker and theologian. He started the secular folk high school movement as a counterpart to church, to uplift working and poorer classes with popular education. I wrote a chapter about the folk high schools in two books edited by WISR Faculty Emeritus Torry Dickinson. The multifaceted Grundtvig also related to my dissertation as he emphasized the value of life on earth, not just after death. He has been quoted as saying that though he had his nose in a book “early and late” (Grundtvig and Knudsen, 1976, p. 164).

Getting out of the book and into the world 133

We have of course seen children born with tongues and ears, but not with books under their arms or pencils in their hands … When human communication occurs orally, people are more on the same footing than when written material dominates, because everyone can speak, while writing is a ruler’s tool. (Christensen 1987, p. 6) Grundtvig believed in the oral tradition of interviewing and dialogue as essential for a democratic society to move forward. This, too, fits with the spirit of action research that encourages people to participate together in sharing stories in community to build knowledge in a different and also valid way than that of the solitary writer. Another perspective to keep in mind while doing action-and-research is to make use of the perspective of “both/and.” My religion professor of Christian Ethics, Dr. Dan Lee, a tall, friendly upright man, at Augustana College in Rock Island, Illinois, would stand at one end of the blackboard and cordially say, “At one end of the spectrum we have this point of view,” then he would walk across the room, turn towards us with an ironic smile and say, “At the other end we have this opposing point.” Mathew Fox also talked about things not being just either/or, but both/ and. Things are not just either one way or another when we truly expand our consciousness, and we can have more appreciation of seemingly contradictory viewpoints in order to look for a transformative synthesis that points us toward the larger landscape of meaning in understanding our world. Writing and research are a creative process that can lead to transformation if we are using Fox’s spiritual guidelines. I like to use the pun of kneading knowledge. We put in the ingredients and then challenge and stretch what evolves into a life-giving product. After beginning the process of interviews, it was easier to understand and make use of WISR’s written materials on action research. In addition to the interviews, my dissertation itself was a product of mining my own experiences and reviewing literature. During the interviews I used clarifying questions, and in my analysis, I dug below the surface. In reflection:      

There are many models for action research we can all draw upon by reflecting on our life and teachers. We don’t know where our research will take us, once we begin the journey— and it is important to not give up digging for the truth and to see where it will take us. It matters to be open minded in listening to other peoples’ stories, to make sure we are hearing them accurately. Engaging in this process helps them to reflect and learn about themselves and the subject matter as well. It may be important to consider engaging in this kind of research before launching into a long writing project based on the knowledge one already has. Intuition is a quality to foster in the search for knowledge. The process of action research is creative and potentially transformative.

134 Illustrations



It is important to realize that opposing viewpoints exist that we need to take into account as we expand our minds by “kneading knowledge.”

At times I have doubted whether I picked the right topic for my dissertation and have heard that graduate students often feel that way. I try to think of it as an exercise in learning but also believe the knowledge I developed has and will continue to enhance my life and work in ways I may not currently predict. Physicist Brian Swimme, author of The Universe is a Green Dragon (Swimme, 1985), also taught in my Master’s program at Holy Names College, and I remember him saying that when you find your topic, it will come up everywhere you turn. I’ve also heard that it may be many years before a person finds out how their undergraduate or graduate work has taken them to a place of satisfaction in work or life. Some people embark on their studies, already having a field of study and body of knowledge on which to embellish. This kind of research is most helpful for that, and by stepping into the world of exploration, it may be possible to find one’s path. Not giving up, to figure out the direction where one’s path leads is key.

11 TEACHING AND LEARNING PHYSICS AS INQUIRY—SIMILARITIES WITH TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION RESEARCH

The importance of inquiry As an undergraduate at the University of Colorado (1963–67), I majored in physics. Although I became more interested in a career as an innovative educator in my last months as an undergraduate, I greatly benefited from my experience as a student of the physical sciences. In particular, I came to appreciate the value and possibility of creative insights emerging out of the practice of science, and I also became aware of the limitations of “science” when it is all too often practiced as merely a series of procedural steps. Without an awareness of the bigger picture of the scientific enterprise, and without an ever-present curiosity to question and to learn more, “science” can be much less than its valuable potential for creating new knowledge. Over the years, in practicing action research, I’ve tried to make use of what I learned as a physics student about some of the strengths and limitations of the various ways in which science may be practiced. About 30 years ago, with my long-time friend and colleague, Milly Henry, I embarked on a study of the qualities associated with being designated “an outstanding college teacher” by one’s students. Specifically, Milly and I were interested in drawing on my experiences as a physics student, and then interviewing professors in physics who were seen by many of their students as outstanding teachers. We never wrote up the results of our research on this topic, and fortunately this book is a welcome occasion for me to share some of our insights, even if belatedly, after all these years. The insights from this research on teaching physics as inquiry rather than merely as facts, theories and formulas is very much related to what distinguishes transformative action research from those research methods, actionoriented or not, that focus on research primarily as a collection of methods. With regards to transformative action research, as well as with some of the best traditions of liberal education, “physics as inquiry” gives great attention to the importance of

136 Illustrations

each individual learning how to think critically, and imaginatively, and also to be curious about the meaning and larger significance of what one is studying. These are extremely important qualities to cultivate. Milly Henry and I began our study with a mutually shared and strong interest in scientific approaches to inquiry as important ways of learning and knowing. I entered our study with a sense that my undergraduate education in physics was an important contribution to my learning during the college years and to my learning since then. Milly had a good experience with physics in high school where the physics teacher allowed students to first experiment with incline planes, pendula, and the like, and then develop general principles inductively from this activity. However, she had a bad experience with physics in college. The college physics course was a lecture course with little laboratory work. The pace was fast and there was no opportunity to play with and understand the attributes of the basic phenomena which the formulas and laws sought to express through generalized statements. This one physics course was enough to convince Milly, who had previously been quite interested in physics, that physics was not just difficult, but boring and meaningless. For her, the fun and romance of physics was extinguished. We also began our study by being acutely aware that there are different versions of “scientific inquiry.” Indeed, faculty may or may not teach the versions they practice. Further, we entered the study believing that scientific inquiry, however conceived, can and should form bridges to other modes of learning, such as those in the social sciences, humanities, and arts. We pursued these concerns by conducting interviews with four physics educators1 who were known for their strong and thoughtful commitments to teaching. During our conversations, it became apparent that we, and the four physics professors, all agreed that teaching and learning of physics has an importance that goes far beyond learning specific content—facts, theories, and methods of problem-solving. For example, how can involvement in the learning of physics increase students’ interests in inquiry and develop their abilities in various modes of inquiry? How can students learn physics in a way that is not formula-bound or so narrowly focused that somehow the student misses completely both the fun and complexity of physics as a mode of seeing the world and as a discipline with fascinating historical roots and critical philosophical assumptions? Further, how can physics contribute to the development of people who will become conscious of their social responsibilities, not just as scientists but also as citizens, and who will be able to engage in careful and ethically-based thought to guide their actions? All of us agreed that these matters have relevance both to the liberal education of non-science majors, and also to the specialized education of physics majors (and those in related fields of science and engineering), and to graduate level education as well. For instance, we asked the physics professors about the teaching and learning of inductive “vs.” deductive approaches to reasoning. Their comments confirmed our sense that while the conceptual distinction between inductive and deductive reasoning is one useful way of thinking about scientific methods, this distinction of reasoning modes is often overdrawn. Our interviews and discussions then led to a

Teaching and learning physics as inquiry 137

different set of related distinctions, which may be best characterized as the inquiring vs. the puzzle-solving aspects of science. These two emphases have been discussed in detail by many philosophers and historians of science, perhaps most notably in Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn, 1970; as well as Chapter 3 of Bilorusky, 2021). Those we interviewed noted that contemporary physics education does not give sufficient emphasis to the inquiring qualities of physics. There is not an emphasis on helping students learn how to think, how to pose good questions, and how to evaluate the validity and relevance of their answers. Instead, physics education is often only a means to a rather narrow end. Most of physics education seems designed solely to teach students how to solve a traditional set of problems, as for example, in the way that engineers need to know a certain amount of physics to address the practical problems of their profession. So, regrettably, these instructional emphases do not apply to doing physics in areas of study where no guidelines exist, where problems have not been pre-defined, or at least not well-defined. These conversations brought out that the common failure to teach physics as a way of inquiring is well evidenced by the difficulty that most students encounter when asked to give an overview of what they did in the laboratory. They will usually give procedural descriptions of what they did, without reference to the underlying thinking, relationships, and principles which guide and give meaning to the procedures. Consequently, it is important to teach students both higher conceptual and concrete skills. Further, most students are not going to remember much of the specific content they have learned. One professor observed that only 3 out of 25 students could solve a simple problem one quarter later. Although they could go back and learn rather quickly how to “solve a problem,” they still would rarely know how to move beyond problem-solving into inquiry, and how to search for understanding where none exists. So, there is a tendency for students to learn “normal science” (i.e., routinized science) without understanding the inquiring side of science, without understanding how to ask questions, but only the prevailing theories, facts, and formulaic methods of problem-solving. Yet, the pursuit of questions could give greater meaning to the endeavor of inquiry. Instead, students strive merely to learn straightforward methods of problem-solving. Seldom do most professors challenge students to question “facts” and theories. Students are not encouraged to explore paradoxes and discrepancies in data, or between theories and data, as stimuli for inquiry. Generally, students learn to strive for a simplified conceptual order, using “deductive” or “inductive” processes, or some combination of these two processes, in highly limited ways. In many cases, for example, faculty encourage students to use their observations only to illustrate those theories which have already been acknowledged and proven by the scientific community. This is not science as inquiry, but science as verification—an important process, but only one part of what we, and those whom we interviewed, consider to be the rich, varied, and complex domain of “science” as a whole.

138 Illustrations

Creating learning environments conducive to inquiry How can students be given opportunities to inquire, to help them to become more self-conscious about the processes of inquiry? One way would be for the professor to model a process of thinking and inquiry in the lecture hall. However, all too often, the typical lecture conceals the central role of the inquirer in scientific endeavors. Indeed, when I was studying physics in the mid-sixties at the University of Colorado, there was a popular tale about this type of method of teaching, which conceals rather than reveals steps in the process of inquiry. The story goes something like this. The professor, in their lecture, is working through a complicated derivation of a formula on the blackboard. A student raises their hand and says, “I don’t see how you did that last step.” The professor replies, “it’s obvious.” The professor proceeds with their lecture. However, the student persists in their questioning. The professor steps away from the board, looks reflectively at the blackboard, examining what they wrote about the sequence of derivation. Without saying anything, the professor leaves the lecture hall and goes to their office where they spend half of the class time busily writing on the board in their office to check out their thinking and derivation of the formula. Finally, the professor has satisfied themself that their original derivation is in fact correct. They walk back to the lecture hall and inform the class, “Yes, it’s obvious.” The bell rings, and the class is over. Nevertheless, even more transparent approaches to model inquiring during one’s lecturing may fail to engage students experientially to the processes of inquiry. On a more positive and contrasting note, I had many memorable and stimulating experiences in an advanced calculus class where the students could not only observe the professor “thinking out loud,” but were also invited to join with him actively in solving problems. The professor would pose problems to which he himself did not know the answers, although at times he may have been skillfully faking ignorance. He would then scratch his head, while trying out different approaches. Sometimes he would go down a blind alley and have to retrace his steps. He would invite us to suggest directions for approaching the problem, always reminding us that intuitions and “guesses” about the solution might serve as good starting points. I found this approach to be engaging, and in this environment, I gained inspiration and practice in trying out different solutions, critically examining them, and envisioning further possible solutions. These insights about the value of teaching science (and also math) “as inquiry,” and the importance of engaging others in inquiry, are quite similar to principles of transformative action research as discussed in this book. People learn better if they see themselves as active in creating knowledge, and further if they have opportunities to experience inquiry as firsthand participants rather than only as students of the “results” of research. Whether we are concerned with community-involved practices of action research, or teaching physics, it is important to give considerable attention to how to encourage, rather than to impede, firsthand, direct engagement with the complex tasks of inquiry. We will do well to question and interact with learners in ways that may help them to

Teaching and learning physics as inquiry 139

become more self-conscious about their processes of making judgments about “data” and about alternative ways of looking at the problems they are trying to solve. This kind of engagement may, at first, seem formidable to learners if they have been told that the memorization of “facts” is the easiest and best way to make the grade. One of the interviewed faculty referred to this sort of engagement in learning and inquiry as requiring intellectual effort, involving thinking, reasoning, and perceiving relationships. By contrast, when physics students do blind memorization, they simply accept “well-cooked” knowledge and recipes, because they have little or no appreciation for how knowledge is formed and shaped over time. This difficulty is further accentuated when faculty persist in requiring students to learn specific content at a volume and pace that they simply cannot handle. And, indeed, many studies suggest that these memorized “bits of knowledge” are mostly soon forgotten, even though they may be “remembered” with some effort later. Time is better spent engaging students in such questions as, “What was the primary information that went into this?” Or, in the social sciences, “What is the overlay that the historian or sociologist has added?” What was the starting point? How factual is that starting point? What is a “fact”? To what extent can you trust a fact? How do you determine whether you can trust “the facts” or not? By posing such questions to students, faculty can enable students to venture into the realm of inquiry. Through experiences of this kind over an extended period, students can learn how to perceive and to evaluate their own intellectual efforts. For example, one’s evaluation of the inquiry might note that some valuable information is missing, or that at least there is a gap to be addressed. One may come to a conclusion, “for now,” but realize that one’s inquiry has limitations that need to be addressed in the future. Further, in order for any of us to attain a firsthand, conscious awareness of knowledge and its creation, we must learn the art of inquiry through some trial-and-error mucking about on our own, as it were, before being exposed to knowledge in less direct and less immediate, and hence more abstract ways. Those who are reading this book to learn about how to use action research methods to come to new insights and improved actions in organizations, schools, and communities may be surprised to learn there are parallels with the work of expert physicists. Even at the more advanced levels of research in physics it is important to be aware of these principles about inquiry, and the importance of understanding the limitations of any inquiry. In action research, and in physics, we need to develop the ability to know what we don’t know. Still, this raises some delicate and difficult teaching issues for physics teachers. To what extent should one allow students to manipulate the physical environment, observe and ask questions for themselves out of their own budding interests without instructional supervision and guidance? On the one hand, the so-called “discovery” method can be quite contrived if faculty merely present laboratory demonstrations or directs students to certain experiments, to teach students particular lessons about the facts and laws of physics. On the other hand, still, it may be possible to skillfully ask students to study physical phenomena which will stimulate them to question and to

140 Illustrations

inquire. The impetus to question and inquire is especially likely to occur if faculty are careful to give students sufficient opportunity to observe and think through the significance of these physical phenomena on their own, and then follow up by discussing their processes of inquiry. The physics professors also suggested that students should be encouraged to come up with their own ideas of experiments that could help them extend their own learning. Physics professors can suggest question-provoking situations and experiments. Furthermore, they can also ask students to talk about their own processes of thinking—of question-asking, of making inferences from their observations, or of coming up with thoughts about what to try next. Similarly, people trying to practice transformative action research in their organizations, groups, and communities can make such suggestions and raise such questions with one another as well. People in all sorts of situations can develop a heightened self-awareness and an improved ability to learn through such a very personal and focused attention on their own processes of thinking and inquiry. Fundamentally, being a physicist, whether a novice or expert, is about being a learner in many, many ways, and this is the case also with transformative action research.

Instructional roles in promoting inquiry among learners Whether one is teaching physics or helping others to learn about and participate in action research, the instructor should be prepared to take on a variety of roles, including, for example collaboration, sharing knowledge, modeling, and providing support. To facilitate participation in inquiry, an educator, a colleague, may begin by asking others to identify what they see to be two or three of the most important aspects of what they are studying—whether it is a physics problem or a problem facing an organization or community. Then, they might well ask, “What do you think you should do next, and why?” As the inquiry progresses, one might look for where and how people get stuck during the process and try to help them get moving again. This doesn’t mean prescribing the answers or solutions, but it may mean suggesting options, and inquiring with others into the nature of the circumstances that are getting them stuck. Sometimes it may be helpful merely to ask others, “What led you to think that?” Furthermore, over time, we might learn a lot by noting different types of “successful” and not-so-successful efforts at inquiry. In our interviews with the physics professors, one suggestion they gave was to catalog examples where physics students give “wrong” answers but with rigorous and sophisticated thinking. And, by contrast, to list examples of “right” answers which were arrived at with weak thought processes to back them up. As is the case with the importance of studying anomalies, or exceptions to the rule, reflection on these two lists might be very illuminating and provide valuable stimuli for further discussions and insights about processes of inquiry.

Teaching and learning physics as inquiry 141

Finding one’s own voice How can students develop a real understanding of physical relationships and find meaning in their own ways of expressing and communicating about those relationships? Most physics students are taught how to use, and how to manipulate, formulas as part of their problem-solving activities, and yet, very little consideration is given to helping students discuss and reflect on the physical relationships represented by these formulas. The student of creative writing is encouraged to find their own voice and to study, but not parrot, the writing of great authors. The student of physics, too, should be encouraged to speak of the nature of physical relationships—both in general terms and in relation to specific problems—in their own words. Certainly, it is important to study and to use mathematical formulations of physical relationships and to learn how to perform necessary mathematical transformations and manipulations. But it is also important that these mathematical skills be taught and learned in ways that illuminate, and promote curiosity, rather than to conceal the nature of physical relationships and phenomena. Unfortunately, much of the evidence about student learning indicates that students have great difficulty in translating formulaic relationships into qualitative statements. One faculty member interviewed attended a conference on liberal education where it was reported that about 70% of freshmen engineering students cannot translate a basic algebraic relationship into a simple sentence. All too often, physics students, even at highly respected universities such as the University of California, Berkeley, don’t stop to think what the mathematical manipulations mean. Similarly, many people doing research in the social sciences conduct surveys, and amass extensive bodies of quantitative data, but are unable to make sense of the data in critically reflective and meaningful ways. That’s why the transformative approach to action research strongly values the importance of qualitative understandings of quantitative data. One may make use of quantitative data, but only if one is deeply engaged in figuring out the meaning of those data. Consequently, the physics professors we interviewed stressed that each student should be able to (1) reflect on the qualitative meanings/nature of the physical relationships being studied, (2) test out mathematical manipulations in the light of qualitative understandings, and (3) develop and use their intuitions. An all too common theme is that students can’t think of physics qualitatively, about what the problem means, about its significance in the bigger picture of the field of study. Instead, they get lost in the maze of mathematical derivations. They lose sight of the physical relationships, and in the end, although they say they have “proven” something or “solved” the problem,” they are unable to discuss what it means, why it’s important or what might be done with it next. All they can do is repeat the mathematical steps they went through. Further, sometimes students will come up with a complex, mathematically calculated solution, and one that, if they were to look at the result qualitatively rather than quantitatively, they would know that their result is wrong. However, because they lack a solid, and deep understanding of the physical relationships they are studying, they aren’t able to

142 Illustrations

catch this mistake. Even graduate students often do this. One faculty member referred to this limitation as students lacking “critical intuition.” Indeed, “critical intuition” is an apt term for a skill that develops over time when one gains more and more experience, and deeply reflects on those experiences, in doing the various kinds of action research as discussed in this book. A step toward such critical intuition was depicted in the previous discussion of the advanced calculus class, where the professor’s efforts were to encourage us to join with him in thinking through problems. The professor created an atmosphere where the 25 or so class members were continually invited to “think out loud” with him and with one another. It was partly a group problem-solving process, but it was also partly a matter of each of us hearing ourselves think out loud in front of others. The atmosphere conveyed the message that each of us should take our ideas seriously enough to communicate them to others—and at the same time, be inquiring and free enough to play around with the ideas, not being afraid to make mistakes, to change our minds, to backtrack and then go off in a new direction. Curiosity is an important quality in developing critical intuition.

Teaching the “doing of science,” the human context of inquiry Most textbooks present students with straightforward, neat definitions and descriptions of science and “the scientific method.” But the doing of science is a complex, multifaceted, often messy endeavor, and among the practices of creative and respected scientists one can find significantly different versions of “science.” Many people do not come to appreciate that there is much more to science than the oversimplified, hypothesis-testing model, and this is usually all that they are familiar with. Seldom do they learn of the role of insight, creativity, leaps of the imagination, and curiosity. A better education would be to help students to learn that even with the same data and observations, different scientists may sometimes come to different conclusions. It matters how each scientist thinks about the world. “Even” scientists have prejudices and preconceived notions; often just the way they think things ought to be affects their conclusions. Further, how one thinks about “the way things ought to be” and about the ideas that hold things together may be in a state of flux and changing in one’s mind. Fortunately, oftentimes such ideas develop further because of one’s interactions with others. This collaborative and interactive dynamic, among individuals with differing views, is a valuable and important quality that helps science to progress and “work well.” It’s important for students to learn this. Students may take many courses and advanced their exposure to facts, theories, and formulas, but may study for a long time without learning to think in this more creative mode, and often without sufficient experience collaborating with others. Unfortunately, many educators teach science, simply by saying that the job of a scientist is to measure, and then maybe draw some conclusions. Generally, educators believe that students must know all the facts first and master all the mathematical tools, and that students must

Teaching and learning physics as inquiry 143

know how to calculate before they can understand any of these more esoteric and creative considerations about inquiry. In these cases, their teaching is that of a drill instructor— do this, do that, this is the way it’s done, the way you must do it, and so forth. Our interviewees noted that physics professors with this fixed view of the world are likely to see the “uncertainty principle” as a mathematical fact and theory rather than seeing the world as messy, ever-changing, and something which is necessarily, in part at least, constructed from the minds of people. This version of science ignores its dynamic qualities and complexities. One professor said that, as a result, even many students with excellent grades as undergraduates come to graduate school, with this lockstep mentality. Some will continue to get good grades in their graduate courses, but then will be at a loss as to how to proceed when it comes time to do their thesis. He added that it’s very sad that people can get that far without being involved in a creative process. In summary, these tendencies are manifest in many ways—in the attitudes of faculty, in the structure of the curriculum, in test questions and textbook content, in teaching practices in the lecture hall, and even in “innovative” laboratory courses designed to promote “discovery” learning. Often, even with the so-called “discovery” approach to learning in laboratory courses, there is a certain contrived, disingenuous quality, because students are never invited to think about phenomena whose explanations are not yet known or well understood. Students know that there is a “correct” answer, and generally they focus on getting the “right” answer more than becoming genuinely engaged in discovery. Such criticisms of physics education do not argue against paying attention to the content of physics, but rather they argue for teaching practices which explicitly acknowledge the human context of physics as a highly critical and important part of the total content of physics. That is, the results of inquiry should be considered in the context of the doing of the inquiry, which of course includes the inquirer. The person, whether they are a novice student or a highly expert physicist, is a fundamental and integral part of the inquiry into the “facts” and “laws” of physics. The professors suggested that rather than only focusing on the needed mathematical manipulations, physics teaching should draw on the student’s intuitive conceptions of physics, of physical phenomena and relationships, as a point of departure for inquiry, at least. This notion resonated with what I found to be so valuable about the advanced calculus course I mentioned earlier in this section. The professors added that physics education should not only focus on educating learners to be inquiring, and in the pursuit of creating knowledge, but should give more substantial and explicit attention to the social context of inquiry. This would include a consideration of (1) how society and historical circumstances influence the problems selected for attention and study, the uses of scientific results and knowledge, and the methods of inquiry practiced by scientists in the actual doing of science; (2) the impact of science on society, including the political, economic, technological, philosophical and psychological impacts; and (3) the social and ethical issues faced by scientists, as well as the importance of a knowledge of science to those who would become informed, socially responsible citizens. The

144 Illustrations

social implications of physics education range from understanding how wet towels dry out better if they are spread out and hung up (at the very mundane level), to really understanding the effects of H-bombs, or of radioactivity from potential disaster with a nuclear plant, to developing curiosity and confidence that each person, can be part of the use and creation of knowledge, realizing that experts do disagree and that there are not absolute answers. Consequently, with physics, as with action research, the doing of science is a multifaceted, complex process, not an abstract set of procedures or a monolithic method with simple, discrete steps or characteristics. Further, a challenge in teaching an approach to research that embraces this complexity is that some professors and educators view knowledge and the world we are studying to be quite fixed and objective, and laws are to be discovered.

Concluding remarks and suggestions One useful strategy might be to create situations which would provide students with opportunities to observe the doing of science firsthand. For example, undergraduate students (even non-majors), as well as graduate students, might be invited to faculty colloquia. In the classroom, even in introductory courses, faculty might try to “think out loud” about their own research, about their questions and dilemmas in deciding on the next steps for their inquiry. Students might also be assigned books on the history and philosophy of science which deal with the total context of inquiry—the social/historical context, the discussion and debate in the scientific community, and the processes of inquiry pursued by individual scientists. This would be a definite contrast to those histories of science which merely outline the dates of the various “discoveries” and which are supplemented by interesting anecdotes, but which do not portray the many aspects of the actual doing of science. These suggestions for teaching physics as inquiry are relevant to educating our colleagues, co-workers, and others who are interested in doing transformative action research. We can hold seminars or group conversations where we discuss relevant action research efforts of likely interest. We can model thinking out loud about problems that we are wrestling with and our wonderings about different ways we might use action research to approach those problems. Further, over the years, I have seen some people who are keenly interested in learning more about action research show enthusiasm for discussing the histories of and ideas about inquiry, such as some of those addressed in this book. The above thoughts about physics teaching are very much applicable to why it is important to make transformative action-and-inquiry part of our lives—whether we are a student of science, a learner pursuing the best ideas of a traditional liberal education, a community service professional hoping to help others, an educator aspiring to become an outstanding teacher, or a community activist working for systemic social change. By contrast, unfortunately, when students are taught to believe in the dependability and the stability of existing theories, facts, problems, and solutions, they fail to develop the ability to be critically minded. Consequently, their vested interest in the known

Teaching and learning physics as inquiry 145

and their unwillingness to move beyond this will not only prevent them from being innovative and creative but will cause them to be resistant to the innovations and creativity of others in their field. The discipline and body of knowledge known as physics, or for that matter any field of study, thus loses on three important counts. It loses out on the opportunity to develop more innovative and creative students who might themselves in work or in graduate school and beyond be able more fully build on the expensive and precious time granted them in graduate school to advance the discipline. It loses out on providing any student who elects to study physics with the opportunity to learn thinking modes and methodologies which would be useful to that student even if they do not elect to major in physics or pursue graduate work in this area. And, finally, it loses out by encouraging the development of a mindset which is foreclosed and uncritical. By contrast, teaching physics as inquiry, as well as learning and using transformative action research, have valuable insights for education in general—for liberal arts education, and for most professions and walks of life—especially if we wish to nurture creativity and enthusiasm for serious, thoughtful, and imaginative societal changes.

End notes 1

The physics professors interviewed were Arnold Arons (University of Washington), John Gaustad, Mark St. John, and Robert Karplus (all of the University of California at Berkeley). In some cases, Milly and I distilled general points from their statements. In other cases, Milly Henry and I made our own interpretations of implications drawn from their comments. I am greatly indebted to these professors for their time and thoughtful commentaries, although I of course take full responsibility for the statements we make. These interviews were conducted over 30 years ago for an article that Milly and I had planned to write, but never did. I am also greatly indebted to Milly Henry for her collegial contributions not only on this project, but in many informal ways over decades. I am sad that she is in poor health and is no longer able to communicate with me.

12 PLANS FOR A SCHOOL-BASED PROJECT TO INVOLVE STUDENTS AS TEACHERS, LEARNERS, AND COLLEAGUES OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Kence Anderson, BS and John A. Bilorusky, PhD

This is the story of a still unfolding project of transformative action-and-inquiry, with the ultimate aim of involving school age students in collaborating with Artificial Intelligence (AI). Artificial Intelligence, in this context, comprises computer algorithms that can learn how to make basic decisions. For this action research project, we are not talking primarily about AI “teaching” students, nor are we primarily concerned with students learning technology skills by “using” AI, although that is a secondary objective. Instead, our focus is on affirming and further developing the uniquely human capabilities of students through a collaborative, transformative process of action-and-inquiry. In this process, students will collaborate with one another, be guided by their teachers; and teachers and students, alike, will be guided and advised by an educator expert with the use of AI systems. The process of collaboration, especially between students, will also include one or more AI system(s) as “fellow collaborators” in this process. Imagine an after-school program, perhaps a pilot project authorized by a large school district, that uses innovative technology to improve educational outcomes. The students meet weekly to pursue a challenging, meaningful common goal such as mastering the game of chess, teaching a robot to walk, or later on perhaps, designing an energy policy that can mitigate the effects of climate change. The students have access to technology tools to build AI and access to a trained sponsor teacher. Collaborating together, and with the help of AI, they will make crucial decisions, and the sponsor teacher will facilitate the learning environment. The sponsor teacher will take a learner-centered approach, guiding and mentoring students to become engaged in critically minded, collaborative inquiry. Under the guidance of their sponsor teacher, the students spend their time (1) identifying the core skills and strategies required to succeed at the task, (2) teaching each other and the AI those skills and strategies, (3) arranging their team into roles and specializations that aid their success as a team. Most importantly, students will not only “receive” learning support from AI, they will be actively involved in drawing on their own

Collaborating with Artificial Intelligence 147

experiences, insights and creativity in teaching the AI skills and knowledge that it could not attain without the benefit of human capabilities. Further, the necessary process of identifying strategies to succeed at the task, and teaching those strategies to the AI, will accelerate the development of higher order skills of creativity, improvisation, and inquiry. Imagine a handful of under-represented students from marginalized or challenging life circumstances walking into a chess tournament with a cadre of AI teammates with whom they have learned and trained, defeating both accomplished chess players and expensive corporate research machines. Over time, the students will learn more from mentors and gain experience in extending their knowledge into areas of more pressing societal consequence, such as trying to address the racial injustices in law enforcement. The implications are profound. As a Principal Program Manager at Microsoft performing AI research within the Technology and Research division, Kence Anderson specializes in a new form of AI that learns simple decision-making and strategy by practicing in simulated environments. The technology was invented at Google’s DeepMind research lab, and Kence has had the opportunity to pioneer real world use of this technology designing brains that make strategy decisions in factories, steel mills, corporate planning departments, design studios, and many other places. So, you can see why some experts refer to AI as the Fourth Industrial Revolution that can endow people with superpowers. As a Black man, Kence feels the weight of unequal access to advanced technologies like AI every day. If the Fourth Industrial Revolution can endow superpowers, tremendous wealth, and expansive opportunity for those who lead it, then unequal access to AI presents something of a calcifying caste system. Four percent of the workforce at Microsoft and at Facebook are Black; 2.5% of the workforce at Google is Black. Less than 20% of all AI professors are women, 18% of major research papers at AI conferences are written by women and only 15% of Google AI research staff are women (West et al., 2019). Robert J. Shiller, 2013 Nobel laureate in economics says it well: “You cannot wait until a house burns down to buy fire insurance on it.” We cannot wait until there are massive dislocations in our society to prepare for the Fourth Industrial Revolution (Hutt, 2016). So, we want to create school-based environments where students can watch AI learn by practicing a skill or working on solving a problem, and then eventually they will help to teach AI to acquire skills and develop strategies that AI could not acquire without human assistance. The ultimate aim is for students to collaborate with AI in solving complex problems, such as for example, problems related to the climate emergency, or more specifically, to the conditions that promote environmental injustices that weigh especially heavily on people in marginalized communities. Quite importantly, our mission is to provide educational access to youth who are at risk of being left behind in the processes of creative knowledge-building in today’s society, and in the rapidly unfolding future society. We intend to play a part in breaking the calcifying caste system and are committed to including students from racial and ethnic groups who are all too seldom given access to education when growing up. In the absence of such education, they are then excluded from decision-

148 Illustrations

making, because they lack the skills to participate and innovate in this Fourth Industrial Revolution as adults. We are also very much concerned with other marginalized groups, including women and those with disabilities, for example. Our strategy for educating students is that by collaborating with one another and with an AI machine, in a domain of knowledge and skill, such as chess, the students will increasingly become more expert at that skill. More significantly, they will also develop the skills of teaching collaboration and the complex learning strategies involved in gaining greater expert knowledge in any area, more generally. For example, this may possibly foster the acumen in participatory action research that elevates them to the mindset of the scientific revolutionaries that Kuhn describes (Kuhn, 1970). We believe in the value of the process of collaboratively exploring the fundamental skills and strategies required to succeed in a domain like chess, the benefits of practicing how and when to deploy these strategies and teaching these strategies to others, and even coming up with new improvised strategies. This resembles many aspects of the scientific processes that Kuhn describes in discussing not only “normal” science’s puzzle-solving but also scientific revolutions. Eventually, students can progress to collaborating with AI in working on more complex problems, and problems that address issues of social justice and global sustainability. Let’s now consider in greater detail how what we know about learning and knowledge development can guide our efforts. These efforts will build on over 40 years of experience and knowledge on learner-centered, collaborative education and transformative action research, developed by faculty at the Western Institute for Social Research. First let’s examine how the students may collaboratively develop domain expertise over time. From the standpoint of the Dreyfus Model of Expert Knowledge (Dreyfus & Wrathall, 2016; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1985; Dreyfus & Dreyfus, 1979), the students may move from the stage of “novice” (e.g., in playing chess) to the stage of advanced beginner and eventually, hopefully, some will become even more skillful, and what the Dreyfus brothers call, “competent.” Research and live competitions have shown that because of its fast and efficient computational abilities, the AI will function competently in ways that are “more powerful” and efficient than masses of competent chess players. Yet, pairs of humans and machines handily beat both humans and machines alone. Why is this the case? Crampton and Stephens demonstrated collaboration between human and machine in chess showed advantage to the collaborative teams, so long as there is a solid understanding of when to rely on the machine’s judgment and when to rely on the human’s (Baraniuk, 2015). Because of the distinctive strengths and characteristics of man and machine, when each pair played chess together, they were able to surpass the performance of expert humans and powerful chess playing machines alone. If students, as teams, can become proficient especially with the aid of the power of AI, then they will, in effect, be able to play chess together with the AI, better than the AI could play chess by itself. That is, we are more ambitiously aiming to see if some teams of students, in collaborating together on teams with AI, can achieve a significantly higher stage of expert knowledge as conceptualized in the Dreyfus theory, that of “proficiency.”

Collaborating with Artificial Intelligence 149

“Proficiency” requires that one is able to perceive, and then make decisions, among alternatives whose differences are complex, nuanced, subtle and multidimensional. Our project places great value on this process of social learning. We believe that inherently AI machines are limited in their ability to become “proficient” even though they may be enormously and inhumanly powerfully “competent” (a very computationally powerful and efficient, but “lower” level of expertise than “proficiency”). For example, one strength of AI is that it can explore possibilities much more quickly and thoroughly than humans. So, imagine if one member of the collaborative chess team is a human who is very skilled at reading the board and analyzing which strategy the opponent is deploying, a second member is an AI that quickly generates a list of “out of the box” strategies that could be deployed, another team member is a human who is skilled at risk analysis, yet another team member is skilled at selecting which strategy to deploy, and a fourth team member is an AI that suggests the next move based on the selected strategy. In the field of digital gaming this is called specialization. For example, where a team of adventurers includes a strong warrior, a cunning elf, a magical mage, and a diplomatic princess on their quest. This same specialization is commonly used in sports endeavors where players specialize in skills related to a position that compliments the other positions and increases the chances of team success. Further, over time, the participants can expand their knowledge beyond their specialized strengths and expertise through the collaborative learning with their teammates. In the field of teaching humans, too much emphasis has been placed on what Freire calls “the banking concept” where teachers implant facts and ideas into the passive students’ heads. We advocate an alternative learner-centered approach where teachers engage learners in inquiry about subjects in which they are interested (see Chapter 5.) Similarly, in the field of AI research too much emphasis has been placed on programming algorithms which is akin to using the “banking concept” with AI. Even though the non-human AI cannot participate in learner-centered education, the emerging field of machine teaching suggests that an improvement on the banking approach to training AI is to use teaching techniques such as practicing in wellorganized sequences of curriculum, instead of specialized computer programming only (Simard et al., 2017). We do however hypothesize that humans who are engaged in a learner-center approach and who also are collaborating with AI, may then together with AI learn faster and more extensively than would humans or AI by themselves. That is, we believe that humans have capabilities that can never be attained by AI but that in collaboration, AI will give humans access to learning possibilities not previously attained. More and more, AI is being used to take on challenging problems that are extremely difficult for AI to handle without being directed by human experts in the area in which AI is trying to learn. That is, AI learning by trial and error is coming up against the same limitations humans encounter when their learning is guided by the “facts” and “ideas” obtained from the banking approach to education. We propose a better alternative to relying on one of the quite rare AI

150 Illustrations

scientists, usually in collaboration with an expert in the area being addressed, to program each algorithm to learn each task by trial and error from a somewhat expert-informed starting point. (And yes, the machine algorithms are then indeed learning.) With our intended approach, the teacher will design a sequence of strategies. The strategies will be developed with several things in mind: (1) expert human knowledge about the task to be performed, (2) the strengths and limitations of AI as a learner, and (3) what the guiding educator knows about the challenges and dynamics of knowledge and skill development. For example, a competent coach will guide each learner through personalized practice strategies. Consequently, each individual develops, and the coach can then enable, the individuals to function more effectively and creatively as a team. Personalized education that is collaborative is an extremely promising direction in helping humans as well as AI to develop greater expertise and to problem-solve. Better yet, if the approach is learner-centered and takes into consideration the specific interests, backgrounds, strengths, limitations, and personalities of each student, and even better still, does so with the humans and AI collaborating. We believe that it is important for students to be able to guide, instead of simply responding or adapting to AI technology. Machine teaching provides the important benefit of moving the work of building AI from the realm of highly trained, highly specialized algorithm programmers to the realm of master teachers. This shift from advanced programming to teaching is a crucial step towards providing universal access to the Fourth Industrial Revolution of AI. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, in the 2017–18 school year, there were a total of over 3.9 million teachers in the United States alone (https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display. asp?id=28), while there were only 11,400 data scientists employed by companies known to LinkedIn as of 2015,who could write specialized AI algorithms (https:// www.stitchdata.com/resources/the-state-of-data-science/). Teachers and students, among others, not just data scientists, must be able to actively participate in directing this Fourth Industrial Revolution of AI—for reasons of social justice and equity, first and foremost, but secondly, also to realize, and benefit from, the potential of everyone in the society. We agree with Simard (Simard et al., 2017) about the value of using teaching methods instead of programmed algorithms, and further, our primary concern is using machine teaching to provide universal access to this Fourth Industrial Revolution. To accomplish this, we must develop technology tools to enable teaching by abstracting away complex algorithms. We have seen similar abstractions previously in the field of computing. In the 1940s, before computer programming, each problem or task required a specialized computer to be built to solve the problem. Alan Turing introduced the idea that if you could send instructions to each machine, a computer program, then the same computer could solve multiple problems. In a way, teaching is the next logical step. To build AI, a programmer must write a different algorithm for each learning system. We posit that if the machine can be taught, then the same learning system can learn multiple tasks. Furthermore, unlike AI, “master teachers,” and especially collaborative teams of inquiring people,

Collaborating with Artificial Intelligence 151

have the potential to harness and contribute the power of human intuition and group improvisational capabilities. Collaborative teams of students may not always succeed in developing to this “level” of advanced expertise, but we envision this as a distinct, and promising, outcome, at least some of the time, if the endeavor can involve students for more than a year. Finally, and of special importance in our planned effort, let’s examine how we might use AI to enable students to solve complex problems of their choosing. Simulations allow students and AI to collaborate to solve many kinds of problems. You can think of a simulation like a video game where the player experiences the impact of their strategic decision-making. So, in the same way that we can enable students and AI to learn chess together, we can enable students and AI to make decisions that are more consequential to the pursuit of social justice and our world. Imagine a simulated world where the decisions were not about which pieces to move on a chessboard, but which involve complex, and not so obvious, decisionmaking about the advantages and disadvantages of different choices, and where the information about the conditions surrounding those choices is necessarily imperfect and incomplete. This is the reality we all face in addressing the long-term challenges of sustainability in the face of the climate emergency, as well as the more immediate short-term problems of environmental injustices—such as high levels of toxins in low-income communities—that are having dramatic and severe effects every day. Costs and benefits cannot be reduced to matters of “dollars and cents,” nor is all the necessary “information” easily programmed into an AI machine. Furthermore, the strategies to be developed are not for accomplishing a precisely defined goal, such as capturing the opponent’s king on a chessboard. So, admittedly, in taking on this experiment we are venturing into new terrain—for AI machines in particular, and also for inquiring into how (and if) learners can effectively collaborate with AI in “transformative action-and-inquiry.” The collaborative endeavor involving students and AI likely begins at first with what Thomas S. Kuhn would call “puzzle-solving” within a paradigm. However, over time, if and when the teams of students begin to identify anomalous and challenging circumstances not so well addressed by the paradigm they have been using to “puzzle solve,” then students and AI together may begin working toward what Kuhn calls a “scientific revolution.” The process, like the methods of transformative action research developed at WISR over the past 45 years, is guided by some principles and fundamental methodological considerations. Further, and of critical importance, one of the principles is that it necessarily involves a lot of improvisation, not unlike a jazz jam session. In the jam session, each musician brings their own skills and repertoire of known and intuited scripts, and together, something new can emerge that is not previously planned or anticipated. This is the kind of creativity needed to develop knowledge and skills among everyone, and especially those who might otherwise be forever marginalized, and this creative and collaborative approach to knowledge-building is needed to address the growing problems of environmental sustainability and societal injustices. Short of such especially ambitious goals, this endeavor will quite possibly at least achieve the following. First, we will use AI as a context for facilitating

152 Illustrations

collaboration among students—for all too often students only learn individualistically in the classroom, not taking advantage of the power of collaboration. That is, through collaboration, we will not just improve the outcomes of learning “content” but also improve student intellectually and as a “whole person”. Next, as a secondary goal, all students will learn about important uses of technology and will develop valuable skills for future education, employment, and civic participation, including of special concern to us, those students in the target population for our planned initial efforts who are marginalized because of race, class, and other challenges. Third, we hope to learn more about how people can help AI to develop into higher levels of expertise, somewhat flipping the narrative from the idea that AI helps humans. Fourth, and perhaps most importantly, the entire experience of the process will hopefully aid students to develop the abilities, and the “metalevel” awareness of the processes of higher order inquiry. They will do this by learning about transformative action-and-inquiry that goes beyond the paradigmbound solving of problems, to an understanding of how to engage in testing out, revising, and then even creating paradigms over time through one’s self-aware and collaborative learning experiences. Such participatory action research can lead to transformative actions, insights, or changes that are exponential instead of linear or incremental, and that are creatively inspired rather than exclusively logical. Much like a jazz solo improvisation, which is infinitely more than the rehearsed scales, chords, and notes that comprise it, the results of this kind of action research are infinitely more than its observed, readily identified ingredients. Perhaps the participatory nature is a key catalyst. It is unlikely that genius jazz improvisation could result without the tremendously collaborative nature of that art form. While significant logical and empirical musical inquiry transpire with individuals in the practice room, the magic happens in the jam session when musicians collaborate. In the same way, we hope that the process of the collaboration between students and AI in well-constructed after-school programs will achieve results, insights, and changes in the students’ learning, and in accomplishments in the meaningful problem domains that are exponentially more profound than the rote learning of coding practices with AI or chess lessons from an introductory teacher in a classroom. A related way of looking at what we are doing is that we are setting up a “situation” that encourages collaboration and also several different intersecting “teaching relationships”—including students teaching students, AI teaching students, and students teaching AI, and with a master teacher collaboratively guiding the process.1 The Brazilian educator Paulo Freire (Freire, 1972) demonstrated in decades of engagement with people of many ages and in many cultures that, as discussed above, the “banking” approach to education, where one person “inserts” knowledge into the mind of another is very limited. By contrast, his collaborative educational efforts, emphasizing “dialogue” and “problem-posing” were often successful, and resulted in engaging people capable of making transformative differences in their own lives, and in the world in which they were living. One way in which the master teacher can pose problems is by creating a sequence of situations that engage the collaborating learners

Collaborating with Artificial Intelligence 153

in praxis, that is, learning by solving problems in those situations. In any case, the master teacher’s leadership here engages students actively and inquisitively in their learning. So, the process is enabling, rather than disabling students by placing them in the passive roles that happen all too often in many classroom environments. Our vision of student-AI collaboration, in a school-based environment, and existing in the context of a very troubled world in need of change, is very much in line with Freire’s philosophy and oftentimes effective educational practices. AI can potentially accelerate Freire’s collaborative teaching strategy by modeling and testing various approaches to thinking and study. This can give the master teacher more insight into which situations to create to guide the collaborators to practice, and thereby, to elicit from students other approaches to thinking and study, or other approaches to action-and-inquiry that are transformative. For example, the mentor for the after-school program may want to model the possibilities for a chess strategy that the students are interested in. So, they may set up ten different chess game scenarios for the AI to play overnight using the strategy in question. The next day, the group will then be able to analyze the effectiveness of this strategic approach in various situations against other strategies. We acknowledge two important, potential pitfalls that we must address while performing this action research. As we introduce AI into the learning, human collaborators are likely to misunderstand the differences between the way that humans learn, and how algorithms learn. Indeed, most of these differences are probably not yet known. We posit that we can mitigate this issue by first testing all learning and teaching processes with the AI in simulation, then testing each technique or strategy with humans, in the extensive and repetitive way that drugs are approved by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States. Drugs are extensively lab tested before they are deemed safe to test on humans. Then, drugs are tested in clinical trials before their efficacy is accepted. We also must anticipate and proactively protect against misuses of the technology and the collaborative learning process. We for example, vigorously oppose the use of any such techniques for developing warfare strategy. While it is impossible to completely prevent the misuse of any powerful technology, we are prepared to renounce certain applications publicly. Further, over time, as we continue with this endeavor, we will make conscious efforts to anticipate, and work against misuses that would violate the ethical principles of respect, beneficence, and justice (https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-rep ort/read-the-belmont-report/index.html). Moreover, we believe that this project must apply these principles not just to those participating in the project, but should also aim for a higher standard of social responsibility, taking into account the possible impacts on the society as a whole, and subgroups within the society, especially those who are marginalized by virtue of having less power and less access to life opportunities. One step, but only one step, toward accomplishing this is to aim for widespread, public transparency. In the process of this action research project, we aim to answer the following questions: 1) What are the limits of Artificial Intelligence, and how can WISR’s approach to transformative action-inquiry guide collaborative efforts between people (including

154 Illustrations

school age children) and AI machines, to gain the best of the power, speed, and efficiency of AI with the uniquely human, higher order capabilities for creative and critical inquiry? 2) How can this process of human–AI collaboration be used as a vehicle for school-based learning? 3) How can this AI-student collaboration provide students from marginalized circumstances opportunities to develop higher order inquiring abilities, as well as valuable, practical technological skills and know-how? 4) What is the specific design of the proposed classroom-based pilot project to further test out and explore these, and related questions? And what are the challenges involved in constructing fertile classroom situations, including being mindful of the issues that must be attended to in identifying and training teachers to be involved? There is much that we need to learn as we proceed, and here we have only begun to articulate our initial ideas and directions for further action-and-inquiry.

End note Some developmental and learning theorists have pointed out the value of “social learning.” In particular, Vygotsky has discussed the value of collaboration where one person who is a bit more developmental “advanced” or “knowledgeable” can aid another learner who is “ready” to move to that next stage or level of knowledge or development (Vygotsky, 1978). 1

13 STORIES OF ACTION RESEARCH FROM WISR LEARNERS

Introduction Since 1975, transformative action research has been a central learning theme emphasized in the highly personalized Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral academic degree programs at the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR) (https://www. wisr.edu). I co-founded WISR with three others in 1975 and have had a very meaningful career there as a faculty member, ever since. Over the years, I have learned there with several hundred faculty and students. People from all walks of life are attracted to WISR, because of our mission of personalized education, multiculturality and inclusiveness, social change and justice, and action-oriented inquiry. In this chapter, I aim to portray with specific examples some of the many different things that “Action research, the ‘WISR way’” has meant to WISR learners. I’ve selected a variety of quotes from students—in many cases, drawing on the essays the students write, after they complete their studies at WISR in which they reflect and comment on what they consider to be the noteworthy highlights of their WISR experience. I’ve also included descriptions or abstracts of some of the action research projects pursued by WISR students. None of these descriptions do justice to the nuances of the processes of action-and-inquiry that unfolded as students were doing their projects. Still, they will illustrate that students have done many different types of things using action research. Hopefully, the quotes and the project summaries will bring to light some of themes and qualities of transformative action-and-inquiry discussed throughout this book. To gain a tangible, nuanced and textured understanding of transformative action research, it is important to hear the voices of WISR learners and reflect on the collage of vignettes presented here. It’s best to think of this chapter as a mosaic of images, with each image providing its own picture of, or angle from which to view, transformative action research. I have

156 Illustrations

decided to let each quote and each descriptive vignette stand on its own, with limited commentaries. The first portion of this chapter is a series of quoted statements about action research, made by WISR students and alumni. These comments were made either in their end of degree program essay and evaluation of their experiences, or in some of the annual, follow-up, surveys we do with our students and alumni where we ask them to discuss what was important to them in their learning at WISR. Some responses were submitted anonymously. When I know which person made a particular response, because it was in their end of program statement, I have obtained their permission to use it, and then have included their name at the end of the statement. The second portion of this chapter consists of a number of “vignettes” about some details of action research done by WISR students. Typically, each story is a combination of a statement made by a WISR alum about their experience learning and doing action research, along with a description of their thesis or another action research project pursued during their studies at WISR. Each person has approved of the wording used to describe what they did and said.

WISR alumni and students speak about action research Because WISR is inquiry-oriented, what I have learned at WISR has helped in developing my excitement of actively doing my own research, seeing what I can do without fancy statistics, and has enabled me develop skills of ‘action research’ that are useful in my daily work life. I have learned how to bring data-gathering, analysis, and the best of scientific reasoning into the work of community agencies. (from WISR’s 2015 survey of students and recent alumni) One student commented that WISR’s approach is a contrast to traditional universities where: “Personal wisdom or insights are not regarded to be as relevant as official doctrine” (2015 survey.) As a lifelong learner and septuagenarian … In WISR I have found my own voice, and I realize that I can make a contribution to the world of new ideas. (2015 survey) One alumnus, who is now a college professor, said, “applying participatory research methods to students in my university,” was the best way to “show the evidence of WISR education” (2015 survey). Here are quotes from four others … WISR honors whatever topic a student wants to do research on. WISR stands by this principle: Even the most unpopular, inopportune, and unorthodox topics deserve to be studied and analyzed. (2018 WISR survey of students and recent alumni)

Stories of action research from WISR learners 157

I have improved on critical thinking. I used to take things at face value. These days, when I read a book or watch a documentary, I can see through some discrepancies, question the validity of the data presented, and play devil’s advocate to balance the opinions presented. (2018 survey) I have become a more confident person. I used to think that, because I don’t have an advanced degree, that I don’t have much to contribute professionally to society. I am now more confident in speaking my truth, telling my story, writing in my own voice, and trusting my own life experience. (2018 survey) Writing my thesis paper stretched my idea of an assessment for the seniors of this county (where I live) to put to use the action research model of inquiry. I found that the more people I interviewed, the better the paper became. The action research methods of actually going out and seeing how people lived and how they felt about certain issues really became the focal point of my paper. I found that people were more than willing to share their ideas and beliefs of how the county should spend their money with the community playing a part in how it is spent. If I remember correctly wasn’t it supposed to be that way. (2000 WISR evaluation) From the above comments, among other things, we can see that many WISR learners are more confident in themselves and in honoring their own voice and experiences. The following comments by WISR learners were made in their open-ended essay on their learning experiences, that they submit immediately upon graduating. I’m a hundred times more confident in myself and writing. I enjoy my social scientist perspective that moves beyond the conventional world view of measure, predict and control. I have an action research perspective that allows me to dive into each situation with curiosity, connectivity and support. I feel confident with my new vision of how I want to hold sustainability and more so—how I want to apply my vocational skills. I created a new personal vocational vision … [I used action research] to create life affirming systems for individuals and communities, [and to use] academic argument and research to compel people to change, and change the life alienating systems that oppress communities. (William Poehner, 2013) I can now easily conduct interviews and also help teachers discuss [in my academic department where I’m chair] with me the issues they face during teaching-learning process. I am now able to write in my own voice and take ownership of the knowledge that I have built and able to communicate to others. I have begun to instill in my students how to actively participate and share their learning experiences through collaborative inquiry where students could develop certain skills and motivate their colleagues in the same learning process. (Che Kum Clement, 2008)

158 Illustrations

My interest in doing research towards the end of action for social change was strongly welcomed at WISR. My interest in non-positivism (or ‘anti-positivism’) was welcomed and affirmed, and strongly encouraged. From my previous five years’ doctoral studies at Cornell, I had been penalized for trying to do research that was considered by the authorities there to be “not scientific.” In my conviction, such research—including variables such as teacher acceptance, empathy, and self-congruence in working with young children—was literally laughed at because, as I was bluntly told by one professor, “You can’t measure empathy.” (Eric Mauer, 2016) [In discussing action research and intellectual activism:] I presented at two [WISR] All School Conferences on aspects of intellectual activism. However, for me it took the presentations by other learners to breathe life into what I had conceptualized. Whether it was the work of Margery Coffey and Dennis Hastings on the history of the Omaha tribe, or the work of Osahon Chris Eigbeke on ‘glossing over’ hard questions in addressing social change in Africa, I realized that WISR is all about people engaging in various forms of intellectual activism for the purpose of making a difference in their communities. (David Yamada, 2018). The fifth development [in my learning at WISR] was WISR’s embracement of the principle that research does not have to fit into a box and does not have to answer all the questions. Rather, sometime the value in research revolves around the extent to which it raises important questions. This principle runs counter to the philosophy and culture of traditional schools which subscribe to the principle that research is designed to resolve questions rather than leave them hanging. I resisted this principle initially but have come to appreciate it and to subscribe to it. (Zak Kondo, 2009) Then, seven years later, in one of WISR’s annual surveys of students and alumni, Dr. Kondo wrote: WISR helped me develop my listening skills, my analytical skills and my writing skills. The institution also inspired me to broaden my social justice wingspan to include other populations in need of assistance … The emphasis placed on social justice and community growth and improvement at WISR proved refreshing to me. As an educator, I have long challenged and encouraged my students to use their education and knowledge to make this a better world. Previous institutions paid lip service to this concept; WISR embeds this concept in the fabric of its very core. WISR’s emphasis on Action Research has also been of value to me. Though I had employed Action Research in some of my books and in some of my other studies prior to my tenure at WISR, it was not until I entered WISR that I came to truly appreciate this methodology. The very nature of Action Research is vital to activists, social justice agents, and progressive scholars. I am a better scholar or as Haki Madhubuti would say, ‘liberated intellectual’ because of the

Stories of action research from WISR learners 159

emphasis that WISR placed on Action Research during my studies at the school. (Zak Kondo, 2016)

Vignettes—Stories of action research by WISR learners and their reflections on what they did Mexican American street gangs by Alex Martinez The last and most intense project I completed at WISR was my thesis, where I examined Mexican American street gangs and gained many insights surrounding larger social issues that contribute to gang participation … the most important thing I got out of WISR was not a piece of paper with my name on it followed by M.A., but the personal transformation I experienced while undergoing my studies. My new-found passion for writing has inspired me to pursue my lifelong dream of writing and publishing a book. With the research and writing practice I got at WISR, I feel that I am more ready to pursue this challenge than ever before. On top of this literary improvement, I challenged myself and learned more about myself than I ever knew. I faced my demons during my thesis project, and the cathartic effect of facing my unpleasant memories was liberating for my soul. These personal changes were the result of my WISR studies, as the time I spent working on my undergraduate degree at San Jose State University did not come close to matching this personal development. (Alex Martinez, 2016) Here is the abstract of Alex Martinez’s thesis on “Transcending Dispositional Attributes: The Impact of Social Marginalization on the Subculture of Mexican American Street Gangs”—which examined the subculture of the two predominant Mexican American street gangs, the Nortenos and Surenos: In this thesis, Alex Martinez examined the foundation of these gangs, how they have evolved, and the role of numerous social factors that contribute to gang participation. Included in the thesis are Alex Martinez’s personal experiences, a literature review from a wide range of sources, and original data derived from interviews with 13 participants, all of whom have special insight into the world of gangs. Mr. Martinez accessed many sources for this project, including books, articles, personal experiences from both himself and others, and interviews with experts and knowledgeable people who have experience with gangs. He learned about the origin of these gangs, what leads individuals to join them, and how larger social issues, such as social marginalization and globalization, are impacting the proliferation of gang members. Mr. Martinez noted that he gained numerous insights during the course of his research, such as the importance of larger social issues as opposed to dispositional factors when considering gang involvement. (Martinez, 2012).

160 Illustrations

The challenges facing foster youth as they age out of the system by Monika Scott-Davis WISR instructs its students in a technique called action research which is used in all of our projects. The goal for a project was to discover what the actual practice in the community was and discover new options for further research. (Monika ScottDavis, 2016) Monika Scott-Davis’ Master’s thesis, which, now, she is building on in her dissertation ten years later, explored what the future holds for foster youth aging out of the system. This thesis contains interviews with emancipated foster youth, foster parents, social workers, and other adults who assisted in their transition to adulthood. After conducting interviews, Ms. Scott-Davis found several resonating themes, which were common to those who have resided in foster care. Most youth would have preferred kinship care verses living with a non-related family or in a group home, along with access to education liaisons to ensure successful academic progress, and a strong mentorship program. Everyone interviewed stressed the need to have one consistent person in their life, as a guide, confident, or just an ear to listen. Her research found that the average American child raised at home with their family receives some form of support from their families until age 27, while they pursue college or some other form of training. Youth emancipating from the foster care system need no less support, they need more.

Using story-centric education while teaching in China by Stephen Fletcher I often thought of myself as a “free thinker” but previous to the WISR experience I was a ‘scattered free thinker.’ After my time at WISR my critical thinking skills and my creative thinking skills expanded. Additionally, my ability to articulate my thoughts in an organized manner increased significantly. Though I did not have great expectations of changes in my thinking and writing skills, nevertheless, they did. My self-confidence and several other intangible things have gone up also … At WISR I gained the courage to evaluate teaching theories and methods that are in the current fashion or use. I was able to develop several methods and theories because of the strength of what I gained at WISR. (Steven Fletcher, 2016) Dr. Fletcher’s doctoral studies drew on, and contributed to, his role as a professor in a Chinese university. His dissertation was a study of his “delta methods” storytelling strategy as part of a process of transformational education. The dissertation had two primary parts: First, there was an investigation into transformational education with a focus on active listening and Delta Stories (short-short stories that intend to create events in the minds of the readers that facilitate transformational learning). Secondly, a book was written called Story Centric Education. The book discusses in detail how stories can enhance education and healing. The research

Stories of action research from WISR learners 161

consisted of interviews with 13 teaching assistants (TA’s) in China, from several oral English classes (English as a foreign language) taught by Steven. The interviews focused on a qualitative assessment of the impact of the transformational education that the TA’s experienced and helped students to experience, as part of Steven’s approach to college teaching. The primary focus was on the use of Delta Stories and on active listening as agents of a transformational process experienced by the TA’s and by the students studying English. The results were then interpreted by the TA’s, by Steven’s research assistant, by Steven himself and by a third party.

Group therapy for survivors of domestic violence in a rural community by Jim Newberry I was inspired by WISR’s emphasis on action research. It meshed easily with my own desires to work on a community project, use the best methods I could find, and explore its effectiveness. I was pleased both by the experience and the writing. (Jim Newberry, 2006) For his action research thesis project, Mr. Newberry initiated, at Mountain Crisis Services in Mariposa, California, a six-week mindfulness-based, experiential group therapy series for seven rural survivors of domestic violence. This therapeutic intervention was conducted by Mr. Newberry under the guidance of his supervisor at Mountain Crisis Services. To study the intervention, the student used action research methods. Interviews were conducted with participants and community members before, during, and after the sessions. Goals of the project were to provide a mindfulness-based group therapy experience, examine and evaluate its effectiveness, and suggest improvements based on what was learned in the examination. The results showed that group members were generally pleased with the sessions and felt that they were making progress in their lives in part because of them.

Health care globally, beginning with Cuba by Uwe Blesching Uwe Blesching earned his Bachelor’s, Master’s, and Doctoral degrees at WISR from 1996 to 2006. He states that learning along the way was not simply arbitrary, or limited by the constraints of the initial research package but by using the unique approach of qualitative research it allowed for the absorption of change in such a way as to adjust and integrate these changes or newly learned and examined experiences in a meaningful way even though they were not part of the initial research design. (Uwe Blesching, 2006) Some of Uwe’s studies focused on health care, globally, beginning with the study of the Cuban health care system:

162 Illustrations

I was doing some initial research on the health care system in Cuba when during the many interviews and visits new ideas emerged about the value of wanting to communicate some of the valuable insights I had found to people I believe could practically benefit from it. Cuba has a wealth of health care knowledge, that sadly we have no access to because of politics, that can make a difference to many people, especially those with little money or insurance. As I expanded my research beyond the borders of Cuba and began to look more globally, similar opportunities presented themselves at many corners. Throughout this process, and with the … explorative style of learning I have by now collected literally hundreds of health care suggestions. Furthermore, from much of the detailed work, I have, over time, determined several important criteria that allow me to see the bigger picture. I discovered that many of the individual healthcare problems were a microcosmic mirror for the big picture in health care delivery almost anywhere in the world. Based on that insight and as a way to educate and redirect away from the impact of detrimental health care practices individually as well as on a large scale, I have developed important criteria, that are natural, most everywhere easily accessible, sustainable, inexpensive, safe, effective and self-empowering. (Uwe Blesching, 2006)

The politics of compassion and the dynamics of food distribution by Mary Kay Sweeney Traditional education, in my view, attempts to strain information about the world we live in through the sieve of simplification. In fact, and to the contrary, the world is quite complex and interrelated. My experiences at WISR have brought me to a comfort with that complexity and some patience with the entire process of integration … Perhaps one of the most salient learnings that I have gained from my experiences at WISR is that it’s never over. While a seminar or a study group or a project or even a dissertation may end, it is never complete. WISR gives learners the opportunity to be comfortable with engaged learning and with the gradual insights gained from pursuing thought and research into important issues in the context of the political / social realities of life. My notions and understanding about research have changed and grown dramatically since I have been at WISR. Again, it has been a matter of unlearning as much as it has been of learning. Action research presents a much more multidimensional understanding of a problem or an issue than does linear and formulabased research. Action research allows both the interviewer and the interviewee to probe beneath the surface to discover complex interactions and relationships in a way that creates mutuality and equality. (Mary Kay Sweeney, 1990) Dr. Sweeney’s action research project for her dissertation was on “The politics of compassion—Psycho-social dynamics of food distribution.” This action research project explored the complex dynamics operative in the distribution of food from the points of view of both recipients and providers. A cross-section of the processes,

Stories of action research from WISR learners 163

products and participants in community-based human service agencies was examined to determine the elements of compassion in local food distribution programs. Written and oral surveys and interviews were conducted for the purpose of eliciting a wide range of responses. The results indicated that the formation of food policy occurs at a very local level and that this formation is the result of complex human interactions based on psychological, cultural and social dynamics. This project demonstrated, among other things, a high level of awareness of the elements of compassion in food distribution as reported by recipients. Providers and recipients alike have an internalized “worthiness scale” by which people are judged as being deserving or undeserving. Food itself is a multitiered symbol. For providers it may be symbolic of power and control, for recipients it may indicate dependence and disenfranchisement. The distribution of food can also be an act of charity which keeps justice at a safe distance.

Compassionate and awakening living by Nicholas Bruss At the end of his doctoral studies, Nicholas stated that: The interviews I conducted for my dissertation are put into action in my private practice [as a licensed counselor]. This occurs in several ways. First, conducting and writing about the interviews encouraged me to bring more spirituality into my private practice. This includes facilitating inquiry practices that aimed at reconnecting clients with their true Self, as well as telling stories from spiritual contexts. The interviews also increased the call to bring more of my Self into the room with clients. They emboldened my fierce compassion, a willingness to be even more impacted by my clients and to unleash more rawly the response that ensues. The interviews inspired me to by myself more with clients and share my authentic responses. (Nicholas Bruss, 2017) Dr. Bruss’ action research dissertation was “Awakening Compassion: Toward Compassionate and Awakening Living.” This dissertation was the investigation of “compassion” and “awakening” as historical concepts and as practices in emerging contemporary mental health care, as well as personal growth. The dissertation began with descriptions of trainings, readings, and conversations in which the student learned about the topics of compassion and awakening. A selective literature review was conducted which explored several main questions, including how “compassion” has been defined and applied in fields such as evolutionary biology, psychology, and religion/spirituality. The review concluded by describing knowledge gaps, as well as scientific and cultural challenges—related to applying theories and practices related to “compassion” and “awakening” to clinical work in private practice as a therapist, as well as community-based meditation and personal development classes designed and coordinated through the 501(c)(3) non-profit organization called “Compassion LA.” This project further explored the knowledge gaps, as well as cultural and scientific challenges discovered in the literature review, through dialogue with field consultants, including psychologists and meditation teachers, and through a nine-question semi-

164 Illustrations

structured interview with 15 consultants and a second interview protocol designed in survey-form was offered to a convenience-sample of former students of Compassion LA classes, in order to assess their experiences of the classes.

Gender differences in childhood anxiety by Suzanne Quijano Ms. Quijano had previously earned her Bachelor’s degree at Stanford University and her MBA at UCLA, and then at the end of her WISR studies, had this to say about the value of transformative action research perspectives and qualities as embedded in the learning environment at WISR: [I had] permission and encouragement within the WISR community to think critically about our world and society rather than just accept “what is.” In many of my personal and professional circles, I often find myself being the only one who takes issue with social systems and practices, especially when it comes to the area of children, education, and social equity … this approach added richness to each topic because I was encouraged to look at differing perspectives and alternative points of view that bring “industry knowledge” into question. Not only has it been a delight to learn in this type of environment, but it has also pushed me to become aware of social issues that I had previously ignored or accepted without question. Undoubtedly, this experience has served to make me a better therapist, not to mention, world citizen. (Quijano, 2016) Ms. Quijano’s action research project for her Master’s thesis was “An Exploration of Gender Differences in Childhood Anxiety.” This project was an in-depth study of the topic of childhood anxiety and gender issues. It involved a review of the literature, as well as some original data collected by Ms. Quijano. This thesis served to develop an area of emphasis in working with anxious children and their families, and the related problems, symptoms, and needs of the population served by MFT’s (Marriage and Family Therapists). Specific elements of the study looked at gender differences in the expression of childhood anxiety. The study included a review of industry literature on early education, gender difference, and anxiety in school-aged children, as well as exploratory interviews on these subjects with teachers, school counselors, and parents of anxious children. The study explored the various expressions of childhood anxiety and how it can be overlooked in a school setting. Analysis of the research findings was done to further understand what factors lead to the quieter expressions of anxiety being observed and addressed. Finally, a reflective analysis was conducted to evaluate effectiveness of the research and identify areas for further study.

Out of prison and into scholarship and action—Sajad Shakoor Mr. Shakoor enrolled in WISR’s Master’s program less than a year after spending all 20 years of his adult life in prison, during which time he completed a Bachelor’s

Stories of action research from WISR learners 165

degree by correspondence through Ohio University. At the end of his Master’s studies, he stated that: Thus, since most of my education came by way of distance learning in prison, the faculty at WISR allowed me to take advantage of those unique experiences and incorporated them into the praxis. They developed curricula that benefited from my expertise in the field—an expertise born of my empirical and observational knowledge—and that, subsequently, benefited me through required readings, field research and interviews … Similarly, personal interviews and field research allowed me to see the topics I was asked to study in a different light, through the reflections of the individuals I was questioning. Their nuanced and personal narratives shaped the research in profound ways. (Sajad Shakoor, 2016) One of his action research projects was, “A Multi-Agency Approach to Dealing with Crime, Gangs and Education.” This project examined the causes of gang and youth-oriented crime in the inner cities and looked at meaningful ways to mitigate the harmful effects of it. Mr. Shakoor focused on the history and origins of this type of crime, as well as past efforts and current efforts underway to address it. He conducted interviews with local community leaders who were actively involved in programs to reduce gang and youth violence. He also interviewed them about specific ways to increase opportunities for disadvantaged populations that suffer either as victims of this crime or as perpetrators of it. He analyzed the current and former policies aimed at dealing with the problems associated with gangs and youth crime and inquired into ways of developing the best strategies to address this problem. Mr. Shakoor did a comprehensive review of scholarly positions on this issue, as well as studies done on gang and youth violence. In his paper, he proposed an approach to dealing with gang and youth-oriented crime and violence in a way that benefits from cooperation from the various agencies that conspire to impact the lives of people in the inner cities. Finally, he presented a plan to explain how these agencies could collaborate to bring about changes in these situations.

The resilience of survivors of trauma by Makhosazana Fletcher At the end of her Bachelor’s studies, Ms. Fletcher talked about some of the less tangible outcomes of her learning about inquiry: I learned about the beauty of being in a school that is not only interested in helping me learn—but also encouraged me to think ‘outside the box’ and see the whole picture of what I am learning about—to see “the forest and the trees” … I learned to articulate my thoughts better … My experiences at WISR encouraged me to draw strength from my past experiences, shape my personal goals, and combine these with my new skills and knowledge to design new plans for service projects I am passionate about … [in other words]

166 Illustrations

I learned about action research, which I enjoyed a great deal. (Makhosazana Fletcher, 2016) Her senior thesis was on “Strength and Resilience of Survivors of Trauma and What Empowers Them to Overcome their Challenges.” This thesis was based on an in-depth review of the literature on domestic violence, substance abuse and life-threatening illness and interviews with trauma survivors from each of three groups (domestic violence, substance abuse, and life-threatening illnesses). Ms. Fletcher explained the process of the research, how interviewees were identified, and why the survivors were determined to tell their stories. Themes among the responses of the survivors were explored, and included such examples as involvement in counseling, change in nutrition, having an exercise routine, and openness to alternative healing methods. She wrote about the tough choices the participants had to make to get to where they were.

Suggesting that people inquire and ask themselves questions about “who are you sexually?” by Victoria Reuveni The comment below was made on a blog about eight years ago from someone who just dropped in one day on an informally scheduled WISR seminar, open to guests from the larger community, and as it turned out on that evening no one else dropped in. This quote below is included with her permission [Dr. Victoria Reuveni, Doctor of Human Sexuality (DHS), Certified Sexological Bodyworker (CSB), Board Member, Lead Educator at Center for Positive Sexuality, Member – American College of Sexologists International (ACSI)] Who Are You Sexually? By Drvixenne June 13, 2012 (https://sex ologistvixenne.com/2012/06/13/who-are-you-sexually/) April 30, 2017: I’ve been meaning to do this edit/note for a while now, but it kept slipping off my radar since this is an older post. The Genderbread Person is highly problematic. You can read more about that here. I have replaced that with the Gender Unicorn which is way cuter and more expansive anyway. This question came to me during my first class back at the Institute this trimester. It was during a conversation I had in my class of one (yes, small class). John Bilorusky, President at the Western Institute for Social Research – WISR, was my professor for a class on research methods. Since I am not one who plans to do much in the way of research, we ended up discussing less traditional kinds of research. Beyond that, we really delved into ways of expanding your knowledge. The idea of having blinders versus antennae, meaning very narrow or more open views. John challenged me to start keeping a journal to foster ideas which would be really helpful in terms of my blog writing. Now, I’ll be perfectly honest, it’s extremely tough to add another thing on top of everything else I need to be

Stories of action research from WISR learners 167

doing so I’m not sure how faithful I’ll be to that one. However, even as we were talking, I came up with a great essay type of question which is very open-ended. Thus, the title of this blog: Who are you sexually? … There are many, many aspects to who we are. Just sticking within sexuality, there are tons of elements that make you you. Who you are sexually attracted to, Who you prefer to have relationships with, Who you like to fantasize about, What gender you identify as (whether that is or isn’t in line with your biological sex gender assigned at birth. updated July 2020), What gender you mainly portray yourself as. And on and on. Gender and sexuality are both more fluid than you might realize. Each day is a new one where you can decide which element of yourself you wish to share with the world. In the end we are all human and share similar experiences despite where we fall on some predetermined scale. YOU define who you are and what your interests are. So, challenge yourself to try something new. Read a new sexy book. Write your own sexy story. Fantasize …

Improved prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect in the State of Wyoming by William Heineke Bill Heineke’s doctoral dissertation was an action research project aimed at making needed improvements in the prevention and treatment of child abuse and neglect in the state of Wyoming. His dissertation was “Kid’s, Clinicians, and the Courts: The Multidisciplinary Treatment Team’s Individual, Group Member, and System Problems in Cases of Child Abuse and Neglect, 2009.” It was a study of a complex and sophisticated subculture, the multidisciplinary treatment team in cases of child abuse and neglect. The action research study evolved out of an effort to develop an instrument for the assessment of parent risk for re-abuse and re-neglect of children. The study focused on the transformation of the risk assessment instrument into a manual for the multidisciplinary treatment team that would enable effective evaluation and case management decisions and related recommendations to the court in cases of child abuse and neglect. This action research study had the dual focus of the creation of the manual and to bring about a change, increase, in the efficacy of the multidisciplinary treatment teamwork. The research included presentations of the manual to mental health clinicians, attorneys, judges, social workers, courtappointed special advocates, and school social workers and counselors in groups and individually. Findings of this research were shared with multidisciplinary treatment teams and the courts, in a manual to make informed assessments of the parents, strengths, weaknesses, treatment needs, capacity to parent, progress, and risk. This assessment protocol in the manual has been referenced in parent assessments. Recommendations were made of how to incorporate the manual into

168 Illustrations

undergraduate, graduate, and continuing professional education to prepare professionals for participation in multidisciplinary treatment teams. The conduct of this study involved action research methods with written critiques/reflections on the use of these methods. In addition, Bill had a second action research project aimed at his ongoing work with high risk children and their families. Up through the summer of 2009 he had developed and sustained a summer program for 24 years which provided a much-needed continuity of care for this population. He developed a treatment manual for this program which included all forms for administering the program, conducting treatment, and networking with schools, social services, the courts, and private providers. In the ensuing years, his efforts have continued to make a difference. Reporting on this, in January 2019 he wrote the following letter to WISR: Giving you a bit of an update with some surprises coming totally unexpectedly. I was the recipient of three awards. One was the Health Care Provider of the Year given by the Campbell County Health Care Foundation. The second was the Legend Award by my employer, Campbell County Memorial Hospital. The third was one of ‘Ten Who Made a Difference’ awards by the Gillette News Record. The work/research I did at WISR was a major contribution to my helping children. The summer program treatment manual I did at WISR I presented at a research and treatment conference in 2014 for early interventions for children giving copies to all that attended. It was six months later I learned the manual was the basis for starting similar programs in New Zealand and Ohio. My WISR experience is one I continue to rely upon as a strong source of strength and worth in the field. The summer program is now in its 34th year. (William Heineke, 2019)

Somatic experiencing and art therapy by Cindy Perkiss Cindy Perkiss especially appreciated about action research: the encouragement to reflect on my current knowledge, to think about how to organize and synthesize ideas, and to use stories and examples to draw readers into the experience of the subject matter and its relationship to the human condition. (Cindy Perkiss, 2018) Her action research project for her dissertation built on and advanced her professional practice as a licensed therapist. It was on “Somatic Experiencing and Art Therapy— Clinical Applications and Professional Training.” She studied how Somatic Experiencing (SE), a mind-body treatment for trauma and other stress disorders, and art therapy, might effectively work together for the treatment of trauma and the possibility of post-traumatic growth. She also focused on how professional education for interested clinicians can be developed using this blend of treatment modalities. Her main

Stories of action research from WISR learners 169

research questions were on what is unique about the combination of SE and art therapy, current relevant clinical practices, and the development of professional trainings for clinicians interested in the use of SE and art therapy. The action research centered around three areas: the creation and implementation of a training about traumatic grief; the writing of a chapter on traumatic grief for an upcoming book on creative approaches to grief therapy; attendance at the Expressive Therapies Summits in New York City to participate in art therapy workshops and observe how art was being presented in trainings geared to a wide audience of clinicians; and interviews with 16 clinicians (SE and non-SE therapists) about the use of artwork and SE in their clinical practices. An additional question explored whether a phase-based model of trauma treatment may be a useful way to conceptualize treatment, weave together art activities/directives for each phase, and provide professional training for clinicians. The main findings from the research included a better understanding of what is unique and powerful about the blend of SE and art therapy, a rich and varied compilation of art related activities/directives, support for the use of a phase-based model of treatment early in the training of professionals, and a greater recognition of the need for trauma informed treatment in the field of grief counseling and a better understanding of the experience of grief for trauma therapists.

African American scholarship, activism, and culture by Oba T’Shaka In his end of program evaluation essay, Dr. Oba T’Shaka, who at the time was Chair of Black Studies at San Francisco State, wrote in great detail about his perspective on the value of action research, and its relevance to African American culture, scholarship and activism. A key reason that I selected WISR for work on my doctoral program was because it placed a strong emphasis on the need for participatory research. This emphasis was important to me for a number of reasons. First, I believe that the wisdom, experience and insights of everyday people is of primary value in the research process. In fact, people play a primary role in helping creative scholars, who are concerned about social change to formulate their ideas. Traditional graduate programs place more emphasis on the quantity of the data then on the quality of the ideas that are being put forward. Participatory research on the other hand, recognizes that the experiences of community people are invaluable. This system offers positive suggestions for empowering people, through involving them directly in the research process. The participatory research process accords with my own movement background. My best ideas, in fact the topics that are now the center of my research and writing, have come from my participation in community struggles for social change. The Art of Leadership Volume II [my dissertation] grows out an intense process of interaction with community people, over a 32-year process. As I have noted in my introduction, research methods section and conclusion, my most valuable insights were gained through a two-way process of interaction

170 Illustrations

during these periods of community struggle. So, the WISR research method was one that I embraced because it accorded with my own experiences. This process has been particularly invaluable to me because it places a greater emphasis on creativity, rather than the mere recital of data. Another reason that participatory research has been important for me is because it is consistent with my Afro-centric thrust in research, writing, teaching, speaking and organizing. Traditional research programs place a great emphasis on data collection processes that stifle creativity. Afro-centric scholars who have been trained in the traditional data creation systems find themselves in the contradictory position where they are putting forward Afro-centric ideas while using restrictive Euro-centric research methods. The data bound research methods along with the dry academic terms that go along with it, robs the research of an Afro-centric vitality. Put another way, as Dr. Nathan Hare observes, “you can’t overturn an oppressive system of thought if you use the same methods of research and thinking.” Participatory research is one useful tool in a liberatory research process, because it says that the experience of everyday people, and the experience of the researcher has a validity in and of themselves. Afro-centric research and writing needs to pay special attention to African and African-American people’s thinking and experiences because our culture is first and foremost an oral culture. The core of African-American culture is African-American folk culture. AfricanAmerican folk culture arises from the day to day lives, thoughts, songs, and sayings of African-American people. W.C. Handy the ‘Father’ of the Blues, gained his musical material from everyday Black folks as they worked on the docks, picked cotton, sang in their churches and worked on prison road gangs. Handy’s songs were popular because they reproduced sounds produced by Black people every day. The St. Louis Blues and the Memphis Blues stand as blues classics because they reflected Black speech patterns, and African rhythmic patterns. Handy discovered through living with Black folks, that the things that were most moving in AfricanAmerican music were beats that were African-based, such as the Rumba. The Rumba beat, an African derived beat popular in the Caribbean and Latin America, was central to the Memphis Blues. Handy could only understand the power of this beat by observing how Black people perked up when this beat was played while they were dancing. What Handy’s work, and the creative work of numerous African-American cultural workers demonstrates is that every day African-American people are a creative wellspring. From everyday working, often poor, Black people come one of the two indigenous cultures in America today. The other indigenous culture of America is the culture of the American Indian. What is particularly important about the culture of the Blues is that it comes from the souls of Black folks. It comes from the daily lives of African-American people, and it is particularly mirrored in the hardships of everyday life. Handy’s best blues songs were those that reflected on his hard times, when he had to sleep on the streets. It was on the streets that Handy heard the most beautiful music he had ever heard.

Stories of action research from WISR learners 171

The Black thinker has the task to reproduce on the philosophical plane what our musical pioneers have created on the cultural plane. Like Handy, if the Afro-centric thinkers are to develop creative liberating systems of thought and action, then they must draw from the core themes of the African-American experience, an experience that is a unique part of the African experience. (Oba T’Shaka, End of Program Evaluation, WISR, 1991)

Creating a foundation for decades of scholarship, practice and leadership in the field of trauma by Anngwyn St. Just After completing her Master’s degree at WISR, and prior to beginning work on her WISR doctorate, Ms. St. Just said this: WISR’s capacity to inspire became increasingly evident to me as I struggled to meet their requirements for å social action research project. I am an intuitive person who is not fond of “objective,” “scientific,” and strictly quantitative projects. I was quite certain that I was not interested in conducting any sort of research study involving those who had suffered overwhelming life experiences because the process seemed likely to retraumatize or at least be experienced as invasive and disrespectful. Undertaking the research project was, therefore, a painful and difficult prospect and I felt very resistant. But with sympathetic guidance and support, however, I came to realize that social action research offered a new model for uncovering valuable information that was entirely compatible with my concerns about respect and re-traumatization. I have since come to understand the method as a potentially useful tool for the work that I am doing. I completed my research with an entirely different viewpoint from where I began and was grateful for the depth and richness of the experience. I am actually looking forward to the research necessary for the PhD with great enthusiasm. (Anngwyn St. Just, End of Program Evaluation, WISR 1992) Subsequently, Dr. St. Just did her doctoral action research dissertation on “Wilderness as a Therapeutic Tool in Healing Post-Traumatic Stress Responses.” The abstract she wrote for the dissertation is as follows: This thesis explores the rationale and potential for using the natural world in healing post-traumatic stress phenomena (PTSD) in those who have suffered overwhelming life experiences. Beginning with bibliographical research, the student explores the history of the idea of using the natural world as a long-standing tradition in many cultures. This raises the question for the modern therapist of whether this modality can be demonstrably useful in the treatment of PTSD, and if so, how and why does it work. After serving as a participant observer and staff member in a Wilderness Recovery Program, the student endeavored to find ways of translating speculation about the meaning of wilderness recovery into specific research questions which became central to the action research study

172 Illustrations

done during her psychology practicum experience. The study concludes that wilderness can serve as a cost effective, low maintenance, therapeutic tool in post-traumatic stress recovery. It also became clear that program design was equally effective in promoting traumatic re-integration. (St. Just, 1994) After completing her dissertation, Dr. St. Just drew on her WISR studies and action research projects to write her first book [available at: https://www.amazon. com/Relative-Balance-Unstable-World-Education/dp/3896705407] (St. Just, 2006). The summary of the book states that “The time has come,” writes Anngwyn St. Just, “to expand our understanding of trauma to include the kinds of overwhelm that extend beyond a traumatized individual. If we are to meet oncoming challenges of natural and man-made disasters, war, terrorism and other forms of violence, new paradigms are needed.” Dr. St. Just urges her readers to awaken to a realization that trauma is a global issue and to an urgent need to develop international, culturally appropriate, cost-effective trauma education and recovery programs based upon easily transmitted concepts. This book offers a compelling invitation to expand current concepts of trauma to include Nature, shamanic wisdom, cross cultural, nonverbal, body- oriented methods, and an appreciation for the healing power of community.” (St. Just, 2006) Since then, Dr. St. Just has continued her scholarly, professional activism—in addition to her worldwide work in the field, she has written another ten books (https://www.amazon.com/kindle-dbs/entity/author/B002QMC7W4?_encod ing=UTF8&node=283155&offset=0&pageSize=12&searchAlias=stripbooks& sort=author-sidecar-rank&page=1&langFilter=default#formatSelectorHeader).

Personal storytelling for adult literacy by Richard Allen In his evaluation essay at the end of his WISR doctoral studies, Richard Allen, who was then well into his 60s, wrote: I have been interested in people and their stories for almost all of my life. A major function of storytelling is depicting the actual or imagined consequences of what people did in the past and what they do in the present in pursuit of their desires. Another function is imagining, predicting, or prophesying what the consequences will be in the future if people pursue certain desires. The language art of story without doubt is one of the most important universal and ubiquitous artifacts of “humankind.” Arguably, story is the most important form of knowledge for most people worldwide. Therefore, for the good of individual and collective life, there is always a story to be told and that must be told, completed, and resolved about the negative and positive consequences of people’s pursuit of desire(s) … At

Stories of action research from WISR learners 173

the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR), I have not only been allowed, but I have been encouraged to explore my thinking, feelings, and beliefs about the function of story in general and my and other people’s personal stories in particular. While I focused on African-American stories of struggle and liberation, I am committed to multicultural freedom and joy as is WISR. Thus, I was encouraged to investigate, despite the possible costs and dangers, how my love of stories and my belief in the power of stories might beneficially intersect with the stories of others in the areas of our mutual interests and concerns. Generally, my concern and interest and desire is for me and all of us to struggle for human and humane self-knowledge, liberation, wisdom, and bliss …” (Richard Allen, End of Program Evaluation, WISR1998) Dr. Allen’s action research dissertation was “Fighting to Finish: Personal Storytelling in a Public Library Adult Literacy Program,” and it resulted in a book by that title published six years later (Allen, 2004). The pressure to drop out of adult literacy programs can be extreme for many learners, especially minority learners, trying to cope with personal, family, financial, and health problems. When learners drop out, their volunteer tutorsupon whom many programs depend-may suffer a drop in morale, or worse, may resign. These problems can be a major challenge for many programs. Fighting to Finish presents an innovative, effective, theory based, but tutor friendly method devised to encourage learners’ persistence and perseverance, and to strengthen the training, preparation, and retention of tutors. The method employs learners’ personal stories or oral histories to develop learners’ literacy abilities, to problem solve, and to manage conflict. It enhances learners’ determination to achieve their literacy and educational goals. Learners’ efforts help tutors become more inspired and motivated, and thus more committed to the program. Fighting to Finish explains and illustrates how this method can be easily adapted by adult literacy programs and used by their volunteer tutors for the benefit of their learners and themselves. https://www.amazon.com/Fighting(Finish-Personal-Storytelling-Literacy/dp/059530673X/ref=sr_1_12?dchild=1& keywords=fighting+to+finish&qid=1588034897&sr=8-12)

A self-healing guide to recovery from the trauma of auto accidents by Diane Heller Dr. Heller’s dissertation involved an in-depth analysis of years of clinical observations and case studies, to develop key insights, theories and principles of practice, and resulted in the following book: Crash Course: A Self-Healing Guide to Auto Accident Trauma and Recovery (Heller & Heller, 2001).

174 Illustrations

Trauma following automobile accidents can persist for weeks, months, or longer. Symptoms include nervousness, sleep disorders, loss of appetite, and sexual dysfunction. In Crash Course, Diane Poole Heller and Laurence Heller take readers through a series of case histories and exercises to explain and treat the health problems and trauma brought on by car accidents. (https://www.ama zon.com/Crash-Course-Self-Healing-Accident-Recovery/dp/1556433727)

The oral histories of an untold story of civil rights activism in the 1960s by Jake Sloan In conjunction with his doctoral studies, and also based on many years of doing interviews and gathering oral histories with fellow African American co-workers, who in the 1960s filed an employment discrimination law suit against the U.S. Navy, Jake Sloan wrote the book Standing Tall: Willie Long and The Mare Island Original 21ers (Sloan, 2017). The book chronicles from the past and analyzes for the future the actions and lessons of this previously not so well-known landmark civil rights event from the 1960s. Standing Tall: Willie Long and The Mare Island Original 21ers is the story of how 25 men stood up, stood tall and filed a complaint against long-entrenched racial discrimination at Mare Island Naval Shipyard in the 1960s In writing Standing Tall: Willie Long and The Mare Island Original 21ers, Jake Sloan assumed literary leadership in telling a story of the quest for economic and social justice for African American workers who were employed at Mare Island. The book stands as a testament to sacrifice, the value of organization, solidarity and risk associated with speaking up. The book acknowledges the courage and resolve that is indicative of the struggle for justice for African American people. The work is essential for the realization that there are those who attempt to tell the story of African American people but what they produce is biased, grossly distorted, triumphalism/revisionist and tantamount to fomented misconceptions. The work contributes to the history of this country from the standpoint of telling a story that is not well-known, but bears witness to the need for standing up for one’s rights, the critical importance of leadership, using the approach of any means at hand as tools and the need to have a cogent agenda in the quest for equality. As part of the war industry, the more than 1,000 African American workers on Mare Island were confronted with racial discrimination in working conditions, unequal pay, hiring, training and advancement while the federal government and the larger society spewed platitudes about democracy, liberty and equality manifesting a glaring contradiction. The book confirms that freedom is not free and shows the value of collective action as opposed to individualism. In many ways, working at Mare Island meant good jobs. Conditions for those in the production shops were usually much better than those found in the private sector for similar work, especially in the building trades. However, there had been growing

Stories of action research from WISR learners 175

dissatisfaction with the status quo among a small but growing group of the African American workers. They were tired of being paid less than whites for performing the same work. They were tired of being supervised by whites that they had trained. They were tired of being tired, as the old saying goes. It was not easy to organize on the Shipyard. They were up against entrenched thought about the roles and expectations of African American in the workplace. This thinking was entrenched in the minds of both whites and many, many African Americans on the Shipyard. In fact, they sometimes had as much resistance from reluctant and fearful African Americans as we had from whites. Many workers, both white and African American, had come from the South where such discrimination was the norm. The organizing was hard, dangerous. If the actions had become known to the leadership at Mare Island, they would have been fired. Over the years after the filing of the complaint, progress was made, but there were still challenges when the shipyard closed. For one thing, the leadership at the shipyard never admitted to discrimination. Everything was blamed on misunderstandings. Also, ironically, some of the people who refused to sign with the group, or even join later, received some of the best promotions. Across the country, there are unmarked graves of unsung heroes and heroines who represent countless acts of resistance which stand as testaments to the enduring struggle of African American people in the struggle for equality. The book is a monument that brings to light a virtually unknown group of men who made history by standing up for what was right and just. (https://store.bookbaby.com/book/standing-tallhttps://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=537ATDKvDzI/https://www.amazon.com/Standing-Tall-Origina l-Courage-Activism/dp/1540310817/)

Learner-centered professional training on the somatic effects of developmental trauma by Kathy Kain Kathy Kain used her WISR studies to build on and extend her knowledge from many years of practice and inquiry in the field of somatic therapy. Further, she was especially focused on trauma survivors, and on the training of professionals wishing to learn more about this field. One of her action research projects during her doctoral studies was, “An Exploration of Experiential Learning for both Participants and Trainers” (May 2013). She researched the experiential learning process in which trainers were engaged during the development of training curricula, which in turn supported experiential learning in those whom they were training. Ms. Kain observed the collaborative dynamics which arose with the co-trainer during the development phase of the program, as well as in the initial teaching phases. As an extension of those observations, she also observed how the trainers’ collaborative style influenced the experiential learning process of the students. Kathy Kain’s doctoral dissertation was “Learner-Centered Curriculum Development for Professional Training on the Somatic Effects of Developmental Trauma” (2018). This qualitative study using action research methods sought to

176 Illustrations

identify the key elements which contribute to an effective cross-disciplinary professional development training program (focused on the somatic effects of developmental trauma) which accurately reflects the latest theoretical models and research from those disciplines, and is also professionally useful. As the research progressed, a new direction emerged which precipitated a new cycle of action research for the development of a book aimed at a lay audience, articulating a specific model of working with developmental trauma. Using collaboration with fellow professionals, a pilot program was developed and evaluated via post-training interviews with 27 participants. The training structure was then revised, and the program presented for additional cycles, with additional participant feedback received. The book project then evolved in parallel with the training program. The results of this study suggested that there are five elements that positively contribute to both the effective development of a training program and of a related book: (a) collaboration is essential, particularly in a cross-disciplinary program, (b) attention should be paid to assumptions made about previous knowledge of participants/readers, (c) a cross-disciplinary approach enhances professional skillfulness and understanding, (d) material that elicits strong personal responses to the content must account for that in the learning structure, and (e) a cross-disciplinary approach combined with experiential learning supports learner transitions to greater levels of skillfulness, but emotional engagement must stay within a manageable range. Dr. Kain’s dissertation research contributed significantly to the following book that she co-authored and that was published just prior to the completion of the dissertation: Nurturing Resilience: Helping Clients Move Forward from Developmental Trauma—An Integrative Somatic Approach (Kain & Terrell, 2018). The book summary is: A practical, integrated approach for therapists working with people (both adults and children) who have been impacted by developmental trauma and attachment difficulties. Kathy L. Kain and Stephen J. Terrell draw on fifty years of their combined clinical and teaching experience to provide this clear road map for understanding the complexities of early trauma and its related symptoms. Experts in the physiology of trauma, the authors present an introduction to their innovative somatic approach that has evolved to help thousands improve their lives. Synthesizing across disciplines—Attachment, Polyvagal, Neuroscience, Child Development Theory, Trauma, and Somatics—this book provides a new lens through which to understand safety and regulation. It includes the survey used in the groundbreaking ACE Study, which discovered a clear connection between early childhood trauma and chronic health problems. For therapists working with both adults and children and anyone dealing with symptoms that typically arise from early childhood trauma—anxiety, behavioral issues, depression, metabolic disorders, migraine, sleep problems, and more—this book offers fresh hope. (https://www.amazon. com/gp/product/B074S68WSX/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0/)

Stories of action research from WISR learners 177

Inquiring into how people change, impasses and turning points by Rosemary Christoph For the action research done in her doctoral dissertation, Rosemary Christoph created a research project into how people come to make crucial change in their lives, turning points in their process that put them now on a different page. She outlined and analyzed an extensive review of the literature and research into the phenomena of “Change,” both as a process in science and life, and in psychology. She had observed in her work with children and families over the previous 15 years at La Familia in Hayward how change comes about in the lives of disturbed kids and families, and she wrote up six case studies of different children and their processes. Dr. Christoph analyzed her own developmental history as far as this question went. She then developed a questionnaire that focused upon open-ended questions that enabled 16 interviewees to reveal their turning points in childhood, adolescence and adulthood. In the process it became clear that many people had faced impasses, that somehow turned into turning points, so addressing what created and maintained an impasse, and what enabled people to move toward “turning over a new leaf” and change, was the focus of this research. The research also looked at religious turning points, the philosophy of the I Ching (the Book of Changes), scientific parallels, Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions, fractals and change in physical systems, social change, and spiritual change. She used case studies, stories, anecdotes, proverbs, fairy tales, and interviews, analyzing the interviews to approach this topic from a multitude of perspectives, including right and left brain ways of seeing events and impasses, as well as the turning points that can arise in a seemingly spontaneous healing process. Here is her reflective analysis of the process written soon after completing the doctorate: The dissertation was a sprawling burgeoning task that threatened at some points to never end. I kept finding new permutations, new insights, new avenues of approach. Even as I was ‘finishing’ I kept finding new people to interview, new questions to ask, shifts in approach that generated new streams, new branches. As I shifted into focusing more on Impasses, rather than Turning points, I began to think about what kinds of Impasses impact a life, and what strategies people employ to address them, or circumvent them, or how they sometimes traverse them without really engaging. Then, what is real engagement? When is avoidance of an Impasse functional? When is it a philosophic stance, of “I don’t know what’s going on here, I must just persevere no matter what..?” What is the difference between mastering an Impasse, and merely enduring? Is Turning the only way to really see an Impasse ripening into a new reality? I had begun with observations of myself, of places where I had been blocked, and then seemed at a certain point to turn the corner, so to speak. But there were also places where I still felt stuck and at Impasse. I saw too in

178 Illustrations

the children and families I worked with, how things would gather to a boiling point, a time of Phase transition, a Turning point. But they too had certain areas which would seem impervious to impact, where the problem might decrease in size and significance, but would still continue in another form. My inquiry began with questions about these things, such as: What constitutes an Impasse? What makes it last and not yield to change and time? How do people reach a Turning point? From which time everything is ‘different?’ How is a change or shift maintained? What is the process of change, of turning? … I wrote about my own life, then the lives of kids and families I had worked with. Then I decided to do an interview process with a group of adults to find out how they experienced their own Turning points over their lifetime. I began with my focus on Turning points, with specific questions, then as I conducted my interviews I began to make my questions more open-ended, to let people tell me how they saw their own process, rather than have my questions influence what they said or what they would think was important. As the interviews continued, I shifted toward asking more questions about what Impasses people had experienced in their lives and how and when they had resolved them. I found that some people seemed to move intuitively, or precipitately through crises, where other people moved step by step, inexorably moving forward. Some people’s process could be called more right brain, creative, wholistic, following patterns, leaps, back and forth. Others seemed to move sequentially, more left brain, as if up a stairway or ladder. Each person’s life had its highs and lows, its challenges and crises, its times of smooth and flowing waters. Looking at change as a process led me to some ageless sources, from Buddhism to the Bible, from the I Ching and Chuang Tsu to Heraclitus and St. Augustine, from Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. to Gurdjieff and Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama. Then too contemporary Psychology from Freud and Jung to Object Relations and Behaviorism had their own take on Impasse, Change and Turning points. Science and chaos theory presented insights that seemed as applicable to psychology as to physical systems. I found the process of doing the interviews exciting, whether over the Internet at a distance, or over the phone, or in person. Some interviews were completed in a single afternoon, some took many evenings as the story of a life unfolded. Some interviews took many back and forth questions to cull the story, some people told their stories as if telling a novel out loud. Writing out things long hand, and then typing and editing later was tedious but I watched the dissertation come together as the months progressed. By the time I had finished, the outcome was more than a series of essays, it actually seemed like a huge book, that contained three books. The first was an autobiography. The second book was a book of stories/case studies of kids and families I had worked with. The third book consisted of the interviews, an analysis of each interview, and a theoretical discussion of Impasse, Change and Turning points. (Rosemary Christoph, End of Program Evaluation, WISR, 2004)

Stories of action research from WISR learners 179

Mindfulness-based practices for the well-being of people with chronic health conditions by Larry Berkelhammer In reflecting on his doctoral studies just after finishing, Dr. Berkelhammer wrote: For me, the single most valuable learning in this program was that I learned how to do really good qualitative action research. I also feel grateful that it allowed me to create a mindfulness-based behavioral medicine program to help people living with chronic medical conditions to improve quality of life and health. It also helped me create a psychoeducational program to help well people stay well. My goal in the [dissertation] action research project was to generate hypotheses and understanding rather than quantitative, generalizable data. The two most boring academic courses I ever took were the two required statistics courses in my Master’s degree program (not at WISR). I don’t remember those courses ever mentioning qualitative research. It was all quantitative. In my WISR qualitative action research project, I was interested in processes and meanings. My understanding of qualitative research is that it leads to hypotheses that can then be tested using quantitative research, and that both are valuable, but serve very different functions. I also have come to understand that qualitative analysis has validity without ever subjecting it to quantitative analysis. While working on this project, I got into a conversation with a few physicians about quantitative and qualitative research. I met with, and spoke to each physician separately, yet their responses were identical. All of them told me that there is no place in science for anything unless you subject it to quantitative analysis. They agreed with me that we could use qualitative analysis to form new hypotheses, but they all insisted that unless you then subject those hypotheses to quantitative analysis, they remain unproven hypotheses, and could not be considered good science. Perhaps there is something to their statements if we limit our discussion to the testing of new pharmaceuticals or new surgical procedures. However, the testing of pharmaceuticals includes placebo arms, and the psychopharmacology and pharmacodynamics of placebos involves complexity theory. Can quantitative analysis explain such bizarre phenomena? I don’t think so. For one thing, the beliefs of the doctors or nurses about the drug or surgery as they administer the treatment have been found to be a confounding variable. Many quantitative research studies involving pharmaceuticals have not been published because the results were too ambiguous. Had they included qualitative research methods, the studies could have provided valuable information, although they still may not have been published, because negative results often do not get published. In reviewing the interviews I had carried out with psychotherapists, I looked for patterns and themes in the interviewees’ answers and clinical experiences. I compared that information with the information from the literature reviews I had done previously. I wanted to see if those patterns or

180 Illustrations

themes could help me to identify any flaws in the design of my program, which I had previously thought was complete and ready for presentation. This information that came out of the interviews helped me to improve what I had previously thought was a finished product This new information provided additional theoretical validity to the clinical processes that I had designed … One of the greatest surprises was that as long as I kept changing the interview questions that I posed to clinicians, I could keep getting new data. I discovered that interviewees answered whatever questions I asked. Therefore, by changing the questions, I got new information I previously had not gotten. … my WISR PhD research was an action research project in which I gathered qualitative rather than quantitative data. I gathered data from very diverse sources in order to generate various hypotheses. Although this was purely qualitative, I proposed some possible explanations for some unexplained quantitative data that appeared in my literature reviews, discussed in the dissertation. (Larry Berkelhammer, End of Program Evaluation, WISR 2011) More specifically and descriptively, Larry Berkelhammer’s dissertation action research project drew on previous data he had collected through informal interviews with cancer patients at the week-long residential retreats over the three years of his previous psycho-oncology training at the Simonton Cancer Center in Santa Barbara. He reflected on and wrote about the insights from this data, in relation to the other research segments of this project. The second segment of research drew on insights growing out of an April 2009, two-hour workshop to a fibromyalgia support group that met at Alta Bates Hospital in Berkeley. The third segment of the research involved running a weekly group for nine months in 2010, to test a wide range of educational and mindfulness techniques, ultimately leading to the creation of a program of Mind Medicine for Health and Happiness. The fourth segment involved in-depth interviews with clinicians, all but two of whom were ACT psychotherapists and ACT researchers in psychotherapy and in behavioral medicine. The fifth segment related to his ongoing training in contextual behavioral science, and in Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) which he had studied over the last 10 years, as well as drawing from experience with Buddhist mindfulness practices in the 1970s. The sixth segment related to insights from numerous other trainings, including certification in the Simonton Method, certification in Interactive Guided Imagery from the Academy for Guided Imagery, the Erickson Foundation Hypnotherapy training in Phoenix, training with the Center for Mind-Body Medicine, and countless day-long workshops. In pursuing his dissertation research, Larry Berkelhammer’s basic premise, which is foundational to every aspect of the program he created during his doctoral studies, is that the following factors all positively impact physiology, epigenetics, and health: self-acceptance, self-efficacy, environmental mastery (a sense of control over one’s life), a sense of choice, social support, gratitude, meaning and purpose, the ability to defuse (dis-identify) from private events (thoughts, sensations, and emotions), authenticity, altruism, living by one’s self-identified values, pursuing goals,

Stories of action research from WISR learners 181

optimism, resilience, and the ability to ask for what one wants and to say no to what one does not want. These life skills can be developed through the committed daily and lifelong practice of the skill set that his action research studies aimed toward his offering in the form of workshops, classes, and professional training. His dissertation investigated how such daily practice improves happiness and quality of life, which in turn, improves health outcomes. The findings of the dissertation were used to design presentations, classes, workshops, and trainings (https://larryberkelhammer.com/). Throughout these educational offerings, there is an emphasis on heart-felt, interpersonal communication as a way to provide an experience of the daily practices that are foundational to the program. This method of learning is very experiential and requires active participation as well as a commitment to engage in a challenging, daily practice. His dissertation was published as In Your Own Hands: New Hope for People with Chronic Medical Conditions: Mindfulness-Based Practices for Mastery and Wellbeing (Berkelhammer, 2014). (https://www.amazon.com/Your-Own-Hands-Condi tions-Mindfulness-Based/dp/0991243706/)

Researching how to construct a device to aid communication among caregivers and clients, despite language differences or hearing disabilities by Karen Young The following is a substantial excerpt from the recent term paper Karen Young recently wrote about an action research project during her doctoral studies at WISR … As a health educator, a valuable action research project I did was to design and develop a “Communication Board” to facilitate communication between in home care givers and their clients, despite language differences, or hearing disabilities. The ultimate goal was to positively impact caregiver support. With a communication board, the caregiver and client can point to icons, images, or messages, to communicate with one another, especially when the spoken word is not available or not adequate. The Communication Board is currently used for Home Care Aide training and used in homes to support homecare to clients. To develop the Communication Board, I made an inquiry to thirtyfive home care providers, regarding the most common Activities of Daily Living (ADLs). What I knew about common activities of daily living, ADLs, from many years of experience, was supported by the research. The responses from the home care providers matched what I thought to be true of the most common ADLs. The following are the details of what I did, and what I accomplished, during this project. I talked to several home care providers, people who own, operate or work in home care agencies. I explained to the group that I was developing a Communication Board. The homecare providers all thought the Communication Board was a good idea.

182 Illustrations

I developed a list of fifty caregivers that I contacted via email, text and voicemail, to request their participation in the research. The list included caregivers I know and caregivers that were referred to me by people I know in the homecare industry, who own or operate homecare or residential care agencies. I explained to the caregivers that I was designing a communication board, with images, icons and messages to assist caregivers in their communication with their clients. I told the caregivers I would select about twenty of the most common messages, requests or statements they hear daily in the home care business. I explained I wanted them to provide me with five common or most heard messages like, “I would like water,” “I need my medication,” or “I feel cold,” to put on a communication board. I explained that the client or caregiver could point to a message or icon on the board to communicate needs. I explained the caregiver or client would also be able to write on the communication board with a dry erase maker. I called the caregivers on my list, until I got thirty-five caregivers who agreed to participate in the research. I gave them instructions on what I wanted and when I wanted their information. I also asked each caregiver their age, there primary language, how long they worked in home care support and the population they usually serve. There were twenty-four female and eleven male caregivers in the research. Nineteen of the thirty-five caregivers had English as a primary language. Thirteen caregivers had English as a second language and the primary languages included Arabic, Cantonese, Hindi, Japanese, Korean, Mandarin, Spanish, and Tagalog. Three students were deaf and communicate in American Sign Language, ASL. As part of the research data collected, I asked the age of the caregivers, the general area they had provided home care services and how long they had been caregivers. I also asked each caregiver to name the populations or type of clients they supported. I asked the questions about age to see if there was a difference in their responses according to the age group. I was not sure if I would need all of the data regarding the caregivers, as part of the research, but I collected the data anyway. The age of the caregivers ranged from nineteen to seventy-two. All caregivers provided home care support in one of five Bay Area Counties. Each caregiver had a minimum of two years in the field of home care support. I wanted each caregiver in the study to have a minimum of two years of experience as a caregiver. I thought two years as a caregiver would be more than enough experience in supporting clients to provide the responses I requested. All the caregivers had experience with elderly, developmentally disabled and physically disabled clients. I asked the caregivers to email or text their list of five common ADLs, within five days of the request. I planned to contact other caregivers on my remaining list of fifteen caregivers, if I did not get a response from the thirty-five caregivers. Each of the thirty-five caregivers complied with the request and texted or emailed the information I requested, in the given time period.

Stories of action research from WISR learners 183

I asked the caregivers to provide their five most common home care client requests or massages they heard from clients most often. From the one hundred seventy-five responses, I selected a minimum of twenty commons requests or phrases, to put on the communication board. All of the caregivers were interested in seeing the communication board when it was completed. In five days, I received one hundred seventy-five common ADLs, from thirty-five caregivers. Once the Communication Board was complete, I sent the final tool, Communication Board and dry erase marker, to each of the participating caregivers. There were no differences in the response according to age or primary language spoken. The responses were all very similar. The final communication board included the most common ADLs from the caregiver’s responses, and it has twenty-four message blocks, derived from the one hundred seventy-five responses. There were about sixteen most common responses. The list of the most common ADLs are as follows (with some examples of images used): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16.

Hungry {image: plate with knife and fork: “I am hungry, may I have something to eat?”} Thirsty Tired/Help to bed {image: bed} Bathroom {image: toilet} Shower/Bath Medication {image: medicine bottles and pills} Too hot/cold Pain/Hurting Nauseated {image: frowning green face: “I am feeling nauseated”: On a scale of 1–5 [5 the most]} Constipated Diarrhea Feeling Dizzy What time is it {image: clock} Call the doctor appointment/question {image: doctor with white coat and clipboard} Make a telephone call Turn the lights brighter/dimmer

Eight of message blocks I designed by looking at common themes from the responses. I made one message block as a list of four preferences. The message block is, I would like: TV, Walk, Music, Drive, and the design was set for the client to point to or circle the preference. I also added a message block that indicates the client can ask the caregiver or the caregiver can ask the client a question. This message block simply has “Message” and ample space to write a message. There is a message block that indicates the need to call 911 and

184 Illustrations

instructions on how to communicate yes and no in ASL. I got all of the artwork from the “non-proprietary” or “no copyright” section of google image. One of the caregivers shared the Communication Board with a client’s case worker at the Department of Rehabilitation, DOR. The case worker contacted me to see if I would be interested in sharing information about the Communication Board and the Home Care Aide training. I was thrilled to accept their invitation. I was invited by the Department of Rehabilitation (DOR) Regional Manager to give a presentation about the Communication Board at the Regional meeting. The regional meeting had DOR case workers from five Bay Area Counties. I gave my presentation to DOR case workers, regarding the communication board and the Home Care Aide training, on June 17, 2019. After I made the presentation to DOR, I was contacted by the Deaf Counseling, Advocacy and Referral Agency, DCARA. DCARA wanted me to design a curriculum to teach deaf students to become Home Care Aides. They also wanted a train the trainer curriculum for deaf instructors to teach the home care aide course. I agreed to the task, because was I already considering developing a training curriculum for the deaf and hearing impaired. Since I knew I had to get input from the deaf community to design the curriculum for deaf students and the deaf instructor, I thought this would be another opportunity to pursue another action research project. (Karen Young, 2020)

Commentary Most likely you found some tiles of this mosaic more interesting, or more relevant to your interests, than others. Still, hopefully the stories have helped you to appreciate the distinctiveness of each one, and the diversity found among all of them. Yet, they only are a very partial glimpse into the ways of what people can experience, and accomplish with, transformative action research. Together, these tiles, these stories, constitute a mosaic to which all of us can add.

14 AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ROLE OF SOCIAL LEARNING IN TRANSFORMATIVE ACTION-ANDINQUIRY

The importance of social learning—learning from and in circumstances, and from and with others I am concluding with an autobiographical analysis of how my experience and understanding of inquiry-and-action has evolved from childhood to old age. In doing so, I emphasize the role of other people and social circumstances in promoting my own learning of transformative action research. I will use my life experiences to illustrate some of the many ways in which “social learning,” that is, learning from and with others, can be key to expanding one’s abilities and understanding of inquiry, if one is fortunate enough to find their way into situations ripe with opportunity. In my own experiences, and in my observations of others, I have become very aware of how much we learn from, and with, others, especially in active collaboration, and by virtue of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We learn from others by observing them, and by observing what’s going on in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. What we learn may end up being “for better” or “for worse” depending on one’s point of view, and the values that any one of us hold dear. Oftentimes, we fall into some situations seemingly by happenstance, and in retrospect, we may say it was “good fortune” or “bad luck” that they “happened to us.” Further, what we learn may be valuable and “positive” or “negative,” or perhaps fairly inconsequential in the larger scheme of things. Sometimes, we seek out situations—we may consciously decide, or choose, to try to put ourselves there, and again, these decisions may come about from any of many motivations (Bilorusky, 1972a). In my own life, as I will discuss here, I’ve oftentimes learned a lot because of good fortune, or “lucky circumstances,” and occasionally I’ve rather consciously sought an environment or path, because I thought it would likely be meaningful and/ or result in some important learning or growth for myself. Of course, sometimes such

186 Illustrations

decisions end up with results that are different than what I had planned, whether “better,” or “worse,” or just very different. Beyond what we can and often do learn from others, the learning with others can be especially powerful. I make this distinction to note those instances when each of us, and at least one other person, consciously decide that we wish to learn together. This may be the decision merely to talk with one another informally, and then, we realize that when we do, each of us learns a lot. Or, we may be working together writing something, whether for some formal purposes (such as publication or presentation to others) or just because we want to help one another “get our ideas down on paper.” Other times, we may be working together on a job or a project, and we come to realize, as I have often realized, that collaborating with another person, or sometimes several others, can be especially enjoyable, motivating, meaningful, and also productive in terms of the real world consequences of our collaboration. Further, I’ve come to believe that these types of learning, what I consider to be examples of “social learning,” are much more powerful than my, or any of our, individual abilities, interests, and motivations are alone. Certainly, each of us brings our own idiosyncratic personalities, inclinations, interests, and potentials to anything that we do, and these factors are also important. Here, I will emphasize and discuss how social learning is very important in developing and guiding the inquiry that we do, and the way that we do inquiry, and also very important in whether and how we connect our inquiring to our taking action. Also, I will explore how the values embedded in our social learning help to inform the content and directions of our action-and-inquiry. As has been illustrated throughout this book, action-and-inquiry can be done in many ways. And at least sometimes, the interconnection of action-and-inquiry can be so dynamic and powerful that the results are “transformative” for ourselves, and/or others, and/or the larger world, even if only in modest ways and on a small-scale. By “transformative,” I mean that the consequences are not merely sequential or incremental but involve some important “leap” in the qualities and/or directions of the outcomes. In this chapter, I do not in any way intend to hold myself as an exemplary model. Each of us has pivotal experiences, or what are for us breakthrough and momentous insights. I am sharing reflections on my own life as a way to illustrate the ways in which various circumstances of social and collaborative learning have impacted me and made differences in my life that in retrospect seem important to me. Especially, I am focusing on those circumstances in my life which have contributed to the value I place on transformative action-and-inquiry, as well as contributing to some key choices I’ve made about the directions and paths I’ve chosen to take in life. Further, I hope to show how, throughout my life, my reflections on my life experiences, and on the experiences of others I’ve known well—especially family members—have revealed valuable insights about our history, society, and culture. Without the benefit of learning from the lives of others, there is much that I might not have otherwise noticed. In these ways, this chapter provides a handful of specific glimpses into the circumstances that have directed me toward

An autobiographical analysis 187

transformative action-and-inquiry, in different ways and at different points as I have traveled through my life, beginning in childhood.

Storytelling and dialogue It was only when I was in my 30s that I realized that not everyone is raised in a household where there is much storytelling, and ever-present dialogue. From the time I was a young child, raised primarily by my mother and her mother, I recall them telling me stories from their lives, and the lives of those whom they knew. There was the story of my grandmother in the 1890s being placed in an orphanage with her younger half-brother, Johnny, and how she cared for him. One day she read in a Dallas newspaper in the orphanage that an aunt and uncle were looking for them. Even at the age of 12, my grandmother had had only had two years or so of schooling and was further impaired in her reading by an accident which had left her almost blind in one eye. In any case, the aunt and uncle rescued them, and they spent their teenage years on the Autry ranch in Texas (yes, related to Gene Autry, the famous singer, my grandmother’s second cousin I believe). Usually, when telling me stories, they did it with emotional engagement and sincerity, but oftentimes without an intentional, “instructional” purpose. Still, I learned a lot. Orphanages were like jails. Being educated was not something to take for granted, and many were not at all fortunate. Parents might die at an early age, quite commonly. Sometimes children had to cooperate to survive and get by, without much help from adults, and the love shared is quite critical as well. Being alert and inquisitive mattered if one was to survive and thrive; after all, my grandmother could barely read, but tried to practice on her own and took the initiative to read ads in a stray newspaper in the orphanage. Knowing now, how much I learned, just by the good fortune of hearing so many stories of life—from the 1890s to the 1950s—I now wish I would have asked them more questions, to learn even more from such stories. Each detail of a story often carries with it valuable information and insights that branch out into many directions, and reveals what might not initially be so easily seen about the landscape of our society and possible experiences in life. Similarly, telling stories is an important way to share our knowledge with others. Storytelling can be a powerful part of transformative action-and-inquiry.

Elicited, visceral reactions Circumstances can elicit strong emotional responses. Psychodynamic theory, and other such perspectives, give great attention to the subtle and powerful unconscious and complicated, partly conscious processes that affect how we experience life. For the purposes of this book, I wish mostly to emphasize that for “better” and for “worse,” the content of our social learning is strongly influenced if a situation elicits a memorable emotional response. When I was about 7 years old or so, around 1953, I went with some friends to the Saturday afternoon matinee at the neighborhood movie

188 Illustrations

theater. We would usually see cartoons and perhaps a black and white western movie. On one occasion, while watching one of these “cowboy and Indian” westerns, the cowboys captured the leader of the Indians, two of them restrained him by holding his arms down on each side of his body, then the third cowboy walked up to him, and yanked the “Indian’s” necklace off his neck. At that moment I had an instantaneous physical reaction that I can remember to this day, and still not so easily put into words. It was partly in the pit of my stomach, but the disgust, the sickening feelings reverberated through my entire body. It felt that this human being had been violated by others who had no right to do that to him, nor to anyone else. If I had been an adult, it might have felt that I had just been forced to watch an act of rape. Perhaps another person would have seen the same movie and felt “hooray! he got what he deserved.” I would hope not, but I fear that that response would also be possible. In any case, I never have forgotten that experience, and indeed I can still feel it almost as powerfully as I did then. Perhaps it has fueled my lifelong motivation to be concerned with matters of social justice, human dignity, and human rights. Of course, I cannot claim that I am always enlightened or “correct” on such matters. However, my learning from that one movie scene and resulting emotional experience has been transformative. That experience has very much guided and shaped the observations I have made in my life, motivated me to ask questions I might not otherwise have asked, and to be interested in some lines of action-and-inquiry more than others.

Negative role modeling We often observe some actions of others that we decide are “bad” and ones that we don’t want to emulate. To do this, we benefit from messages received from others, as well as from our own reflections and further observations. Such considerations can be seen as matters of psychodynamic inquiry, but also as matters of what I’m referring to as social learning. Depending on the details of one’s circumstances, one person may see a particular pattern of behavior as “negative” and another might see it as “positive” and to be emulated, and still another person might not pay much attention at all to that behavioral pattern. My father was not very nice. Like most children I felt a connection with my father, perhaps even a loving one, despite many disappointments and negative experiences. Fortunately, the skillful parenting by my mother, and my grandmother, resulted in my not being permanently scared (so far as I am aware) by my early experiences of my father. While I came to understand not to trust him, and no longer liked him or respected him, I still didn’t hate him or wish him ill. More importantly, I benefited from learning what not to do as a man. My father was an alcoholic, a gambler, a womanizer, and worst of all, he was sometimes abusive of my mother. My father’s physical abuse of my mother was scary, and I had nightmares for a couple of years about a gorilla chasing me. Then, several years after the nightmares had vanished, somehow I realized one day when I was 9 or 10, that the

An autobiographical analysis 189

gorilla had been my out of control, drunk father, on his hands and knees chasing after and hitting my mother. This negative role modeling was very powerful, and although like many men I’ve had my share of emotional arguments with women, but never, ever, did I come close to pushing them or any way touching a woman out of anger or frustration, or otherwise trying to intimidate a woman. Some might say this is an over-reaction. Perhaps it is, but it’s likely that there are many women who wish men would “over-react” in this way. In kindergarten, I engaged in some “deviant” behavior, as a result; I would go around the playground watching other boys to see if they were about to hit a girl, and if so, I would go up to them and tell them why they shouldn’t do that. My teacher gave me an “unsatisfactory” in “works and plays well with others.” I did get beyond this “overreactive” behavior over the years, but my father’s negative role modeling certainly affected the problems I notice in the society, the questions I ask, and many of my motivations as I go about action research.

Positive role modeling—from a “twentieth century woman,” and learning to collaborate In many positive ways, too numerous to mention here, I learned a lot by the role modeling of my mother. Although some psychologists might correctly say I missed out on good role modeling from a male, I learned a lot by watching and interacting with my mother. Living with my mother, and my grandmother, was for me, very fortunate, and I learned a lot from and with them. For one thing, I learned the importance of discussing things, of asking questions about what one should do next and why, and of thinking through decisions and choices. If my mother made a decision that affected me (probably one or several each day), she told me why she made that decision. Very early in my childhood, she showed interest in what I thought—which certainly didn’t mean I would get to decide on my own, but I always felt she was listening to me and learning from me, and deeply, seriously thinking about what I had to say. I was learning how to collaborate, because she was always inviting me to collaborate with her, even though as a young child I was very much the “junior partner” in the collaboration. I became her full equal in the collaboration, certainly by the time I was ready to graduate from high school. Doing what Myles Horton called “listening eloquently,” and thinking out loud with another person to problem-solve and to consider decision-making options— these are key qualities important to good collaboration. My mother not only modeled these things, she drew me into this process with her so I could learn from firsthand experience and practice. Beyond learning about collaboration, I learned about society, about social roles, and about unfairness, and opportunities, and about American history. My mother was born in 1906, and she passed away in 1996. One day I may write about her life in greater detail, most importantly, to think about and discuss how her life tells so much about every decade of the 20th century. Growing up, I learned about the

190 Illustrations

changes since 1906 through the 1950s from hearing stories from my mother’s life, and also by observing her behavior, her struggles and her accomplishments from when I was a 4 year old in 1949, to when I graduated from high school in 1963. Here are just a few examples. First, my mother and grandmother had a really rough time from 1906 to 1915. They were abandoned by my grandmother’s husband when my mother was an infant. There were severe consequences, only some of which I learned as a youngster. In sharp contrast to my mother’s usual openness with me, she left out this one important detail that I did not learn until my mother was in her 80s. Still feeling some shame about it, my mother finally “admitted” to me that she and her mother had been homeless street people in and around Dallas until she was nine. They often slept in train stations, and occasionally had temporary room and board when my grandmother got some brief work sewing for someone. I had long known that my mother had had one doll, no other toys, and mostly made paper dolls out of newspapers. Her first Christmas tree was when my grandmother remarried, and they moved to Denver. My mother often was not able to attend school regularly and got behind other children her age. Since I had known most of the details from an early age, I had suspected the “whole story” that my mother eventually told me. Not only were my mother and grandmother positive role models of love and resilience, but also I learned a lot about challenges that many people face in their lives, in a society that can be harsh and unfair, and far from perfect. Despite those early difficulties, my mother led an adventurous life, and had the initiative, and later good fortune, to seek out of the box opportunities. I learned about her daring to ride on the back of her boyfriend’s motorcycle and to do the “shimmy” when dancing as a high school teenager in the roaring 20s. She did these things despite my grandmother’s disapproval, with her conservative Southern Baptist upbringing. Indeed, my grandmother was uncomfortable to even waltz in public. Having said that, people can change over time, especially as the society and the culture changes. I vividly remember one day in the 1960s, walking into the living room, with Chubby Checkers singing on the TV—“Come on, let’s do the Twist!”—whereupon, my 80-year-old-grandmother jumped out of her chair, and wearing an old pair of my white basketball socks on her feet, begin to do the twist! Anyway, now going back to the 1930s, my mother learned how to fly a single engine plane solo and could take off and land in the difficult crosswinds at the foot of the Rockies. She never passively stood aside and accepted doing what others said she do, and if I had been born a girl, I would have had a great feminist role model, even without her having an espoused, articulated political philosophy. Still, it was very valuable for me as a boy to see and respect a woman who hadn’t been reduced to the smiling housewife advertising dish detergent on TV. My mother was politically a moderate and didn’t actively advocate that I should work for “social change.” However, her very behaviors and attitudes toward life were consistent reminders to me that one should never sit by and merely accept what others say we should or shouldn’t do. She modeled transformative action-and-inquiry. When my mother and father separated, and I was about 6 (in 1951), my mother had to go to work. She had to work two jobs as a bookkeeper, bringing home

An autobiographical analysis 191

extra work in the evening. I learned from her that she was paid less than 50% of what most men were paid for the same work, and on one occasion, she was fired because she only had three or four different outfits to wear to work, even though she always looked extremely well-groomed and appropriately dressed. In so many ways I was learning a lot about how the society “works,” or more accurately “doesn’t work” very well at all for many who are marginalized. I learned from my mother, and from my own observations, of racism in my predominantly white middle-class neighborhood that we were much more privileged than so many other groups of people. My mother and grandmother were the only people in our block who welcomed the new, and first, Black family in our neighborhood when they moved in next door to us. Over time, I observed other instances of racism, usually just the more blatant forms, and this helped to begin to erode my naiveté about racism. Having learned a lot from many, and from circumstances, over the years, I’m probably much less naïve than most. Still, my “social learning” about racism from my many friends and colleagues from other backgrounds has taught me how deeply my understanding of racism is severely limited by having been a white person for my entire life. Further, these circumstances that contributed to my “social learning” were not just “interesting”—they motivated me to “look beneath the surface,” to learn more about why things are the way they are, how they could be different, and to think of questions to inquire into, problems to solve, and for that matter, do more thinking about how best to define what “the problems” are. These examples are meant to illustrate how much we can sometimes learn from our circumstances, and the modeling provided by important people in our lives. These things can, in many cases, inform our future inquiry and the actions we take, and encourage us to be willing to be “out of the box” at least some of the time.

Engaging with someone “different” who is willing to listen and discuss As a teenager, I also benefited from being able to have open-ended, respectful dialogue and disagreement with a man who was one of the leaders of a youth organization in which I was involved. This man (I’ll call him Mr. B) respected me, and also was much, much more conservative than my mother and I. Neither my mother nor I were particularly political, but our views had been greatly influenced by my mother’s varied life circumstances, some of them involving hardships. Mr. B was married but he and his wife didn’t have any children, and I think he had a sincere interest in supporting and advising youth, and also it probably filled some important, unmet parenting-type needs for him. Anyway, he and his wife would have my mother, grandmother, and I over to their home about one evening each week, and we would “just talk.” Mostly, though Mr. B and I would get into these animated discussions of current events. This was in the early 60s, and like many in suburbia, Mr. B was a flag-waiving, gun owner, and in love with the American

192 Illustrations

Dream. I, for my part, was not consciously or actively critical of any of these things either, but I was “different.” In contrast to the polarization that has grown in the past 50 years, the two of us would enjoy asking one another challenging questions, openly disagreeing with one another, and never did either of us dislike the other one, even with our differences. This was at the height of the cold war with the Soviet Union, and I was planning on studying physics in college. Once Mr. B said, “I’m really glad that you’re going to study physics, we need smart people to build bombs to fight the Russians.” I remember very well, how I responded to his statement, and I also remember having no idea of “where” my comment “came from.” Without any hesitation, I said, “I’m going to be a scientist not to help the United States, but to help all mankind.” His mouth was open, but he didn’t get mad at me. We continued to respect and appreciate one another. With Mr. B, I practiced and learned another type of collaboration, where each person’s objective is to encourage the other person to think and say things that might otherwise have occurred to them to say.

Intention to seek out circumstances to change So far, I’ve emphasized how much our circumstances contribute to what we learn, however, it is important to also acknowledge that the choices we make about what circumstances to seek out for ourselves can be crucial as well. I was a very good student in high school, and I was quite involved in athletics. I had what others considered a “pleasant” personality, but I was not particularly outgoing and wasn’t as comfortable making new friends as I wished I had been. For some reason, and I truthfully can’t remember why, the summer after graduating from high school, I had a conversation with myself and “decided” that in college I would consciously make efforts to be more “social.” I decided that I would seek to be involved in extra-curricular activities in order to get to know more people, and to get to know them better, and also to become “more competent,” socially speaking. In my mind’s eye, I saw college as a new and exciting phase of my life, and I wanted to make the most of it, not just academically. For example, early on, I would go to a bulletin board in the student union at the University of Colorado, and I would look for postings for applying to be on student government committees and the like. I wasn’t trying to build my resume, but really was looking for opportunities to do what seemed to me like some interesting activities that I could do with others, and also get to know them in the process. I didn’t want to join a fraternity, because I wasn’t the “partying” type, and CU was a big-time party school. (I later heard a rumor that Playboy magazine refused to compare CU with other party schools in their ratings, because professionals shouldn’t be compared with amateurs. It may not have been true, but certainly it was a believable rumor.) My intention to try to find situations so I could grow socially worked. I became more comfortable with a wider variety of my peers, and I was able to work on

An autobiographical analysis 193

some meaningful projects collaboratively with others. Many of these activities were efforts to encourage and enable students to become more involved in educational reform on the campus. For example, I worked in support of a good friend’s successful project to create the first organized student evaluation of courses and faculty. Consequently, I continued to learn more about good collaboration, through practice. I would take some initiatives, and I also would seek out the advice, insights of others, and try to learn from their experiences. I learned in my courses, especially in the interdisciplinary honors seminars (see below), but more significantly, I found my cooperative extra-curricular engagement with fellow students, and at times with administrative staff and faculty, to be exhilarating and mind-expanding. I also saw that for many, the college experience was not so wonderful and educational. During my junior year I was Director of New Student Orientation, and I decided that the theme for the week would be “A Myriad of Opportunities.” I was hoping to inspire new students to take an exploratory attitude, and to seek out consciously some “new things” that might then end up being valuable learning circumstances. One of the messages of this book is that we learn a lot from our social circumstances and by collaborating with others and learning from others. Sometimes these “good” circumstances just happen to come our way, and sometimes, it can help if we decide to try to consciously put ourselves in what we think are likely to be situations that will help us to learn. At the end of my junior year, I decided to run for student body president. To some degree, these elections were “popularity contests” or practice for students with ambitions for holding elective offices as older adults in the “real world.” For some who ran for office, it was more a matter of wishing to advocate for certain issues and policies on the campus. In my case, I had seen that academic experiences could be very stimulating and impactful, or in many cases, not so much so. I was a bit on a mission to work for policies and opportunities to enable students to have greater input into decision-making about the curriculum and academic policies. That was an unusual sort of agenda for such a candidate. Also, I was motivated to run for office, because the heavy favorite to win the election was a young man whose main plank in his platform was to advocate for “Freedom of Association”— the code phrase for the right of fraternities and sororities to exclude people for any reason, especially based on race or religion. Furthermore, he wanted to blunt the influence of a campus organization involved in the civil rights movement. Although I was no longer so shy, and was certainly able to assert myself, still, I was more serious and earnest than exuberantly gregarious. I did know many people and had shown myself to be someone who liked to collaborate and work with others, and for this reason I was trusted and respected by many. Again, I come back to the importance of developing the motivation and skills to listen to others, and to collaborate respectfully and enthusiastically with others. My upset win was with a closely contested 54% of the vote. (Interestingly enough, 90% of the law students—the future lawyers of Colorado—voted for the “Freedom of Association” candidate in spring 1966.) When student body president, I organized a very large-scale, well-received protest against the practice of “publish or perish.” It was a “teach-in” modeled after

194 Illustrations

the anti-war teach-in around the country in the mid-60s, designed to inform and to promote dialogue. From the University of Colorado Student Union Archives: During 1935 until the election of John Bilorusky as president of ASUC in 1966, the ASUC gained a controversial reputation of non-involvement and lack of any statements towards national issues, one of the largest being McCarthyism. Following Bilorusky’s election, he personally hosted a demonstration on the current “publish or perish” issue … (an issue that gave the campus a reason already to deny tenure of two English professors), and in the demonstration gave a list of demands … [to the Board of] regents to help acquire greater student input. Discussion between regents and ASUC after was positive, and shortly after Bilorusky hosted a teach-in of Vietnam with [the student] senate. (https://archives.colorado.edu/repositories/2/resources/141/, then select “printable pdf”) My conscious efforts to become more engaged with others in meaningful socializing and cooperative extra-curricular activities were an important part of the story of my transformation during college. Additionally, one particular academic experience was equally important, and that was not a result of my own initiative, but rather due to my mother’s love of learning, as I will now discuss.

Immersion in the joy of inquiry that matters At the age of 17, as I was about to begin my Bachelor’s studies in physics at the University of Colorado, I was very psyched about all the physics, math and chemistry courses I could take. My mother had a very good high school education and had wanted to go to college to get a good, well-rounded “liberal education,” but her loving stepfather believed that in the 1920s, women didn’t need to go to college. My mother had always had a strong thirst to learn about all types of subjects of study, so when I was entering college, she didn’t demand, but pushed me very hard, to enroll in CU’s interdisciplinary, small seminar honors program. I resisted at first, but as usual, we listened to one another and I decided to try it out. It was likely the best academic decision I made in my entire life! It’s important to not mindlessly conform to the wishes of others, and also I’ve come to appreciate more and more that it is very important to listen and seriously think about what others have to say, especially those whom we respect. The first semester of weekly seminars and readings, on Greek Civilization, were taught by the head of the program, Dr. Walter Weir. I later learned that Dr. Weir had studied under a Harvard philosophy professor who believed that “ideas should matter.” So, let’s next consider what that meant for how Dr. Weir taught his class. First and foremost, Dr. Weir was a great role model for the joy of learning and inquiring into ideas. He would laugh, pose questions, encourage us to state what we believed, and especially to discuss how we might choose to think about and put to use in our lives, the ideas of Sophocles, Aeschylus, and others whom we were

An autobiographical analysis 195

studying. I remember well walking into the weekly seminar ready to discuss some of the works of the comic Greek playwright, Aristophanes, just a few days after President Kennedy had been assassinated. Dr. Weir spent about two or three minutes saying to us, that at such a sad time, we should not be trying to discuss Aristophanes’ comedies, when it would be difficult to laugh. So, we would have no class and would resume next week. He briefly shared some other words of wisdom for us to reflect on, and we filed out of class. Dr. Weir put his heart and soul into his teaching and modeled for us how to put our hearts and souls into learning. It is no wonder that we came to love Dr. Weir, and to love the process of inquiry, dialogue, and collaboration with others. So, although we learned to love and take pleasure in the process of inquiry itself, we were always reminded and challenged to reflect on what the implications of these ideas might be in our own lives. Consequently, I developed a strong motivation to be more curious, to try to reflect more often and more deeply about anything and everything, not just what we were studying in class. This is another example of a transformative approach to inquiry relevant to action, and for me, it was yet another opportunity to experience firsthand, and delight in, the process of collaboration with others.

The serendipity of what do I do next? Transitions to next phases in our lives can often involve momentous decisions. The story I’m about to share suggests to me that sometimes we only become conscious of our priorities in life and the directions in which we wish to travel, when faced with such a decision. Sometime in late fall of my senior year, I realized that it was “time” for me to apply to graduate school. So, I went to the university’s main library to look at graduate school catalogs. Suddenly, out of the blue as I was staring at the shelves of catalogs, a question came to me that had not previously been in my conscious mind. I thought, I must not only decide where to go to graduate school, but in what field of study?! I must have been ready for this question about what life circumstances to seek out next, because although I was certainly a bit surprised, I was not shocked by the question, and indeed, it made sense to me as the right question to ask. I no longer wanted to be a physicist. The environment provided by the rows of college catalogs looking down at me had precipitated a new, and fruitful, line of inquiry. Those catalogs had a transformative impact on me. Obviously, there were four years or so of life experiences that led to this awareness that was just now entering my consciousness, but the catalogs helped. It reminds me of a decision-making strategy that a friend suggested to me a few years later. Flip a coin to decide what to do, and then notice whether you are happy or disappointed with how the coin came up. After four or five hours of looking through catalogs, and related materials such as research reports, I had picked a field of study—higher education. The following fall, I began graduate studies in higher education and

196 Illustrations

sociology of education at the University of California, Berkeley. Certainly, there was serendipity involved, and in any case, I’ve been forever grateful that I made the decision I made.

Mentoring to support my finding my own voice Throughout this book, and the companion book (Bilorusky, 2021), I’ve emphasized the importance of our trying to write in our own voice. Further, as I’ve suggested above, especially important, is finding our own voice in our choosing, re-evaluating, changing, and pursuing our life paths. In my experience, it helps enormously if there are others to encourage this. In everyday life, my mother encouraged me to “be myself.” In academia, Dr. Weir and other CU honors professors encouraged this in all seminar discussions and the papers we were expected to write. At the University of California, Berkeley, I had the extremely good fortune of having a major faculty advisor, Dr. Paul Heist, who always enthusiastically supported me in developing my own ideas, possible future paths and pursuing them. Paul Heist helped me explore options for an initial internship that would be genuinely of interest to me—I wanted something in student affairs. So, he helped set up one for me in the Dean of Students Office. Again, by good fortune, it was at a special time, during the People’s Park movement at Berkeley, where I was both a “mild-mannered” activist and an intern in the Dean of Students Office. I ended up being more the advocate for and educator about the “student activist perspective” than the intern learning the ropes of how that office was supposed to function. However, I did learn some about that as well. In a sociology class, my professor, Arlie Hochschild, who was at the beginning of her amazing academic career, was always modeling and encouraging any and all questioning and thinking outside the box. She showed a consistent and sincere interest in knowing what each of us, her students, had to think about various issues. She always seemed to be literally on the edge of her seat, eager to hear more about why we thought what we did—no matter how well developed, or spontaneously preliminary our ideas were. They modeled for me, in academia, what my mother had modeled in my earlier years. Listen eloquently to others, respect and appreciate them, be interested in learning from them, and ideally even, learn with others and engage with others in full-scale collaboration. In my experience, collaboration may well be the most powerful force for transformations.

Berkeley in 1970 … Something different is happening? I want to find out After more than three years at Berkeley and over halfway through with my dissertation, in May 1970 the U.S. invaded Cambodia, and students were infamously shot and killed at Kent State by the National Guard. Before saying more about my story, it is important to add that within ten days of Kent State

An autobiographical analysis 197

there were eight other murders of protestors, but this time of Black people, and not so well publicized. Two Black students were gunned down and killed at Jackson State, and in a civil rights riot in August, Georgia, six Black men were shot in the back and murdered by police. This was then in the spring, and in each of the previous three springs when I was at Berkeley there had been large-scale protests on various social issues—the war and the draft, the rights of third world students, and People’s Park. However, I immediately sensed that “this time” things would be different—that the seriousness and scale of the protests would lead to permanent change. My intuition was that this would be the perfect opportunity to work for longer-lasting and meaningful educational changes, and also for relevant social justice changes. Further, it would be extremely valuable studying “how to make such changes successfully.” Within hours of the Kent State killings, I began recruiting colleagues—fellow students, some faculty friends, and some administrative staff—to help me in participating in and observing what was unfolding, and also in interviewing people from many of the various academic departments and student groups. Together, 30 of us, over the next four weeks or so did hundreds of hours of observing and note-taking and conducted about 100 in-depth interviews. What I thought would be a great opportunity to learn how to create “real change” ended up being a study in how and why long-term and significant change didn’t happen. I learned a lot, relevant to my concerns, but not at all what I anticipated learning. By the end of that spring, things had pretty much returned to “business as usual” with a noteworthy exception or two, which were valuable anomalies from which to learn. Still, one important “take away” for me was the value of seeking out potentially fruitful circumstances in which to take action, and in which to engage in inquiry. The Berkeley protest in May 1970 was well worth supporting, and well worth studying. I was asked to write the second half of a book published by the Carnegie Commission (Peterson & Bilorusky, 1971), and as Clark Kerr, President of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, tactfully wrote in the introduction to the book, and as a very respectful and appropriate way to disassociate the Carnegie Commission from my views: Mr. Bilorusky was a graduate student at the University of California in May 1970 and was deeply involved in the many of the reconstitution activities. Indeed, he considers his report itself, and the work he undertook to complete it, a contribution to the reconstitution effort. The intensity of his commitment will be evident to his readers, and will make his observations and conclusions of special interest. (Peterson & Bilorusky, 1971, p. xiii) By the time I wrote the report for the book, I believed I had articulated the most important lessons to be learned on how and why change didn’t happen. Also, I made some specific recommendations, which included a discussion of my insights about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the two types of “revolution” often

198 Illustrations

debated by student activists—”political revolution” and “cultural revolution.” I concluded with hopeful comments, in which I can detect how even then I was in search of methods for transformative action-and-inquiry, although I was not at all yet ready to articulate them as such: During the reconstitution at Berkeley, the “commitment” in most [academic] departments to a collective process of experimentation was fleeting and shortlived, and in others, it was virtually non-existent … The flickerings of these efforts are more than “a flash in the pan,” as some have said; they are the faint light that can guide us on a never-ending journey that is the reconstituting of the world and our lives. That the journey can never end may give us cause for some despair, but that we can help one another see the source of the light should give us hope. With this in mind, our journey can set us free. (Peterson & Bilorusky, 1971, p. 175) The following year, I took a faculty position at the University of Cincinnati in the College of Community Services, and my main appointment was as Senior Research Associate at the Institute for Research and Training in Higher Education (IRTHE). With my three, more senior colleagues at IRTHE, we were supposed to provide in-house consulting on teaching improvement and organizational development. Without going into any details here, let me say that in trying to bring about change, now in a very different role, I learned more about how and why it is so difficult to bring about meaningful, substantive and lasting changes in major institutions of higher learning. I was also working on rewriting and improving my analyses in the Carnegie Commission book, in order to submit the rewrite as the final draft of my dissertation. After nine months in Cincinnati, I was ready to complete my dissertation writing. In the two months over that summer, I decided to revisit the data on which the book’s report had been based. With the benefit of nine months of relevant, but quite different experiences, I now saw things “in my data” to which I had not previously paid attention. It wasn’t that I now thought I had been completely wrong in my previous analyses in the book. However, I came to see my earlier insights as overly simplistic and in need of further elaboration, in order to bring up significant nuances and considerations about how to work toward the sorts of changes I truly believed would make the world better. Discussing the further development of my ideas is beyond the scope of this book. For now, I’ll just note two things. First, this was an important lesson that our life experiences influence what we see in our data, that is, how we make sense out of our data. Nine months’ experience working at the University of Cincinnati gave me many further frustrations as well as occasionally an exhilarating breakthrough or two toward what I believed to be “better education.” With the benefit of this knowledge and new experiences, my analysis of the “same data” I had looked at two years before now pointed me in what I still believe were more fruitful directions, although my ideas have continued to change over the years.

An autobiographical analysis 199

More specifically, and stated quite briefly, I came to the view that if we put all our energy and attention into changing existing institutions, then we will fail. We should continue to try to do this, but we should also try to create what I conceptualized as “experimenting communities.” I proposed that “experimenting communities” are relatively small, highly collaborative communities engaged in critical and creative inquiry—in terms of this book, we might aptly say, “transformative action research.” However, these smaller communities must not exist in isolation from major institutions but should aim to overlap with, be in interaction with, and function among the vast network of these larger, typically more rigid and resistant to change, organizations (Bilorusky, 1972b). This further insight greatly impacted ideas during my collaboration in creating the Western Institute for Social Research, and I have discussed the role of an “experimenting community” at least briefly, previously in this book (Chapter 5) and in the companion book (Bilorusky, 2021). To the extent that these further insights have possibly been of some value, I owe it to 1) deciding to immerse myself in the reconstitution in May 1970; 2) collaborating with many others in doing so; 3) having the benefit of relevant, but new and different experiences at the University of Cincinnati; and 4) maintaining a sustained interest in doing action-and-inquiry aiming at trying to improve our transformative approaches.

Immersed in a sea of critical preoccupations, and reactiveness I left the University of Cincinnati after two years, and was fortunate to be hired as the first Director of Graduate Studies at the very innovative, private non-profit, University Without Walls, located in Berkeley, CA. I was very enthusiastic about UWW-Berkeley’s mission, which allowed each student to develop an individualized program of studies, in the context a multicultural learning community concerned with larger issues of social justice. The learning community of students, faculty, and staff was just a bit under two hundred people. Most of the participants were sincerely concerned with learning and with the social issues of the day, and especially matters of racial and gender equality. The structure of UWW-Berkeley revolved primarily around gender and racial identity. The Black male students had a Black male faculty mentor, Latinas had a Latina faculty advisor, and so on. There were Native American students (one of them was Dennis Hastings, co-author of Chapter 8), but however, as I recall no Native American faculty. The Master’s program was new and relatively small, with about 25 students or so, and I was the mentor for all the diverse group of students in that program. Certainly, one strength of the Bachelor’s program was that it gave students the opportunity to work with a faculty member with whom they could identify. Still, as is the case with most structures and formulas, this was far from perfect. Many students wished they could work with a mentor who was “different” than they were in terms of ethnic or racial, and gender, identity. Likewise, some of the faculty would have benefited from working with students of other identities; they might well have been helpful to some of those students. Except for the graduate program, this arrangement was quite inflexible, and I came to see it as over-reaction to mainstream academia where seldom did students of color have the opportunity to work with anyone “like”

200 Illustrations

themselves, who was not white, and with whom they might have felt more comfortable and from whom they might well have learned more. At that time, there were very few women on the faculty in academia, and this deprived women of being mentored by other women. UWW-Berkeley was trying to address such problems of lack of diversity. Acknowledging the value of these efforts to match students with faculty, I, and a few other faculty members there, as well as more than a few students, increasingly saw this arrangement as problematic. Not only did this work against honoring student wishes and the desire for a learner-centered education, it began to create a situation where a few people in each of the eight or so major subgroups began to form factions against other groups. Mistrust began to grow, and there was a proliferation of what I still believe were relatively petty differences, not at all related to issues of inclusiveness and equality. Indeed, the arrangement increasingly worked against inclusiveness, and very much against collaboration among people across the definitions of racial and gender identity. Over time, I began to refer to this as a sort of “critical preoccupation,” with trying to do only those things that would appear to be the “opposite” of the conventional approach. Furthermore, this overly rigid and formulaic approach essentially allowed the traditional model to begin to define the UWW-Berkeley learning approach, in that UWW-Berkeley increasingly became merely the “opposite” of conventional universities. The opposite of something that has serious problems is not likely to be “good” just because it is the opposite of “bad.” One of the principles of transformative action research is that we generally should try to take a “both/and” approach rather than an “either/or” approach. Another consequence of the reactiveness to the traditional was that since most administrative staff disliked the impersonal, rigid bureaucracies of larger, conventional institutions, they all too often seemed to take pride in being sloppy, in not having good record-keeping and the like. Ultimately, that resulted in UWW-Berkeley being shut down for “misuse” of Federal Financial Aid. I think it is unlikely that anyone was stealing or skimming funds, but incompetent and inattentive handling of Federal Aid opened the door for a conservative U.S. administration to investigate and close down an institution that they saw as a “hot bed” of radicalism, for example, with some participants active in the Black Panther Party. Several of us had tried to warn our colleagues of the risks, and when they failed to listen, three of us resigned and went on to co-found the Western Institute for Social Research (WISR) where I have been involved full-time since 1975. It was a painful lesson for us to see how such a worthwhile and promising endeavor could be undermined by a sincere, but narrow-sighted, preoccupation with being critical of the mainstream. By being so emotionally invested in reacting against the mainstream, many at UWW-Berkeley failed to attend to the creative and transformative agenda of trying to do something truly new and effective, even if imperfect.

An autobiographical analysis 201

If you want to do it, create the circumstances, don’t wait Those of us who co-founded WISR were deliberate and took our time in trying to lay a solid foundation, academically and organizationally. We wanted to be small, and an exemplary model of a viable alternative to the mainstream, an approximation of the idea of the “experimenting community” to which I referred earlier. We started with no funds, and developed slowly, with each of us living off various modest, supplementary part-time work. We learned that the U.S. Department of Education’s very innovative Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) was awarding substantial three-year grants, about 80 of them per year, for innovative projects that could be models for others around the country. The challenge was that there were over 2,000 applicants from mostly mainstream institutions every year, with some institutions having several departments applying for funds. The first year we applied, we were immediately turned down. We were open to their feedback, and we strengthened our proposal, and the second year we were one of about 300 applicants invited to submit a more detailed, comprehensive proposal. Still, we were not one of the 80 who were funded. Finally, in the third year, FIPSE’s staff recommended that we be one of the 80 to be funded, but somehow FIPSE’s Board refused to fund our proposal and one other proposal. We were frustrated nearly to the point of despair. There is an old saying, “when life gives you lemons, make lemonade.” Somehow, this difficult news gave me a surge of energy and an idea of how to reframe our situation. None of us were being paid for our work at WISR anyway, so I said, “let’s do a small-scale version of the program without the funding, but as though we had received the funding.” The main costs were for our labor, and the other expenses were nominal. We did our own pilot project at about 30% of the scale of our proposed project, were able to evaluate and report on what we learned and accomplished. Also, the people in the community agencies with whom we worked learned to use action research methods and wrote strong testimonials and letters of support. The next year we were funded for three years (1980–83). It’s not always possible to overcome such adversity, but I learned that sometimes we need to take action—to do what we aim to do, even if we don’t have the support or approval of others. When we can do so, we should try to create the circumstances in which we hope to function. All the better, if in the process we are generating collaborative, participatory relationships with others. Our unfunded pilot project generated considerable productive and transformative collaboration.

I want to learn how to “really” dance, so … In telling some of my life’s stories, I’m going to switch gears now. My adult life has not only been about my career and my commitments to learner-centered education and action research. I’ve always very much valued family, playing basketball and

202 Illustrations

dancing. Those have been themes throughout my life. So, what does dancing have to do with transformative action-and-inquiry? I’ll begin by saying I’ve always loved to dance, and even as a youngster I would uninhibitedly dance in the living room when the “hit parade” was on TV playing the week’s top tunes. Except for a few ballroom lessons from the lady down the street when I was about 13, I had never had any formal training. Then, in the late 1970s, like some at that time, I was captivated by disco music and disco dancing. I did take a few partner dance, disco oriented lessons. I wanted to learn more, but I soon realized that most dance instruction, at least for novice and “intermediate” dancers, was fairly rigid and formulaic. I wanted to “move” but do so more fluidly and creatively, without fretting about where to place my feet in the metaphorical, if not literal, footprints drawn on the floor. I remember that my mother had always talked about how much she loved Fred Astaire’s dancing, so in one of those spontaneous and impulsive moments, I thought to myself, “I’ll try to learn how to ‘really’ dance; I’ll watch old Fred Astaire movies.” So, for about a year I went into dark movie theaters that were showing old Fred Astaire films, and I would try to observe carefully my very imperfect impressions of Fred Astaire-like movements, and write down a few things to remember on note cards. I was doing observational research, and I had some vague, but pointed, intentions—to learn to dance more dynamically and gracefully. About a year later, video recorders came out on the market, and over the next year I recorded about 27 of Astaire’s 30 dancing films. Somehow, I found the time to spend about 15 hours per week watching films and stumbling around practicing. I was critically reflecting on what I was observing, trying out very crude approximations of some of it, evaluating what my efforts felt like and probably looked like, and kept working at trying to advance my process of learning and actually dancing. Over time, I gained a greater appreciation of how on the one hand, Astaire was very disciplined and worked hard at practicing certain “chunks” of movement. On the other hand, I knew he was mostly a jazz dancer and in his everyday life; he was always using situations to elicit improvisational movements. (I read his autobiography.) From all this I inferred that from these improvisations, he would develop “scripts,” and then he would practice the scripts to the point that they were no longer “objects” outside his body, but rather he had made these movement patterns “his own.” He was essentially “dancing in his own voice.” That is one of the reasons that the famous ballet dancer, Mikhail Baryshnikov once said something to the effect, “we dancers are dancing but Fred Astaire is doing something else.” Another lesson: transformative action-and-inquiry should eventually grow out of our own emerging sense of our voice. Further, and quite importantly, as we continue this transformative process, it comes from us, or from those of us who are collaborating together, and it takes on forms and consequences that we could not have completely anticipated in advance. That is the joy, meaning and power of transformative action-inquiry. That’s what dancing is about, to me at least, and I strongly suspect that it was something like that for Fred Astaire. My limitations as a dancer notwithstanding, I learned much from Fred Astaire.

An autobiographical analysis 203

Intuition and listening—Act now and see what happens—I made a mess, too Tragically, my previous wife and I separated when our son was only three years. We were civil and cooperative about sharing parenting, with Clark spending alternating weeks with each of us. I knew that the separation would not be easy for him, and I tried to stay tuned into his emotions—not fretting or worrying every moment but trying to be observant and aware. He was often happy, nonetheless. However, one day he seemed different, for although he was usually very neat and organized in the way he played with his toys, that day he started throwing his toys around making a really big mess of things on the floor. I suspected that he was angry and upset. In one of those spontaneous decisions that we sometimes make on the spot, I sat down on the floor next to him, and began to throw his toys (being careful not to break them) all over the floor as well, and I proceeded to make an even bigger mess than he had. I believe he was stunned by my behavior, and he stopped and watched me wide-eyed. Then, I calmly said to him, “Ok, both of us have made a real big mess, let’s clean it up together.” For the next hour or so the two of us happily worked together to clean up the mess that both of us had made. I’m sure that someone who is more psychologically expert than I am will see a number of dynamics in my response to Clark’s first making a mess. In the moment, I had no conscious intention at all, except perhaps to throw myself into his situation with him. I think at some semi-conscious level, I knew that we needed to be “together” at the moment in roughly the same circumstances. Perhaps the “moral to this story” is that sometimes we need to participate in, or create circumstances for, being in the same situation with those whom we love and/or with whom we wish to collaborate and learn. Then, we can move forward together, transformatively.

Where are all the Native Americans? In teachable moments, teachers learn About ten years later, after I had remarried, my wife, Janet and I had twins, Kyle and Nicole. We took them to many state parks and national parks, and all sorts of other outings. One time we were in the Sierra foothills and walking along a nature trail. The park service had made some guides to the nature trail available so we could learn about the environment. In this case, the park service had skillfully adopted the point of view of a teenage girl, who was a member of the Mi-Wuk Native American tribe, and what she might have done over hundred years before while walking along this route. As a parent wishing to engage and educate his children, at each of the numbered points along the trail, I would dutifully read verbatim, what was in the guide. For example, “here, by this oak tree, she might have stopped to gather some acorns for her family.” By the time we got to the eighth point or so along the trail, my two kids begin to turn the heads from side to side, looking around. Finally, one of them said, “So, where are the Native Americans?”

204 Illustrations

This was an extremely relevant and perhaps almost obvious question, but quite beyond my own awareness and also that of the park service educator who wrote the guide. Remember, different people, with different views, different life experiences and from different circumstances think to ask different questions. Again, I made one of those spontaneous decisions. I knew my children deserved an honest and informative answer. So, I said something like the following. “Our ancestors did something horrible, they came to this area, killed most of the Native Americans and took their land away. It’s not your fault that they did this, but you need to know about it, and try to make sure that we don’t allow awful things like this to happen again.” I know we discussed this further, although I don’t recall all the details. I do know that it mattered a lot for us to have this discussion. In retrospect, I realize that along with the nature trail guide, Nicole and Kyle, created what some might call a “teachable moment.” I immediately realized that I learned a lot in the moment as well, it wasn’t only about teaching them. I learned about the importance of asking questions and the power of curiosity and inquisitiveness. I also once again, realized how important it was that we were all together in trying to make sense out of our circumstances. We were doing action-and-inquiry together, Janet and I, and Kyle and Nicole, even though each of us was “beginning” our collaboration having had very different previous life experiences and knowledge.

Can “structure” coexist with learner-centered education?—Revising script-improvisation For about 40 years, the WISR curriculum was very, very unstructured. We had broad guidelines for the quality of student learning and academic performance, however, each student would create a series of individually designed learning projects (often action research projects) with guidance and support from one or two faculty advisors. After completing a sufficient, defined by each degree program, series of substantive projects, the student would then do their thesis or dissertation. For the most part, this worked very well. Most students had initial difficulty adjusting to the lack of the usual structure and deadlines but ended up thriving and very much enjoying and learning in the process. About five years ago, the State of California, faced with some rip-off diploma mills, passed a law requiring that all state licensed schools, like WISR, make continual progress toward achieving accreditation. There have been two challenges here. First for a tiny school, and one with exceedingly affordable tuition and little outside funding, this is an extremely expensive process. Second, and perhaps more significantly, accreditation guidelines and criteria have required that we develop a much more structured curriculum, with a series of courses with prescribed content and delineated course learning outcomes, as well as quite specific, degree program learning outcomes. Our first knee-jerk reaction was that this would be the end of our distinctive and extremely high quality and valuable learner-centered education. Still, some of us—a handful of key faculty members, a few students, and several Board members

An autobiographical analysis 205

(some of them alumni of WISR)—rolled up our sleeves and engaged in several years’ of dialogue, surveys of current and former students, and a lot of head scratching. Going into the details of exactly what we did and why is beyond the scope of this book, but it’s very relevant to say that we’ve been delighted that so far we feel that the ways in which we have added structure have improved the learner-centered education at WISR. We have preserved a lot of personalization of learning for each student—and our emphases on action research, and education for inclusive diversity and social justice—while selectively building in requirements and curricular structures that, based on our many years’ of experience at WISR, we believe would be most valuable and helpful to students. If we have quite possibly so far been successful in these efforts (still trying for accreditation, but not there yet), and have actually improved what we are doing, it is first and foremost yet another tribute to the power of collaboration as part of a transformative approach to action research. We’ve engaged in hours and hours of discussion, seeking out information and ideas from all segments of our learning community, and critically reflecting together on what to do and why. It’s worth adding that our new approach still honors “script-improvisation” as a guiding metaphor for transformative, learner-centered education, and action-inquiry.

Learning from and with one’s “children” About 50 years ago, the famous anthropologist, Margaret Mead, put forth the idea that as the pace of social and cultural change accelerates, increasingly the older generation will learn from the younger generation, rather than the younger generation learning primarily from the older generation. One may wish to debate whether or not she has overstated the power of this dynamic, but certainly in my own experience, I know I have learned much from my children, and continue to learn more and more from them as time goes by. I also know that they have learned much from my wife and me. From Janet they have learned empathy and compassion, not as something they were educated “about” but as something that Janet has modeled and which I have tried to as well as best I can. From Janet, they have learned so much about animals that once in the first grade, Nicole was given a test to name as many animals as she could in a minute. I think the expectation was that she, like most kids, would name perhaps as many as ten or so in a minute. By the time, Nicole was finished rattling off the name of at least 20 animals (probably including warthog or Nigerian goat) she still had a lot of time left, but the teacher decided to stop her and say “that’s enough.” From me, they learned some things as well, including about “action research,” although perhaps not using those words until recently during their undergraduate studies at the University of California, Berkeley. Mostly, all four of us have been learning together. I’ll conclude by noting that I’ve learned a lot from the senior theses that each of them recently completed. As is the case with my observations of many young millennials, including my older son, Clark, I am inspired by the depth of their

206 Illustrations

commitment and concern for the future of this planet and for social justice. In Nicole’s case, her senior thesis begins with her concern for the deep and ugly injustices surrounding mass incarceration in the United States. As a social welfare major, she was concerned both with the immediate task of helping individuals at great risk for incarceration to avoid that fate, as well as with the bigger picture problem of eradicating such underlying injustices as the systemic racism that fuels the growing population of incarcerated people in the United States. We have largest percentage of incarcerated people of any major country in the world. In one of Nicole’s developmental psychology classes, she learned about research on the likely future difficulties facing youngsters with what some psychologists call “an early onset conduct disorder,” let’s just say among children ages 3 to 8. Specifically, young children who have what others define as severe “behavioral problems,” are highly likely eventually to be incarcerated. Knowing that immediate interventions are important, along with long-term efforts for change, she reviewed the literature on treatment strategies, their strengths and limitations and wrote about some of her initial insights and possible recommendations. First, many children may incorrectly be identified or targeted as “behavioral problems” when it’s really a result of the biases of the adults making the observations and doing the diagnosis. To the extent that this does happen, which seems very likely, then “the problem” is not an “individual” problem but one that must be resolved by participation, by action-and-inquiry, among parents, teachers, children, and other involved adults such as playground or recreation center supervisors. When treatment and intervention is needed, and is appropriate, then the best strategy seems to be “multi-component” interventions involving the collaborative engagement and participation of parents, teachers, students, and other relevant adults. Were it not for Nicole’s thesis research, I would not have known about this very much needed, potentially promising direction for participatory action-and-inquiry, and the value and use of collaboration for this important set of challenging circumstances (Bilorusky, N., 2020). Kyle’s senior thesis addressed the gaping hole in school curricula, not just of environmental issues, the climate emergency and sustainability, but also more especially, of how injustices toward marginalized groups have resulted in their suffering from immediate and severe consequences of environmental destruction. This includes such conditions as the large proportion of toxins in lower-income neighborhoods, that fracking is more likely to impact such communities through significant damage to water quality, and a host of other such problems which are only beginning to get a little bit of attention. Kyle’s research involved discussions with community leaders concerned with this, along with a review of relevant literature. One tip of the iceberg of his findings and recommendations is the importance of, perhaps beginning by including some more than token consideration of environmental justice in the routine curricula at all grade levels. More specifically, K-12 students must be involved in working with each other, with people in their communities, and with teachers and parents in taking action on these problems—and in doing further inquiry (Bilorusky, K., 2020).

An autobiographical analysis 207

Here again, I have learned from one of my children, yet another way—increasing study and action on environmental justice in our schools—to use collaboration and participatory action research. A reminder that the well-being and future of the planet, and of the younger generation, and those generations to follow, may well depend on how well and to what extent, many of us can collaborate together in engaging in inquiry and taking action. I am fortunate to be able to learn not only from my children, but from others in their generation who are approaching our very substantial societal and environmental ills with curiosity, commitment, and an eagerness to collaborate with others. Sprinkled among this hodgepodge of autobiographical reflections are many themes that may help to illuminate how and why I think of transformative action-inquiry the way I do. Furthermore, they reveal much about why I have come to value it, and quite especially why I so deeply appreciate the power of collaboration.

REFERENCES

Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow. New York: New Press. Allen, R. O. (2004). Fighting to finish: Personal storytelling in a public library adult literacy program. Lincoln, NE: iUniverse. Ayers, B., & Quinn, T. (n.d.). Myles Horton (1905–1990). Retrieved May 21, 2020, from https://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/2072/Horton-Myles-1905-1990.html Baraniuk, C. (2015). The cyborg chess players that can’t be beaten. BBC Future, December 4, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20151201-the-cyborg-chess-players-that-cant-bebeaten Barber, C. (2020). COVID-19 can wreck your heart, even if you haven’t had any symptoms. Scientific American. Retrieved September 27, 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican. com/article/covid-19-can-wreck-your-heart-even-if-you-havent-had-any-symptoms/ Barrett, J. (2020, March 30). Stanford professor: Data indicates we’re severely overreacting to coronavirus. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.stress.org/stanford-professor-da ta-indicates-were-severely-overreacting-to-coronavirus Bay Area Black United Fund. (2003). Bay area African American health initiative – 2003. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://issuu.com/baaahiblackpapers/docs/blackpaper_2003 Bay Area Black United Fund. (2005). Bay area African American health initiative – 2005. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://issuu.com/baaahiblackpapers/docs/blackpaper_2005 Bay area Black United Fund. (2007). Bay area African American health initiative – 2007. (2007). Retrieved June 20, 2020, from https://issuu.com/baaahiblackpapers/docs/bla ck_paper_2007.pdf Becker, H. S. (1958). Problems of inference and proof in participant observation. American Sociological Review, 23(6), 652–660. doi:1958-ProblemsOfInferenceAndProof.pdf Becker, H. S. (2017). Problems of inference and proof in participant observations. Sociological Methods, 398–412. doi:10.4324/9781315129945-35 Becker, H. S. (2018). Outsiders studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press. Becker, H. S., Geer, B., & Hughes, E. C. (1995). Making the grade: The academic side of college life. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.

References 209

Benner, P. (2001). From novice to expert: Excellence and power in clinical nursing practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Berkelhammer, L. (2014). In your own hands: New hope for people with chronic medical conditions: Mindfulness-based practices for mastery and wellbeing. Self-Efficacy Press. Bilorusky, J. A. (1972a). Selection of student-initiated courses: Student autonomy and curricular innovation. In K. Feldman (Ed.), College and student: Selected readings in the social psychology of higher education (pp. 435–442). Elmsford, NY: Pergamon. Bilorusky, J. A. (1972b). Reconstitution at Berkeley: The quest for collective self-determination. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of California, Berkeley. Bilorusky, J. A. (1975). Improvisational competency-based learning: Exemplars from personal experience. Lecture presented at 30th National Conference of the American Association of Higher Education, Chicago. Bilorusky, J. A. (1983). Knowledge-building in everyday life: Final report to the U.S. Department of Education, fund for the improvement of post-secondary education. Nationwide demonstration project –“Extending the teaching, learning and use of action research throughout the larger community. 1980–1983”. Berkeley, CA: Western Institute for Social Research. Bilorusky, J. A. (2020). Mobilizing & coming together during the coronavirus. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.wisr.edu/mobilizing-coming-together-during-the-coronavirus/ Bilorusky, J. A. (2021). Principles and methods of transformative action research: A half century of living and doing transformative inquiry. Routledge. Bilorusky, J., & Butler, H. (1975). Beyond contract curricula to improvisational learning. In N. R. Berte (Author), Individualizing education through contact learning. Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press. Bilorusky, J., & Lawrence, C. (2003). Multicultural, Community-Based Knowledge-Building: Lessons from a tiny institution where students and faculty sometimes find magic in the challenge and support of collaborative inquiry. In T. D. Dickinson (Ed.), Community and the world: Participating in social change (pp. 63–81). New York: Nova Science. Bilorusky, J., Lawrence, C., & Lunsford, T. (2008). Participatory action research, inclusiveness, and empowering community action at the Western Institute for Social Research. In T. D. Dickinson, T. A. Becerra, & S. B. Lewis (Eds.), Democracy works: Joining theory and action to foster global change (pp. 19–38). Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Bilorusky, K. (2020). Evaluating environmental justice in K-12 schools. Senior Honors Thesis. College of Natural Resources, University of California, Berkeley. Bilorusky, N. (2020). Multicomponent interventions to reduce future incarceration for children with early-onset conduct disorder. Senior Honors Thesis. Department of Social Welfare, University of California, Berkeley. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Blumer, H. (n.d.). What is wrong with social theory? Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https:// www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Blumer/Blumer_1954.html Bokat-Lindell, S. (2020, March 24). Is this really the best way to fight coronavirus? Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/24/opinion/corona virus-economy-social-distancing.html Bouman, M., Lubjuhn, S. & Singhal, A. (2014). What explains enhanced psychological resilience of students at VMBO schools in the Netherlands? The positive deviance approach in action. Gouda, the Netherlands: Center for Media & Health. Brookfield, S. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning: A comprehensive analysis of principles and effective practices. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Butler, H., Davis, I., & Kukkonen, R. (1979). The logic of case comparison. Social Work Research and Abstracts, 15(3), 3–11. doi:10.1093/swra/15.3.3

210 References

Cavalier, D. (2011). Scientists tap the wisdom of crowds. Discover Magazine, (January/February), 74. Christensen, F. (1987). Nikolai Frederik Severin Grundtvig. Journal of the Folk School Association of America, 11(3–4). Clark, B. R. (1988). Educating the expert society. San Francisco, CA: Chandler Publishing. Dewey, J. (1968). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education. New York: Free Press. Dewey. (2015). Experience and education. New York: Free Press. DiStefano, A., & Rudestam, K. E. (2007). Encyclopedia of distributed learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dowie, M. (1977). Pinto madness. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.mother jones.com/politics/1977/09/pinto-madness/ Dreyfus H., & Wrathall, M. A. (2016). Skillful coping: Essays on the phenomenology of everyday perception and action. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dreyfus, H., & Dreyfus, S. (1985). From Socrates to expert systems: The limits of calculative rationality. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/reingold/cour ses/ai/cache/Socrates.html Dreyfus, S., & Dreyfus, H. (1979). The scope, limits and training implications of three models of aircraft pilot emergency response behavior. Retrieved May 17, 2020, from https://www.resea rchgate.net/publication/235032293_The_Scope_Limits_and_Training_Implications_of_Thre e_Models_of_Aircraft_Pilot_Emergency_Response_Behavior Eliason, N. (2017). The step-by-step guide to go from novice to expert in any skill. https:// www.nateliason.com/blog/become-expert-dreyfus Feldman, K.A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1994). The impact of college on students. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction (originally published by Jossey-Bass, 1969). Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder & Herder. Gallagher, C. A. (1999). Rethinking the color line: Readings in race and ethnicity. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield Publishing. Galvani, A. P., Parpia, A. S., Foster, E. M., Singer, B. H., & Fitzpatrick, M. C. (2020). Improving the prognosis of health care in the USA. The Lancet, 395(10223), 524–533. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(doi:19)33019-3 Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine Publishing. Grundtvig, N. F., & Knudsen, J. (1976). Selected writings N.f.s. Grundtvig. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. Hastings, D., & Coffey, M. (2009). Grandfather remembers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Institute for Social Research. Hastings, D., Coffey, M. & Chilton, R. Dancing for Peace. Omaha Tribal Historical Research Project, 2020. Hazen, R. M. (2005). Genesis: The scientific quest for life’s origin. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. Heller, D. P., & Heller, L. S. (2001). Crash course: A self-healing guide to auto accident trauma & recovery. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. History of Science Society. (n.d.). An introduction to the history of science in non-western traditions. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://hssonline.org/resources/teaching/tea ching_nonwestern/ Hochschild, A. R. (1990). The second shift: Working parents and the revolution. New York: Avon Books.

References 211

Howard, R. (1981). One man scoops the experts. In These Times, March 31, 1981. Hudson, B. (1975). Domains of evaluation. Social Policy, 6(2), 79–89. Hutt, R. (2016). 9 quotes that sum up the Fourth Industrial Revolution. World Economic Forum. Retrieved January 23, 2016, from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/ 9-quotes-that-sum-up-the-fourth-industrial-revolution Ioannidis, J. (2020a, March 12). Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non‐evidence‐based measures. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https:// onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.13222 Ioannidis, J. (2020b, March 24). In the coronavirus pandemic, we’re making decisions without reliable data. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.statnews.com/2020/ 03/17/a-fiasco-in-the-making-as-the-coronavirus-pandemic-takes-hold-we-are-makingdecisions-without-reliable-data/ Jacoby, R. (1985). Social Amnesia: A critique of conformist psychology from Adler to Lang. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Jeffries, S. (2017, December 30). Psychopolitics: Neoliberalism and new technologies of power by Byung-Chul Han – review. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.theguardian.com/ books/2017/dec/30/psychopolitics-neolberalism-new-technologies-byung-chul-han-review Kain, K. L., & Terrell, S. J. (2018). Nurturing resilience: Helping clients move forward from developmental trauma an integrative somatic approach. Berkeley, CA: North Atlantic Books. Klein, N. (2014). The shock doctrine: The rise of disaster capitalism. London: Penguin. Klein, N. (2020, May 8). Under cover of mass death, Andrew Cuomo calls in the billionaires to build a high-tech dystopia. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://theintercept.com/2020/ 05/08/andrew-cuomo-eric-schmidt-coronavirus-tech-shock-doctrine/?utm_medium=ema il&utm_source=The%2BIntercept%2BNewsletter Knowles, S. M., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (1998). The adult learner. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann. Kohlberg, L. (1981). Essays on moral development, Vol. I: The philosophy of moral development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Kohlberg, L., & Mayer, R. (1972) Development as the aim of education. Harvard Educational Review 42(4), 449–496. http://webhome.auburn.edu/~silvesb/smicha/Kohlberg&Mayer.pdf Krieger, S. (1983). The mirror dance: Identity in a women’s community. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Lawless, E. (1996). Women preaching revolution: Calling for connection in a disconnected time. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press. Lee, S. (2020). JetBlue’s founder helped fund a Stanford study that said the coronavirus wasn’t that deadly. Retrieved May 23, 2020, from https://www.buzzfeednews.com/a rticle/stephaniemlee/stanford-coronavirus-neeleman-ioannidis-whistleblower Lipsitz, G. (2011). How racism takes place. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press. Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Martinez, A. (2012). Transcending dispositional attributes: The impact of social marginalization on the subculture of Mexican American street gangs. Master’s thesis. Western Institute for Social Research. Mills, C. W. (1961). The sociological imagination. New York: Grove Press. Nadel, L., Haims, J., & Stempson, R. (1992). Sixth sense. New York: Avon Books. National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). The NCES Fast Facts Tool provides quick answers to many education questions. https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=28 Nichols, J. (2018, August 2). Thanks to the Koch brothers, we have more proof that single payer saves money and cares for all of us. Retrieved May 18, 2020, from https://www. thenation.com/article/archive/thanks-koch-brothers-proof-single-payer-saves-money/

212 References

Perry, W. (1970). Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Peterson, R. E., & Bilorusky, J. A. (1971). May 1970: The campus aftermath of Cambodia and Kent State: A technical report. Berkeley, CA: Carnegie Commission on Higher Education. Pope, A. (1765). An essay on criticism by Alexander Pope, esq; with the messiah. London. Raymond, R. (2020, April 16). To survive systemic failure induced by covid-19, we need mutual aid. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://truthout.org/articles/to-survivesystemic-failure-induced-by-covid-19-we-need-mutual-aid/ Sanford, N. (1962). The American college: A psychological and social interpretation of higher learning. New York: Wiley. Schlipp, P. A. (1959). Albert Einstein philosopher-scientist (Vol. 1). New York: Harper. Shabani, K. (2010). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: Instructional implications and teachers’ professional development. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ EJ1081990.pdf Simard, P.Y., Amershi, S., Chickering, D., Pelton, A., Ghorashi, S., Meek, C., … Wernsing, J. (2017, August 11). Machine teaching: A new paradigm for building machine learning. https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.06742 Singhal, A. (2011). Turning diffusion of innovations paradigm on its head. In A. Vishwanath & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), The diffusion of innovations: A communication science perspective (pp. 193–205). New York: Peter Lang. Sloan, J. (2017). Standing tall: Willie Long and the Mare Island original 21ers. Berkeley, CA: WISR Press. St. Just, A. (1994). Wilderness as a therapeutic tool in healing post-traumatic stress responses. Doctoral Dissertation. Western Institute for Social Research, Berkeley, CA. St. Just, A. (2006). Relative balance in an unstable world: A search for new models for trauma education and recovery. Heidelberg: Carl-Auer-Verlag. Swimme, B. (1985). The universe is a green dragon. Sante Fe, NM: Bear & Co. Taylor, T. (1970, January 1). Robert Kennedy on shortcomings of GDP in 1968. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from http://conversableeconomist.blogspot.com/2012/01/robert-kenne dy-on-shortcomings-of-gdp.html The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. https://www.hhs. gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html Stitch. (n.d.). The state of data science: Stitch benchmark report. Retrieved October 9, 2020, from https://www.stitchdata.com/resources/the-state-of-data-science/ Think tank. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_tank University of Colorado Student Union (UCSU). (n.d.). Special collections & archives. http s://archives.colorado.edu/repositories/2/resources/141 Update on the key role played by Dennis Hastings’ and Margery Coffey’s WISR dissertation in case heard before the US Supreme Court! (2016, March 16). Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.wisr.edu/inquiry-and-social-change/wisr-publications/social-change-a nd-multiculturality/omaha-history/ Vidal, J. (2020, April 2). Don’t blame bats or pangolins. Human actions caused the coronavirus. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://www.yesmagazine.org/environment/2020/04/02/ coronavirus-destruction-environment-bats/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=YESDaily _20200403&utm_content=YESDaily_20200403%2BCID_2bb74930d7c5a92f111a6c3c81210 e8b&utm_source=CM&utm_term=Dont%2BBlame%2BBats%2Bor%2BPangolinsHuman%2 BActions%2BCaused%2Bthe%2BCoronavirus

References 213

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. West, S.M., Whittaker, M. and Crawford, K. (2019). Discriminating systems: Gender, race and power in AI. Retrieved from https://ainowinstitute.org/discriminatingsystems.html White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934 Yamada, D. C. (2000). The phenomenon of “workplace bullying” and the need for status-blind hostile work environment protection. 88 Georgetown Law Journal, 475. doi:3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=1303690 Yamada, D. C. (2009a). Combating a hidden epidemic: Multidisciplinary responses to workplace bullying (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Western Institute for Social Research, Berkeley, CA. Yamada, D. C. (2009b). The adult educator as public intellectual. In A. P. Grace & T. S. Rocco (Eds.), Challenging the professionalization of adult education: John Ohliger and contradictions in modern practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Yamada, D. C. (2010). Therapeutic jurisprudence and the practice of legal scholarship. University of Memphis Law Review, 41, 121. doi:3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1585311 Yamada, D. C. (2013, April 1). Emerging American legal responses to workplace bullying. Retrieved May 20, 2020, from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 2242945 Yamada, D. C. (2016). Intellectual activism and the practice of public interest law. Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice, 25, 127. doi:3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2647697 Yamada, D. C. (2019). Therapeutic jurisprudence, intellectual activism and legislation. In N. Stobbs, L. Bartels, & M. Vols (Eds.), The methodology and practice of therapeutic jurisprudence. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Young, K. (2020). Home care aide communication board. Unpublished Paper for Doctoral Studies. Western Institute for Social Research, Berkeley, CA. Zuckerman, H. (1967). Nobel laureates in science: Patters of productivity, collaboration and authorship. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/2091086?seq=1#page_scan_tab_ contents

INDEX

activist 8, 10, 24, 48, 58, 60, 85, 87–8, 90–1, 93–7, 124, 144, 158, 196, 198; activism 12, 85, 87–9, 91–5, 97–9, 158, 169, 172, 174–5 African American 50, 77, 169–171, 173–5; Black 50, 65, 125, 147, 169–171, 191, 197, 199–200 anomalies 140, 197; see also exceptions to the rule Becker, H. 25 bias, biases, biased 3, 4, 53–4, 80–1, 174 bigger picture 3, 7, 41, 45–6, 49, 58, 62, 82, 83, 89–90, 99, 107, 109, 135, 141, 162, 206 both/and 5, 79, 133, 200 Butler, H. 25, 28, 52–7, 61 community agency 10, 17, 30, 48; see also community organization community organization 15, 17, 26, 29–30; see also community agency community services 24, 52, 198; see also social services cost-benefit 6, 18, 79 Coronavirus 70–1, 73–4, 83–84; see also COVID counseling 9, 60, 93, 96–7, 166, 169, 184; see also therapy, therapist COVID 12, 15, 67, 69, 71, 73–5, 77–9, 81–4; see also coronavirus culture 4, 9, 12, 23, 49, 61, 63, 89, 92, 96, 100, 106, 108–116, 119,

121, 124, 152, 158–9, 167, 169–171, 186, 190 data analysis 49 data collection 170; see also data gathering data-gathering 5, 156; see also data collection democracy, democratic 3, 7, 45, 44–7, 133, 174 Dewey, J. 2, 28, 55 disparities 50 diversity 8–10, 43, 184, 200, 205 Dreyfus, H., Dreyfus, S., Dreyfus model 2, 51, 53–4, 56–57, 59–60, 65, 148 ego development 15, 51–7, 59–61, 66 elders 70, 101, 114, 123 emotion, emotions, emotional, emotionally 4, 12, 35, 53–4, 57–60, 66–9, 76, 106, 113, 123, 126, 176, 180, 187–200, 203 ethics, ethical, ethically 23, 81, 133 exceptions to the rule 3, 27, 57, 69, 140 experimenting community 51, 55, 57, 199, 201 exploring, exploration 52, 90, 95, 121, 134, 148, 164, 175 Freire, P. 2, 119–121, 149, 152–3 gang 22–3, 159, 165, 170 gender 9, 11, 49, 53–4, 63, 84, 103, 164, 166–7, 199–200 government 24, 26, 30, 44, 68, 74, 84, 98, 103, 105, 112–3, 117, 174, 192 grounded theory 27–8

Index 215

health 20, 27, 35, 39, 48, 50, 58, 68–72, 74, 77–84, 87, 91–2, 97, 100, 104, 113, 116, 145, 161–3, 166–8, 173–4, 179–181 history 45, 72, 77, 85, 88, 100–3. 105–110, 112, 114, 116–7, 121, 130–1, 144, 158, 165, 171, 174–5, 177, 186, 189 Hochschild, A. 196 homeless 40, 42, 58, 83, 190 housing 22, 42, 48 hypothesis, hypotheses 3, 27, 32, 142, 179–80 improvisation, improvisational 3, 7, 20, 35, 52, 54–63, 66, 147, 151–2. 202, 204–5 inclusive, inclusiveness 8–10, 61–3, 155, 200, 205; see also multicultural inequality 45, 48,66 knowledge-building 3, 7, 67, 147, 151 Kuhn, T. S. 2, 5, 69, 137, 148, 151, 177 Loevinger, J. 51, 53–8, 60 marginalized, marginalization 4, 8, 11, 12, 39, 45, 49, 63, 78, 84, 147–8, 151–4, 159, 191, 206 Mexican American 159 mindfulness 100, 161, 179–181 multicultural, multiculturality, multiculturalism 7–9, 61–3, 85, 101, 103, 124, 155, 173, 199; see also inclusive modeling 140, 153, 188–9, 191, 196 Native American 110, 115, 117, 199, 203–4 needs assessment 12, 15, 34–6 neoliberalism, neoliberal 45 note-taking 197 objective, objectivity 18, 22, 23, 25, 98, 130, 144, 146, 171, 192 observation 19, 23, 28, 32, 37, 65, 82, 88–9, 112, 137, 140, 142, 165, 173, 175, 177, 185, 188, 191, 197, 202, 205–6 own voice—see voice participatory 3, 12, 62, 85, 89–90, 99, 107, 108, 110, 118–19, 122, 124, 126–7, 130, 148, 152, 156, 169–170, 201, 207 privilege, privileged 4, 11, 45, 50, 63, 74, 116, 191

questioning 26, 57, 74, 77–8, 138, 165, 196; question-asking 140; asking questions 4, 47, 189, 204 racism, racist 109, 191, 206 risk, risks 5, 7, 23, 36, 68–71, 74–5, 77, 80, 83–4, 110, 147, 149, 167, 174, 200, 206 sampling, sample 4, 5, 23, 48, 164 sensitizing concept 2, 27–8 social change 8–10, 27, 37, 63, 88–9, 91, 96–9, 101, 129, 132, 144, 155, 158, 169, 177, 190; see also systemic social justice 7–8, 10, 61–3, 89, 107, 110, 148, 150–1, 158, 174, 188, 197, 199, 205–6 social learning 13, 59, 66, 86, 149, 154, 185–8, 191 social responsibility 71–3, 75, 78, 80–2, 153 social services 168; see also community services somatic 8, 168, 175–6 symbolic interactionism 2, 27 systemic 26, 41–3, 63, 84, 97, 144, 206; see also social change statistics 4–5, 131, 150, 156, 179 storytelling 6, 88, 90, 99, 109, 160, 172–3, 187 transparent, transparency 3–6, 75–6, 78, 80, 82, 88, 138, 153 therapy, therapist 8–9, 50, 97, 126, 161, 163–4, 168–9, 171, 175–6, 179–180; see also counseling think tank 12, 15, 44–50, 95 Trauma 8, 12, 15, 76, 100, 126, 165–6, 168–9, 171–6 validity 3, 5, 7, 77, 137, 157, 170, 179–80 violence 22–4, 48, 58, 161, 165–6, 172 voice (own voice) 6, 10–11, 21, 30, 33, 57, 60–3, 89–90, 93, 104, 107–9, 119, 125, 141, 155–7, 182, 196, 202 Vygotsky, L. 66, 154 Western Institute for Social Research, WISR 7–10, 12, 24–8, 40, 50, 54, 58, 60–2, 64–5, 83, 86–91, 98, 100–1, 108, 114, 117, 128–9, 132–3, 148, 151, 153, 155–173, 175, 177–181, 183, 199–201, 204–5 youth 12, 24, 86, 103, 147, 160, 165, 191