Transcript PowerPoint 簡報

Action and Participatory Research:
A Forgotten Research Orientation
In Hong Kong?
Daniel T.L. Shek
Department of Social Work
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
The preparation of this presentation is financially supported by
the Research Grants Council (CUHK4087/99H)
1
Attributes of the Participatory Paradigm
Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Sage.
Heron, T., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274-294.
Participative reality – subjective-objective reality;
participation forms the reality
 Epistemology: Critical subjectivity in participatory transaction with
the cosmos; experiential, propositional, practical and co-created
knowledge
 Methodology: Political participation in collaborative action inquiry,
primacy of the practical
 Ontology:
 Nature of knowledge: Practical knowing; living knowledge; critical
subjectivity
 Knowledge accumulation: In communities of inquiry embedded in
communities of practice
 Goodness or quality criteria: Congruence of experiential,
propositional and practical knowledge; leads to action to transform
the world
2
Attributes of the Participatory Paradigm
Denzin & Lincoln (2000); Heron & Reason (1997)
 Values: Included; influence acknowledged
 Training: Co-researchers are involved; facilitator requires emotional






competence, democratic personality and skills
Voice: Mixed voices
Accommodation and commensurability: Incommensurable with
positivistic paradigms; commensurable with constructivist, critical
and liberationist approaches
Action: Intertwined with validity; inquiry not complete without
action on the part of the participants
Control: Shared between researchers and co-researchers
Truth: Non-foundational
Relevance of philosophy of science in doing research?
3
Social Work Model of Action Research
DePoy, E., Hartman, A., & Haslett, D. (1999). Critical action research: A
model for social work knowing. Social Work, 44, 560-569.
 Step 1: Recognize and articulate a social problem
 Step 2: Convene a steering committee with all stakeholder groups
 Step 3: Identify research scope and changes proposed by the S.C.
 Step 4: Select a collaborative research Team
 Step 5: Training lay researchers to design, conduct and use inquiry
 Step 6: Design inquiry: research Qs, design & analytic strategies
 Step 7: Conduct inquiry and analysis
 Step 8: Report findings in accessible forms to all stakeholder groups
 Step 9: Submit findings to social change planning and action
 Step 10: Steering Committee identifies further areas for inquiry
4
Examples in the Social Welfare Literature
 Altpeter, M., Schopler, J.H., Galinsky, M.J., & Pennell, J. (1999).




Participatory research as social work practice: When is it viable?
Journal of Progressive Human Services, 10, 31-53.
Alvarez, A.R., & Gutierrez, L.M. (2001). Choosing to do
participatory research: An example and issues of fit to consider.
Journal of Community Practice, 9, 1-20.
Bailey, S., Thoburn, J., & Wakeham, H. (2002). Using the ‘Look
after children’ dimension to collect aggregate data on well-being.
Child and Family Social Work, 7, 189-201.
Bischoff, U.M., & Reisch, M.S. (2000). Welfare reform and
community-based organizations: Implications for policy, practice,
and education. Journal of Community Practice, 8, 69-91.
Fetterman, D.M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation.
Calif: Sage.
5
Examples in the Social Welfare Literature
 Gellis, Z.D. (2001). Using a participatory research approach to




mobilize immigrant minority family caregivers. Journal of Social
Work Research and Evaluation, 2, 267-282.
Hicks, S. (1997). Participatory research: An approach for structural
social workers. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 8, 63-78.
Kondrat, M.E., & Julia, M. (1998). Democratizing knowledge for
human social development: Case studies in the use of participatory
action research to enhance people’s choice and well-being. Social
Development Issues, 20, 1-20.
McNicoll, P. (1999). Issues in teaching participatory action research.
Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 51-62.
Penuel, W.R., & Freeman, T. (1997). Participatory action research in
youth programming: A theory in use. Child and Youth Care Forum,
26, 175-185.
6
Examples in the Social Welfare Literature
 Reese, D.J., Ahern, R.E., Nair, S., O’Faire, J.D., & Warren, C. (1999).




Hospice access and use by African Americans: Assessing cultural and
institutional barriers through participatory action research. Social
Work, 44, 549-559.
Reisch, M., & Rivera, F. (1999). Ethical and racial conflicts in urbanbased action research. Journal of Community Practice, 6, 49-62.
Safyer, A.W., Griffin, M.L., Colan, N.B., Alexander-Brydie, E., &
Rome, J.Z. (1998). Methodological issues when developing
prevention programs for low income, urban adolescents. Journal of
Social Service Research, 23, 23-46.
Sarri, R.C., & Sarri, .M. (1992). Organizational and community
change through participatory action research. Administration in
Social Work, 16, 99-122.
Sohng, S.S.L. (1996). Participatory research and community
organizing. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23, 79-99.
7
Examples in the Social Welfare Literature
 WARNING: Wide range of meaning and practice related to action
and participatory research with different languages used
 Progressive Position (Park, 1993): research that puts “research capabilities
in the hands of the deprived and disenfranchised people so that they can
transform their lives for themselves” (p.1)
– Participants involved in all stages of the project, including education,
reflection, research and action
– Researchers serve as experts (sharing research skills) and co-learners
(benefits form the skills and knowledge of the participants)
 Mid-Range Position: the views of the participants are respected and
incorporated in the research; collaborate in the research process
 Action Position: The participants may not be researchers, but the results
generate some actions
8
Examples in the Social Welfare Literature
 McNicoll, P. (1999). Issues in teaching participatory action
research. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 51-62.
(Progressive Position)
– 60 students completed 14 projects on campus
– A group of self-advocates not satisfied to be labeled
mentally disabled. 3 participants surveyed the peers and
organized exhibitions. Action: fight against the stereotypes
affecting them
– A study of problems of visually students impaired led to the
formation of a self-help group
– Students with different ethnicity discussed their mutual
views and challenged the mass media to stop reporting
misconceptions
9
Examples in the Social Welfare Literature
 Reese, D.J., Ahern, R.E., Nair, S., O’Faire, J.D., & Warren, C. (1999).
(Mid-Range Position)
– Participatory action project to examine problems of African
American access to and use of hospice
– 7 strategies: literature review; integration with social work
education; collaboration with respondents; collaboration with
practitioners; ongoing social action efforts; qualitative study;
quantitative study
– Qualitative interviews based on 6 African American priests:
identify the major themes to develop a scale
– Quantitative study based on 127 African Americans and
European Americans: understand the problems and barriers
– Results transformed to social action efforts in the community
10
Examples in the Social Welfare Literature
 Yoshihama, M. (2002). Breaking the web of abuse and
silence: Voices of battered women in Japan. Social Work,
47, 389-400. (Action Position)
– Focus group research project with battered women in
Japan
– 32 women participated (role of participants)
– Resulted in the formation of first community-support
group for battered women
– Major collaboration at the end of the project (action
initiation)
11
Current Status in Hong Kong
Based on Shek, D.T.L., Lam, M.C., & Tsoi, K.W. (in press). Evidence-based social work practice in
Hong Kong. In Thyer, B. and Kazi, M. (Eds.), International perspectives on evidence-based practice in
social work. London: Venture Press.
 Shek, Lam and Tsoi (in press) reviewed published books on social
work intervention and evaluation (e.g., casebooks published by the
Hong Kong Council of Social Service, Hong Kong Social Workers
Association, local academics and NGOs) and articles in the Hong
Kong Journal of Social Work.
 Based on the review, the following conclusions can be drawn:
– There are VERY FEW action research and participatory research studies
and related research is MINIMALLY implemented in the social welfare
settings in Hong Kong
– The development of action research and participatory research is VERY
PRIMITIVE in Hong Kong
12
Possible Contributing Factors
Public Obsession About the “Scientific” Mode of
Understanding
 Dominance of the traditional “scientific” methods in different
helping professions (e.g., medicine and psychology)
 Emphases of “objective”, “neutral” and “uncontaminated”
understanding
 Superiority of scientists and scientific understanding
 “Scientists” know how to do evaluation. Laymen don’t.
13
Possible Contributing Factors
Elevated Status of “Professionals” Perceived by the
Public
 Cultural and societal respect for “learned scholars” and
“professionals”
 Obsessions about “qualifications” and “papers”
 Professional knowledge is more superior than nonprofessional knowledge
 “Professionals” know more than laymen
 “Professionals” know how to do evaluation. Laymen
don’t.
14
Possible Contributing Factors
Severe Lack of Academic and Professional Training
in Social Work Education
 Dominance of the positivistic models in social work
education in Hong Kong (e.g., surveys)
 Weak coverage on non-conventional modes of
understanding and related research methods
 Weak coverage on philosophies of science
 Research training relatively weaker than other helping
professionals
 Possible reason: problematic issues confronting action
and participatory research
15
Possible Contributing Factors
Severe Lack of Related Research and Expertise in
the Field
 General fear about research
 General fear about philosophies of science
 Dominance of research adopting survey research method
 Very few qualitative research and few exemplars
 Poor quality of qualitative research
 Few agencies take the lead in related research
16
Possible Contributing Factors
Government’s Expectations about Research and
Evaluation
 Dominated by the “scientific” mode: objective outcome




indicators, generalizability, “valid” and “objective” data
Dominated by the “professional” view: qualified professionals
are more qualified for research and evaluation
Non-conventional research is at best supplementary in nature
Problematic issues confronting action and participatory
research
Implications on funding and grant applications
17
What Can Be Done?
Education: Meaning of “scientific” and
“professional”; alternative ways of understanding and
doing research
 Professional Education: Basic position: enhanced
understanding; Focus of training: ranges from resocialization to critical rationalism; recognizes the
strengths and limitations of the related research and
cultural relevance of the approach
 Educating Government Officials: enhanced understanding;
recognize the wide application of action and participatory
research in Western contexts and their legitimate usage
 Public
18
Final Reflections
 Participatory action research: Common argument - consistent with
social workers’ commitment to social justice; connect local action to
progressive social changes; strong linkage to progressive forms of
contemporary social work
Reflection: What is (and should be) social work? Congruence
between social work values, social work knowledge and social work
research methods?
 Gaventa (1993): Guerilla research
Reflection: What guerilla research can offer? Challenges based on the
Joint Committee on Evaluation Standards
Reflection: Participation and collaboration are guarantees for good
PAR? How are “biases” and “preoccupations” dealt with?
19
Final Reflections
 Cross-cultural applicability: While there are examples in non-Western
contexts, application in Asian contexts remains to be demonstrated.
applicability: The “conflict thesis” hypothesis
underlying PAR acceptable to Chinese (Chu & Carew, 1990; Healy,
2001)?
 Cross-cultural
Chu, K.F., & Carew, R. (1990). Confucianism: Its relevance to social work with Chinese
people. Australian Social Work, 43, 3-9.
Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: Knowledge struggles in
an information age. In P. Park (ed.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the
Unites States and Canada (pp.21-40). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
Healy, K. (2001). Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal.
International Social Work, 44, 93-105.
20