Research for Social Justice: A Community-Based Participatory Approach [Second ed.] 9781552668788

Citation preview

Research for Social Justice

Research for Social Justice 2nd edition A Community-based Participatory Approach

Adje van de Sande & Karen Schwartz

Fernwood Publishing Halifax & Winnipeg

Copyright © 2017 Adje van de Sande and Karen Schwartz All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means without permission in writing from the publisher, except by a reviewer, who may quote brief passages in a review. Editing: Eileen Young Text design: Brenda Conroy Cover design: John van der Woude eBook: tikaebooks.com Printed and bound in Canada Published by Fernwood Publishing 32 Oceanvista Lane, Black Point, Nova Scotia, B0J 1B0 and 748 Broadway Avenue, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3G 0X3 www.fernwoodpublishing.ca Fernwood Publishing Company Limited gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Government of Canada, the Manitoba Department of Culture, Heritage and Tourism under the Manitoba Publishers Marketing Assistance Program and the Province of Manitoba, through the Book Publishing Tax Credit, for our publishing program. We are pleased to work in partnership with the Province of Nova Scotia to develop and promote our creative industries for the benefit of all Nova Scotians. We acknowledge the support of the Canada Council for the Arts, which last year invested $153 million to bring the arts to Canadians throughout the country.

Library and Archives Canada Cataloguing in Publication Van de Sande, Adje, 1949-, author Research for social justice : a community-based participatory approach / Adje van de Sande & Karen Schwartz. -- Second edition. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-55266-878-8 (softcover) 1. Social service—Research—Methodology. 2. Community-based social services. 3. Social justice. I. Schwartz, Karen, 1955-, author II. Title. HV11.V34 2017  361.3072  C2017-903121-X

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements...................................................................................ix About the Authors.......................................................................................x Preface............................................................................................................xi 1 Research as Politics...............................................................................1 Structural Social Work..............................................................................2 Anti-Oppressive Practice........................................................................5 Research Can Be for Social Justice....................................................8 Discussion Questions.................................................................................8 2 Research Paradigms........................................................................... 12 Paradigms..................................................................................................... 13 Paradigm Shifts.......................................................................................... 14 Positivism and Social Work.................................................................. 19 Marxist and Feminist Research Paradigms.................................20 Indigenous Research Paradigms...................................................... 23 Reflexivity..................................................................................................... 25 Discussion Questions..............................................................................26 3 Research Ethics................................................................................... 29 What Is Ethics?..........................................................................................30 History of Ethical Considerations in Research...........................30 Tri-Council Policy Statement.............................................................. 32 Research Ethics Boards and Institutional Review Boards.................................................................34 Consent Letters......................................................................................... 35 OCAP Principles....................................................................................... 40 Participatory Action Research and Ethics...................................42 Discussion Questions..............................................................................45 4 Developing Research Proposals...................................................48 Research Methods...................................................................................49 Research Question Continuum..........................................................50 Classification of Research Questions.............................................. 51 Formulating Research Questions..................................................... 52 Conceptual Framework.........................................................................54

Theoretical Framework......................................................................... 57 Literature Review.....................................................................................59 Accessing Information.......................................................................... 60 Discussion Questions............................................................................... 61 5 Research Partners.............................................................................. 62 Who Are the Research Partners?.....................................................63 Research Partners and Their Agendas..........................................66 Research Partners’ Plan........................................................................ 73 Research Question...................................................................................74 Initial Meeting............................................................................................. 76 Choosing a Methodology..................................................................... 76 Research Report....................................................................................... 77 Community-Based Research.............................................................. 77 Discussion Questions..............................................................................83 6 Participatory Action Research....................................................... 85 History of Action Research.................................................................86 PAR Compared with Traditional Research..................................89 Models of PAR.......................................................................................... 90 Degrees of Citizen Participation.......................................................93 Forming Equitable Relationships in PAR......................................94 A Participatory Evaluation of the Banking Accessibility Pilot Project..........................................95 Discussion Questions..............................................................................98 7 Research with Indigenous People..............................................100 Social Work and Indigenous People............................................. 102 Research with Indigenous Organizations................................... 106 Discussion Questions..............................................................................112 8 Program Evaluations.........................................................................113 Reasons for Conducting Program Evaluations.........................114 Program Evaluation Process..............................................................115 Formative Program Evaluations.......................................................116 Research Designs.....................................................................................117 Summative Program Evaluations.....................................................119 Program Evaluation Research Steps..............................................121 Service-user Satisfaction Surveys...................................................122 Logic Model................................................................................................123 Research Project, Single Mothers on Social Assistance.......125 Discussion Questions.............................................................................126

9 Needs Assessments..........................................................................127 What Are Needs?....................................................................................128 Reasons for Conducting a Needs Assessment.........................129 Types of Needs Assessments............................................................131 Methods for Doing Needs Assessments......................................133 Surveys........................................................................................................ 134 Focus Groups........................................................................................... 136 Environmental Scans............................................................................140 Strength-Based Approach...................................................................141 Community Capacity in a Low-Income Housing Project....................................................... 143 Discussion Questions............................................................................ 143 10 Qualitative Methods......................................................................... 146 Differences between Quantitative and Qualitative Methods..................................................................... 147 Qualitative Research Interview........................................................ 148 Issues in Qualitative Interviewing................................................... 150 Preparing for the Interview................................................................152 Interview......................................................................................................155 Analyzing Interviews.............................................................................158 Trustworthiness....................................................................................... 163 Discussion Questions............................................................................ 168 11 Quantitative Methods...................................................................... 170 Issues with Quantitative Methods....................................................171 Interviews....................................................................................................172 Questionnaires..........................................................................................173 Observations..............................................................................................178 Secondary Data........................................................................................179 Scales............................................................................................................179 Reliability and Validity...........................................................................181 Organizing the Data.............................................................................. 184 Computer Software for Organizing Data................................... 188 Designing a Quantitative Study.......................................................192 Discussion Questions............................................................................ 193 12 Report Writing................................................................................... 194 Contemporary Writing Issues...........................................................197 Writing Process....................................................................................... 198 Traditional Scientific Format............................................................ 199 Interpretivist Format............................................................................206

Knowledge Mobilization.......................................................................212 Discussion Questions.............................................................................215 Appendix 1 St. Mary’s Home: A Service-Users’ Needs Assessment Study: Final Report......................................................217 Appendix 2 Typical University-Based Research Ethics Application............................................................................................... 254 Appendix 3 Teaching Community-Based Participatory Research: A Guide for Course Instructors................................ 265 Bibliography..............................................................................................287 Index...........................................................................................................300

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this book would not have been possible without the help of a number of people. We thank our partners for their continued support: Mary Ann Jenkins and Ian Schwartz. Thanks also to the students who conducted the research with St. Mary’s Home, featured in this book, including Cassandra Erichsen, Anne Houston, Stephanie Napoleone and Jocelyn Wattam, as well as the Management of St. Mary’s Home for allowing us to include the research about their program. Additionally, all of the students in our research and evaluation course over the years have lent us their voices in the many quotes that we included in the text. Thanks also to the people at Fernwood Publishing: Wayne Antony for his guidance and patience, Beverley Rach for production, Brenda Conroy for page design, Debbie Mathers for typesetting, Eileen Young for copy editing and John van der Woude for the cover design.

ix

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Karen Schwartz is associate dean (Research and International) for the Faculty of Public Affairs and an associate professor in the School of Social Work. Her areas of practice and research involve community engaged scholarship, field education, mental health and social work pedagogy. Karen is a co-investigator on a sshrc funded grant exploring the benefits to the community from campus engagement. Adje van de Sande is an associate professor at the School of Social Work at Carleton University. He is co-author (with Christie Byvelds) of Statistics for Social Justice: A Structural Approach. He is the chair of the Centre for Studies on Poverty and Social Citizenship, the Research Centre for the School of Social Work. He teaches research methods and statistics with a focus on community-based participatory research.

x

PREFACE

F

or over twenty years now, Carleton University School of Social Work has structured the master of social work research course so that students in small groups engage in research with community agencies. Both this and the previous edition of Research for Social Justice draw heavily from our experiences as instructors, from more than a hundred and twenty-five research projects carried out by our students, and from the feedback from organizations who have participated in these research projects. With permission, we have also made extensive use of student projects to illustrate the concepts presented in this text. Over the years, the course has evolved, and we have tried as much as possible to be true to our structural/social justice roots. The book is intended for anyone who does research for social justice or needs to assess research done with/about marginalized communities. Primarily, we have in mind social work students engaged in community-based participatory research and instructors who teach courses in this area. To assist instructors and students, we have made use of an actual research project carried out by one of our student research teams. Each chapter includes a section of their research project related to the topic of that chapter. Also included at the end of the book is a detailed step-bystep description of how we organize our course. The book will also benefit social workers who are increasingly called upon to conduct research such as program evaluations and needs assessments within their organizations. Last, social science students, broadly engaged in social justice and community-based research, will find this book a useful guide.

xi

TRUTH IN FACTS? Beth Schilling Qualitative vs. quantitative hasn’t really ever been a question for me; it’s been the former, hands down, before the latter in life – experientially. I’d rather trust “truths” not facts, personal stories, not cold hard stats; For numbers are used, man-i-pulated, so that any, and all(?) conclusions stated— even with peer review and scientific certainty— are only as good as their Theories’ qualities. And since theories change, with the whims of people, church and state popular opinion, pocket books and sometimes factual debate— To truly know how things are turning (it’s now earth round the sun, sun around what… we’re still learning!) takes one on one deep understanding, self-reflection, and self-commanding reflexive participatory engaging communication not factual numeric categorizing qualifications. So to enable a knowing of what truly counts, what is quality; to account for the differences defined by every you and me; to ensure the use of all knowing to create a just society: we must see beyond the quantifiable to our shared humanity b!WILDer2010 Reprinted with permission of the poet

Chapter One

RESEARCH AS POLITICS

S

ocial work training and study require social research skills and courses. Despite concerns about the perceived gap between research and practice (Rubin and Babbie 2008), some authors (Marlow 2005; Yegidis, Weinbach and Morrison-Rodriquez 2009) attempt to minimize the gap by showing how the two follow similar steps. Most social work research texts emphasize the importance of following the scientific method as the most effective way to obtain trustworthy information about issues important to social work, such as innovations in social work practice, the effectiveness of social welfare policy, an understanding of human behaviour and the impact of anti-oppressive practices in various settings like child welfare agencies (Royse 2008; Rubin and Babbie 2008; Yegidis, Weinbach and Morrison-Rodriquez 2009; Faulkner and Faulkner 2009). Social workers closely aligned with health professionals adhere to the scientific method and promote evidence-based practice and research-informed policy. Both “encourage social workers to draw on a scientific and empirical knowledgebase and seek to be objective, including attempts to evaluate the impact or efficacy of any interventions applied to service users” (Carey 2013: 59). The traditional scientific method requires the researcher to strive to be neutral, objective and free from the influences of society. While we agree that certain aspects of the scientific method should be maintained, we do not believe that social work research can be value-free, since, as noted by Carey, “the beliefs, opinions and prejudices held by the researcher prior to undertaking the research will almost certainly influence their findings” (2012: 59). Just as social work is committed to social justice and social change, that should be the aim of social work research. We argue that social work research should be 1

2  Research for Social Justice

carried out from a structural perspective and follow anti-oppressive practice (aop) principles. The structural perspective views the problems experienced by people as rooted in the social, political and economic structures of society. We also believe that schools of social work have a responsibility to leave the “ivory tower” and stay connected to the community. Besides the usual method of having students do their field placements in the community, schools could provide a valuable service by having graduate social work students engage in community-based research. STRUCTURAL SOCIAL WORK The term “structural” originated in the United States in the 1970s. Middleman and Goldberg (1974) introduced the structural approach as a way for the social worker to intervene “to improve the quality of the relationship between people and their social environment by bringing to bear, changing, or creating social structures” (32).1 The structural approach in practice and research is based on a “conflict” perspective of society, which, within sociological literature, is one of two perspectives of how society functions (Reason and Purdue 1981). The “order” perspective, consistent with neoliberal ideology, posits that society is basically functioning in an orderly fashion, characterized by stability and consensus. This perspective views social problems as being caused by individuals who do not respect the rules of society and who need to be taught to follow these rules (Reasons and Perdue 1981; Anthony and Samuelson 2012). According to the conflict perspective, in keeping with social democratic and Marxist ideology, the powerful groups in society are able to pursue their own self-interests and oppress others through coercion and subjugation (Mullaly 2007). These capitalist groups also create conflict leading to social problems such as poverty and racism. While mainstream social work focuses primarily on the individual and on maintaining social order (Payne 2005), structural social work uses the conflict perspective and focuses on oppressive social structures. As Bob Mullaly (2007: 22) explains, social workers working within mainstream social work are asked by the state to “police the casualties of unemployment, inflation, economic neglect and policies that place private profit above human need.” Therefore, structural social work research should expose the effects of an exploitative and alienating social order and create a picture of individual and group experiences of stigma and discrimination. Thus, a structural approach “seeks to change the social system and not the individual who receives, through no fault of their own, the results of defective social arrangements” (Mullaly 2007: 245). Changing the social system involves creating social justice, which involves bringing the voices of people who have been marginalized into the mainstream and giving them greater access to resources and

Research as Politics  3

power. “Social justice is the view that everyone deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportunities” (nasw). Structural social work is one means to achieve social justice. Integrating the structural approach into social work practice includes five practice methods (see, for example, Moreau 1989; Carniol 1992): 1. Defence of the Client Social workers using the structural approach help to defend their clients2 against an oppressive system. Quite often, clients are not familiar with their rights and require someone to advocate on their behalf. This includes writing letters, attending meetings and, if needed, subverting agency policy. Ensuring that clients are aware of their eligibility for resources and how to access these resources is a final aspect of client defence (Schwartz and O’Brien 2010). 2. Collectivization It is common for clients to feel that the problems they face are the result of their individual shortcomings. They need to know that they are not alone in their struggles. An important role of the structural social worker is to connect clients to support networks and reduce their isolation and alienation. To illustrate collectivization, Colleen Lundy (2004: 64) provides an example of a group for incest survivors, with the social worker using educational material such as other women’s stories about incest and survival to help her clients accept that it is not a “private shame.” 3. Materialization A cornerstone of the structural approach is the materialist analysis. Many of the personal problems experienced by clients are a direct result of material deprivation. A single parent on social assistance will often struggle with depression and feelings of inadequacy. Rather than focusing on the mental health issues, social workers help clients make the connection between their poverty and their mental health concerns, leading them to conclude that they are not to blame for their situation; rather, they are faced with structural problems beyond their control. 4. Increasing Client Power in the Relationship Clients coming for assistance typically experience feelings of powerlessness. Part of the work of a structural social worker is to increase the power of clients in the worker-client relationship by clear contracting, avoiding jargon, sharing rationales behind proposed interventions and showing clients what is in their files. Instead of solving the client’s problems, the worker helps clients understand their situation in such a way that they can mobilize their own energy to find solutions. In this way, clients see themselves as in control of their own problems and the possible solutions.

4  Research for Social Justice

5. Enhancing the Client’s Power through Personal Change Without judging or blaming, the structural social worker maximizes the client’s potential for personal change of thoughts and behaviours that are self-destructive or destructive to others. This is done by offering a range of possible alternative behaviours and helping them make the connection between their thoughts and behaviours and their social context. These practice methods also relate to research. Hick (1997) believes that structural social work can help researchers to view social problems as located in social structures and relations and in the dominant neoliberal ideology rather than in the individual, couple or family. For instance, with respect to materialization, researchers have long found a strong correlation between poverty and illness including mental illness: the lower a person’s socioeconomic status the greater their chances of suffering from mental distress (Melzer, Fryers and Jenkins 2004; Raphael 2016). Studies have also shown that poverty, unemployment and lack of affordable housing often precede a diagnosis of mental illness and psychiatric hospitalization and can, therefore, be seen as causal factors (Hudson 2005). Helping clients acquire decent housing, employment and adequate food is extremely important in the prevention and relief of mental distress. Many mental health service users find their experiences of stigma more disturbing than the suffering from mental illness. Large-scale studies that document this discrimination can be used in the process of collectivization to help clients understand that they are not alone in experiencing discrimination (Schwartz and O’Brien 2010). A Canadian Senate report, Out of the Shadows at Last (Kirby and Keon 2006), documents, among other things, the stories of people with mental health problems who have experienced discrimination. This document led to the creation of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, which formulated a national mental health policy, titled Changing Directions, Changing Lives: The Mental Health Strategy for Canada (2012). It successfully advocated for and achieved the inclusion of mental health service users in policy formation, thus helping policy makers, service providers and service users to see mental health issues through the lens of a recovery model that seeks social inclusion and integration of people with mental health difficulties. One of the commission’s first initiatives was to respond to service-users’ desire for a database of recovery-oriented practices to facilitate understanding and acceptance of this model. Involving clients at all stages of the research process is a way of empowering them. This practice is an integral part of a structural research method called participatory action research (par) (discussed in Chapter 6). Critics of traditional forms of research feel it is important that the values of participant empowerment and conscientization (which means thinking critically about how power, privilege and oppression can be replicated) are reflected in structural forms of research (Brown

Research as Politics  5

and Reitsma-Street 2003). As an example, if an organization requests a needs assessment, the researcher would ensure that clients are involved in the research process. This way, the organization becomes aware of what clients feel they need, and has the opportunity to be more responsive. Furthermore, it is empowering for clients to see their ideas reflected in the wording of a questionnaire and their voices included in the final research report. One group of our students was asked to create a service-user feedback form that would enable the organization to get feedback about their programs in a way that the service users felt was understandable and not too onerous. The service users were clients of an Assertive Community Treatment Team which works with service users in their home and community to help people with severe and persistent mental illness. The service users helped the students create a form that was more creative and colourful, as well as a process where they were given the option to be interviewed rather than handed a form to complete and/or given help to complete the from. The creativity included drawing thought bubbles where the service users could fill in their opinions, and pictures of facial expressions to illustrate a typical Likert Scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree). In these days of emoticons, pictures are acceptable and appreciated. All of the service users felt empowered by being able to give back to an organization that they felt had helped them (Fennell et al. 2015). ANTI-OPPRESSIVE PRACTICE In addition to a structural perspective, social work research should follow antioppressive practice (aop) principles. aop is an umbrella term that includes a number of social-justice-oriented approaches, such as feminist, Marxist, postmodernist and structural to name a few (what Baines (2012: 7) refers to as a “blended-heterodox social-justice-oriented model”). Many aop principles relate directly to research. Donna Baines points out: “Social work is not a neutral, technical profession, but an active political process” (2007: 21). As discussed earlier, whereas the scientific method and most mainstream social work research texts emphasize the importance of being as neutral and objective as possible, we argue that social work research should not be neutral; it should actively pursue social justice and social change. Another relevant principle from aop is that “participatory approaches between practitioners and clients are necessary” (21). A participatory approach to research means that “subjects” of the research must be actively involved in all phases, including the choice of research questions, the development of the methods and data-gathering instruments, the analysis of the data and the preparation of the final report. This approach presents some difficult but not insurmountable challenges for social work students, who are subject to rigid university ethics regulations.

6  Research for Social Justice

A third aop principle is that “social work needs to build allies and work with social movements” (21). Chapter 5, on research partners, discusses researchers’ need to identify the relevant partners in the research project, including those who may be directly or indirectly oppressing people, as well as those who may become potential allies in the project and who will support the change process. A fourth aop principle states, “a blended-heterodox social justice perspective provides the best potential for politicized, transformative social work practice” (22). What this suggests is that social work researchers should use a mixed methods design, including methods that are not typically used in mainstream social work research, such as ethnomethodology. A final aop principle that relates to social work research is that “self-reflexive practice and ongoing social analysis are essential components of social-justice-oriented social work practice” (22). We need to become aware of our own deeply integrated beliefs about what constitutes good research and which research paradigm we are naturally inclined to follow, as most of us have been heavily influenced by the empiricist approach to research. The empiricist approach, which is discussed in more detail in the next chapter, holds that only knowledge based on direct observation can be accepted as scientific fact. As a student wrote in (her) journal: When I studied Anti-Oppressive Practice and Research, I … extensively explored how my worldview was impacted by my social location as a White, able, “straight” person of western European descent who is mid-twenties, from a middle-class background and who grew up in traditional Coast Salish territory, also known as Victoria, B.C. I believe researchers, like all persons, have worldviews that are formed by the way they were socialized based on their social location and lived experiences.3 A good part of students’ anxiety towards, and conflicted feelings about, research may be because they do not see the connection between practice and research. Since the 1970s, social work educators have challenged the profession to prove that their practice was effective (Fischer 2009). Many studies have found several difficulties with casework practices, including service users not being actively involved in their own cases and not agreeing with practitioners on the goals of intervention. There was evidence that social work education did not adequately prepare practitioners and that social work practice was not effective.4 This led to the demand for schools of social work to provide training in research methods and for social workers to engage in “evidence-based practice.” Evidence-based practice in social work (ebpsw) is “the planned use of empirically supported assessment and intervention methods combined with the judicious use of monitoring and evaluation strategies for the purpose of improving the psycho-social well-being

Research as Politics  7

of clients” (O’Hare 2005: 6). It is clearly important that social workers reflect on and find ways to evaluate the effectiveness of their practice. However, service users have been telling social workers for some time that the traditional ebpsw model practices, developed through research clinical trials,5 are deficient because they do not accept certain types of evidence, such as service-users’ perception of care (Manderscheid 2006). Consequently, models for examining practice based on values that are more consistent with those of structural social work have emerged, for example, practice-based evidence. This model allows for the co-construction by the social worker and the service user of evidence on how well interventions work. Instructors need to help social work students see research as an effective tool to challenge oppression. Reflexive exercises can help students understand that their worldview and personal theoretical perspective are relevant not only for practice but for research as well. Research questions, methods of data collection and ways of interpreting data need to be consistent with their theoretical analysis. “Only by knowing that oppression is a social construction can social work embark on a deconstruction of oppressive practices and reconstruction of society characterized by true social equality” (Mullaly 2007: 284). For example, a msw students describes her thoughts as a woman of colour and her struggles with the power dynamics within her research team: Feminist research proponents state that the researcher cannot be distanced from the research process … I always feel the presence of my identity in my social work practice as a woman and as a person of colour. My struggle in this research is the degree to which I will be able to bring this identity into this research process. Among a number of group members involved in this study, I am the only woman of colour, more specifically a black immigrant woman. My experiences of marginalization … are such that my views in various groups among mainstream members have not been valued or validated. As a result, I wonder how much say I will have in the process. I also wonder how much of this self-awareness will limit my openness to other people’s ideas. This makes me weary of the group power dynamics that may play out and how my own experiences and biases regarding my identity will influence my participation in this research project.6 By being open about her concerns, this student can assist her team members in confronting their own prejudices. This reflexive statement does not leave the “white students” off the hook because they are also engaging in their own process of self-reflection.

8  Research for Social Justice

RESEARCH CAN BE FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE This chapter introduces the basic principles underlying community-based research carried out from a structural perspective. We believe that such research is more in keeping with our core social work values, which are to challenge oppression and work towards social justice change. The following chapters explore how these principles inform research. In addition to topics such as research paradigms and ethics, we also look at participatory action research. par is very much in keeping with the structural approach, and the material covered in that chapter (Chapter 6) is key to a comprehensive understanding of it. Research conducted from a structural perspective can be both quantitative and qualitative. However, regardless of the choice of research design, it is important for social work researchers to be clear with organizations that the research will be conducted from a structural perspective. Organizations will need to agree to the structural and anti-oppressive principles that researchers intend to follow. Since not all organizations will support the structural approach, this may limit available research opportunities. On the other hand, it is hoped that most organizations will see the long-term benefits of this approach for their clients in terms of contributing to meaningful change. Regardless of the methodology chosen by the social work researcher, it is critical that the research be carried out in a rigorous manner. Researching for social justice must include such protocols as trustworthiness, validity, sampling and results analysis — protocols that set standards for research rather than just opinion or ideology. Research that is flawed will weaken the credibility of the results, doing a disservice to service users, to the profession and to the social justice cause being pursued. DISCUSSION QUESTIONS 1. What are some of the challenges in conducting research from a structural perspective? 2. Do you believe that participants have a role to play in the development and implementation of the research? Explain. 3. What do you think the relationship between research and practice should be? 4. Have you encountered research projects or research results that have led to social change? Notes 1. Maurice Moreau (1979) and his colleagues at the School of Social Work at Carleton University in Ottawa further developed the structural approach based on feminist and Marxist principles. Since then, Carleton has been known as the “Structural School” (Lundy 2004, 2011; Jennissen 2011). Work on the structural approach continued with

Research as Politics  9

2.

3. 4.

5.

6.

Bob Mullaly publishing a series of three books (1993, 1997, 2007), which provided a comprehensive framework for the approach. With respect to the use of the word “client”, we have been moving away from using this term preferring instead to use “service-user.” The term client suggests that the individual is purchasing a service, which is not the reality for almost all social work situations. Nevertheless, because the literature is still rife with the use of the term client, both client and service-user are used in this text. Christine Howey, Reflexive Journal, April 2011. This does not mean that there are not current critiques of social work practice. Certainly Indigenous social work researchers would say that current social work practice has not evolved sufficiently since the days of the “Sixties Scoop,” a dark time in social work history when social workers literally scooped children from reserves and placed them in foster homes (First Nations Drum 2009). Today there is still an extremely disproportionately high number of Indigenous children in provincial care. Traditionally, the gold standard of research has been clinical trials. This means quantitative studies that employ a control group not exposed to a particular treatment, compared with a group exposed to that treatment. Concillia Muonde, Reflexive Journal, November 2007.

A Community-Based Participatory Research Project: St. Mary’s Home Needs Assessment The following example is provided of a research project carried out by a team of four Master of Social Work students as part of their research course. St. Mary’s Home gave permission to include their project in this book. Below is a brief description of the organization and the perspective adopted by the student research team. Other parts of the research project are discussed in subsequent chapters. The student team is Cassandra Erichsen, Anne Houston, Stephanie Napoleone and Jocelyn Wattam. St. Mary’s Home St. Mary’s Home has been serving the needs of pregnant and parenting youth since 1930. Founded by Les Soeurs de la Providence, St. Mary’s Home offers a variety of programs and services for youth (up to age 25) and their children (up to Grade 1). For example, the St. Mary’s Home Outreach Centre has partnered with the Ottawa-Carleton Catholic School Board in order to offer a program for pregnant youth to achieve high school credits. Furthermore, in partnership with the City of Ottawa shelter system, St. Mary’s Home provides a residential program for pregnant, homeless youth and their infants (up to eight months old). St. Mary’s Home offers childcare, weekly on-site access to a food bank and medical clinic, and programs focused on healthy pregnancy and birth; parenting; life skills and personal growth; counselling; and support for young fathers. Although rates have been declining in Canada over the past 25 years, youth pregnancy and parenting remain significant public health concerns for various

10  Research for Social Justice

reasons (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care 2012). First, youth pregnancy rates are higher than the average in specific groups, including socioeconomically disadvantaged teens (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care 2012). Second, while provinces have developed several public health initiatives to address youth pregnancy in general (e.g., health sexuality education and counselling, provision of low cost contraceptive supplies, confidential sexual health clinic services, etc.), these initiatives have faced challenges regarding community acceptance and receptivity (Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care 2012). Considering the research that shows some significantly negative impacts of youth pregnancy and parenthood on both parents and their children, this study sought to explore the needs of young parents by conducting a needs assessment in collaboration with St. Mary’s Home. It is important to understand the needs of pregnant and parenting youth, and particularly which needs are being met and how they could be better supported in their pregnancy and/or parenting process. Theoretical Frameworks Our research team approached this research from Structural Social Work and Feminist theoretical frameworks. The Structural Social Work approach, which is rooted in a “conflict” perspective of society, focuses on social structures that enable more powerful societal groups to pursue their self-interests while oppressing others through coercion and subjugation (Reasons and Perdue 1981). Within this theoretical framework, social workers are encouraged to engage in research that exposes the “effects of an exploitative and alienating social order” and illustrates individual/group experiences of stigma and discrimination in order to promote changes in social systems (van de Sande and Schwartz 2011: 3). Our study is consistent with the tenets of the structural approach, as it aims to empower St. Mary’s Home service users by engaging them at all stages of the research process (e.g., as participants, as members of an advisory committee, etc.). Furthermore, the purpose of the research is to develop an improved understanding of the needs of service users, and ultimately to implement policy changes (at St. Mary’s with the hope they could be used by other similar facilities and at the municipal as well) that will help St. Mary’s Home more effectively address the needs of this marginalized group. Finally, although our research explored the needs and experiences of both men and women who access St. Mary’s Home, our questions were created and our findings will be analyzed through the lens of feminist theory. While there is no “unified feminist perspective,” a feminist approach typically involves a focus on gender as an oppressive, ideological structure, and the presence of patriarchal forces that contribute to the structural inequality of men and women (Kelly 1999: 59). Feminist scholars have begun to articulate a position on youth pregnancy and parenting that addresses the needs of socially disadvantaged women (i.e., low-income women, women of colour, young women, etc.) who have, historically, been vulnerable to coercive birth control policies* supported by the view that

Research as Politics  11

“social problems are caused by disadvantaged groups of women bearing children” (Kelly 1999: 59–61). Thus, in being mindful of the historical challenges faced by pregnant and parenting youth, the feminist perspective that shapes our research also promotes: 1) respect for and support of the rights of young women to bear and raise their own children; and 2) the provision of a variety of resources for pregnant and parenting youth, without judgment or surveillance (Kelly 1999: 61). We understand that this population faces unique challenges on personal, social, and systemic levels. Disadvantaged young mothers often face social and financial barriers that such as social isolation and fewer educational and employment opportunities (Langille 2007: 1601). In addition, young mothers are also more likely to live in poor conditions, lack financial resources, experience high stress, and encounter family instability (Letourneau et al. 2004: 509). However, many of the fundamental issues related to youth pregnancy and childbearing do not result from a direct cause-and-effect relationships. This means that there are compounding factors that impact whether or not a young mother (and her child) will face challenges. While there are negative consequences associated with youth pregnancy, when racial and economic variables are accounted for, young mother’s challenges were more dependent on race, ethnic background, and income level than on maternal age (Bissell 2000: 202). Bissell also notes that, due to the large number of young mothers who come from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds, the challenges they experience throughout their pregnancy may result from issues of family status and pre-pregnancy life, as opposed to the pregnancy itself (202). * If teenage pregnancy is viewed by a patriarchal society as a “social problem,” then society may use coercive birth control policies to pressure teenage women to use birth control.

Chapter Two

RESEARCH PARADIGMS

T

he dominant approach to research in the West has been and continues to be the “scientific method,” which is associated with what is called the “modernist” or “positivist paradigm.” However, recent decades have seen a growing shift toward what is called post-modernism, post-positivism or interpretivism (Marlow 2005; Rubin and Babbie 2008). Beginning in the 1970s, researchers began to question the appropriateness of relying solely on the dominant experimental approach. Michael Patton, best known for his classic book Qualitative Evaluation Methods (1980), states that even major spokespersons for the positivist paradigm, including Donald Campbell (1974) and Lee Cronbach (1975), strongly support the usefulness of the qualitative approach. During the 1980s, feminist scholars argued that objective and value-neutral research, as upheld by the positivist, empiricist view, is a myth (Harding 1987; Smith 1987; Tanesini 1999). Yet, in spite of the increased acceptance of interpretivism, social work is still heavily influenced by the scientific method, as defined by positivists. For instance, Bonnie Yegidis et al. (2009: 14), in Research Methods for Social Workers, argue: “Knowledge derived from research, although certainly imperfect and still subject to unethical distortions, is the knowledge most likely to help us do our jobs as social workers effectively. It relies on the use of the scientific method.” The authors add that certain characteristics of the scientific method set it apart from other sources of knowledge: science is empirical, strives for objectivity and employs specific rules, procedures and techniques. Allen Rubin and Earl Babbie (2008: 20), in their text Research Methods for Social Work, state: “When we use the scientific method, we should search for evidence that is based on observation as the basis of knowledge…. 12

Research Paradigms  13

Scientific observations should be systematic, comprehensive, and as objective as possible.” The new paradigm, however, challenges this view, arguing that science and research are not and should not be neutral. As social work researchers and as social workers, we need to critically examine our own beliefs when conducting research. Do we agree that the positivist scientific method is the most legitimate approach to acquiring knowledge, or are we in favour of other methods? To help us get in touch with our deeply held beliefs about research, we need to engage in reflexive exercises. But first let’s examine more carefully the nature of paradigms. PARADIGMS Paradigms are systems of knowledge that guide how we think and act. Thomas Kuhn, in his landmark book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes paradigms as “universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions to a community of practitioners” (1970: viii). Yvonna Lincoln and Egon Guba (1985), in Naturalistic Inquiry, explain that paradigms are a distillation of what we think. Paradigms provide us with a framework for making sense of our world. Paradigms are, in a sense, constraining: A paradigm is a worldview, a general perspective, a way of breaking down the complexity of the real world. As such, paradigms are deeply imbedded in … socialization …: paradigms tell them what is important, legitimate, and reasonable. Paradigms are also normative, [telling the practitioner] what to do without the necessity of long existential or epistemological consideration. But it is this aspect that constitutes both their strength and their weakness — their strength in that it makes action possible, their weakness in that the very reason for action is hidden in the unquestioned assumptions of the paradigm. (Patton 1978: 203) For instance, within the structural social work paradigm, we take it for granted that clients should not be blamed for their socioeconomic situation. Most of us are not conscious of the paradigm we follow as we plan our actions. As Michael Patton states, paradigms provide unquestioned assumptions about our world and how we should function within it. Such assumptions are situated in our cultural, social and historical experience and context. For example, as stated by Jocelyn Wattam, one of our graduate students, in her reflexive journal: As both of my parents work as physicians, they place a lot of value on empirical evidence and the medical model. I remember talking about my opinions in high school, and my mom challenging me to consider the evidence of my arguments. There have been many occasions when my siblings and I challenged my parents on their beliefs (such as by talking about the value of alternative medicine) and

14  Research for Social Justice

I have noticed that although they are very open-minded in many areas, they sometimes became defensive and dismissed other ways of understanding and gaining information that cannot be proven by empirical evidence. PARADIGM SHIFTS Even though paradigms as unquestioned assumptions are resistant to change, they do change and shift. Kuhn states that paradigm shifts do not occur in an orderly, evolutionary manner (1970). Rather, they are the result of dramatic revolutions, and each subsequent paradigm competes with its predecessors in its claim to provide the most complete explanation for the order of things. In the West, we have gone through significant paradigm shifts. It should be noted that Kuhn is describing the shifts that occurred in our Western society and that paradigms that existed in the East as well as in Indigenous societies, discussed later in this chapter, were very different. Lincoln and Guba (1985) identify three major paradigms in terms of scientific knowledge: pre-positivism, positivism (or modernism) and post-positivism (interpretivism). Pre-Positivism The pre-positivist era, or what many historians have labelled the pre-Enlightenment era (Kuhn 1970), stretched roughly from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers, 450 Before Common Era (bce), to the time of the British empiricists, 1800 Common Era (ce) (Lincoln and Guba 1985). Pre-positivism was marked by passive observation of natural phenomena; humans were not trying to control nature but simply wanted to understand its laws. The first part of the pre-Enlightenment era did, however, produce some of the greatest thinkers of the Western world, including Plato and Aristotle. Plato is associated with the Rationalists, who believe that you can get at the truth by the use of reason and that knowledge derived in this way is as valid as, if not superior to, knowledge achieved by means of observation through the senses. Aristotle, on the other hand, is associated with the Empiricists who believe that only knowledge derived by means of direct observation through the senses should be accepted as true knowledge. So dominant was Aristotle’s influence on the Western world that he is generally regarded as the “father of modern science” (Chaplin and Kraweic 1968: 15). The second part of the pre-Enlightenment era, roughly from the time of the fall of the Roman Empire up until the Renaissance, was known as the Dark Ages when scientific advancement came to a virtual standstill and the Catholic Church was the chief source of knowledge. This period, when kings had absolute power and believed that it was their divine right to rule, is characterized by authoritarianism. This was also the time of the feudal system, when most people worked for the nobility as serfs in almost slave-like conditions.

Research Paradigms  15

The pre-Enlightenment period ended with the Renaissance, during which time people began to challenge the power of the nobility and to question the teachings of the Church. One of the great thinkers of the Renaissance was René Descartes, who began to question everything that he had been taught up until that time, including whether he even existed. The one and only thing that he could not doubt was that he thought: with that belief, he concluded that he must exist; hence his statement, “Cogito ergo sum,” or “I think, therefore I am.” Because his approach to achieving knowledge involved the use of reason, Descartes is associated with Plato and the Rationalists. Although Rationalism did not become the dominant way of achieving knowledge in the Western world, Descartes did open the door to new ways of thinking: for that reason, he is considered by many to be the “father of modern philosophy” (Chaplin and Kraweic 1968: 15). Positivism The positivist era, also called the modernist era, began in Europe roughly at the start of the Industrial Revolution. The movement started slowly and gained momentum during the early part of the nineteenth century. New technologies were invented which facilitated the rapid spread of industrialization (Lincoln and Guba 1985). The term “positivism” was coined by nineteenth-century French sociologist Auguste Comte (Neuman and Kreuger 2003). The most influential advocates were a group of philosophers collectively known as the “Vienna Circle of Logical Positivists” (Lincoln and Guba 1985: 19). Their approach to research “amounted to the methodological assertion that any variable which cannot be directly represented by a measurement operation has no place in science” (Ford 1975, cited in Lincoln and Guba 1985: 45). If we look at the structural theory of Sigmund Freud (Goldstein 1996) compared to the behaviourist theory of John Watson (Chaplin and Kraweic 1968), we can see the difference between passive observation (Freud) and positivism (Watson). Through introspection and examining his experience with clients, Freud identified the three basic structures of the personality — the id, the ego and the superego. Watson, on the other hand, believed that psychology should only focus on things such as behaviour that can be observed and measured; he thought that theories developed through introspection had no place in an objective science. This use of measurement is the kind of active intervention that sets positivism apart from passive observation. However, it was not just in philosophy that the positivist movement was influential. Positivists had (and still have) an extremely optimistic evaluation of the potential of science. They believe that science will allow humankind to conquer famine and disease, and generally lead us toward a better world. Positivism led to the adoption of the scientific method as the dominant set of techniques to understand ourselves and our world.

16  Research for Social Justice

As stated above, the positivist era developed during the Industrial Revolution when Western society went through a rapid and dramatic transformation leading to large-scale social disruption. The impact of this social disruption was studied by Emile Durkheim, Max Weber and Karl Marx. Durkheim expressed his concern that the disruption would lead to “anomie,” a condition where the norms and values that hold society together are weakened to the point where individuals are left with little moral guidance. He pointed to the increase in suicides as a good index of anomie. Weber expressed concern that the technological developments of the Industrial Revolution would result in the creation of impersonal bureaucracies so preoccupied with rules and procedures that they erode the human spirit. Finally, Marx saw the Industrial Revolution as synonymous with capitalism. Of the three sociologists, he had a more optimistic view of the social disruption since he believed it to be necessary to create the conditions for a communist revolution leading to an egalitarian society (Macionis 2007). It was also during the positivist/modernist era that social work developed. As Malcolm Payne (2005) explains, social work is a product of modernism, even though a range of perspectives operate within it. The role of social work within the modernist paradigm is to ensure that people function within societal norms. The assumption of a modernist perspective is similar to that of the order perspective, described in Chapter 1: society is functioning in an orderly fashion and social problems result from people not respecting the rules. As such, Payne believes that one of the original purposes of social work was to maintain the social order and enforce the status quo. In agreeing with this point of view, Merlinda Weinberg (2010: 40) suggests that self-reflection needs to occur within the profession regarding the benefits to social work professionals in keeping the “poor poor and the marginalized marginalized.” All of us, including professional social workers, are influenced by the dominant cultural values and biases of our society. If the dominant view of the poor is that they are poor because some moral defect, then social workers may also have these deeply held beliefs. Weinberg believes that only through self-reflection will social workers be able to confront their own values and biases so as not to unwittingly marginalize their low-income clients even further. Regarding research specifically, Christina Marlow (2005) explains in Research for Generalist Social Work that positivism is linked to empiricist principles, which hold that only knowledge based on direct observation through the senses can be accepted as scientific fact. Empiricist principles include the following: 1. Objectivity: To the greatest extent possible, the researcher’s values should not interfere with the study of the problem. This means that things that are being observed must not be affected in any way by the person doing the observing or measuring. Positivists would claim that a gay or lesbian person could not

Research Paradigms  17

2.

3.

4.

5.

do research on sexuality, as their personal sexual preferences would get in the way of their objectivity. (Curiously, the same positivists would likely not see a heterosexual man doing the same kind of research as compromising objectivity.) Causality: The positivist strives to find cause-and-effect relationships. Causality means that a change in one factor (x) produces changes in another factor (y). For example, an evaluation of an anger management program might hope to demonstrate that the program causes participants to exhibit fewer hostile outbursts. To establish causality, the following three conditions must be met: 1) a statistical association has to exist; 2) factor x must occur before factor y; and 3) the relationship between factors x and y must be logically linked. Deductive Reasoning: Positivism is based largely on deductive reasoning, which means moving from the general to the specific. For example, the general principle is that racism continues to be widespread in our society. Therefore, in applying this principle, a specific person of colour will likely have experienced racism. Quantitative Methods: Positivism relies on quantitative methods, where the categories are determined prior to the study and assigned numerical values. Studies are conducted using a standardized measurement instrument with closed-ended, as opposed to open-ended, questions, which provides a numerical score. An example of a quantitative, closed-ended question is: “On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being strongly disagree to 5 being strongly agree, ‘Do you think the police department is doing a good job?’” An example of an openended question is: “What does it mean to you to say that police should be involved in the community?” Generalizations: The results must be generalizable to a large group. For example, the results of a pilot study evaluating the effectiveness of a new intervention approach, conducted with a group of inner-city residents in Winnipeg, should be applicable to similar service users all over Canada or North America.

These empiricist principles have had and continue to have a profound influence on the way we think. Most Western social workers accept the scientific method as the most legitimate way to achieve knowledge. In their struggle to prove the effectiveness of social work practice, for example, most traditional social work researchers turn to the scientific method, with its controlled “objective” experimentation and a “causal” explanation (Payne 2005).

18  Research for Social Justice

Post-Postitivism The beginning of post-postitivism (also called post-modernism or interpretism) is unclear, since much of the Western world is still largely in the grip of positivism. Nevertheless, particularly in the social sciences, including social work, the assumptions of positivism are being challenged. While some positivists insist that all knowledge is a kind of interpretation, believing that these interpretations can be shared and verified by all people, interpretivists emphasize that the values of the researcher cannot be separated from the research; in other words, pure objectivity is not possible, nor is it desirable. While positivists believe that the researcher observes phenomena from an external vantage point, the post-positivist believes that the researcher and the phenomenon are enmeshed. All of us observe the world through our own individual lenses, which have been shaped by our cultural values and traditions. This “interpretism” proposes that reality depends to some degree on people’s definition of it (Marlow 2005). Interpretist principles include the following: 1. Subjectivity: The interpretive researcher is interested in people’s definition of reality, in other words, in the meaning they ascribe to reality. For example, I think most of us would agree that women and men experience reality differently. In general the interpretive researcher would say that there is not just one reality, and that everyone’s reality is different. 2. Description: Interpretist researchers are interested in understanding rather than establishing causality. For example, in what is called formative evaluation, the interpretist researcher looks at the effectiveness of a program from the perspective of staff and service users, using open-ended interviews and questionnaires. In contrast, the positivist researcher would conduct what is called a summative evaluation, which seeks to establish a causal relationship between the program and changes in the service users. 3. Inductive Reasoning: Interpretism is based largely on inductive reasoning, which means moving from the specific to the general. Interpretist researchers recognize that everyone experiences reality differently, and therefore it does not make sense to apply a general rule to all individual cases. 4. Qualitative Methods: Qualitative methods involve using words rather than numbers. The interpretist researcher is interested in people’s stories, and not in gathering numbers.

Research Paradigms  19

POSITIVISM AND SOCIAL WORK In 1892, largely because of the work of French sociologist Emile Durkheim, sociology began to gain hold as a legitimate discipline. At the University of Chicago, white male sociologists carried out research while female sociologists carried out applied sociology in settlement houses, such as Hull House. This gendered context led to the division of social work and sociology in North America. The women of Hull House (the most famous of whom was Jane Addams) developed the foundation of social work knowledge, but their impact was not limited to social work. Their 1895 publication Hull-House Maps and Papers, which analyzed the “effects of social disorganization, immigration, and the economy on the everyday life of an urban neighbourhood,” established the “substantive interests and methodological technique of Chicago Sociology” (Deegan 1988: 24). Thus, the relationship between social work and sociological knowledge has always been marked by interdependence. By 1917, the profession of social work separated more decisively from sociology as Mary Richmond published Social Diagnosis, the first comprehensive social work text. These two publications, by Jane Addams and Mary Richmond, are emblematic of the early transition in social work knowledge from research rooted in the ideals of social reform to “scientific” or apolitical research (Deegan 1988). The transition towards the scientific method was seen as critical for the legitimatization of social work as a profession (Margolin 1997). W. Lawrence Neuman (2006) regards the growth of positivist research methods in social work and the social sciences generally as directly related to pressure from private foundations and other funding bodies, university administrators who wanted to avoid unconventional politics, a desire by researchers for prestige, status and a public image of serious professionalism, and the information needs of expanding government and corporate bureaucracies. This push for “objective,” value-free research displaced locally based studies that were largely action-oriented, qualitative and run by social reformers, who were often women. As discussed in Kirby, Greaves and Reid (2006b), positivist research generally reflects the voice of privileged social groups (professional white men at the time). For credible positivist research, researchers must be well-schooled in the scientific method and have access to resources that enable them to conduct the research. Research produced by those in privileged positions in society will likely reflect the views and biases of the privileged. Such research effectively silences the voices of those who do not have access to these resources. Interestingly, even some positivists argue that scientific knowledge is not a sufficient approach to social work. These writers assert that “artistic knowledge” more effectively captures the intuitive, subjective, passionate and creative aspects

20  Research for Social Justice

of social work knowledge (England 1986; Transken 2002; Leavy 2009). For these authors, key aspects of social work knowledge are not represented or understood though science. One example of this is a study involving refugee children that used photographs, a hope quilt and the development of narratives that allowed the children to share their experiences with their parents and other adults (Yohani 2008). There remains, to this day, much debate and tension between those who believe in the dominant paradigm of science as the legitimate base of social work knowledge and those who argue that social work knowledge is more eclectic. Post-positivists argue that science subjugates knowledge and that new approaches to social work knowledge need to “install the client as an important site of knowledge” (Rossiter 2000: 27). Interpretivist researchers see the scientific method as limiting the multiple voices that can contribute to the construction of social work knowledge, arguing that the rigour and rigidity of experimental methods cannot account for the “complexity of human relations and interventions” (Trinder 2000: 42) For instance, a positivist approach cannot possibly account for the complex and multiple identity formations of people who self-identify as “queer.” Once a disparaging term, “queer” has been reclaimed by members of the lgbtq+ community to represent persons whose gender expressions differ from the heterosexual norms (Hick and Stokes 2017). As stated by Carrie Hammers and Allan Brown, “Traditional, distinctly modern social scientific approaches that adhere to objectivity, detachment and clear demarcations of the boundaries between researcher-researched, are inadequate to explore identity formations” (2004: 86). Hence interpretive methods rebalance empiricist methods “with subjective, intuitive and inductive approaches, thus lending support to new paradigms which integrate theorizing, practice and research as part of holistic experience” (Fook 1996: 197). MARXIST AND FEMINIST RESEARCH PARADIGMS As stated in Chapter 1, structural social work is based on Marxist and feminist theories. An extensive literature demonstrates that Marxism has had a profound impact on social work (Mullaly 2007; Payne 2005; Lundy 2004). For instance, the Marxist dialectic method of analysis has received a lot of attention in social work literature, particularly within the structural social work perspective (Moreau 1979; Mullaly 2007). As Bob Mullaly explains, the dialectic method sensitizes social workers to the opposing and contradictory forces within capitalism and “helps social work to avoid the construction of false dichotomies or dualisms that have been part of the social work tradition” (Mullaly 2007: 237). In other words, using the dialectical method would allow the social worker to understand that the social welfare state has positive elements, since it provides people with a minimum standard of living, and that investment in the welfare state could potentially lead to a more equitable

Research Paradigms  21

society. They would also see the negative side of social welfare, in that it can be used as an instrument of social control. An example of such social control is workfare, which requires people to work as a condition of receiving welfare benefits. As stated by Hick (2004: 193), “Sadly, most workfare schemes … rely on the same myths that have always plagued Social Assistance policy making: that the average user is lazy and unmotivated, and will stay on Social Assistance indefinitely if not forced to do useful work.” In the same vein, social work agencies may house both positive humanistic and negative coercive elements. The dialectic method provides social workers (and their clients) with a tool to understand these contradictions. Marxism also provides social work with different perspectives on the role of social welfare in society. Marxists are generally critical of the welfare state, suggesting that it is used by the capitalist to 1) reduce working-class antagonism to the existing social order; 2) increase the efficiency of the economic system; and 3) underwrite the costs that the owners of capital incur (Mullaly 2007: 149). In this sense, capitalists use welfare to avert social disruption. Bismark, who was nicknamed the “Iron Chancellor,” developed social welfare in Germany during the later part of the nineteenth century, not out of a concern for humanity but as an instrument of social control, particularly to stop the rising popularity of the socialist movement (Mullaly 2007). Building on Marxism, feminist theories focus on patriarchy to explain the structural inequality of men and women. Since traditional paradigms were all constructed by men, the feminist paradigm is offered as an alternative to these traditional paradigms, which are “gender blind” (Mullaly 2007: 161). There are different forms of feminism, and while all deal with inequality, they vary on the explanations and solutions. For instance, liberal feminism seeks to promote equal opportunities through legislation. Radical feminism focuses on men’s power and privilege and seeks to promote separate women’s structures. Marxist feminism targets the class basis of gender inequality. While Marxist feminists agree that Marxism provides a powerful tool for the analysis of the oppression of the working class, these feminists do not see the oppression of women as a subset of the overall subordination of working people. In fact, they believe that many socialist groups such as trade unions see feminist struggle against patriarchy as irrelevant and as a force that divides the working class (Mullaly 2007). More recently, post-modern feminism has been deconstructing conventional explanations to create an opening for a diverse range of explanations and behaviour (Payne 2005). With respect to research, there are two feminist epistemologies: feminist empiricism and standpoint feminism. Accepting that the norms of scientific research are sound, feminist empiricists believe that the basic principles of empiricism should not be rejected. However, they assert that traditional empiricism can be “improved” by making certain modifications, because science is not value-free

22  Research for Social Justice

and the scientific method is not sufficient to screen out the influence of these values. While acknowledging that values permeate scientific inquiry, they do not regard values as undermining science because values themselves can be evaluated (Tanesini 1999). For instance, one of the major criticisms of traditional “male” epistemology by feminists is that science needs to be an individual pursuit. Ever since the time of Descartes and Locke, it was believed that an individual must free himself from the influences of society to achieve true knowledge. Feminist epistemologists, on the other hand, believe that social factors are relevant and that the social location of the knower influences what they know. Lynn Hankinson Nelson, a feminist empiricist, argues that “It is the communities that construct and acquire knowledge” (1993: 123), not the individual. Feminist standpoint, on the other hand, acknowledges the role of the researcher as an active participant in the research and focuses on the experience of women in a patriarchal world. While there are a number of different definitions of feminist standpoint, the one chosen for this chapter comes from one of the original contributors of standpoint theory, Nancy Hartsock. She proposes using Marxist theory as a methodological base to develop an epistemological tool, feminist standpoint, for understanding and opposing class domination: Like the lives of the [working class] according to Marxian Theory, women’s lives make available a particular and privileged vantage point on male supremacy, a vantage point which can ground a powerful critique of the phallocratic institutions and ideology which constitute the capitalist form of patriarchy. (1983: 284) Marxists believe that only people who have been oppressed by a system can fully understand how that system functions (Payne 2005). Therefore, workers have a privileged perspective to understand the oppression created by the capitalist system, and women have a privileged perspective to understand the oppression created by patriarchy. As stated in Chapter 1, approaches based on Marxism, feminism and structuralism are all part of an umbrella term for social-justice-oriented approaches to social work. Social work is committed to social justice and social change, and the aim of social work research should be the same. For example, by conducting research that reveals the impact of government cuts, we may be able to show policy makers that investing in social programs makes good economic sense. As well, low-income groups and other organizations representing marginalized groups need the “hard” empirical data to advocate on their own behalf.

Research Paradigms  23

>

–

xiology

m ol o g y < –> ste pi

INDIGENOUS RESEARCH PARADIGMS While the acceptance of the interpretist, Marxist or feminist approach is a step in the right direction, all of these approaches are still located within a Western epistemological framework. As structural and anti-oppressive researchers, we need to acknowledge that there are also a variety of other research approaches that are completely different and do not fit into any Western framework. For our context, particularly in Canada, the development of uniquely Indigenous research paradigms have taken place thanks to the efforts of a few Indigenous scholars who have overcome significant barriers imposed by a Western positivist and empiricist academic culture. Patsy Steinhauer (cited in Wilson 2008) describes four phases in this development. The first phase, which occurred roughly in the 1960s and early 1970s, saw most Indigenous scholars working within a positivist framework. To be accepted by Western universities, they attempted to be Western scholars. During the second phase, which took place in the 1980s and early 1990s, Indigenous scholars began to question and challenge the appropriateness of imposing a Western scientific paradigm, but continued doing so to avoid academic marginalization. Volumes of research have generated a great deal of data on Indigenous people, but “there is little research which Indigenous peoples have been able to determine themselves” (Gilchrist 1999: 70). The third phase, during the later part of the 1990s, can be characterized as a period of decolonization. A good example of work done during this phase is the book by Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) entitled Decolonizing Methodologies. The fourth and current phase sees Indigenous scholars, working from a specifically Indigenous research perspective, finally being accepted by mainstream academic institutions. As Shawn Wilson points out, there Figure 2-1 Indigenous Research Paradigm is now an ever-increasing number of Indigenous students completing tology n their PhDs. E O Wilson conceptualizes an Indigenous research paradigm as a circle of four parts, similar to the medicine wheel (see Figure 2-1). The four parts, which are not separate but blend from one into the next to form a whole, include “axiology, ontology, epistemology . and methodology” (2008: 70). Axiology refers to the study of Source: Shawn Wilson, Research Is Ceremony, Fernwood Pubnature, ontology deals with the lishing, 2008. Reprinted with permission of the author

Me

thodology