Structured controversy exercise

Hsc

Potts-and-Brown-2005-Becoming-an-Anti-oppressive-Researcher.html

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >Structured controversy exercise

CHAPTER TEN

BECOMING AN ANTI-OPPRESSIVE RESEARCHER

Karen Po! s and Leslie Brown1

Beginning with Choices, Assumptions, and Tenets

Given a simple choice between being an oppressive and an anti oppressive researcher, hopefully we would all choose the latter. However, the choice is not really that simple or straightforward. Commi! ing ourselves to anti-oppressive work means commi! ing to social change and to taking an active role in that change. Being an anti oppressive researcher means that there is political purpose and action to your research work. Whether that purpose is on a broad societal level or about personal growth, by choosing to be an anti-oppressive researcher, one is making an explicit, personal commitment to social justice. Anti-oppressive research involves making explicit the political practices of creating knowledge. It means making a commitment to the people you are working with personally and professionally in order to mutually foster conditions for social justice and research. It is about paying a! ention to, and shi" ing, how power relations work in and through the processes of doing research.

The purpose of this chapter is to explain more about this concept of “anti-oppressive research” in a way that we hope will be helpful to all researchers, and to research students in particular. We do this ﬁ rst by outlining key principles or tenets, then discussing how anti oppressive research may look in the process. We provide one student researcher’s example of how she applied anti-oppressive research, and ﬁ nish with a few closing thoughts. We tried to keep the research jargon to a minimum and o# er some deﬁ nitions via endnotes when a term

seemed important to further understanding.

A Bit about Us

Before we go too far, for purposes of transparency and context, it’s important for us to explain where we as authors have come from and hope to go to in becoming anti-oppressive researchers. Both of us are social workers whose field practices used research as a method of working toward social justice goals, Karen as a community development worker and social economist, and Leslie as an academic researcher with First Nations communities. We met when we were both teaching an undergraduate social work research class at the University of Victoria. When the School of Social Work began to develop its mission focusing on anti-oppressive theory and practice in the late 1990s, we realized we wanted to articulate a research approach more consistent with anti-oppressive work.

Both of us had already been struggling in our ﬁ eld practice and as academics with the assumptions underlying traditional, positivist research, and both of us had looked at and experimented with many alternative methodologies. With our research a! empts we had run into the same problem that perplexed Lather: how is it that “our very e# orts to liberate (through our research) perpetuate the relations of dominance” (Lather, 1991, p. 16)? We found that part of this problem was because qualitative research, as a general category, was still o" en laden with positivist assumptions about epistemology. 2

Initially, Karen was very commi! ed to participatory action research, but began to see the di$ culties in applying this methodology within institutional constraints. Participatory action research seemed to have been co-opted by mainstream researchers, that is, academic researchers claimed that their research was “participatory,” but the locus of power and initiation of the research remained ﬁ rmly grounded in the hands of the academics, not the “participants.” 3 Leslie was a feminist researcher who found this approach was insu$ cient when working with First Nations communities. We found that empowerment approaches spoke to the process of the research, but still o" en fell short of our goals of social change and justice. We were also concerned that the newest trend, currently called “community-based research,” did not really ground itself in the community control that we felt strongly about. Therefore, our interest in articulating something we are calling “anti-oppressive research” is not only to be consistent with the school’s emerging mission statement, but also for our own personal and practice values.

We ﬁ rst began to write this chapter ﬁ ve years ago as an introductory article for the 175 students who take our curriculum’s research

course each year. In our struggle to articulate an “anti-oppressive research approach,” it was soon apparent that this truly was an act of “becoming.” We found ourselves rewriting this paper every year to reﬂ ect our emerging ideas and critical4 reﬂ ections, and no doubt we will continue to do so. What has remained constant is our assumed audience for this chapter—student researchers who we hope will take up research5 as a tool for their anti-oppressive practice. In their feedback on dra" s of this chapter, our academic colleagues have said, “What about us?!” So, yes, we hope that the experienced researcher will ﬁ nd this chapter useful as well, but we remain commi! ed to speaking directly to our primary audience—students of research, who want to make research part of their daily social justice practice.

So, a Bit about You, Our Assumed Reader

In our work as instructors we have seen research students approach research as everything from frightening, to boring, to mystifying, and many points in between. We want to argue that research can be emancipating, community building, a catalyst for social change, and a starting point for some serious self-discovery. So since we will probably talk about research in a very di# erent way than you are used to, for this chapter to make sense, and for it to make an impact on the type of work you do, we are going to ask for some “leaps of faith” from you, our readers.

First, we want you to consider that even if you are a beginning researcher or an experienced researcher, you have already done research. By research, we want you to think of the poll you took of friends and family about your ﬁ rst relationship, or how you decided on a place to live the last time you moved. We need you to set aside the idea of research being only something that “experts,” usually men in white lab coats with rats and statistics, engage in. Some social research texts encourage the myth of the elite, expert researcher; that research is something only to be dreamt about by the “un-credentialed.” For example, one book describes itself as “permi! ing” students to “put a toe in the water, so to speak, to give beginning social work students a taste of what it might be like to swim”(Williams, Unrau, and Grinnell, 1998, p. vi). We believe that anti-oppressive research—the art of asking questions, building relationships, seeking answers, and coming up with more questions—is in the art of daily life. All of us can swim and have been doing so most of our lives.

Secondly, we need you to see yourself as potentially both oppressor and oppressed. We ask that you believe in your capacity for “agency”—that is, your capacity to act and alter the relations of oppression in your own world. Most of us can recognize oppression when it occurs or when we are being oppressed ourselves, but can we also recognize the complicity that each of us has in creating and sustaining oppression over others? This is o" en harder, especially for all of us who are well-meaning people. For White, middle-class, able-bodied, heterosexual people, this is our most important work in anti-oppressive practice—recognizing our own privilege and working to dismantle the unjust systems that keep us in that privileged space. The key in recognizing oppression is seeing the oppression that occurs through the various activities, social relations, and social practices we engage in with others. One such activity is the research process, even when as a student researcher you feel like the least powerful person in the world.

Third, we want you to consider that anti-oppressive social work, including research, is not contingent upon physical or political location. It can be done anywhere by everyone. The political nature of our environment is important to recognize and work with, but we do not have to have a job description that says “anti-oppressive researcher” (good luck waiting for that one!) before we can do anti-oppressive research. As social workers we are located everywhere, including dominant institutions such as government departments, schools, and hospitals. Anti-oppressive research is more than critique; it is something do-able. We want you to consider that doing anti-oppressive research is a commitment to a set of principles, values, and ways of working, and that you can carry out these principles anywhere—it’s a ma! er of choice amid various constraints.

Fourth, we would like you to see anti-oppressive research as a method of social work practice. We therefore will argue that anti oppressive research is not just something you do when you have been asked to conduct a research project, but that anti-oppressive research is also a strategy you could use when you are doing community building, economic development, policy analysis, counselling work, etc. If anti oppressive research can truly be a tool of emancipation and social justice, as well as a method of inquiry, then it should also be seen as a method of intervention.

This brings us to the last “leap of faith” or assumption we are asking you to make. We would like you to consider the power of epistemic privilege6 and agency. Communities, those we label as “clients” who are the lived experts in issues under study, have their own capacity to recover knowledge. We believe that all of us have “agency,” that ability to act which separates us as subjects from objects. O" en when we label ourselves as “clients” or have been labelled as “clients” (or students), and have been treated as objects for so long, our “agency” is a bit rusty and needs a bit of nurturing. Therefore, we argue that those people who have experienced an issue are perhaps the best people to research that issue. However, seeing the value in epistemic privilege and realizing agency is not always straightforward or easy.

A Bit about Theory

Anti-oppressive theories are emergent and people take these up in many di# erent ways. Therefore, it is important that we situate ourselves, and this chapter, in relation to theory. For the purpose of this paper, we see anti-oppressive theory7 as an extension of Marxist, feminist, and most predominantly critical theory. 8 Critical theory informs our conception and practice of anti-oppressive social work and research. In addition, poststructural and postcolonial thought, feminist, Indigenous, queer, and anti-racist theories have contributed to our understanding of anti oppressive approaches. Our theoretical stance is evident in the tenets we propose for anti-oppressive research. Our theoretical “baggage” shows by virtue of the language we use and the concepts we focus on in our emerging tenets for anti-oppressive research. For example, social justice is most o" en linked to critical theory. The idea that knowledge is socially constructed is o" en associated with Marxism and feminism.

Three Emerging Tenets of Anti-oppressive Research

We propose three tenets of anti-oppressive research. These are not discrete; rather, they are fully interrelated and our articulation of them reﬂ ects how they inform one another. When we want to reﬂ ect on whether our research work is actually anti-oppressive research, we refer to these principles to assess our topic, our methods, our relationships, our analysis, our action, and the overall evaluation of our research work.

Anti-oppressive Research Is Social Justice and Resistance in Process and in Outcome

Research can be a powerful tool for social change. It also can, and has been, just as powerful in maintaining the status quo and supporting the evolution of societies that reward some people and inhibit others. Research can be used to suppress ideas, people, and social justice just as easily—maybe even more easily—than it can be used to respect, empower, and liberate. Good intentions are never enough to produce anti-oppressive processes or outcomes.

Choosing to be an anti-oppressive researcher is not for the faint of heart. Being a dedicated social worker or a competent researcher is not enough. As anti-oppressive workers, we are social justice9 activists, not only in the placard-waving sense, but also in the sense of making a personal commitment to action, of purposefully working to make change for individuals, communities, and institutions. As anti-oppressive researchers, we recognize that usually the ﬁ rst target of change is ourselves.

Many research endeavours have a social justice outcome in mind. However, this chapter is not about research such as the social justice statistical work of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which publishes important research on poverty, alternative budgets, and so on. We laud this work, but it is important to recognize that there is an epistemological di# erence between such social justice research, grounded in reclaiming positivism, and what we are describing here as anti-oppressive research.

Choosing to be an anti-oppressive researcher means choosing to do research and support research that challenges the status quo in its processes as well as its outcomes. It seeks to resist oppression embedded in our selves, our work, and our world. bell hooks talks about the challenges of “teaching to transgress,” of creating an environment in which we continually reﬂ ect on our processes in order to transform the enterprise of teaching and learning (hooks, 1994). Similarly, anti oppressive researchers have the challenge of continually reﬂ ecting, critiquing, challenging, and supporting their own and others’ e# orts in the process of research and knowledge production to transform the enterprise of research, social work, and ultimately the world in which we live.

Anti-oppressive Research Recognizes That All Knowledge Is Socially Constructed10 and Political

Science and empiricism o# er no more an “objective” explanation of the world and reality than, for example, ancient myths. (Chambon, Irving, and Epstein, 1999, p. 34)

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 interactions of people, and as all people are socially located (in their race, gender, ability, class identities, and so on) with biases, privileges, and di# ering 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 to change.

Having accepted that there are many “truths,” each socially constructed, whose knowledge is constructed through our research projects? Knowledge has become a commodity in the new “knowledge economy.” Patents and copyrights protect the elite ownership of knowledge and such ownership can then be bought and sold. This puts the power of knowledge into the hands of the elite, the wealthy, and the privileged. Anti-oppressive research puts the ownership of knowledge back into the hands of those who experience it, who need it.

Picking up on the notion of how power and knowledge are inherently interrelated, anti-oppressive researchers recognize that knowledge is political; it is not benign as it is created in the power relations between people. Knowledge can be oppressive in how it is constructed and utilized and/or it can be a means of resistance. O" en, it is a complex combination of both. Anti-oppressive practice is about resistance and therefore research processes can also become acts of resistance.

Anti-oppressive researchers are aware of the dynamics involved in the social construction of knowledge, and use this awareness to further the goals of social justice. Therefore, anti-oppressive research is not a process to discover knowledge, but a political process to co-create and rediscover knowledge. Through anti-oppressive research, we construct emancipatory, liberatory knowledge that can be acted on, by, and in the interests of the marginalized and oppressed.

The Anti-oppressive Research Process Is All about Power and Relationships

If power is cunning and pervasive enough, it will co-opt freedom; if freedom is resistant and persistent enough, it will cause power to tremble. (Caputo, 2000, p. 33)

So what is power and what does it have to do with the research process? Power is a concept that has been taken up in many di# erent ways by many di# erent theorists. For the purposes of this chapter, we use a conceptualization proposed by Elias:

Instead of power being a “thing” which persons, groups, or institutions possess to a greater or lesser degree, Elias argued that we should think in terms of power relations, with ever-changing “balances” or “ratios” of power between individuals and social units … and that all human relationships are essentially relations of power. (van Krieken, 2003, p. 118)

To apply Elias’s idea of power relations, consider the relationship in positivist research between the researcher and those being “researched.” In positivism, the researcher is the expert and is seen as the primary, and o" en only, person with the power and ability to create knowledge, to act on that knowledge, and to proﬁ t from its “creation.” Those who are being studied, although they are not necessarily treated badly, are nevertheless objects; they are acted upon and have no input or real involvement or control in the process. In positivist research, those being researched rarely have any interpersonal relationship with the researcher, and there is usually no recognition of these hierarchical and distant power relations or any a! empt to change them.

Even in many qualitative or what are termed “empowerment”11 approaches to research, the relationship between researchers and the researched is o" en paternalistic. “Participatory” approaches o" en have members of the researched group conducting interviews or surveys, but with li! le substantive control over the research process. “Giving” people voice and hearing their stories can be exploitative/paternalistic or empowering or a confusing mix of power relations. A! ending to issues of power in the relationships between people involved in research is complex.

In anti-oppressive research, a number of key relationships and power relations are foregrounded; that is, relations between:

the knower and known
groups of knowers
knowers and any outside researchers
researchers and external institutions and ideological paradigms

In anti-oppressive research, constant a! ention is given to these relations, and care is taken to shi" 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. In anti-oppressive research, we say that “we do not begin to collect data in a community until all the dogs know us,” which is our way of saying “no research without relationships.” We do not approach relationships as time-specific, beginning and ending, throw-away relationships. Rather, we approach them as if we may be in relationship with people for life.

Rethinking the Researching Process: Anti-oppressive Practice in the Process of Inquiry

Anti-oppressive research requires an a! itude that accepts ambivalence and uncertainty, thereby enabling us to question that which appears “normal” and taken for granted to (re)negotiate processes and create spaces for ourselves and others who are commonly excluded from the creation of knowledge. We have found that the work of becoming anti-oppressive researchers has challenged us to reflect upon our sense of self, history, our context(s), and our actions with others. It has highlighted the need for skills in thinking critically, listening carefully, and analyzing relations of power of which we are a part so that we can identify and unpack assumptions, unearth pa! erns of thinking and acting, and recognize their e# ects.

In most social research texts, the research process is described as a problem-solving process. You are likely familiar with this linear process: (1) pose a question; (2) design a plan to study it; (3) collect some information; (4) analyze the information; (5) draw some conclusions and pose new questions. We contend that research is not as linear as this model implies. In fact, this linear problem-solving model reproduces the dominant Western scientiﬁ c method(ology) of constructing knowledge. As well this model leaves out some key research processes, like taking action on the knowledge that our work constructs.

While we question the linearity commonly associated with conducting research, we acknowledge that the dominant discourse of social work remains grounded in the linear scientiﬁ c method. One of our main purposes in writing this chapter is to show how there are alternative ways of interpreting and engaging within the (research) process that is produced by and reproduces power relations that do not oppress anyone or reinforce relations of domination. Therefore, we decided to organize our discussion of rethinking the research process within this problematic problem-solving structure—not to reinscribe the model but to demonstrate our epistemological assumption that we work from where we are, not from where we would rather be.

Questioning

Learning is really remembering, found by asking the right questions —Plato

Questioning is the “mess-ﬁ nding” stage in the research process as well as the one that opens us up to possibilities. What are the issues? What do we know already? What is our relationship to the issues and questions? What do other people know about it? What do we want to ﬁ nd out?

Anti-oppressive research involves paying attention to power relations, beginning with asking, “Who says this is a question that needs to be studied anyway?” We also ﬁ nd ourselves constantly negotiating our position along a continuum of insider/outsider relations. On the insider pole of the continuum is epistemic privilege; that is, the privilege insiders have since they have lived experience of the issue under study. The outsider end of the continuum is a more traditional, positivist researcher role. You position yourself as outside the situation and in a position of studying “Others.” Most of us on the journey of becoming anti-oppressive researchers ﬁ nd ourselves somewhere in the middle of the continuum. In practice, negotiating and positioning ourselves as researchers is seldom as simple as declaring which position we hold. In some instances, we may think we are insiders only to ﬁ nd that others involved in the project (especially those providing data) see us as set apart, as outsiders. There are insider/outsider tensions in all research relationships. Linda Tuhiwai Smith (1999) talks about her experience as a Maori woman doing research in her own community.

I was an insider as a Maori mother and an advocate of the language revitalization movement, and I shared in the activities of fund raising and organizing. Through my di# erent tribal relationships I had close links to some of the mothers and to the woman who was the main organizer .… When I began the discussions and negotiations over my research, however, I became much more aware of the things which made me an outsider. I was a! ending university as a graduate student; I had worked for several years as a teacher and had a professional income; I had a husband; and we owned a car which was second-hand but actually registered. As I became more involved in the project, interviewing the women about their own education stories, and as I visited them in their own homes, these di# erences became much more marked .… An interview with a researcher is formal. (Tuhiwai Smith, 1999, p. 138)

Therefore, as Tuhiwai Smith illustrates, outsider relations are established in the very declaration that a question is “research” with all its formal connotations. There is an inherent power in naming the issue to be studied and why it is worthy of study. The research topic and question(s) guide the research by articulating what is, and therefore what isn’t, to be explored. Anti-oppressive researchers pay a! ention to the ways a research topic is produced and pose various questions to ascertain what is happening and uncover assumptions. Who is involved in shaping the topic? What is and what is not explored? Anti-oppressive researchers continually wrestle with whose interests are being served (and not being served) by the study of this question.

For example, consider these questions in analyzing the politics of the research question: Is there funding available for certain topics? Who determines those topics and why? Is an issue “hot” because it is topical in the newspaper? If so, who decides what gets to be newsworthy and why? Is an agency requesting the research? If so, what are their reasons, explicit and implicit, for doing so? Is it to justify future funding? Is it to rationalize actions already commi! ed to? Is it for reﬂ ecting on practice in order to change processes? Has an instructor requested it? Is it developed by participants and, if so, why? It is important to acknowledge who is involved, or to be involved, in any way in the research. There are a myriad of reasons and interests to be served in any piece of research.

A topic may be readily converted into a research question with li! le regard for the political and epistemological implications of posing such a question in a particular way. In anti-oppressive research, we closely examine our process of creating topics and questions. We work to avoid jumping thoughtlessly from what “we” interpret is happening to the development of a topic, and then to a question. Instead, we contemplate the possible effects of asking a particular question as opposed to other questions, and strive to unearth our assumptions about people, relationship, power, and knowledge that are embedded in each of the ways that we might construct the question. As our individual perspectives are limited, we do so in concert with others. Then we can make more informed choices about which topic and question we really want to pursue.

For instance, we may ask: What relations of domination might be reinscribed by the questions we pose? The way a question is posed may embed the research(er) in a particular epistemology that may not be well suited for this particular research. O" en in conventional practice, questions of epistemology are not asked and researchers assume the dominant discourse as a given. As noted earlier, in anti-oppressive research we pay a! ention to the ways we construct knowledge, who is a knower, and what can be known.

This initial stage of questioning involves ﬁ nding out what others know about the topic. Traditionally, this means checking the academic literature. Being an anti-oppressive researcher means critically reading existing knowledge to understand how it was constructed, by whom and for whose beneﬁ t, and therefore how it will a# ect our construction of research about the issue. Anti-oppressive researchers recognize “knowledge” other than what is published in academic books and articles. For instance, lived experience of self and others can also provide a valid point of departure for a research topic. Popular knowledge found in magazines and on TV may also supplement data. We each have to ask ourselves how we determine the trustworthiness or validity of knowledge. Are we more persuaded by what our professor says or what our mom says about our topic? Critical assessment of the various sources of knowledge on a topic and the authority each source brings to that knowledge is part of an anti-oppressive approach to the ﬁ rst stage of the research process.

As important as it is to have a clear starting place, the initial clarity of the research question is tenuously held. When it comes down to it, ﬁ nding “the question” is seldom that simple. Sometimes the question ﬁ nds us. Sometimes questions are more like hunches, experienced tensions, or disjunctures sensed in our own lives. Going from clarity to fuzziness can be okay. Questions usually change as the inquiry proceeds. And sometimes the question that was answered is not clearly revealed until the end of the process. We have o" en found that throughout the process, we learn more about what it was we really wanted to know. The art of the question is in the re-researching, the willingness to look again.

Designing and Redesigning a Plan to Study the Questions

Anti-oppressive research must be anti-oppressive in terms of both purpose and process. More o" en than not, social work research strives to be anti-oppressive in terms of purpose; that is, the desired outcomes are consistent with goals of social change. But this focus alone can result in the objectifying study of “the oppressed.” Because of this, we argue that we need to push the boundaries of good intentions and power relations beyond the ultimate outcome to the research process as well. Signiﬁ cant thought and relationship building are integral to the designing and planning of emancipatory methods. The research journey must be purposeful (goals) and intentional (process).

When you are on a planned road trip, you often run across opportunities and obstacles that didn’t exist on your map. Modiﬁ cations to the plan are made within the context of your purpose, who is on the trip, how much time and money you have, and so on. Similarly, a research design is a dynamic plan that gets tweaked and altered along the way. The process is shaped by the design, which reﬂ ects the goals of the research. The intention or purpose of the research is interrogated and made clearer as one considers the topic and question. It is revisited throughout the research journey. As the topic, questions, and purpose become clearer, ideas about data, data sources, and ways to gather and think about data begin to emerge. This feeds the development of a research design.

There are many questions that an anti-oppressive researcher asks in the ongoing process of articulating a design. These questions arise out of an epistemological understanding of the nature of the relationship between the researcher and the researched. Who has an interest or stake in the research? Who are we going to involve, and how? What are the ethical considerations in the research? How are we going to collect data and, once collected, how are we going to interpret it? Who owns the data? What constraints are there to the research design? What criteria will we use to judge the quality of our research? Exploring these questions is integral to the process of designing a research study.

The first question posed asks us to consider how the various interests/power relations construct the research process. Just as there are stakeholders in the construction of the research question, there are stakeholders in the research design, and they may not be the same people. For example, if perchance we are doing a research project as part of a university course, then we have to be aware of how the requirements of the assignment and the ethical review processes of the university construct the research and constrain the possibilities. Or, if our purpose is to secure future funding for an addictions support program and we know that the funders want to know the extent of the problem, who needs to be served, and what alternative programs cost, we would not likely design a research project that interviewed one client in great depth about her experience as a drug user. If we happened to be receiving pay from a government department, we also have to recognize how the interests of government will a# ect our relations with participants we may be working with in the research. Conversely, if we didn’t have external funding but were working collectively with others to explore an issue common to all of us all, we would want to ensure that our design included the collective participation of everyone in the group rather than being controlled by one designated researcher. Regardless of the project, there are always interests that shape the conduct of the research and ultimately the construction of knowledge produced.

There are also interests that will a# ect the utility of the research. It is therefore useful to develop relationships with our potential audience and with those whom we are targeting for change. Politically, we have to consider when is the best time to engage this stakeholder group. There may be some merit to engaging this group throughout the research process in order to build rapport and possible support. There are a variety of ways one might consider, from developing an advisory group made up of representatives of all stakeholders to connecting the marginalized with the dominant through the actual research processes. Touraine, for example, achieved change in an organization through the process of pu! ing labour and management representatives together in the same focus group in order to “reproduce social relationships in a research context, bringing together dominant and contesting actors in the same research groups” (McDonald, 2003, p. 248). Whatever the approach, the intention is that the actual process of the research becomes an intervention for change rather than relying only on the impact of the research outcome, or product.

At some points decisions will need to be made regarding who to involve in some or all of the research process. This is what positivist researchers may call developing a “sampling strategy.” However, the goals for anti-oppressive research are very di# erent as involving people is done more for community building, empowerment, and a be! er understanding than for goals of representativeness or validity. “Sampling” in anti-oppressive research is seldom random. Sampling is a power-laden decision and seen as one of many political acts in research. In this, ideally, an outsider researcher is never the sole source of invitations to participate. Ideally it is a community of participants/ insider researchers who do the inviting/including.

Ethical questions a# ect every research design. The ethics of anti oppressive research reﬂ ect a commitment to and respect for people and relationships as well as for action and social justice. The use of “informed consent” is one example. Constant renegotiation regarding a process of informed consent is important as this highlights our commitments to the community, about our relationship to them, the data, and the process. Although most “informed consent” processes have become institutionalized for purposes of avoiding liability, we have reclaimed the concept of “informed consent” to be a formal contract of our obligations to research participants, and a declaration of their ownership of the data, their right to a transparent research process, and their right to as much involvement or control as they choose. Certainly this way of working has led to some interesting situations for us (e.g., a community deciding to withdraw its data toward the end of a study) and as logistically di$ cult as these situations have and can be, revisiting the ethics of anti-oppressive research guides one’s decision making.

Respecting people and relationships also guide our response to questions of the ownership of data. The term “data” in its origins means “gi" .” From an anti-oppressive perspective, we see data as a gi" that participants bestow and we work to respect those gi" s and treat them ethically. This means we must ask who owns the data, and what does ownership mean? If “we” (researchers) agree that participants own the data, and if a" er the research is completed the participants decide they don’t like what we, the researchers, have said, what happens then?12 Or if we hear the story of a participant that is compelling but ﬁ lled with tangential comments and expressions that we feel are distracting to what the research is saying, do we have the right to edit their story? Once edited, whose story is it? There are at least three voices in interpreting data: the participant who gives the story, the writer/researcher who records and retells it, and the reader who interprets it (Marco! e, 1995). “How are all these voices a! ended to?” is a question we ask ourselves. Developing and a! ending to relationships, including those to data and data sources, is critical in anti-oppressive research.

Identifying the constraints to any design is important so that an anti-oppressive researcher can then identify the spaces within those constraints that can make the research less oppressive in its process, and ultimately in its outcome. The types of constraints you will encounter will differ and change in every inquiry. However, there are some constraints that you can usually anticipate, such as time, resources, and institutional/organizational structures. For example, if your research is connected with a university, you will be expected to submit your study for approval to an ethics review committee. In general, the policies of these commi! ees have been designed to address the issues of ethics in positivist research. Therefore, you might anticipate having to mould your presentation of an anti-oppressive research design to ﬁ t these institutional regulations. In another example, suppose you have been asked by government to do some research. You will likely have a limited time frame and budget and may face the constraints of having the research questions predetermined, and possibly the design as well. Just because we may be conﬁ ned to doing a standardized survey questionnaire doesn’t mean that we can’t think about how to involve participants in the research, its process, and its outcome. Rather than designing the questionnaire yourself in isolation, it is possible to give up or share control with those being “researched” to design the questions and the process. Rather than administer a questionnaire “to” participants, for example, we could complete it “with” participants. This should be more than just semantics; this shi" in language produces a di# erent relationship among the people involved in the research. It is also important that we never ask questions of others that we are not willing to answer and share ourselves. Whatever the challenges and constraints, we have a responsibility to work with what we have, to not give up.

We wondered whether a partial solution to responding to the constraints we face is to place what we really want to know within what we are permi! ed to ask. To illustrate, Leslie conducted some research for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples where there were particular research questions posed by the Commission that she was charged with researching. Within these overriding interests, communities involved in the research each developed their own research questions, and subsequently unique research designs, that would respond to the particular needs of their community. The challenge was to make the research useful for each participating community while still a! ending to the goals (constraints) of the Royal Commission.

Within the design, it is also important to be clear about the criteria by which we want the quality of our research work to be evaluated so that we can ensure that there are methods in place to achieve them. It is the operationalization of “quality” that will make your research credible, publishable, actionable, and worth listening to. Without quality assurance strategies, research can be dismissed as an opinion essay with no relevance for being acted upon. So what criteria are appropriate to judge the quality of anti-oppressive research? And who gets to decide this? Figuring this out requires a! ention to the perspectives of those who have an interest in the research, all within the framework of tenets and ethics of anti-oppressive research. So, for example, you may know that statistical data will be important for having your research taken seriously by a certain policy maker, so you will need “valid and reliable” data-gathering and analysis procedures. Yet, you will also be cognizant that such procedures are designed to be consistent with the tenets and ethics of anti-oppressive research.

Collecting Data: Seeking, Listening, Learning

In a perfect world, everything we have planned in our design goes exactly as predicted. However, we live in an imperfect world. Collecting data is not a process in the research journey that is isolated from the other processes. As anti-oppressive researchers, we strive to be perceptive, to pay a! ention to what we are in the midst of. By paying a! ention, we gradually enhance our abilities to perceive, describe, analyze, and assess our reality. This increased perceptivity produces expanded experience and enables us to recognize and respond to opportunities as they arise throughout the research process.

In order to undertake the work of collecting data, we have to develop our listening and critical reﬂ ecting skills. By paying a! ention, a unique approach to listening emerges, one that we call political listening. We listen not for what we expected to hear or for what ﬁ ts with what we already think, but for assumptions made both by ourselves as listeners and by speakers while a! ending to the dance of power. It involves being open and perceptive, interpreting, and judging. Too o" en social workers work hard to develop their interviewing practice skills and neglect the development of their perceptivity and interpretation skills. Through political listening, one becomes aware of the construction of multiple interpretations and multiple truths. Listening not only a# ects the relationship between researcher and participant, but facilitates analysis and the opportunities for anti-oppressive actions. By listening to participants, we begin to interpret the data, refine our research question, and rethink our design. By articulating their experience and thoughts, the participants make meaning of their lives. By paying a! ention and listening, we become increasingly aware of contexts, histories, and social dynamics. We can discover new opportunities for acting that we had not foreseen or planned, and come to know only through critical and detailed reﬂ ection on practice. Through paying a! ention and listening, research is reconceptualized and becomes an emergent, unfolding process rather than a trip to a predetermined destination.

This responsive and attentive way of doing research involves being open to shifts and shape changes in the research design, including the topic and question(s). This openness to uncertainty and emergence carries into the way that we a! end to relationships as well. Interpersonal relationships are constantly open to renegotiation and change. Staying on top of the ebb and ﬂ ow of relating is a time consuming and challenging part of doing anti-oppressive research. We can’t assume that we or anyone else can anticipate or control all that goes on between people during a research project. Instead, we position ourselves to respond well.

Making Meaning

Making meaning is often thought of as “analyzing data.” When doing anti-oppressive research, we assume that meaning making is not restricted to any one part of the research process but happens throughout the research process. As such, we pay a! ention to our processes of interpretation, reﬂ ection, and construction of meaning as the research journey unfolds.

While meaning making is ongoing, we do have “data” to compile and make sense of, which is the focus of this next part of the discussion. In practice, we have found that it is useful, as we begin to review our data, to revisit our research questions and design and consider how they have evolved and shi" ed from the original plan. By rearticulating our research design, we can open ourselves to understanding more speciﬁ cally what we want to know and thus ask of the data. We also can become more aware of the kinds of data and data sources we have and our positioning in relation to the data. This clarity grounds our interpretations and analysis of the data. Our way of gathering and working with data has probably been modiﬁ ed as the research process unfolds. All these shi" s and changes inﬂ uence and determine what data we actually have and how we make sense of the data.

There are a number of questions that we reﬂ ect upon as we plan for and engage in making meaning. These include issues of power and who does the analysis as well as issues of what concepts frame the analysis, who beneﬁ ts from the meaning making, and what analytic tools are appropriate.

Power lurks in all our reﬂ ections and decisions. Just ﬁ guring out who gets the privilege of making meaning is laden with issues of power. For us, research is a social process and therefore the more positivist notion of one or two designated researchers who are responsible for analyzing the data is not our reality. Yet, even though we work collaboratively with participant-researchers, potential users of the research, and others in making meaning of our data, we are often challenged with the underlying hierarchy inherent in our relationships. The analysis stage presents an opportunity for the social construction of knowledge to be facilitated in an intentionally liberatory way. Some people in the process are seen as experts in the topic of study while others are seen as experts in particular data analysis techniques or in the lived experience of the data. Our collaborative meaning-making processes are inﬂ uenced by the perceived and exercised power that we each bring to the process. These di# erences o" en become visible when there are disagreements about meanings or the importance of meanings. Further, while it may be ideal to have everyone possible involved in the meaning making, the reality o" en is that not everyone has the time or interest in participating. Figuring out how to enable individuals to participate as they would wish is challenging.

Another point of reﬂ ection in planning and engaging in meaning making concerns the conceptual framework that informs the research. Kirby and McKenna (1989) challenge us to articulate our “conceptual baggage”—that is, the concepts, beliefs, metaphors, and frameworks that inform our perspective on, and relationship to, the research topic. The term “baggage” has somewhat of a negative connotation, so we like to think about our “luggage.” We carry our framework, which is not inherently good or bad, around with us and it is through this framework that we view the data. Making visible the luggage is an individual and collective process. Ensuring that everyone has had the opportunity to discuss the concepts that inform our perspectives helps to alleviate conﬂ icts that can arise during the analysis of di# erent perceptions of meaning and can expose contradictions in helpful ways. The conceptual framework that informed the project at the outset evolves during the project and new or additional concepts, metaphors, and frameworks emerge. Winnowing through minutes of meetings about the topic or trying to explain to your friends what the research is about are o" en fruitful ways to discern the emergent frameworks. Discussing these frameworks with research-participants can illuminate contradictions in concepts that may be held. It is illuminating to consider how di# erent concepts, metaphors, and frameworks produce di# erent meanings and the production of di# erent knowledge. Such discussions o" en bring up questions about which interpretation(s) is seen as more valuable or believable than another and why.

As researchers we have found it particularly helpful to revisit the topic and questions to think through the ﬁ t between our approaches to analysis with what we really want to know. This revisiting is vital and informs the ability to make meaning and to extend the ﬁ ndings into conclusions and action.

The other point of reﬂ ection in the meaning-making process is thinking about who beneﬁ ts from the chosen research process. What (whose) purpose does the research serve? There is an old saying that “ﬁ gures don’t lie, but liars can ﬁ gure.” The techniques of analysis, of making meaning of data, contribute to the meaning made. What is the intended outcome, and how is the data analysis, whether statistical or not, being constructed? What data are included in the analysis and what are le" out? Why? If using interview data, who decides which quotes from participants to include and who to exclude? Again, knowledge is constructed, and paying a! ention to why and how it is constructed is an ongoing challenge for anti-oppressive researchers.

One of the strategies that Kirby and McKenna suggest as part of analyzing data is that one should “live with the data,” meaning distancing oneself from the analysis in order to reﬂ ect on it (Kirby and McKenna, 1989). While we have found that being connected with and reﬂ ecting upon the data is critical in every stage of a research project and that it needs to be shared with co-researchers/participants, it is a particularly useful task to incorporate in the meaning-making process. This means that the participant-researcher(s) have to step back from the analysis for a while in order to reﬂ ect upon the data, the analysis, and the destination of the research. Once again, this illustrates that research is about relationships. Researchers develop an intimate relationship with data. Understanding that relationship (as articulated by the earlier questions posed in this section), and reﬂ ecting on the data in light of that relationship, is what analysis is about.

What kind of approach should be taken? Some options include involving participants or those ultimately a# ected by the research (who may not be the participants) in analyzing the data. What about having an advisory group for our research and having them conduct the analysis? Or ﬁ nding a way to involve the people who will be responsible for making change as a result of the research? Whichever approach is used, consider how it will a# ect the “results” of the research and how those results could be used.

Posing Conclusions and New Questions, and Taking More Action

One continuously thinks about new questions, new realizations, and applications of ideas as one travels through the research process. Yet at some point along the journey, there is the time to capture them as “conclusions” to the trip. Tied to these conclusions are new questions as any research study usually raises more questions than answers. This circular process, a research process, reﬂ ects the lifelong learning process we are all in.

Conclusions have a particular power because they are the construction of knowledge that leads to recommendations and actions. As well, the conclusions are o" en the “sound bites” in the research that an audience listens for. Sometimes these consumers of our research are interested in our trip, in the story of our process, but more o" en they are interested in what we have “found.” How conclusions are constructed, therefore, has particular impact on how consumers will take up the research in their own lives. We have found it challenging to construct conclusions that give the context of our journey to our ﬁ ndings. We have had to remind ourselves that posing conclusions is useful for us individually and collectively as researchers, as well as other potential audiences. Once again, questions regarding who gets to articulate the conclusions and questions and how this is done arise for us. These ideas may guide future research studies, so we ask ourselves whose interests are, or may be, served in these questions.

The manner and form in which we present our conclusions and questions also a# ects how they may be taken up. Formal wri! en report form is commonplace and although useful, it is almost inherently classist, exclusionary, and appropriative in that it requires translating marginal knowledges into the language of the elite. A wri! en report may be appropriate for our purpose, but as the way we present our research contributes to the meaning and signiﬁ cance a! ached to conclusions, other options are worthy of consideration. Brainstorming with co researchers for options that could facilitate goals of empowerment and social justice then becomes a key part of the work. For instance, would it be be! er to hold a community workshop to discuss the research, or produce a journal article, or write a le! er to the editor, or put the ﬁ ndings into a popular theatre presentation, or convene a session of strategic planning, or produce a video or a web site? Whose interests are served by each of the options available?

As we have noted throughout this chapter, research happens in relationships between people. It is a site for practising democracy. Recognizing our “agency,” our ability to make a choice in how something will be done, enables us to be purposeful in our anti oppressive actions. Reframing research as practice that produces radical democracy has helped us as researchers to move beyond the trap of oppositional thinking within anti-oppressive research. How we pose conclusions and devise actions is yet another opportunity to practise democracy and thereby make real our beliefs about power relations and social justice. Posing conclusions brings us to ask the critical question, so what? How will the research be used, and by whom? Who else could make use of it, and how? What uses could it have that were not intended? Remember that producing a product that sits on a shelf does not mean that the research, or the research report, does not ﬁ ll a purpose. Too o" en research is used to delay decision making or distract a! ention from an issue. What is the professional obligation of the researcher in ensuring that the research is used for social change, not only throughout the process of conducting the research but a" er the research is concluded? We have found that by returning to our original discussions about the issues and what we wanted to know, we discover many possibilities about what to do with the ﬁ ndings and who will use them and how they will or could be used. Anti-oppressive action in the research process means taking up the processes and tools of research in ways that are congruent with the principles and values of empowerment and social justice wherever and whenever possible.

Credibility, Action-Ability, and Trustworthiness: Reclaiming Reliability and Validity

Assessing how well we did, how we know if our research is credible, actionable, and trustworthy, is important in anti-oppressive research. However, in contrast to most positivist work, this assessment is a theoretical, principled question as opposed to a technical concern. Anti-oppressive research is not so much concerned with the ability of our research instruments to “measure” accurately; rather, our concerns relate to whether we adhered to our research principles.

Some of the questions we ask include: Can participants see themselves in the study? Does the analysis “ring true” to participants? “Yes” answers to both these questions are most easily assured by having the participants of any research study determine the questions and do the analysis. We ask ourselves if we can see our own limitations as researchers and participants. Can we see where our conceptual luggage and our biases a# ected the process and outcome? We ask if we have been transparent in our biases and in the power relations and decisions that were made regarding the research process. Did we make any e# ort to include multiple perspectives? Did we take enough time for authentic relationships to be built and did we give people the time and respect to be truly honest? Finally, did we just skim the surface or did we strive for a critical understanding of an issue—that is, does our research have “soul”? And, we ask, did this research ma! er? Did it leave participants be! er o# ?

Pu! ing the Tenets to Work: One Student’s Experience

As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the University of Victoria School of Social Work requires students in their third-year BSW class, “Research for Social Change,” to design and carry out an anti-oppressive research project. Christine, a student in this class, and Charles, an interviewer in Christine’s project, agreed to let us share their experience of anti-oppressive research with you.

Initially Christine really struggled with grasping anti-oppressive research principles discussed in the course. She did not do very well on her research proposal assignment for the class, but she had good intentions. She worked with mentally challenged people and was concerned about how they were treated by professionals in the community (police, health workers, etc.). But in her initial research design, she proposed having other professionals talk on behalf of people with mental disabilities. In her next a! empt, she then switched and proposed surveying the “clients” herself, so that the “clients” at least got to tell their own stories. But she, as the researcher, was still in control. All of her initial designs were loaded with “power over” relations where she was going to beneﬁ t (ge! ing course credit, learning how to do research, developing relationships) by using marginalized people and their stories for her direct beneﬁ t.

Then one day, as Christine describes it, it came to her what anti oppressive research was all about. She asked the people labelled as “clients” in the day home where she worked if any of them would like to be researchers into why professionals sometimes treat them so badly. Several said yes. She helped them learn about research, design their own interview questions, and they chose the professionals whom they would interview (“researching up” on the power ladder). It was an amazing process in which they interviewed professionals about their a! itudes and training toward people with mental illnesses and cognitive disabilities, and at the end of the interview they revealed that they were living with mental illness/disability. The professionals were shocked, and change happened through the process of the research interviews. These participants (now called “interviewers,” not “clients”) have gone on with Christine to present at research conferences and write in newsletters, and have been truly empowered to become advocates in their own lives. This is what anti-oppressive research can be for marginalized people with the support of an “outsider.”

In Christine’s Words:

One of the ﬁ rst things I facilitated in this “learning” journey was a “team meeting” with the interviewers and myself. The conversation in the room that day was profound. On November 6, 2000, I met with the interviewers. The excitement and electricity that was in that room was indescribable. The interviewers were so excited that they were going to have “tactical advantage” and the “power of having the professionals come to them.” For me as a facilitator, it was exciting to realize that I have had a positive impact on this marginalized group. The fact that I have simply provided these people with the environment to share their stories with the goal of educating people about mental illness has resulted in individual change with the interviewers and with [myself] the facilitator. I feel that my process was very empowering of the marginalized mental health clients. The fact that they were equal team players in each step of the research empowered them. They were involved in who was going to be interviewed, how the interviews were going to take place, where the interview was going to be, what type of questions were going to be asked, who they wanted to interview, how the information was going to be documented, and if they wanted to disclose their mental illness. This empowerment increased their self-esteem, their self-worth, their self-conﬁ dence, and their importance to society. I o" en see mentally ill people being labelled as incompetent citizens of society and this research process challenges this label of mentally ill people. In addition, for me in hindsight, I realized that I have developed a respectful relationship with each interviewer. In realizing that, I listened attentively to them and took their advice, resulting in developing a sincere relationship with people, which all reiterates the fact that mentally ill people are valuable citizens. I am very proud of the [research-facilitating] work I did, and even though I have helped many mentally ill people in the past, I now know what it means to facilitate “power and freedom,” which should be the true goal of social workers. I am thankful that I experienced such a wonderful transformation of attitudes with the clients/the interviewers, the professional people interviewed, and, most importantly, with myself. (Christine, electronic communication, October 2, 2001)

Christine also went on to support the co-researchers’ presentation of their research at a conference. One researcher was Charles, and this is how he described the experience:

It all started when Christine asked me if I was interested in participating in a school project she was doing .… Intrigued, I immediately asked to interview a police o$ cer. I thought to myself that this could be quite exciting; the shoe on the other foot type [of] thing .… We sat down together and discussed the interview. She [Christine] let me help in the formulation of the questions for the interview. This boosted my self-conﬁ dence quite a bit, having someone show interest in my ideas and suggestions. This way, I did not feel like a mindless test subject, and I was determined to do the interview to the best of my ability.

Charles goes on to describe his interview with the police officer regarding their a! itudes and training about mental illness.

In our discourse, I was informed that there was no real training provided about the mentally ill in the RCMP infrastructure. She [the o$ cer] said her department le" days open for various training seminars. Upon learning that their training was on the streets, I understood why, when I was ill, various officers treated me so di# erently. This opened my eyes to the humanness of the police in general. As we were talking, the o$ cer asked me if I was a student, like Christine. When I told her I su# ered from mental illness, she was quite surprised. When I told her my diagnosis, she found it hard to believe. I felt surprised and delighted, for here was a police o$ cer, a 10-year veteran on the force, dead wrong about my illness. I thought to myself that these people are heavily trained in psychology and human nature. Her surprised reaction broke the stereotype I felt about myself. We conversed further, and then the ice broke. She relaxed suddenly, leaning forward and sideways, at the same time easing her arms up a li! le. Instead of her steely gaze of authority, her eyes were much warmer and friendly. In return I lowered my guard a li! le more and, in my perspective, we developed what could be deﬁ ned as a good rapport. I think we both learned something. Her, the experience of talking with someone who is mentally ill, in a rational state of mind, and me, I learned that a police o$ cer could casually chitchat, in a friendly manner, with the public, while on duty. It was a nice experience—I will always remember it. (Charles, personal writing, March 10, 2001)

The three tenets of anti-oppressive research that we outlined at the beginning of this chapter are very much present in the above story. The research project turned power on its head; it was all about relationships, it recognized that knowledge is socially constructed, and in its process and in its outcome, it was clearly focused toward social justice.

Foes and Allies: Relating Other Approaches to Anti-oppressive Research

By now you may be wondering if there is a distinctive anti-oppressive method of inquiry. In a word, no. There is no ﬁ xed or bona ﬁ de set of methods or methodologies that are inherently anti-oppressive. And yet, there are some alternative research methodologies that share similar political agendas and a! end to relationships with the goal of empowerment and emancipation. These methodologies may help to inform our processes of designing an anti-oppressive research project.

Various emancipatory and critical social science research methodologies, such as feminist research and Freirian emancipatory or participatory research, are potential “allies” in doing anti-oppressive research. Participatory action research (PAR) is feasible and appropriate in only certain situations, and yet the term “participatory action” has become quite popular in community and government groups in the past few years. With this popularity has come co-optation. What passes for participatory action research in some instances is neither participatory (in that the research question has not come from the group but rather has been laid on or “sold to a group” by a researcher) nor action (in that any knowledge created through the research process is not owned and acted upon by the participants for their growth and transformation). In some cases the research process is quite prescriptive and yet labelled PAR. Social justice, the goal of emancipatory research, is truly realized only through participation, not prescription. As anti-oppressive researchers, we must learn to discern when principles of participation and social action are being misused, and to be careful about how we use these methods in our work.

Indigenous paradigms13 also provide an approach to research and knowledge that goes beyond the positivism of Western science. Such methodologies are openly critical of and oppose the status quo and are commi! ed to a transformative agenda to build a more just society. Such research methodologies call for critical inquirers to practise in their empirical endeavours what they preach in their theoretical formulations. The concept of Indigenous research methodology can be attractive to both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal scholars and practitioners. Cora Weber-Pillwax poses several principles that underlay such a methodology. These include:

the interconnectedness of all living things, (b) the impact of motives and intentions on person and community, (c) the foundation
f research as lived indigenous experience, (d) the groundedness of theories in indigenous epistemology, (e) the transformative nature of research, (f) the sacredness and responsibility of maintaining personal and community integrity, and (g) the recognition of languages and cultures as living processes. (Weber-Pillwax, 1999, p. 31)

Much interest currently exists for exploring the anti-oppressive and empowering possibilities of qualitative methodologies. Mehmoona Moosa-Mitha, in an earlier chapter in this book, for example, comments that she has found narrative approaches potentially compatible with anti-oppressive principles. Other chapters in this book pick up on ethnography and other approaches. Such qualitative methods, however, are not inherently anti-oppressive, so critical consideration of ethnographic methods, heuristic methods, grounded theory methods, phenomenological methods, narrative methods, discourse analysis, and so on are necessary. As anti-oppressive researchers, we do not necessarily dismiss these methods as inappropriate, but work with them to reconceptualize/retool how we may use the general approaches in ways that are in keeping with our values and purposes.

Other alternative methodologies that you may want to explore include critical ethnography, life histories, narratives, and autobiography. Becoming a vigilant reader of emancipatory and critical social science is one way to become conversant with the ongoing quest for methodologies that may be useful in doing anti-oppressive research. Several social work journals, such as Journal of Progressive Human Services, Affilia, and Critical Social Work (on-line journal) are great places to browse. In addition the references cited in this article may introduce you to some ways of rethinking research and becoming an anti-oppressive researcher.

The point is that many methodologies touch on some but not necessarily all of the tenets that we are trying to foreground in anti oppressive research. If anything, we are arguing that anti-oppressive research is not methodologically distinctive, but epistemologically distinctive. We have come to believe that if we are to transform research into an anti-oppressive practice, then it is the epistemological underpinnings (e.g., relationships of the knower, the known, and those who want to know) that are key. Therefore, while a piece of research may use anti-oppressive or positivist jargon, the words are irrelevant. It is the principles/tenets put into practice that are important to consider. And it is these principles (e.g., social justice, shi" ing power to insiders, community building, working for change) that we need to look for in our critical reading of research. A number of emergent methodologies have lost their principles in their bid for institutional acceptance, and in this sense we cannot rely on labels alone to reveal their anti-oppressive/ oppressive positioning. We must continually be vigilant in assessing the tenets at work as we uncover methodological foes and allies.

A Few Concluding Thoughts … for Now

Part of the concept of agency that we have talked about is the ability to change one’s self. This requires constant reﬂ ection and critique. In proposing the idea of “anti-oppressive research,” we do not want to create another dogma. Horkheimer, in later life, critiqued the arrogance of any revolutionary tradition that in itself can turn around and be oppressive (Ray, 2003, p. 164). Always being reﬂ ective about yourself and your work is not easy. Just when we think we’re ge! ing it right, we realize we’re only ge! ing it be! er. Becoming anti-oppressive is not a comfortable place to be. It means constantly reﬂ ecting on how one is being constructed and how one is constructing one’s world. This chapter is part of our becoming. We hope it helps you in your research journey as well.

Notes

We want to acknowledge the support and hard work contributed by Pat Rasmussen, who collaborated on early versions of this paper. We also acknowledge the Social Work 301 students who have been with us on this journey to anti-oppressive research, with special thanks to Christine and Andrea for their unique contributions.
Deﬁ nitions of epistemology: “The philosophical theory of knowledge—of how we know what we know” (Marshall, 1998, p. 197). “That branch

f philosophy which deals with the theory, nature, scope and basis of knowledge, or which investigates the possibility of knowledge itself .… The critical study of the principles, hypotheses and ﬁ ndings of the various sciences” (Macey, 2001, p. 114).

One of the ﬁ rst articles to look at co-option of Freirian methodology was R. Kidd and K. Kumar, Co-opting Freire: A critical analysis of pseudo-Freirian adult education. Economic and Political Weekly 16 (1/2) (1981), 27–36.
Critical: By using the term “critical,” we want to point to a connection with critical theory as associated with the Frankfurt School thinkers. This is not to be confused with use of “critical thinking,” etc., as found in liberalism,
- r “criticism” as found in literature, ﬁ lm studies, etc.
Research: We deﬁ ne research as to re-search, to look again, in a careful and considered manner.
Epistemic privilege: “The claim of ‘epistemic privilege’ amounts to claiming that members of an oppressed group have a more immediate, subtle and critical knowledge about the nature of their oppression than people who are non-members of the oppressed group” (Narayan, 1988, p. 35).
For a more thorough discussion of anti-oppressive theories, please see the earlier chapter by Mehmoona Moosa-Mitha in this book.
Critical theory: “Critical theory springs from an assumption that we live amid a world of pain, that much can be done to alleviate that pain, and that theory has a crucial role to play in that process” (Poster as quoted in Lather, 1991, p. 3).
For us, social justice means transforming the way resources and relationships are produced and distributed so that all people can live digniﬁ ed lives in a way that is ecologically sustainable. Our critical view
- f social justice includes social sustainability, intergenerational equity, global justice, and eco-centric justice (Ife, 2002, pp. 75–78). It takes direct aim at the sources that reproduce structural disadvantage, whether those are through institutions, like income security, or through human relations, such as racism. It is also about creating new ways of thinking and being, not only criticizing the status quo. Social justice means acting from a standpoint of those who have the least power and inﬂ uence, relying on the wisdom of the oppressed (Ife, 2002, p. 88).
Social constructionism speaks to theories that relate to the socially created nature of life. These theories are ﬁ rst associated with the 1966 book, The Social Construction of Reality (Berger and Luckmann, 1966).
“Empowerment” is a problematic term because it is o" en used with varied meanings. In this chapter, when “empowerment” appears in quotations, it is being contested as a term that o" en implies a feeling without real

power, upward mobility, individual self-conﬁ dence, or it is an illusion of real power. When we as authors speak of real empowerment, we are using the term as Lather does, “drawing on Gramsci’s (1971) ideas of counter hegemony … empowerment to mean analyzing ideas about the causes of powerlessness, recognizing systemic oppressive forces, and acting both individually and collectively to change the conditions of our lives” (Lather, 1991, pp. 3–4). 12. Cultivating co-researchers is one way that many who try to be more anti-oppressive in their research engage the tenets of anti-oppressive work. As knowledge is socially constructed and what is created through coming together as knowers is more than what each co-researcher knew before coming together, co-researching can become a way of producing knowledge and producing knowers. Yet such an approach is not without its own power issues. Too o" en, we have seen projects where insiders are co-researchers who are marginalized or given a token position within the research design. It begs the question, to what extent can research truly be anti-oppressive unless the people experiencing the issue under study are the researchers and are in control of the research decisions? 13. We use “Indigenous” rather than “First Nations” to acknowledge the work being done around the world by Indigenous peoples to resist oppression, particularly oppressive research.

References

Berger, P., and Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Toronto:

Random House.

Caputo, J.D. (2000). More radical hermeneutics: On not knowing who we are.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Chambon, A.S., Irving, A., and Epstein, L. (1999). Reading Foucault for social

work. New York: Columbia University Press.

hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New

York: Routledge.

Ife, J. (2002). Community development: Community-based alternatives in an age

of globalization (2nd edition). Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education Australia. Kirby, S.L., and McKenna, K. (1989). Experience research social change: Methods from the margins. Toronto: Garamond Press. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge.

Macey, D. (2001). The Penguin dictionary of critical theory. London: Penguin

Books.

Marco! e, G. (1995). Métis c’est may nation. “Your Own People,” comme on dit: Life histories from Eva, Evelyn, Priscilla, and Jennifer Richard. Paper prepared for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. Marshall, G. (Ed.). (1998). A dictionary of sociology (2nd edition). Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

McDonald, K. (2003). Alain Touraine. In A. Elliott and L. Ray (Eds.), Key

contemporary social theorists. Oxford: Blackwell.

Narayan, U. (1988). Working together across di# erence: Some considerations

on emotions and political practice. Hypatia 3 (2), 31–47.

Ray, L. (2003). Max Horkheimer. In A. Ellio! and L. Ray (Eds.), Key contemporary

social theorists. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.

Tuhiwai Smith, L. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and Indigenous

peoples. London: Zed Books.

van Krieken, R. (2003). Norbert Elias. In A. Elliott and L. Ray (Eds.), Key

contemporary social theorists. Oxford: Blackwell.

Weber-Pillwax, C. (1999). Indigenous research methodology: Exploratory discussion of an elusive subject. The Journal of Educational Thought 3 (1), 31–45. Williams, M., Unrau, Y., and Grinnell, R. (1998). Introduction to social work

research. Itasca: F.E. Peacock Publishers, Inc.