Qbrdm2

Transformative Research and Ethics

In: The Handbook of Social Research Ethics

By: Donna M. Mertens, Heidi M. Holmes & Raychelle L. Harris

Edited by: Donna M. Mertens & Pauline E. Ginsberg

Pub. Date: 2013

Access Date: October 7, 2019

Publishing Company: SAGE Publications, Inc.

City: Thousand Oaks

Print ISBN: 9781412949187

Online ISBN: 9781483348971

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971

Print pages: 85-102

© 2009 SAGE Publications, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

This PDF has been generated from SAGE Research Methods. Please note that the pagination of the

online version will vary from the pagination of the print book.

Transformative Research and Ethics

Donna M.Mertens, Heidi M.Holmes and Raychelle L.Harris

What are the ethical implications of pouring millions of dollars into research and producing volumes of

articles on critical social problems such as HIV/AIDS or literacy if the epidemics of disease and illiteracy

are escalating? Chilisa (2005) suggested that ongoing research that fails to address the problem effectively

from the researched's frame of reference perpetuates conditions that violate human rights and impedes

progress toward social justice. Hence, pathways to strengthening the ethical character of research include

funding, conducting, disseminating, and using research based on philosophical positions that create space

for knowledge systems that recognize “local language and thought forms as an important source of making

meanings of what we research … Given the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Sub-Saharan Africa, the need for diversity

in research epistemologies has become not a luxury of nationalism of the African Renaissance, but rather an

issue of life and death” (p. 678).

The intransigence of social problems and the need to examine critically the philosophical assumptions that

undergird the ethics of research do not arise only in developing countries. Witness the difficulties in the United

States with regard to provision of educational, psychological, and social services to the poor and people with

disabilities or those who are from racial or ethnic minority groups. How is it that blacks in the United States are

more than four times as likely as whites to be diagnosed with schizophrenia? Blow et al. (2004) suggested

that diagnostic measures developed primarily with white patients in mind do not automatically apply to other

groups. How is it that males, especially those from minority ethnic and racial groups, are diagnosed as

having disabilities in much greater numbers by a ratio of about 2 males for every 1 female (U.S. Department

of Education, 2004)? Yet, at the same time, girls from all ethnic groups may be underidentified as having

certain disabilities because the indicators are manifested differently for females and for males. Therefore,

girls with undiagnosed disabilities are not receiving the supportive services necessary to succeed in school

and life (Mertens, Wilson, & Mounty, 2007), while minority children with disabilities all too often experience

inadequate services, low-quality curriculum and instruction, and unnecessary isolation from their nondisabled

peers (Losen & Orfield, 2002).

Another example of discrimination and oppression in the United States was made visible through the

differential aftermath of the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, which pounded the Gulf Coast states

in August 2005. Elliott and Pais (2006) conducted a survey of over 1,200 hurricane survivors to examine the

influence of race and socioeconomic class on evacuation timing, emotional support, housing, employment,

and plans to return to their pre-storm communities.

Results reveal strong racial and class differences, indicating that neither of those dimensions can

be reduced to the other when seeking to understand responses by survivors themselves. This

intersection renders low-income black home owners from New Orleans those most in need of

targeted assistance as residents work to put themselves and the region back together. (p. 295)

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 2 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

This introductory commentary brings to the surface the need to examine critically the basic beliefs that

researchers bring with them to guide their decisions about what variables are important to consider and how

and from whom the data are to be collected in an ethical manner. In the context of educational, social, and

psychological programs, many of the people the programs are intended to serve are the ones who have

been pushed to the margins on the basis of race/ethnicity, language, indigenous/immigrant status, education

level, disability, age, religion, socioeconomic status, and other contextually dependent variables. Issues of

discrimination and oppression are commonly associated with those characteristics that are connected with

the focus of such programs and policies. For researchers who are aware of the historical and political factors

that surround program participants, the need to consider power issues associated with greater privilege in

society is apparent.

In this context, where intransigent social, educational, health, economic, civil, and environmental conditions

result in violations of human rights on a daily basis, the ethical conduct of research demands attention to a

full array of complexity. The use of a lens of transformation provides researchers with the means to address

explicitly issues of human rights and social justice. To that end, this chapter elucidates the transformative

paradigm with its accompanying philosophical assumptions as a way of examining the underlying beliefs that

define the role of the researcher as one of working in partnership for social change and challenging the status

quo.

The transformative paradigm (Mertens, 2005, 2007, 2009) is a framework of belief systems that directly

engages members of culturally diverse groups with a focus on increased social justice. Being firmly rooted

in a human rights agenda, the ethical implications of research are derived from the conscious inclusion of a

broad range of people who are generally excluded from the mainstream in society. Such research strives to

extend the meaning of traditional ethical concepts to reflect more directly ethical considerations in culturally

complex communities. Power issues in terms of determining research focus, planning, implementation, and

use are also examined from a transformative stance based on axiological assumptions related to respect for

communities that are pushed to the margins and recognition of the resilience that rests within community

members.

To be quite blunt, the usefulness of research as a means to social transformation is not a universally agreed

on concept. Gustavsen (2006) questioned the potential role of research for social transformation: “If we

really want to become involved in socially significant practical action with demands for long time horizons,

for relating to numerous actors and engaging in highly complex activities, perhaps the notion of linking such

involvement to research as traditionally conceived is futile” (p. 25). He concluded that an unsettling of the

status quo of research is needed; that is, research needs to be transformed to engage in a purer form of

democracy that will support the development of social relationships that embody a principle of equality for all

participants.

One of the major principles underlying transformative approaches to research is the belief in an often

overlooked strength in communities that are rising to the challenge of addressing seemingly intransigent

problems. When theoretical perspectives such as resilience theory, positive psychology, feminist theory, and

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 3 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

critical race theory are used to frame a study, then a deliberate and conscious design can reveal the positive

aspects, resilience, and acts of resistance needed for social change. Ludema, Cooperrider, and Barrett (2001)

argued that research and evaluation have largely failed as instruments for advancing social-organizational

transformation because they maintain a problem-oriented view rather than focusing on the strengths of a

community. Historically, research and evaluation have had a deficit-based orientation, such that the “problem”

was derived from deficits found in the people whom the program was designed to help. They proposed turning

away from such a deficit-based view and looking instead at what is positive. The basis for social change is

seen as emanating from an unconditional positive question that reaffirms the life-giving and life-sustaining

aspects of organizational existence. Important exceptions to deficit-based programs and research provide

examples of resilience-based strategies, such as the Communities that Care System (Hawkins & Catalano,

2003; Chapter 22, this volume).

Transformative Paradigm

A paradigm is a set of metaphysical constructs associated with specific philosophical assumptions (basic

beliefs) that describe a person's worldview and serves to guide the organized study of that world (Denzin

& Lincoln, 2005). Bawden (2006) asserted that evaluators (and social researchers, by implication) have a

responsibility to critically examine their worldviews because they influence choices, either consciously or

unconsciously. He commented,

If indeed, as Stufflebeam (2001) argues, any evaluation is a study that is designed and conducted

to assist some audience to assess an object's merit and worth, then explicit attention must be paid

to foundational assumptions about the nature of worth and value, and to how these can come to be

known in any given contextual situation, if it is to be an ethically defensible practice. (p. 38)

There are four basic belief systems that are relevant to defining a paradigm in a research context, with

assumptions associated with each belief system:

1. Axiology: Assumption about the nature of ethical behavior

2. Ontology: Assumption about the nature of reality

3. Epistemology: Assumption about the nature of knowledge and who can know what by

what means

4. Methodology: Assumption about appropriate approaches to systematic inquiry

The axiological assumption asks, What is considered ethical or moral behavior? In transformative terms,

the question is asked, How can research contribute to social justice and the furtherance of human rights?

Ontologically speaking, how do we know what is real? In this chapter, this question is not asked about

physical objects, such as a desk in a room, but rather about a determination of the reality associated

with socially constructed concepts, such as literacy or health. The transformative ontological question asks,

Whose reality is privileged in this context, and what is the mechanism for challenging perceived realities

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 4 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

that sustain an oppressive system? The epistemological question asks, What is the nature of knowing, and

what is the method for knowing the nature of reality and the means for generation of knowledge (Fonow &

Cook, 2005)? It brings up questions about who can know what and how the knower relates to what would be

known. If I am to genuinely know the reality of something, how do I need to relate to the people from whom

I am collecting data? The knower is the researcher, and the would-be-known is the participant in the study.

Should I be close to the participants so that I can really understand their experiences, or should I maintain a

distance between myself and the participants so that I can be “neutral”? This question raises concerns about

the definition of objectivity as it is operationalized in a research context. Methodologically, choices go beyond

quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods to how to collect data about the reality of a concept in such a way

that one feels confident that one has indeed captured that reality and done so in an ethical manner.

Axiological Assumption

The transformative paradigm places priority on the axiological assumption as a guiding force for

conceptualizing subsequent beliefs and research decisions. Hence, this assumption is examined from a

number of different perspectives. A historical and contemporary view of social justice is defined in terms of

distributive justice. Theories of ethics are identified that are commensurate with the transformative paradigm.

Declarations of human rights provide insights into the meaning of social justice. Codes of ethics are

evolving in professional associations and from indigenous peoples that are compatible with the transformative

paradigm's axiological assumption. And the implications of regulatory concepts of ethics are examined from

the transformative perspective.

Distributive Justice

Aristotle's concept of social justice as distributive justice includes the idea that justice is achieved through

the equitable allocation and distribution of benefits (Reisch, 2002). In contrast to contemporary views of

distributive justice, Aristotle applied his principle of equity in terms of sharing resources only within the

hierarchical social stratum of the time, such that only men of property in Athens would come under the

distributive justice principle. Political and social revolutions in the late 18th century linked justice to equality

and human rights. However, continued oppression by the rich and powerful throughout history indicates that

the idealized notion of equality and human rights for all is not a reality.

Rawls (2001) raised the issue of the need to establish an imperative to act for the furtherance of social justice,

which was, up to that time, missing in others' discussions of the topic. He asserted in his maximin theory that

every person has an equal right to personal liberty and that social and economic equality demands that the

need of the least advantaged be given priority and the principle of equal opportunity be applied to all available

positions.

In contemporary writings about social justice, the attainment of social justice is linked with the goals of social

diversity and “with challenges to the normative power structure and the oppression it produces” (Hyde, 1998,

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 5 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

cited in Reisch, 2002, p. 348). Reisch noted that a social justice approach may involve unequal distribution

of resources. However, unequal distribution of resources would be justified only if such inequalities served

to advance the least advantaged groups in the community (Franklin, 1998; Isbister, 2001). The pursuit of

social justice by researchers requires acknowledgment of the political dimensions of research contexts and

working cooperatively with community members to clarify goals. Although Reisch (2002) was writing about

social justice in the context of social work, his comments have applicability to understanding the meaning of

social justice in a transformative research context as well:

A social justice perspective also contains the imperative of challenging prevailing assumptions about

power, privilege, and various forms of oppression in the theories that underlie current policies,

programs and methods. … This requires us to advocate for the elimination of those policies that

diminish people's sense of control over their lives… Simultaneously, we need to work for the

expansion of those programs that enable people to exercise personal freedom by… making them

feel like integral and valued parts of society. These goals reflect a potential synthesis of the historic

division between individual and collective well-being at the heart of debates over social justice and

may provide the basis for its attainment in an increasingly diverse and conflict-ridden world. (p. 351)

Theories of Ethics

Simons (2006) identified rights-based and social justice theories of ethics that are commensurate with the

transformative axiological assumptions. Rights-based theories justify their actions on the basis that every

person must be treated with dignity and respect and that the avoidance of harm must be the primary principle.

The social justice theory of ethics takes the rights-based theory to a group or societal level (House, 1993),

leading to an awareness of the need to redress inequalities by giving precedence, or at least equal weight, to

the voices of the least advantaged groups in society. The implicit goals of inclusion of those who have been

denied access to power are an accurate representation of their viewpoints, as well as support for the less

advantaged in terms of their being able to take the role of an active agent in social change.

Human Rights Declarations

The transformative paradigm is firmly rooted in a human rights agenda much as it is articulated in the United

Nations (UN) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Although the declarations of the UN are situated

in a multilateral context, they provide guidance in understanding a basis for transformative work nationally as

well as internationally. Human rights is a globally relevant issue; “developed” countries are not exempt from

violations of human rights.

The UN's declaration is based on the recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable

rights of all members of the human family, including the rights to life, liberty, security of the person, equal

protection under the law, freedom of movement, marriage with the free and full consent of the intending

spouses, ownership of property, freedom of thought and religion, freedom of opinion and expression,

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 6 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

peaceful assembly, participation in governance, work in just and favorable working conditions, and education.

Importantly for this text, Article 25 reads,

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself

[sic] and of his [sic] family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social

services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old

age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his [sic] control. (UN, 1998)

The UN Universal Declaration contains language indicating that everyone is entitled to these rights, without

distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social

origin, property, birth, or other status. However, the UN recognized that the Universal Declaration did not

result in enjoyment of the rights contained therein for all people. They noted that specific attention would need

to be given to groups that were not being afforded these rights based on race, disability, gender, age, political

standing, or status in the workforce. Consequently, they approved the following:

• The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1969, which

affirms the necessity of eliminating racial discrimination throughout the world in all its forms and

manifestations and of securing understanding of and respect for the dignity of the human person.

• The Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons (UN, 1975), which assures them the same

fundamental rights as their fellow citizens, no matter what the origin, nature, and seriousness of their

handicaps and disabilities. The UN subsequently developed and approved the Convention on the

Rights of Persons With Disabilities in December 2006 (UN, 2006a).

• The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (UN, 1979), which

provides the basis for realizing equality between women and men through ensuring women's equal

access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life—including the right to vote and to stand

for election—as well as education, health, and employment.

These were followed by the Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1990a) and the International

Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (UN,

1990b). After 20 years of debate, the UN finally approved the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous

Peoples (UN, 2006b). Subsequently, the UNICEF, with the endorsement of the International Organization

for Cooperation in Evaluation and the International Development Evaluation Association, prepared a report

based on a meeting of 85 evaluation organizations that maps the future priorities for evaluation in that context.

This excerpt captures the emphasis on human rights:

Within a human rights approach, evaluation should focus on the most vulnerable populations to

determine whether public policies are designed to ensure that all people enjoy their rights as citizens,

whether disparities are eliminated and equity enhanced, and whether democratic approaches

have been adopted that include everyone in decision-making processes that affect their interests.

(Segone, 2006, p. 12)

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 7 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

Professional and Indigenous Codes of Ethics

In addition to guidance on human rights issues from international bodies, codes of ethics from relevant

professional associations and organizations provide guidance for researchers and evaluators as to what

constitutes ethical practice (see Chapter 7, this volume). These codes of ethics have been critically reviewed

and revised to reflect a greater concern for principles that are reflective of the axiological assumptions of

the transformative paradigm. The American Evaluation Association (AEA) modified its guiding principles to

include an explicit principle related to the role of cultural competency in ethical evaluation practice. The

American Psychological Association (APA) revised its ethics code in 2002, strengthening protection of people

in research that involves deception (Fisher, 2003). Ethics in psychology has also been extended by Brabeck's

(2000) application of feminist principles in psychology (see also Chapter 3, by Brabeck & Brabeck, this

volume).

Two subgroups of the APA1 also developed multicultural ethical guidelines for research. The implications for

research methods derived from the guidelines that are most relevant to the transformative paradigm read as

follows:

Related to the research question is choosing culturally appropriate theories and models on which

to inform theory-driven inquiry … Psychological researchers are encouraged to be aware of and,

if appropriate, to apply indigenous theories when conceptualizing research studies. They are

encouraged to include members of cultural communities when conceptualizing research, with

particular concern for the benefits of the research to the community. (APA, 2002, p. 3).

The Guidelines for Research in Ethnic Minority Communities contains the following description of the

researcher's ethical responsibilities:

As an agent of prosocial change, the culturally competent psychologist carries the responsibility

of combating the damaging effects of racism, prejudice, bias, and oppression in all their forms,

including all of the methods we use to understand the populations we serve … A consistent theme …

relates to the interpretation and dissemination of research findings that are meaningful and relevant

to each of the four populations2 and that reflect an inherent understanding of the racial, cultural, and

sociopolitical context within which they exist. (APA, 2000, p. 1)

Interestingly, the APA endorses the role of the psychologist as an agent of prosocial change; this is reflective

of the axiological assumption of the transformative paradigm that ethical research is defined by its furtherance

of social justice and human rights, all the while being cognizant of those characteristics associated with

diverse populations that impede progress on these fronts.

Researcher guidelines are also available from indigenous communities that provide insights into the ethical

grounding of research (see Cram, 2001; Chapter 20, this volume). Researchers from the Sign Language

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 8 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

community3 adapted the Mãori Terms of Reference to their own specific context (Harris & Holmes, 2007;

Harris, Holmes, & Mertens, in press). The complexity of the Deaf4 community as a cultural and linguistic

minority includes dimensions such as levels and type of hearing loss, parental hearing status, access to

and ability to benefit from auditory enhancing technologies, language usage based on signs and/or voice,

and use of visually accessible sign languages. Their ethical guidelines, Sign Language Communities Terms

of Reference, are commensurate with the transformative paradigm. Representative guidelines of particular

significance to Sign Language communities include the following:

• Research involving the Sign Language community has to be done “by Deaf, for Deaf and with Deaf.”

• Instead of using spoken language and providing interpreters for Deaf members, research projects

should mandate sign language as the primary language of research teams, interpreters should be

provided for hearing people who do not know sign language, and bilingual publications in sign

language and the majority language should be accepted and encouraged.

• There should be increased emphasis on confidentiality because of the compactness of the Sign

Language community and because the visual nature of sign language requires documentation

through video (as opposed to audiotapes or transcribed interviews), making it difficult to preserve

anonymity.

Regulatory Concepts of Ethics

The transformative paradigm pushes the regulatory principles of respect, beneficence, and justice on several

fronts. Respect is critically examined in terms of the cultural norms of interaction in diverse communities

and across cultural groups. Consent is obtained with full awareness through appropriate culturally competent

means. It includes self-awareness in relationship to community. (See Chapter 26, this volume, in which the

author, Chilisa, explains the African ethical principle of umbuntu; Chilisa & Preece, 2005.) Beneficence is

defined in terms of the promotion of human rights and increase in social justice. An explicit connection is

made between the process and outcomes of research and furtherance of a social justice agenda.

Commensurate Theories

The theoretical and axiological thinking of critical theorists, feminists, and other human rights advocates has

much to offer in the consideration of ethical principles in research. The ethical principles underlying feminist,

critical, postcolonial, and indigenous theories are commensurate with the axiological assumptions of the

transformative paradigm (see Chapters 4, 9, 20, and 26, this volume).

Ontological Assumption

The ontological assumption of the transformative paradigm holds that reality is socially constructed; however,

it does so with a conscious awareness that certain individuals occupy a position of greater power and that

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 9 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

individuals with other characteristics may be associated with a higher likelihood of exclusion from decisions

about the definition of the research problem, questions, and other methodological aspects of the inquiry.

Ontological assumptions rooted in positivist philosophy have been criticized by many groups who have been

pushed to the margins in the scholarly decolonization literature. A critique from Native American communities

notes that

production of meaning from a Eurocentric perspective does not capture any “truth” of Native and

tribal lives but also infiltrates Native lifeworlds in the form of “epistemic violence.” (Spivak, 1988, p.

126, as cited in Duran & Duran, 2000, p. 96)

Social scientists have been rewriting tribal canonical texts (i.e., ritual) via anthropology and other

disciplines since first contact and therein have produced meaning that has changed and distorted

tribal understandings or forced them underground. Clinical psychology as well as research-oriented

psychology is extremely narrow-minded. The assumptions of these fields are based on a utilitarian

worldview. … Western empirical research is based on the illusion of objectivity, with a transhistorical,

transcultural orientation. It operates within an a priori essentialist Cartesian model of a unified,

rational, autonomous subject, the construction of which is problematized in the work of French

poststructuralism and German critical theory. (Duran & Duran, 2000, p. 96)

The ontological assumption asks the question, What is real? In a research context, researchers identify

variables and measure aspects of those variables in an attempt to look for objective truth, what is real within

some level of defined probability, or truth as defined within a complex cultural context. A transformative lens

focuses the ontological question on an explicit acknowledgement that reality is socially constructed and that

specific characteristics associated with more or less power determine which version of reality is accepted as

“real.” Power issues pervade the choice of variables and their definitions, determining what is “researchable.”

Power is implicit in decisions about which interpretation of reality is accepted. This point is illustrated in the

power associated with explanations of the achievement gap between minority and majority students (e.g.,

based on either race or hearing status) in the United States.

O'Connor and Fernandez (2006) described the results of a National Research Council (NRC) report that

explored the assumptions associated with the relationship between poverty and the overrepresentation of

minority youth in special education. They provided a critique indicating that this explanation oversimplifies

the concept of compromised development associated with being poor and underanalyzes the effect of culture

and the organization of schools that situate minority youth as academically and behaviorally deficit, thus

increasing the probability that they will be placed in special education. They noted that the NRC recognizes

that children in high-poverty districts are exposed to a higher degree of teacher bias and have lower funding,

which is necessary to reduce class size and attract qualified teachers. However, the NRC concludes that

these variables contribute to the incidence of disability. O'Connell and Fernandez described a different reality

based on the evidence:

It is schools and not poverty that place minority students at heightened risk for special education

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 10 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

placement. … [T]here is nothing about poverty in and of itself that places poor children at academic

risk; it is a matter of how structures of opportunity and constraint come to bear on the educational

chances of the poor to either expand or constrain their likelihood of achieving competitive,

educational outcomes (O'Connor, 2002). Disproportionality, then, is the structured probability with

which minority youth are more likely to be “documented” as disabled. (p. 10)

People who wrote the legislation in the United States about education for people with disabilities based

national policy on a reality that assumes that D/deaf/hard-of-hearing students placed in mainstream settings

are more successful at academics than those placed in a residential environment. Administrators and local

school district board members encourage parents of D/deaf/hard-of-hearing children to place their children

in mainstream settings under the assumption that these represent the least restrictive environment for them

(Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, reauthorized 2004). However, Deaf and hard-of-

hearing students in residential schools achieve as much as or more than those in mainstream environments

(Marschark, Lang, & Albertini, 2002). The social abilities of Deaf and hard-of-hearing students in residential

schools are higher than those of students at public schools because they have Deaf role models, full access

to direct communication, and peer interaction. Nevertheless, most D/deaf students in mainstream settings are

placed in self-contained classrooms with minimal social interaction with hearing peers and often little to no

interaction with other deaf students. Some of them work 1:1 with a special education teacher who may not

know anything about Deaf culture, sign language, or teaching D/deaf children.

Ladson-Billings (2006) made a similar argument in her explanation of the “achievement gap” when minority

and disadvantaged students are compared with their white and privileged counterparts. She explained that

a significant amount of research on poor, African American, Latina/o, American Indian, and Asian immigrant

students has led to very few solutions. A long history of educational research gives privilege to the explanation

that race/ethnicity and/or poverty is to blame for the lack of academic achievement. Should researchers

explore the historic, economic, sociopolitical, and moral debt in the United States that results in poor

opportunities for quality educational experiences for those pushed to the margins? What is required is a

serious investigation of the costs of segregation and the costs of equitable funding and to use research and

evaluation to understand that “a cumulative effect of poor education, poor housing, poor health care and poor

government services create a bifurcated society that leaves more than its children behind” (Ladson-Billings,

2006, p. 10).

Epistemological Assumption

The epistemology of the transformative research paradigm queries the nature of knowledge and who can

know what about whom, leading to questions about the nature of the relationship between researcher and

participant. Transformative epistemology is characterized by a close collaboration between researchers and

participants of a study, whether they are community leaders or members of organizations. Communication is

achieved by the use of participants' language of choice. The research purpose, design, implementation, and

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 11 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

utilization are developed and implemented with appropriate cultural sensitivity and awareness. Researchers

require collaboration with the host(s) of the community, not necessarily the leaders but people of the

community. The relationship is interactive and empowering. It requires that trust be built through observance

of appropriate cultural norms.

The epistemology of the postpositivist stance is reflected in the early work of Campbell, in which he

envisioned an experimenting society that would lead to incremental reform as knowledge was gained through

random assignment to alternative treatments (Campbell & Stanley, 1966). This approach included the notion

that researchers should be value neutral to produce scientifically valid knowledge. Christians (2005) criticized

this postpositivist notion that “a morally neutral, objective observer will get the facts right” (p. 148). He

asserted that ethical behavior must be cognizant of the “power relations associated with gender, sexual

orientation, class, ethnicity, race, and nationality” (p. 148).

The inherent danger of paradigms and the prevailing hegemonic discourse in the academic field prevents

us from realizing that there are multiple truths. Not only that, false information can easily be perpetuated by

those in power. For instance, in Psychology of Deafness, Myklebust (1964) claimed that D/deaf people were

more immature; had increased emotional problems; were more naive and primitive; were inferior in physical

coordination; exhibited marked retardation in language; were only able to complete concrete tasks; and

were schizophrenic, maladjusted, belligerent, subhuman, isolated, paranoid, neurotic, suspicious, psychotic,

dependent, and depressed. He also claimed that D/deaf males were effeminate and D/deaf females were

masculine. At that time, Myklebust was a hearing researcher who did not meaningfully involve D/deaf people

in his research. The majority of the research in the Deaf community is done by hearing people (Lane, 1999).

Academic power is achieved through controlling academic discourse and by devaluing the discourses of the

underrepresented, such as D/deaf people. Research in the field of D/deaf education typically focuses on the

abilities D/deaf people lack rather than the abilities D/deaf people have. That in itself is oppressive (Erting,

1992; Evans, 2004; Lane, 1999). A “D/deaf-as-deficient” focus is a way for people in power to keep control of

academic knowledge and maintain their positions of power.

What do we gain or lose in our struggle for ethical behavior by allowing the perspectives of feminists, critical

theorists, postcolonialists, and others who are steeped in multivocal and cross-cultural representation to raise

questions and proffer different bases of what is accepted as real in the ethical domain? What do we gain by

having these conversations at the borders and intersections of ethics in research and evaluation?

In the transformative paradigm, the issues of understanding culture and building trust are paramount. There

are complications associated with this assumption. For example, suppose a researcher is studying people

who do violence to gays or lesbians or studying a white supremacist group. What does it mean to understand

culture and build trust in such a context? This is one of the many tensions that surfaces in transformative

work. A partial answer comes from an understanding of the notion of privilege and the interrogation of

unearned privilege. Kendall (2006) explained,

The superiority of whiteness is a social construct, created by some white men but in all our names.

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 12 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

This construct informs both the past and the present and affects each of our lives daily. All of us

who are white receive white privileges. … We can use them in such a way as to dismantle the

systems that keep the superiority of whiteness in place. One of the primary privileges is having

greater influence, power, and resources. … As white people, we keep ourselves central, thereby

silencing others. … If we look at race in North America as only a Black-white construct, we miss the

true purpose of the system. We must be aware of how the power holders oppressed all people of

color to shape the country as they wanted it. Racism is one of several systems of oppression. Others

are class, sexism, heterosexism, the institutionalized primacy of Christianity, and able-bodiedism.

These systems work toward a common goal: to maintain power and control in the hands of the

wealthy, white, heterosexual, Christian, able-bodied men. Examining the intersections is essential to

understanding the intentional and finely crafted nature of the system. Finally, this system is brilliant

but not impervious to change. We can dismantle it if we know it well and work together toward that

goal.

Researching from a transformative stance necessitates working from a multiplicity of vantage points. Kendall

(2006) reminded us that studying “whiteness” as a metaphor for power that oppresses is a necessary

part of understanding discrimination and oppression, thereby making visible the tensions associated with

relationships between researchers and communities, especially when the research focuses on oppressive

societal systems.

Building trust and relationships while engaging in critical self-reflection expands thinking around the traditional

concept of objectivity in research. As a challenge to the “status quo” of research, Heron and Reason (2001)

asked questions such as

Isn't it true that people can fool themselves about their experience? Isn't this why we have

professional researchers who can be detached and objective? The answer to this is that certainly

people can and do fool themselves, but we find that they can also develop their attention so

they can look at themselves—their way of being, their intuitions and imaginings, their beliefs and

actions—critically and in this way improve the quality of their claims of knowing. We call this “critical

subjectivity;” it means that we don't have to throw away our personal, living knowledge in the search

for objectivity, but are able to build on it and develop it. We can cultivate a high-quality and valid

individual perspective on what there is, in collaboration with others who are doing the same. (p. 149)

Epistemology and Indigenous Peoples

Gordon (1990) wrote about the need for African American epistemology in educational theory and practice.

Wright (2003) supported the notion of understanding epistemology within the context of the African American

experience when he cited the work of Scheurich and Young (1997, 1998) on “coloring epistemologies,”

Delgado Bernal (1998) on Chicana feminist epistemology, Ladson-Billings (2000) on an “ethnic epistemology,”

and Dillard (2000a, 2000b) on an “endarkened feminist epistemology” (p. 198).

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 13 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

Dillard's (2000a, 2000b) endarkened feminist epistemology is based on the intersection of race, gender,

nationalism, and spirituality. She used a sociocultural identity rather than a biological conception of race and

gender. She explicitly acknowledged research as a political and utilitarian tool associated with an obligation

to the black community and as an intervention to disrupt the white, hegemonic research paradigm. She

spoke of “research as a responsibility answerable and obligated to the very persons and communities being

engaged in the inquiry” (Dillard, 2000b, p. 663). She called for a “transformation at the epistemological level

if education research is to truly change or transform” (Dillard, 2000b, p. 663). The concept of endarkened

feminist epistemology brings with it a change in the role of the researcher to that of a supportive and reflective

activist in the community, as well as one who challenges the prevailing research establishment.

Audism and the Deaf Experience

When, where, and how did the paradigm of D/deaf people as deficient emerge? This paradigm can be

traced back many centuries when the definition of language was directly associated with speech and civilized

behavior and any other forms of communication were considered savage and restricted to animals. The

historical analysis of this deficit paradigm is an important topic discussed in detail by other researchers

(Bauman, 2004; Branson & Miller, 2002). In research ethics with the Deaf community, this deficit paradigm

takes the form of audism. Audism is a term that was originally coined and defined by Humphries (1977) as

“the notion that one is superior based on one's ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears” (p.

12). Humphries continued by explaining that not only is audism perpetuated by hearing people toward D/deaf

people, but it also occurs between D/deaf people, where, for instance, a D/deaf person oppresses another D/

deaf person by expecting the same behavior expected from hearing people.

Methodological Assumptions

Methodological assumptions involve the philosophical basis for making decisions about appropriate methods

of systematic inquiry. Inclusion of a qualitative dimension is critical in transformative research as a point

of establishing a dialogue between researchers and community members. Mixed-methods designs can be

considered in order to address the information needs of the community. However, methodological decisions

are made with a conscious awareness of contextual and historic factors, especially as they relate to

discrimination and oppression. Thus, the formation of partnerships between researchers and the community

is an important step in addressing methodological questions in research (see Chapter 22, this volume).

Research in the transformative paradigm is a site of multiple interpretive practices. It does not have a specific

set of methods or practices of its own. This type of research draws on multiple strategies, methods, and

techniques emanating from different theories and approaches. The methodological assumptions associated

with the transformative paradigm are commensurate with approaches such as participatory research, action

research, and feminist research and, as such, provide a philosophical framework to integrate research and

evaluation for social transformation. Richardson and St. Pierre (2005) used the concept of crystallization as a

guiding principle because of the inclusion of different perspectives, such as fiction, field notes, and scientific

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 14 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

articles. Researchers get more out of their research study by listening and valuing each member's “voice”

through crystallization, not limited to three sides, as in triangulation, but maximized through several possible

approaches. There is not one “correct” way of approaching the study but several different points of view.

Transformative ethical considerations need to occur at multiple points in the research process, from

discussions of basic beliefs and paradigmatic stances to the establishment of the focus of the research and in

all subsequent decisions regarding methods; sampling; and data collection, analysis, and use. For example,

sampling needs to be reframed to reveal the dangers of the myth of homogeneity, to understand which

dimensions of diversity are important in a specific context, to avoid additional damage to populations by using

labels such as “at risk” that can be demeaning and self-defeating, and to recognize the barriers that exist to

being part of a group that can contribute to the research results. The transformative paradigm also leads us

to reframe data collection decisions to be more inclined to use mixed methods, while at the same time being

consciously aware of the benefits of involving community members in data collection decisions, assessing

the appropriateness of methods with a depth of understanding of the cultural issues involved, building trust to

obtain valid data, designing modifications that may be necessary to collect valid data from various groups, and

linking data collection to social action. Methodological questions with ethical implications include the following:

• What are the important dimensions of diversity to include in research in order to give accurate and

appropriate representation to groups that have been pushed to the margins of those with more

privilege in society?

• What is the ethical responsibility of the researcher to identify and appropriately address those

dimensions of diversity?

• What is the ethical cost of ignoring or inappropriately representing the dimensions of diversity in

research?

Methodological issues for working within a framework that promotes social justice, dimensions of diversity,

and cultural competency are discussed further in many chapters in the methodological section of this

Handbook.

Conclusions: Social Action

The authors raise questions that require continued discourse with members of oppressed groups. Several

questions need to be addressed in transformative research—for instance, What are the challenges

associated with establishing an ethical relationship in research, and what are the ethical strategies for

determining ownership of the research data and results? The researcher, participants, and community

members need to discuss who has the power and how the balance of power can be shifted to support those

with less power.

The transformative paradigm emphasizes the need for trust between researcher and participants; many

challenges arise in developing a trusting relationship. Researchers need to examine critically the risks and

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 15 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

roles for themselves when conducting research in culturally complex communities, especially when they are

in direct engagement with members of culturally diverse groups with a focus on increased social justice.

Helpful insights come from critiques in scholarly literature from Africa (Chilisa, 2005) and New Zealand (Smith,

2005).

Language and communication are also considered as challenges when research is conducted with

communities that do not use the dominant language. If the dominant language is the language of the

oppressor, then researchers and participants need to establish which language(s) is (are) used in research

team meetings, in the field, in e-mail correspondence, in field notes, and in personal journals. This should be

discussed explicitly among the research team members and participants. The team needs to agree on when

it is okay to use the majority language and when is it not. Earlier in this chapter, when the issue of language

was raised, it was asserted that the language used should be the one selected by the participants. Of course,

in many studies, not all participants use the same language—another challenge.

Another challenge that transformative researchers might experience is the publication and dissemination of

findings. Academic power and knowledge are critical to publish scholarly work successfully. Gilmore and

Smith (2005) argued that the academic genre not only involves knowing the rules of academic writing but also

includes insider knowledge about creating and disseminating that knowledge. To exercise academic power,

one must know how to write according to the paradigm of the field—in other words, one must be cognizant

of the beliefs of the people involved in controlling the knowledge of the field. However, strict adherence

to the limits of disseminating research knowledge through the lens of academia blinds us to “alternative

explanations or perceptions of the same phenomena” (Grushkin, 1998, p. 182). This blindness promotes

hegemonic control of what information may or may not enter the field. Transformative researchers are not

exempt from this need for critical self-reflection.

For instance, until recently, academic journals in the social sciences frowned on citing “experience” and

continue to show explicit preference for citing “research literature” (Gilmore & Smith, 2005). Gilmore and

Smith argued for indigenous voices, saying that the experience of other community members should be

valued, by placing the underrepresented's voices on an equal footing with citations of research literature.

For example, in the case of the Deaf community, primacy should be given to Deaf people's experience and

perspective. This may necessitate that publications be bilingual (in print English and video-based sign) and

made accessible to community members first before the rest of the world. After all, it is their information to

begin with, and it is about them as a community.

In conclusion, researchers and participants working together in a collaborative manner need to address

challenges throughout the research process. We need to consider the challenge of respecting the ownership

of knowledge by a community, then publishing and disseminating for the majority language and culture. One

might, therefore, ask, Why does the world know about research first in a language that is not the community's

language? Why make the language of the oppressor superior? From a transformative stance, researchers

working with community members and coresearchers operate with a conscious awareness of the nature

of challenges to ownership, power, and communication among outsiders and insiders of the researched

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 16 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

community. A quote from bell hooks (1993), a critic of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, illustrates the

transformative point of view: “If we want a beloved community, we must stand for justice, have recognition for

difference, without attaching difference to privilege” (p. 10).

The transformative researcher feels a moral imperative to challenge the status quo for the purpose of

contributing to a more just society.

Notes

1. The Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority Interests

(CNPAAEMI) is made up of the presidents of the five national ethnic/racial minority professional associations,

Asian American Psychological Association, Association of Black Psychologists, National Hispanic

Psychological Association, Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnic Minority Issues (Division 45 of

APA), and Society of Indian Psychologists, and the president (or his or her designee) of the APA (2002).

The CNPAAEMI published Guidelines for Research in Ethnic Minority Communities (APA, 2000), and the

APA's Joint Task Force of Division 17 (Counseling Psychology) and Division 45 (Psychological Study of

Ethnic Minority Issues) published Guidelines on Multicultural Education, Training, Research, Practice, and

Organizational Change for Psychologists (APA, 2002).

2. The APA developed guidelines for four specific groups: Asian American/Pacific Islander populations,

persons of African descent, Hispanics, and American Indians.

3. Sign Language communities refer to people whose primary experience and allegiance is with Sign

Language as a cultural component of the Deaf community and culture. However, all researchers who conduct

research in Sign Language communities should be conscious about the complexity of deaf people and the

Sign Language community. The capitalization of the term, Sign Language signifies a cultural group, similar to

African Americans and the Jewish community.

4. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition, (1992) defines Deaf as “of

relating to the Deaf or their culture” and deaf as the “lack of hearing sense.” Ladd (2003) elaborated on

the lowercase deaf terminology, which refers to people who wish to retain their membership and primary

experience with the cultural majority. The authors try their best to keep the distinction clear throughout the

paper.

References

American Psychological Association. (2000). Guidelines for research in ethnic minority communities.

Washington, DC: Council of National Psychological Associations for the Advancement of Ethnic Minority

Interests.

American Psychological Association. (2002). Guidelines on multicultural education, training, research,

practice, and organizational change for psychologists. Washington, DC: Author.

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 17 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

Bauman, H. (2004). Audism: Exploring the metaphysics of oppression. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf

Education, 9, 239–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enh025

Bawden, R. (2006). A systemic evaluation of an agricultural development: A focus on the worldview

challenge. In Edited by: B.Williams & I.Imam (Eds.), Systems concepts in evaluation: An expert anthology

(pp. 35–46). Washington, DC: American Evaluation Association.

Blow, F. C., Zeber, J. E., McCarthy, J. F., Valenstein, M., Gillon, L., & Bingham, C. R. (2004). Ethnicity

and diagnostic patterns in veterans with psychoses. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39(10),

841–851.

Edited by: Brabeck, M. (Ed.). (2000). Practicing feminist ethics in psychology. Washington, DC: American

Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/10343-000

Branson, J., & Miller, D. (2002). Damned for their difference: The cultural construction of deaf people as

disabled: A sociological history. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1966). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Skokie,

IL: Rand McNally.

Chilisa, B. (2005). Educational research within postcolonial Africa: A critique of HIV/AIDS research in

Botswana. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 659–684. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/

09518390500298170

Chilisa, B. & Preece, J. (2005). Research methods for adult educators in Africa. Cape Town, South Africa:

Pearson/UNESCO.

Christians, C. (2005). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In Edited by: N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 139–164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cram, F. (2001). Rangahau Maori: Tona tika, tona pono—The validity and integrity of Maori research. In

Edited by: M.Tolich (Ed.), Research ethics in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 35–52). Auckland, New Zealand:

Pearson Education.

Edited by: Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (Eds.). (2005). Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dillard, C. (2000a). Cultural considerations in paradigm proliferation. Paper presented at the annual meeting

of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Dillard, C. (2000b). The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen: Examining an

endarkened feminist epistemology in educational research and leadership. Qualitative Studies in Education,

13, 661–681. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09518390050211565

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 18 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

Duran, B., & Duran, E. (2000). Applied postcolonial clinical and research strategies. In Edited by: M.Battiste

(Ed.), Reclaiming indigenous voice and vision (pp. 86–100). Vancouver, Canada: University of British

Columbia Press.

Elliott, J. R., & Pais, J. (2006). Race, class, and Hurricane Katrina: Social differences in human responses

to disaster. Social Science Research, 35, 295–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2006.02.003

Erting, C. (1992). Deafness and literacy: Why can't Sam read? Sign Language Studies, 75, 97–112.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/sls.1992.0028

Evans, C. (2004). Literacy development in deaf studies: Case studies in bilingual teaching and learning.

American Annals of the Deaf, 149, 17–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aad.2004.0011

Fisher, C. B. (2003). Decoding the ethics code: A practical guide for psychologists. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Fonow, M. M., & Cook, J. A. (2005). Feminist methodology: New applications in the academy and public

policy. Signs, 30(4), 2211–2236.

Edited by: Franklin, J. (Ed.). (1998). Social policy and social justice: The IPPR reader. Malden, MA: Polity

Press.

Gilmore, P., & Smith, D. (2005). Seizing academic power: Indigenous subaltern voices: Metaliteracy and

counternarratives in higher education. In Edited by: T.McCarty (Ed.), Language, literacy, and power in

schooling (pp. 67–88). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Gordon, B. (1990). The necessity of African-American epistemology for educational theory and practice.

Journal of Education, 172, 88–106.

Grushkin, D. A. (1998). Why shouldn't Sam read? Toward a new paradigm for literacy and the deaf. Journal

of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 179–204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.deafed.a014350

Gustavsen, B. (2006). Theory and practice: The mediating discourse. In Edited by: P.Reason & H.Bradbury

(Eds.), Handbook of action research (pp. 17–26). London: Sage.

Harris, R., & Holmes, H. (2007, November). Transformative evaluation in deafness: Learning from

indigenous peoples. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association,

Baltimore.

Harris, R., Holmes, H., & Mertens, D. M. (in press). Research ethics in sign language communities. Sign

Language Studies.

Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (2003). Investing in your community's youth. South Deerfield, MA:

Channing Bete.

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 19 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (2001). The practice of cooperative inquiry: Research “with” rather than “on” people.

In Edited by: P.Reason & H.Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research(concise paperback ed., pp.

144–154). London: Sage.

hooks, b. (1993). A revolution of values: The promise of multi-cultural change. Journal of the Midwest Modern

Language Association, 26(1), 4–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1315442

House, E. (1993). Professional evaluation: Social impact and political consequences. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Humphries, T. (1977). Communicating across cultures (deaf-hearing) and language learning. Unpublished

doctoral dissertation, Union Graduate School, Union Institute, Cincinnati, OH.

Isbister, J. (2001). Capitalism and justice: Envisioning social and economic fairness. Bloomfield, CT:

Kumarian Press.

Kendall, F. E. (2006). Understanding white privilege. New York: Routledge.

Ladd, P. (2003). Understanding deaf culture: In search of deafhood. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters,

Ltd.

Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Under standing achievement

in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35, 3–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035007003

Lane, H. (1999). The mask of benevolence: Disabling the deaf community. San Diego, CA: DawnSignPress.

Edited by: Losen, D. J., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (2002). Racial inequity in special education. Boston: Harvard

Education Press.

Ludema, J. D., Cooperrider, D. L., & Barrett, F. J. (2001). Appreciative inquiry: The power of the

unconditional positive question. In Edited by: P.Reason & H.Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research

(concise paperback ed., pp. 155–165). London: Sage.

Marschark, M., Lang, H., & Albertini, J. (2002). Educating deaf students: From research to practice. New

York: Oxford University Press.

Mertens, D. M. (2005). Research and evaluation in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mertens, D. M. (2007). Transformative paradigm: Mixed methods and social justice. Journal of Mixed

Methods Research, 1(3), 212–225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1558689807302811

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. New York: Guilford Press.

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 20 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

Mertens, D. M., Wilson, A., & Mounty, J. (2007). Gender equity for people with disabilities. In Edited

by: S.Klein, C.Dwyer, L.Fox, D.Grayson, C.Kramarae, D.Pollard, & B.Richardson (Eds.), Handbook for

achieving gender equity through education (pp. 583–604). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Myklebust, H. (1964). The psychology of deafness. New York: Grune & Stratton.

O'Connor, C., & Fernandez, S. D. (2006). Race, class, and disproportionality: Reevaluating the relationship

between poverty and special education placement. Educational Researcher, 35, 6–11. http://dx.doi.org/

10.3102/0013189X035006006

Rawls, J. (2001). Justice as fairness: A restatement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University

Press.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Introduction: Inquiry and participation in search of a world worthy of

human aspiration. In Edited by: P.Reason & H.Bradbury (Eds.), Handbook of action research (concise

paperback ed., pp. 1–14). London: Sage.

Reisch, M. (2002). Defining social justice in a socially unjust world. Families in Society, 83, 343–354.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1606/1044-3894.17

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. A. (2005). Writing: A method of inquiry. In Edited by: N.Denzin & Y.Lincoln

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 959–978). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Edited by: Segone, M. (Ed.). (2006). New trends in development evaluation (Issue #5). Geneva, Switzerland:

UNICEF Regional Office for CEE/CIS and IPEN. (http://www.unicef.org/ceecis/resources_1220.html)

Simons, H. (2006). Ethics in evaluation. In Edited by: I.Shaw, J.Greene, & M.Mark (Eds.), The Sage

handbook of evaluation (pp. 243–265). London: Sage.

Smith, L. T. (2005). On tricky ground: Researching the native in the age of uncertainty. In Edited by: N.Denzin

& Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 85–107). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

United Nations Organization. (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved February 25, 2008,

from http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

United Nations Organization. (1975). Declaration on the rights of disabled persons. Retrieved February 25,

2008, from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/res3447.htm

United Nations Organization. (1979). Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against

women (CEDAW). Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/

econvention.htm

United Nations Organization. (1990a). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved February 25, 2008,

from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 21 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics

United Nations Organization. (1990b). International convention on the protection of the rights of all migrant

workers and members of their families. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://www.un.org/millennium/law/

iv-13.htm

United Nations Organization. (2006a). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. New York: Author.

Retrieved March 21, 2007, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable/rights/ahc8adart.htm

United Nations Organization. (2006b). Declaration of the rights of indigenous peoples. Retrieved March 21,

2007, from http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/declaration.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). The facts about…investing in what works. Retrieved October 25, 2004,

from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/whatworks.html

Wright, H. K. (2003). An endarkened feminist epistemology? Identity, difference and the politics of

representation in educational research. Qualitative Studies in Education, 16, 197–214. http://dx.doi.org/

10.1080/0951839032000060626

http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781483348971.n6

SAGE

2009 SAGE Publications, Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

SAGE Research Methods

Page 22 of 22 Transformative Research and Ethics