Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
CHAPTER FOUR THE PROCESS OF THE INQUIRY AND RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
This chapter covers the anti-oppressive premise of the inquiry, the approach taken in the inquiry, its design, method, and how the inquiry will be disseminated. The approach includes the point of departure of the inquiry. The design of the inquiry is constructivist, exploratory and phenomenenological. The discussion on method includes sections on engaging the partner/participants, collecting and processing information, the unique contribution of the inquiry and ethical considerations.
In the previous chapter alternative theoretical paradigms were outlined (Schriver, 2004). These paradigms were outlined as traditional/dominant and alternative/possible. I chose to follow the latter in this inquiry. Critical theory and constructionist theory were also discussed in the previous chapter. These theories, in particular, are the foundation of the anti-oppressive premise of the inquiry and the basis of the research methods used.
Guba and Lincoln (2004: 17) emphasis that paradigms as in belief system or worldview direct the method used in an inquiry. One’s worldview comes first as it determines what approach one will take. “Questions of the method are secondary to questions of paradigm, which we define as the basic belief system or worldview that guides the investigator, not only in choices of method, but in ontologically and epistemologically fundamental ways” (Guba & Lincoln in Nagy Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2004: 17).
Point of Departure of the Inquiry’s Form
Knowledge is political. In the book Beyond Method, Wilson (1983) points out that research is more than a way to acquire knowledge about social structure and social interaction, but rather is “a form of social interaction expressive of certain structural and normative properties endemic to advanced industrial societies” (Wilson, 1983: 247). Furthermore, Wilson (1983: 250) says, “The asymmetrical power relationship between social scientist and subject that characterizes the research process is but one aspect of the wider social division of labor.” Wilson (1983) sets the groundwork for developing an anti-oppressive research process. Carrying on from Wilson, one could ask the following about epistemology:
“Defined narrowly, epistemology is the study of knowledge and justified belief. As the study of knowledge, epistemology is concerned with the following questions: What are the necessary and sufficient conditions of knowledge? What are its sources? What is its structure, and what are its limits? As the study of justified belief, epistemology aims to answer questions such as: How we are to understand the concept of justification? What makes justified beliefs justified? Is justification internal or external to one’s own mind? Understood more broadly, epistemology is about issues having to do with the creation and dissemination of knowledge in particular areas of inquiry.”
-Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
First published Wed 14 Dec, 2005, retrieved February 3, 2008.
This inquiry does not make claim to any truth. It is interested in meaning, how participants’ perspectives influence their actions. “What constructivism allows is that we do not have to get caught up in whether or not someone’s view is right or wrong, correct or incorrect. Rather, given a particular position, we can examine the consequences of holding that position” (Fisher, 1991: 17). Positions can be challenged on the basis of their consequences rather than on their correctness. Further, Rodwell (1998) informs that the measure of constructivist inquiry is in the process. The inquiry process is evaluated by its authenticity, which Rodwell describes as a “dimension of constructivist research rigor focusing on the quality of the research process, rather than on the research product. Composed of fairness, ontological, educative, catalytic, and tactical aspects” (1998: 253).
Anti-Oppressive Premise of Inquiry
Mullaly developed his theory of anti-oppressive social work from conflict and social constructionist theory informed by post-modern insights (2002: 5). As Mullaly admits, he constructed his theory from parts of theories that fit together. The theory’s complexity of ideas, meaning, and experience is used in the inquiry because it is in accord with social justice.
The Canadian Code of Ethics (Canadian Association of Social Workers, 2005) and its position on social justice and the premise of anti-oppressive social work also assist in establishing a foundation for the inquiry.
Values and Principles of Anti-oppressive Social Work
While there are variations, theories and practitioners that ascribe to an anti-oppressive approach are characterized by the following core values:
• “share the values of equality, inclusion, empowerment and community,
• understand the nature of society and the state of an individual’s consciousness [to be] critically related (Howe: 121) and therefore link the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of individuals to material, social, and political conditions,
• link personal troubles and public issues,
• see power and resources as unequally distributed, leading to personal and institutional relationships of oppression and domination,
• promote critical analysis,
• encourage, support, and ‘center’ the knowledges and perspectives of those who have been marginalized and incorporate these perspectives into policy and practice,
• articulate the multiple and intersecting basis of oppression and domination while not denying the unique impact of various oppressive constructs,
• conceive of social work as a social institution with a potential to either contribute to, or to transform, the oppressive social relations which govern the lives of many people,
• support the transformative potential of social work to work with diverse individuals, groups, and communities,
• have a vision of an egalitarian future” (Campbell, 2003: 1).
The anti-oppressive approach, incorporating the value of an egalitarian future and the rejection of all forms of inequality, clearly goes beyond utilitarianism and simple distributive justice as espoused in the Canadian Social Work Code of Ethics (2005). The anti-oppressive approach not only provides social workers with an opportunity to reflect on their own value system, but it also rocks the boat of social work conventions.
Potts and Brown in their essay, Becoming an Anti-oppressive Researcher, which
can be found in the book Research as Resistance, (edited by Brown & Strega, 2005: 206-
262) provide three emergent tenets of anti-oppressive research:
“1. Anti-oppressive research is social justice and resistance in process and in outcome.
Choosing to be an anti-oppressive researcher means choosing to do research and support research that challenges the status quo and its process as well as its outcomes. It seeks to resist oppression embedded in ourselves, our work and, our world.
2. Anti-oppressive research recognizes that all knowledge is socially constructed and political.
So how do we know what we know? This is a question of epistemology, and it is key for understanding an anti-oppressive approach to research. From an anti-oppressive perspective, knowledge does not exist in and of itself, isolated from people. Rather, it is produced through the interaction of people, and as all people are socially located (in their race, gender, ability, class identities, and so on) with biases, privileges, and differing power relations, so too is the creation of knowledge socially located, socially constructed. Recognizing that knowledge is socially constructed means understanding that knowledge doesn’t exist “out there” but is embedded in people and the power relations between us. It recognizes that “truth” is a verb; it is created, it is multiple: truth does not exist, it is made. Therefore, in anti-oppressive research, we are not looking for a “truth”; we are looking for meaning, for understanding, for the power change.
3. The anti-oppressive research process is all about power and relationships.
In anti-oppressive research, constant attention is given to these relations, and care is taken to shift power from those removed from what is trying to be “known” to those closest to it – that is, those people with epistemic privilege or lived experience of the issue under study.”
This is in line with Freire’s critical form of theory that is radically democratic and constructive. “Critical constructivism’s respect for subjugated knowledge helps construct a research situation where the experience of the marginalized is viewed as an important way of seeing the socio-educational whole, not simply as a curiosity to be reported. Such a research perspective is counter-hegemonic (i.e., a threat to entrenched power) and radically democratic as it uses the voice of the subjugated to formulate a reconstruction of the dominant educational structure” (Kincheloe, 2005: 15).
For the reason stated above, in this inquiry the testimonials that echo the understanding of the participating activists will provide the context by discovering their worldviews and their perceptions of their experiences. The stories reveal how the world shapes people and also how people act on the world by the choices they make. The inquirer strives to present a coherent framework where there is congruence between philosophy, method and subject matter (anti-oppressive structural social work).
I take an insider anti-oppressive standpoint, in line with Brown and Strega’s (2005) claim that research can be resistance if there is congruence between methodology and epistemology. This is fundamental to an anti-oppressive stance.
Anti-oppressive change must happen on a structural level if it is to be sustainable. Critiquing ourselves and what it means to be radical social workers requires constructing alternatives from outside of the North American individualistic ethos that blames individuals for being oppressed.
As Mullaly says, “Anti-oppressive social work at the structural level attempts to change those institutional arrangements, social processes, and social practices that work together to benefit the dominant group at the expense of subordinate groups” (2002: 193).
Just as constructionism, Freire’s pedagogy of the oppressed and anti-oppressive theory intersect and support each other, so is it true that democracy is not possible if any group is subordinated. In keeping with this questioning of knowledge and belief, research as resistance asks whose knowledge is being privileged. In this inquiry, I aim to reflect a change in social arrangements that flip the privilege of the oppressed and the privileged.
Constructionist Premise of Inquiry
The idea that knowledge does not exist isolated from people is a social constructivist one. As Kincheloe states in his book Critical Constructivism, “the world is socially constructed – what we know about the world always involves a knower and that which is to be known. How the knower constructs the known constitutes what we think of as reality” (2005: 2). Knowledge is socially constructed by where we are located historically, culturally and in terms of power:
• “All knowers are historical and social subjects. We all come from a ‘somewhere’ which is located in a particular historical time frame. These spatial and temporal settings always shape the nature of our construction of the world.
• Not only is the world socially and historically constructed, but so are people and the knowledge people possess. We create ourselves with the cultural tools at hand. We operate and construct the world and our lives on a particular social, cultural and historical playing field (2005: 2).
• Critical constructivists are concerned with the exaggerated role power plays in these constructions and validation processes. Critical constructivists are particularly interested in the ways these processes help privilege some people and marginalize others” (Kincheloe, 2005: 3).
Bodner, when writing about constuctionism says that knowledge is not transferred intact from the mind of the teacher to the student but “knowledge is constructed in the mind of the student” (1986: 873).
Social constructionism recognizes the preponderance of influence the social has on how a person makes meaning. Here communication and self in relation to others and the world are key to how we make meaning as well as how we change the meanings we have made (Raskin, 2002: 13). As Fisher says, “Meaning is constructed both internally and socially as a process of interpretation” (1991: 15). How we construe the world determines what meanings we give to our experience, what is emphasized and what we do to make change. As a result, constuctionism challenges objectivist mechanistic14 claims to the truth as well as the individualism of the biomedical models so common in North America (Gergen, 2006). Truth is neither a linear nor a measurable something out there. Objectivist mechanistic and therefore biomedical models decontextualize people from environment. These models reduce people to parts rather than seeing them as part of the whole (Fook, 2002).
The issue of choosing to work from either an objectivist or constructivist epistemology is important for social work.
“The issue is important for social workers because objectivism justifies the exercise of power by certain groups and individuals over other groups and individuals. This is so because if “I” can claim access to the truth and to knowledge that “you” do not have access to, I am in a privileged position. We establish these positions through differential access to opportunities and the differential exercise of abilities. Our power is established, those in power usually not only seek to sustain their own power positions, but also come to see themselves as being entirely justified in doing so. The acquiescence of the subordinates, the power addressees, consolidates and sustains the power holders’ position such that they may accept the established order, rebel or suffer it. No matter which way the power holders and power addressees act, so long as it is in reference to the power structure, then that form of reference affirms the “objective” reference of power.” (Fisher, 1991: 14).
Constuctionism validates meaning rather than assumptions and shares power. People construct meaning from their own reference points and deconstruct meaning to build new ones through recursion, commonality and fit (Fisher, 1991). “Construing is the process of giving meaning to events… we use emotional-cognitive processes to bring forth our experiences of events and our interpretations of those experiences” (Fisher, 1991: 35). We all construct our knowledge from particular historical and social contexts. Accordingly examining alternative knowledge helps facilitate broader and deeper understandings (Kincheloe, 2005). Coherence “means that as we construe, we actively fit current events into our pre-existing frameworks” (Fisher, 1991: 37). Fit means that our actions worked (Fisher, 1991: 39). If actions work, they can be assimilated. If they do not work, they can be deconstructed and the process can begin again. Constructive alternativism is the assumption that all our meanings can be revised or replaced (Fisher, 1991: 41). By sharing and reflecting upon our own ways of knowing and considering other perspectives we come to new understanding.
Constructionist Hermeneutics
Interpretive “hermeneutics is a form of philosophical inquiry that focuses on the cultural, social, political and historical nature of research. Hermeneutics maintains that meaning-making cannot be quarantined from where one stands or is placed in the web of social reality” (Kincheloe, 2005: 21). Kincheloe (2005) notes that constructionism can move one to higher orders of conscious awareness as it enables one to make a distinction between describing a phenomenon and understanding how power shapes the world through a dialectic process. Informed by hermeneutics, critical constructivists understand that any act of rigorous knowledge production involves:
• “Connecting the object of inquiry to the many contexts in which it is embedded
• Appreciating the relationship between researcher and that being researched
• Connecting the making of meaning to human experience
• Making use of textual forms of analysis while not losing sight that living breathing human beings are the entities around which and with which meaning is being made
• Building a bridge between these forms of understanding and informed action” (Kincheloe, 2005: 21).
By understanding our historical location, we come to understand how our perceptions have been shaped. The hermeneutic circle is described by Rodwell as: “a circular conversation among and between interested parties (including relevant texts), wherein perspectives and insights are shared, tested, and evaluated” (1998: 256). People learn through dialogue and relationship. Rodwell (1998) says that social transformation can be part of constructivist research because of its participatory process. The hermeneutic dialectic, as described by Rodwell is “the process within the hermeneutic circle where perspectives are compared and placed in contradiction so that, through testing and evaluation, a higher level of sophistication can be achieved” (1998: 256).
In the inquiry, a circle was formed by examining participant interviews and the literature. Rodwell sees the researcher as an “an agent of change” (1998: 86) and that participants can change through the dialectic process by gaining understanding and being empowered. The writer, however, takes a different view. In the inquiry all participants, me included, are agents of change; we share ideas to broaden the perspectives of the reader. The constructivist process in the inquiry takes an egalitarian perspective where all, the reader included, are involved in an ongoing dialectic process of discovery.
Complexity
Complexity theory states that, “complex systems interact with multiple contexts and possess the capacity for self-organization and creative innovation” (Kincheloe, 2005: 28). Awareness of the complexity of life expands one’s understanding beyond linear causality to a broader understanding of the world according to Kincheloe (2005). Understanding and meaning are seen as interconnecting webs. This is in stark opposition to reductionism and informs constuctionism theory which strives to see the relationships between things.
Complexity theory and constuctionism are intimately related. Both are premised on interrelated sets of connections or networks and the importance of context. The following aspects of complexity, according to Kincheloe, inform constuctionism:
• “Things-in-the-world often involve far more than what one notices at first glance.
• Things that appear isolated and fixed are parts of larger, ever-changing processes.
• The way one perceives an object may change dramatically when one encounters it in another context.
• Knowledge of the world is always shaped by the position of the knowledge producer.
• Ignoring relationships that connect ostensibly dissimilar objects may provide us with a distorted view of them.
• Windows into revolutionary new understandings may be opened by exploring the contradictions and asymmetries of the social, physical, psychological and educational spheres” (Kincheloe, 2005: 30).
Approach of Inquiry
The approach of inquiry is linked to anti-oppressive social work, constuctionism and complexity theory. The approaches are interconnected and value relational meaning making, sharing power and recognize that actions happen in context. The approach used in the inquiry strives to be egalitarian and to acknowledge the interconnection of all life.
The inquiry is a qualitative study. Strauss and Corbin (1998: 10) describe qualitative research as “any type of research that produces findings not arrived at by statistical procedures or other means of quantification.” The qualitative approach is congruent with constructionist research. Rodwell (1998) explains that aggregately gathered data does not fit comfortably with constructivist research. Qualitative research methods fit the complexity of describing the understanding people have of their world. “Qualitative methods are preferred because of their intersubjective focus and adaptability in dealing with multiple, less aggregatable realities, which are of interest to constructivists” (Rodwell, 1998: 57). Qualitative inquiry is the only approach that matches an inquiry based on anti-oppressive, and constructionist premises, as the inquiry incorporates rich interviews and the experience of participants (Creswell, 2009, Rodwell, 1998, Groenewald, 2004). Further, Rodwell (1998) explains that qualitative methods are preferred in constructionist research because they adapt to many realities. Qualitative methods “allow easier access to the biases of the investigator and are more sensitive to mutual shaping influences” (Rodwell, 1998: 260). Similarly, meaning is central in a phenomenolgical approach taken in the inquiry. Phenomenology seeks to stimulate the growth of the reconstruction of perceptions therefore qualitative method also fit with this approach (Halldorsdottir, 2012: 50).
The inquiry utilizes an examination of literature on issues related to social justice and change as well as interviews with activists. Doing phenomenological studies can be interpretive/constructionist. “People construct meanings from phenomena and make constructs, which are in turn treated like phenomena by others” (Halldorsdottir, 2000: 47). The inquiry employs conversational interviewing and written responses in order to capture and safeguard the context and meaning that participants wish to convey. The aim is to privilege the stories and meanings of participants. The fundamental nature of the inquiry determines that first person content, with the center of attention directed to the political or activist underpinning of life experience, should shape the inquiry. Oral or written narrations with a focus on political change provide the materials and context for a collaborative construction. The emerging narratives from the inquiry highlight how we construct what we imagine to be a reality through critical pedagog.
