Engaged Research Methodologies
Reflexive Research Methodologies
By Dr. June Scorza Terpstra
Revised 2007
Adapted from
ENGAGED METHODOLOGIES IN ACADEMIC PRAXIS:
REVOLUTION, RESISTANCE AND REFORM
By June Scorza Terpstra
Copyright 2004 UMI Press
Part I
Our research this semester constitutes ethnographic work that examines praxis (theory that inspires action and action that informs theory), in research and actions, (daily practices), of students in the NEIU Skills for Inquiry class, Summer, 2007. This means you will be reflexively studying you as an individual and as a participant researcher in a group. Ethnography (ἔθνος ethnos = people and γρÜφειν graphein = writing) is a method of studying and learning about a person or group of people. Typically, ethnography involves the study of a small group of people in their own environment. Rather than looking at a small set of variables and a large number of subjects ('the big picture'), the ethnographer attempts to get a detailed understanding of the circumstances of the relatively few people being studied, which can be from any race or culture throughout the world.(http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/H/history/browse/glossary.html)
Auto-ethnography differs from ethnography in that its subject is the researcher/participant themselves. An auto-ethnography typically relates the life experiences and thoughts, views and beliefs of the researcher. Auto-ethnographies do not aim at objectivity; in fact, part of their usefulness is in the reflection they provide of bias, prejudice, programming, thinking and feelings of individual members of a culture. Hence, you will be conducting both ethnographies and auto-ethnographies for the course. In this process you will also learn a variety of research methods. This is called a mixed methods approach that will use quantitative and qualitative forms of research. We will engage in a study that examines the cultural story of NEIU Justice Studies students and what, if any, degree of commitment they have to practicing their belief systems about justice, or, living social justice praxis. My intent is to urge students to know themselves, know what their beliefs and values consist of and to practice what they preach. For those of us who claim a commitment to social justice this course will ask us to reexamine and reengage work that is genuinely liberatory for the oppressed and exploited people of the world.
PRAXIS, A WAY OF BEING IN THE WORLD
Our skills building course will examine the praxis of students in the NEIU Justice Studies programs by asking what ideologies and theories inform our daily practices? What are students' expectations? What are the relations of power in students' lives? What was and is actually produced by Justice Studies students? What was and is accomplished? The research question we pose asks whether praxis (theory based action) as defined and understood by the individual and the group facilitate the production of knowledge necessary for students to engage in social justice action.
The aim of the study is theory building. We will begin to document the cultural story about NEIU Justice Studies students in the USA focusing on engaged research methodologies. The field is a familiar one to us all--the university and the university classroom. As we develop our research design and examine our data we will inductively draw connections between students' belief systems, their values, their theories and their daily practices within the context of major social institutions to understand the possibilities for social justice praxis.
Praxis, was a term used by Aristotle who said it is the art of acting upon the conditions one faces in order to change them. It deals with the disciplines and activities predominant in the ethical and political lives of people (Gadamer 1975). My sources for inspirational theories that informed my actions were found in early Biblical teachings about service and poverty; the books comrades would give me at study groups and organizing meetings; in courses I attended to finish college while my daughters were at school; or, reading text-books during night shifts at the many restaurants in which I worked. The discourse and debates about social justice and social change emerging from conversations around my kitchen table after huge spaghetti dinners during the 1970's inspired a small activist community of workers and artists.
Throughout the 1960s to the 1990s women and men, in countless forums both activist and academic, gave me theoretical food for thought and role models for action, distraction, and sometimes inaction. During the 1960s and 1970s I had learned about the academy's role in defense industry research such as the making of napalm at Harvard, the atomic bomb research at the University of Chicago, and biological and chemical weapons experiments that produced Agent Orange. I learned about university psychology and psychiatry experiments in controlling and manipulating behavior such as the "black box" and LSD experiments. I also learned about the educational curricular agendas that were modeled upon assembly line models (Taylorism and Fordism) which focused on the social control of labor populations and the poor through tracking and testing systems. I learned about the increasing extensive poverty and exploitation of peoples in two thirds of the world, a majority of who were women and children living in much worse conditions than the poverty of my childhood. I had learned from my own experience in providing programs and services ranging from depleted urban areas and working class communities to middle and upper class neighborhoods that a huge disparity existed between rich and poor, black/brown/red and white. I learned by "doing my homework," critically analyzing social inequalities with what tools I had at hand to understand reform, resistance, radical and revolutionary theory and methods as practiced "on the ground."
While majoring in the Social Sciences in graduate school during the late 1970s I became intensely focused on what historical events and social structures of oppression and exploitation meant for me, my family and for poor and working class women, men and children of all races, ethnicities and creeds. I was passionately committed to strategies that gave women and men from the poor and working classes access to the academy. I believed Gramscian counter hegemonic work could change university research and pedagogical agendas to focus on non-oppressive structures and systems, economic justice and redistribution of power and wealth. I believed social justice work within the academy could change dehumanizing mechanisms of oppression in educational systems. I wanted to find a way that teachers and students would respectfully teach and learn together, from each other, and this I believed would be one of the ways to fundamentally change exploitative university systems
It was right to struggle against the old school, but reforming it was not so simple as it seemed. The problem was not one of model curricula but of men, and not just of the men, who are actually teachers themselves, but of the entire social complex which they express. (Gramsci 1971)
The setting of our case study is a working-class state teaching university with a diverse student population. The type of skills gained while information is interpreted and gathered in our practice is qualitative and quantitative, using a multiple methods approach that interweaves research models from ethnographic, critical, and emancipatory theories to examine the praxis of NEIU Justice Studies students. Emancipatory action research is said to promote emancipatory praxis in participating practitioners; that is, it promotes a critical consciousness, which exhibits itself in political as well as practical action to promote change (Grundy 1987). In other words, your research practice may just influence how you think and act in the future!
There are two goals for you as a student researcher using the methods of critical and emancipatory research. One is to increase the closeness between the actual problems encountered in a specific setting and the theory used to explain and resolve the problem. The second goal, which goes beyond other approaches, is to assist you in identifying and making explicit fundamental problems by raising your consciousness (Holter and Schwartz-Barcott 1993). In other words, we examine what we have been taught to believe; those beliefs we have at present and compare them to our practices. We expose some of the fundamental problems in our theory and practices inorder to inspire conscious change.
Ethnography and Thick Description
Ethnography allows for the exploration of social relations and practices of contemporary capitalism as these materialize within the everyday world, whether in schools, hospitals, prisons, gay bars, factories, or coalmines (Macbeth 2001). In this case we ask, how does the economy influence your practices of justice? Second, ethnographic research has a unique capacity to get close-up to sites of exploitation and oppression, thereby endowing the researcher with not only first-hand experience of what forms these take and how they are organized but also a privileged standpoint in respect to constructing emancipatory practices (Lather 1986.
Thick description is an ethnographic research method we will practice. Thick description is commentary on more than just the facts themselves. Thick description involves interpreting intentions and expectations, and especially the intricate public structures of meaning within which it is possible to form intentions and actions on complex expectations. Thick description is thus interpretation of those structures that constitute the complex contexts within which meaningful action become possible (Moody-Adams 1997).
In this case, what are the intents of those of us in the justice studies program? What ideologies and theories inform our practice? What are our expectations? What is the environment in which we are attempting to study justice? What do we actually do? What do we actually accomplish? Who sponsors and benefits, then and now, from our justice program? There are multiple interpretations and ideological frameworks from which these questions may be answered. Geertz says that the principle tasks of ethnography should be defined by reference to just such interpretive efforts to identify intentions and expectations. Ethnography in his view is interpretive science "in search of meaning" (Geertz 1973).
A central aim of our research is to show just how important these connections between intention and expectations with actions really are in the programs under study. In this context the thick version of the research question is: has praxis, as we define in this study facilitated the production of oppositional theoretical knowledge necessary to engage and participate in collective struggles for the emancipation of oppressed and exploited people? We will analyze the intentions of the students in the program, through the discourse as presented in class discussions, evaluations, reviews, surveys and interviews.
Data
The general research sequence will be as follows:
1. You will keep a journal of your reflexive responses to discussions, readings, and interviews, and surveys
2. You will conduct interviews and ask questions with open-ended answers with family, peers, and co-workers in a research design you develop.
3. You will separately record what is said in interviews.
4. You will identify and log emergent categories and themes in theory and practice.
5. You will interpret the interviews, which includes personal reactions along with emergent speculations or hypotheses in your final presentation.
6. You will formalize your theorizing which emerges out of thick descriptions, speculations and hypotheses from your study.
7. You will examine and compare past judgments with which you began the project with the material in the present and draw conclusions about your interpretations and generative themes.
One could say, you are examining relationships between actors (students) within a social order (school and work). The study is recursive in that you move from parts to whole and back to parts-cycled back and forth: pull it apart, then reconstruct, pull data apart again, to make meaning and sense of the your interpretations.
You as a researcher represent positions, ends, and interests in our individual articulations and in our individual actions in and out of the field. In my experience it is important that we identify intent so that we can participate consciously in social justice praxis. When we study what positions, what ends, and what interests we were and are actually serving, supporting and opposing we are better able to advance the aims of praxis as effectively as possible in direct, immediate and relevant ways that end oppression and exploitation leading to emancipation and self-determination. This is the intent of our study.
Field notes/logs are kept to document all interviews with subjects, including yourself. The following questions are initially asked:
1. What Justice Studies classes have you taken?
2. What were the main things you learned from the courses you took?
3. If you could decide what is taught in Justice Studies courses, what would that be?
4. What is your overall perception of the Justice's Studies program?
5. Have you ever taken any Race or Ethnic studies courses? If so, which ones?
6. What were the main things you learned from the courses you took?
_____________________________________________
1. What values, mission, and visions are foundational in your participation in the Justice Studies program?
2. What theories and theorists are identifiable as foundational to your daily practice?
3. What was/is the decision making process which identified and articulated your values, mission, and visions?
4. Do university faculty, staff, and students generally accept these values and beliefs across class, status, gender, race, and orientation?
5. What programs are offered in the context of values, beliefs, mission, and vision?
6. How would you identify the program's work when hearing the words reform, radical and revolution?
7. Within the theoretical contexts of justice programs a controversy over whether to focus on professional career building (such as becoming good police officers) and to "make change from within" or to advocate for subverting the dominant paradigms developed historically ( changing the system). In what direction should the justice studies program be focusing its efforts?
8. How would you describe the programs' work in relation to fundamental systemic and structural change within the USA?
Research Findings
Contemporary activist research today does not necessarily mean entering an unfamiliar culture or field for study. In fact, many of us are engaging in fieldwork in familiar places wherein we have daily lived experiences that produce knowledge. How do we represent the results of activist research in communities in which we are or were members? So often the very complexity and density of thick and richly detailed work translates into inaccessible jargon that excludes those not exposed to academic discourse. The multiple methods utilized in this study maintain opened channels for the results of the research to be provided back to the program. It is hoped that the results will be discussed and used to inform the development of programs over the coming years. I expect these findings will add to the body of knowledge about social justice programs by inspiring dangerous knowledge and actions which will subvert the dominant paradigm in academe. This would be knowledge that will work toward a liberatory praxis focused on eradicating poverty and dismantling social injustice and inequalities structurally.
Part II
Engaged Methodologies: Reflexivity
My early introductions to reflexive practices came in the form of group processing models in radical therapy and anti-racism work in the 1970s. Reflexive methods were used in activist groups and organizations requiring in-depth examination of socially-programmed constructs of power relationships across class, race, sex and sexual orientations. The aims of reflexive practices were to know yourself in relation to history, political constructs, systems of oppression, and people's experience. The stated aims of early reflexive work were in the context of fostering participation in political action.
The basic principles I learned in radical therapy groups (free self-help groups using knowledge and information from psychiatric and psychological theory) were as follows: to speak for your self; identify your cultural and class assumptions and interpretations about the subjects of race, class, power, and identity; and, pay conscious attention to hegemony's social programming in your thinking and how it affects your behavior (Steiner 1975). A similar format was used in some anti-racism groups where the main question posed when decoding race and culture was to ask yourself, "Where am I positioned in reference to the subject, issue or situation?" For example, given a specific topic dealing with relations of power, we asked, "What is it like for me and what's it like for participants (what is the experience and knowledge about the topic) given the constructs of race, gender, ethnicity, culture, and creeds?" By debriefing the answers to these questions in the presence of a diverse group of people a variety of experiences within hierarchy are exposed thus eliciting a deeper understanding of the stratifications and serializing that separates people from knowing and working with each other across class, race, sex, ethnicity and ideological orientations. This was real life research on the "grass roots" or "popular" level as we interviewed ourselves in the presence of each other in cross-race, cross-class, cross-cultural settings. Many of my former students are familiar with these methods as part of every class in which I teach.
I learned "grass-roots" research and pedagogical methods from liberation theologists, radicals, and socialists, people who consciously claimed no labels, vanguard revolutionaries, and Buddhists. These people were my teachers. I used the methods in multiple formats: community education programs, anti-racism dialogues, classrooms, staff meetings, surveys and evaluations. Reflexive methods were integral to the many programs I helped develop such as shelters, teen centers, women's centers, national networks working on issues of race, class and power, and academic and nonprofit anti-discrimination programs. I use reflexive methodology in curricular construction, classroom teaching and in research and evaluation designs today. However, it was not until I attended graduate school for a Master's degree in the late 1970s that I gained an historic understanding of some of the philosophies of the foundational theorists whose methods I was already using in community organizing and activism.
Reflexivity is said to have become a signal topic in contemporary discussions of qualitative research, especially in educational studies (MacBeth 2001). Schwandt's Social Science Dictionary defines reflexivity as: (a) the process of critical self-reflection on one's biases, theoretical predispositions, and preferences; (b) an acknowledgment of the inquirer's place in the setting, context, and social phenomenon he or she seeks to understand: and, (c) a means for a critical examination of the entire research process (Schwandt 1997). Reflexivity is more than a basis for understanding: it is a hermeneutical task to call into question the social and cultural conditioning of human activity and the prevailing socio-political structures (Kincheloe and McLaren 2000). Brookfield believed that critical reflexivity includes four lenses: (1) theoretical literature, (2) autobiography, (3) our colleague's experiences, and (4) our student's eyes (Brookfield 1995).
This is the basic design of our research this semester toward the goal of producing "dangerous knowledge" that interrupts and erupts hegemony to expose and eradicate those practices and mechanisms that maintain oppression and exploitation (Kincheloe and McLaren 2000). Using emancipatory research approaches means examining how deeply implicated in structures of power the subjects, including the researcher, are (Letherby 2002). By giving voice to knowledge about the dynamics of power we open the possibility for equalizing power by exposing oppressive relations of power. However, all approaches are implicated in power. The very act of engaging in this activity means we have some power in designing and interpreting the data (Letherby 2002). In the process of allowing an institution and the teacher appointed by the institution to have some power over you, you, in turn, engage in efforts to liberate yourself and others who may find the analysis instructive instead of perpetuating the relations of dominance (Letherby 2002).
Any notion of emancipatory research needs to recognize these contradictions, and must refuse a naive and self-deluding approach. It will acknowledge the practice of liberty-it is not something which can be conferred; it is not something gained once and for all, but has a view of power as fluid, a back and forward movement . . . and which is grounded in the struggle for survival of the most disadvantaged and the poorest, not in the privileging of the researcher or other groups as the norm or referent . . . Our own frameworks need to be interrogated as we look for the tensions and contradictions in our research practice, paradoxically aware of our own complicity in what we critique. (Humphries 1997)
The methods we use have, in general, three basic assumptions in common about methodology. These assumptions are (1) education and research are not neutral; (2) society can be transformed by the engagement of politically conscious persons; and (3) praxis connects liberatory education with social transformation. In a praxis-oriented inquiry such as this study, the reciprocally educative process among people who take the assigned roles of researcher/subject to subject and reader, the practice is more important than the product. In critical and emancipatory inquiry, empowering methods, including reflexive analysis contribute to decoding hegemony, consciousness-raising and transformative social action.
An important aspect of understanding and changing the disparities of power and resources in all the courses I teach is the examination of who sponsors, defines and benefits from the discourse and concepts and resulting actions. Who benefits from certain definitions, interpretations, practices, and canons? It is often said that information is power; thus we begin to define for ourselves either by tailoring existing definitions to benefit the people in the humanizing process, or by redefining and newly defining, we resist domination by claiming definitional and discourse power.
I use the terms "engaged," "social justice," "liberatory," "emancipatory," "critical," and "radical," when discussing praxis. By "social justice," I am referring to societies or states' obligations to give the people their due, that which historically was taken from the people. This means radical restructuring of the allocation of resources in a society so that all people have shelter, food, clean water, adequate medical care and the means to self-determine their own lives. By "radical" I mean "from the roots," the foundational causes of why people do what they do and why they organize themselves certain ways economically and socially. By "liberatory" and "emancipatory" I mean processes that free us from mechanisms of oppression and exploitation and in turn provide the necessary relationships for the creation and reclamation of multiple self-determined forms of individual and social models fostering human well-being.
When speaking of research and pedagogy, I am concerned with the way we construct relations among people in the roles of teachers and learners, researchers and subjects. How we understand processes of teaching and learning shapes our work as educators (Boyce 1996). Traditional educational research is rooted in traditions that claim to be value neutral but the neutrality and objectivity it claims acts as a mask to cover the fact that such research serves the interests of the privileged. Here we undertake the possibility for us to use our knowledge to assert control over its content and thus over our own lives.
The term critical theory is introduced in this course and refers to the work of a group of sociopolitical analysts from what is known as the Frankfurt School. Some prominent members included Adorno, Marcuse and Habermas. They focused on ideas of the just society in terms of self-determination for all people politically, culturally and economically. They argued that these goals could only be achieved through emancipation, a process by which oppressed and exploited people became sufficiently empowered to transform their circumstances for themselves by themselves. It is called ‘critical theory' because they saw the route to emancipation as being a kind of self-conscious critique which problematises all social relations, in particular those of and within the discursive practices of power, especially technical rationalism (Tripp 1992).
The term "academy" is defined as the principal institution of "higher education" in contemporary late capitalist society that comprises the totality of colleges and universities established for its purpose (Nowlan 1993). By "late capitalism" I refer to capitalism since the end of World War II. Nowlan refers to this stage of capitalism in which the routine workings of the market are no longer sufficient to insure the stable reproduction of the necessary preconditions for the continuation of profitable capitalist production. Therefore, regular and routine intervention in the capitalist economy by the state and other social institutions becomes necessary. This is sometimes referred to as "advanced capitalism" (Nowlan 1993).
By "praxis" is meant all the ways in which human beings engage, individually or collectively, as subjects-in grasping, holding, shaping, and forming the world in which they live (Nowlan 1993). The "political" refers to the entire province of human social life concerned with conflict and struggle-and with the regulation and adjudication of this conflict and struggle-between individuals and social groups over right of access and opportunity to exercise natural and cultural resources, powers, and capacities (Nowlan 1993). The use of the term globalization refers to the process of movement of commodities, monies, information, people, and development of technological, organizational, legal, and other infrastructure on international and worldwide levels to establish and maintain the hegemony of imperialism and capitalism in its many forms and guises.
By "imperialism" I refer to the political theory of the acquisition and maintenance of resources to benefit the empire through force. The term is used to describe the policy of a country or ruling group in maintaining colonies and dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the country or group calls itself an empire. According to the OED, in 19th Century England imperialism was generally used only to describe English policies. However, soon after the invention of the term, imperialism was used in reference to policies of the Roman Empire. In the 20th century, the term has been used to describe the policies of both the late Soviet Union and the United States, although these differed greatly from each other and from 19th-century imperialism. Furthermore, the term has been expanded to apply, in general, to any historical instance of the aggrandizement of a greater power at the expense of a lesser power.
By revolutionary, resistance and/or emancipatory praxis I mean theory-inspired action which revolves to the core of what it means to be human by refusing and eradicating dehumanizing, oppressive and exploitative systems and relationships. By reflexivity I mean the rigorous commitment to reveal one's methodology and themselves as an instrument of data generation. It is the self-consciousness or the work's ability to see itself as a work or praxis. This is research that embeds action and change into the actual research process. Research that facilitates change can be considered highly ‘political' and as such, credibility involves careful consideration of issues of power, objectivity, subjectivity and bias (O'Leary 2004).
Gadamer argues that we each bring prejudices or prejudgments to our encounters and that reflexivity requires that we identify our own horizon of understanding from past to present in chorus with those who were there back then and are there now (Gadamer 1975). We will be interviewing ourselves and others in this study and that means we include privileged and poor, middle and working class, multi-ethnic, cross-race and religion, straight and gay, women and men, from the ages of 18 -60. We do not to win an argument, but to advance understanding and praxis toward the goal of fundamental structural change of oppressive conditions. Toward this end, the understanding we bring from the past is tested in encounters with the present and forms that which is taken into the future so that we include multiple voices in the "fusion of horizons" on praxis. This process of fusion is continually in motion as we examine the old and new so that we, as Gadamer advised, continually grow together to make something of living value (Gadamer 1975).
Part III
ENGAGED METHODOLOGIES IN ACADEMIC PRAXIS
According to Hans Georg Gadamer, our past influences "everything we want, hope for, and fear in the future" and only as we are "possessed" by our past are we "opened to the new, the different and the true" (1976) Yet university-based research has been slow to acknowledge the legitimacy and importance of personal history as a way of understanding the world. This section provides you with a summary review of the theories influencing my teaching, research and activism. It is a reflection on the theories and people who have actively worked for social justice, reform, transformation, emancipation and revolution in and out of the academy.
My understanding of praxis methodologies shows that reformers, liberationists, radicals, feminists and criticalists in the USA have at least three basic assumptions in common about methodologies in the social sciences and education: (1) education and research are not neutral; (2) society can be transformed by the engagement of politically conscious persons; and (3) praxis connects liberatory education with social transformation. Traditionally qualitative research attempts to describe and interpret discourse, symbols, behaviors, culture, environment and relationships of participants or subjects under observation. The qualitative interpretive process is described as inductive as the researcher theorizes from specific examples observed to general examples observed attempting to make the strange familiar or the familiar strange (Renner 2001).
Using a mixed methods research strategy is a common choice for many contemporary activist researchers. It offered us some creativity in responding to required qualitative research designs and leads to multilayered themes because topics are investigated from a multiplicity of different approaches. One common aim of engaged methodologies (emancipatory, liberationist, critical, radical, social justice, action oriented, activist, and feminist) identifies ways in which dominant conceptions and practices of knowledge attribution, acquisition, and justification systematically disadvantage subordinated groups. Conceptions of objectivity criticized by activist researchers identify objectivity with a single point of view that dismisses all other points of view as false or biased. These claims of objectivity consistently benefit specific power holder interests. Engaged educators strive to reform these conceptions and practices so that they serve the interests of social justice and social equality.
Various practitioners in academic engaged fields of study argue that dominant knowledge practices target certain groups based on color, class, gender and creed by (1) excluding them from inquiry, (2) denying them epistemic authority, (3) denigrating their cognitive styles and modes of knowledge, (4) producing theories that represent them as inferior, deviant, or significant only in the ways they serve elite interests, (5) producing theories of social phenomena that render their activities and interests, or power relations, invisible, and (6) producing knowledge (science and technology) that is damaging at worst and not useful at best for people in subordinate positions, thus reinforcing subjugation, exploitation and other social hierarchies.
Some engaged researchers trace these failures to flawed conceptions of knowledge, knower's, objectivity, and scientific methodology. They offer diverse accounts of how to overcome these failures. They also aim to (1) explain why the entry of alternative epistemic scholars (scholars of color, working class scholars, organic intellectuals, and women) into all academic disciplines, especially in biology and the social sciences, has generated new questions, theories, and methods, (2) claim that inclusion of diverse scholars across class, race, and sex has and will play a causal role in the transformation of academic disciplinary approaches, and (3) defend these changes as fundamentally cognitive, not just social, advances.
Using theoretical principles of liberation theology and psychology, ethnography, thick description, reflexivity, and critical hermeneutics, my intent for our class is on theory building in praxis to advance the goals of engaged methodologies rather than theory testing. One of the basic problems that engaged theoreticians in educational and social science research pose and expose is the manner in which the academy in the USA is a foundational site for the maintenance of social and economic inequalities. Inequality is an inescapable outcome and an essential condition of the successful economic functioning of capitalism (Panitch and Gindin 2004).
In, Notes Toward an Understanding of Revolutionary Politics Today, James Petras says that intellectuals, including academics, are sharply divided across generations between those who have in many ways embraced, however critically, ‘neo-liberalism" or have prostrated themselves before "the most successful ideology in world history" and its "coherent and systematic vision" and those who have been actively writing, struggling and building alternatives (Petras 2001).The active struggle to resist oppression and build alternatives occurs when a person reflects upon theory in the light of praxis or practical judgment; the form of knowledge that results is personal or tacit knowledge. This tacit knowledge can be acquired through the process of reflection (Grundy 1982).
Reflexive Methodologies: Gramsci
Much can be said about Antonio Gramsci, simply however, Gramsci's contributions to critical pedagogy derive from his propositions of a powerful (but not seamless) hegemonic control of society and subjects that possess common sense, dialectical thinking, and intellectual possibilities . . . Although dominated, critical subjects can find sites (or spaces) for counter hegemonic practices and solidarity. Universities can be such spaces. Schools and universities are sites in which intellectuals can develop a critique, articulate values of dominated groups, amplify stories of subordinated experience, and practice resistance and solidarity. (Boyce 2003)
I have strongly influenced by the theories of Antonio Gramsci. In fact, many activist researchers and educators using engaged methodologies found in emancipatory, liberationist, critical and feminist theories identify the writings of Gramsci as foundational guides for praxis. Although Gramsci is not well known or studied much in the USA it is fair to say that he greatly influenced social justice movements and activist educators in the West whether or not they are aware that their ideas historically originate from his writings. Refusing to separate culture from systemic relations of power, or politics from the production of knowledge and identities, Gramsci redefined how politics bore upon everyday life through the force of its pedagogical (teaching and research) practices, relations, and discourses (Giroux 1999). Perhaps it was Gramsci who first posited that the "personal is political," a slogan much used by feminist academics in the USA. Gramsci offered a theoretical model combining the social world and the economic world. He stressed the complexity of social formations such as class and race as a plurality of conflicts. Politics was assigned a constitutive role in direct relation to ideology as a key prerequisite for political action in so far as it served to ‘cement and unify' a "social bloc'. Without this consciousness, there was no action (Martin 2002).
One of the most important and the most complex concepts that Gramsci analyzed, is "hegemony." The concept of hegemony is crucial to Gramsci's theories and to understanding the critique in this study. By ‘ideological hegemony' Gramsci means the process whereby a dominant class contrives to retain political power by manipulating public opinion, creating what Gramsci refers to as the ‘popular consensus' (Boyce 2003). Through its exploitation of religion, education and elements of popular national culture a ruling class can impose its world-view and have it come to be accepted as common sense (Boyce 2003). So total is the ‘hegemony' established by bourgeois society over mind and spirit that it is almost never perceived as such at all. It strikes the mind as ‘normality' (reification) (Boyce 2003). To counter this Gramsci proposes an ideological struggle as a vital element in political struggles. I
n such hegemonic struggles for the minds and hearts of the people, intellectuals clearly have a vital role (Boyce 2003). Gramsci taught that the key index for analyzing a social formation was the interaction of economic relations with cultural, political and ideological practices or the ‘historical bloc'. In the case of our study, you the students are an historical bloc. As such, the interconnections between state and economy and society were viewed processionally, as a mutually determined whole (Martin 2002). By emphasizing the configuration of the social formation Gramsci was able to dwell on the points at which the elements of the social were linked. For example Gramsci showed how intellectuals in Italy were engaged in the enterprise of legitimizing the state's power to the agrarian elite (rich land-owners), in other words the scholars were serving the state to change things to benefit the rich (Martin 2002). In the same manner that a historical bloc (such as students and teachers) could serve elite interests Gramsci posited that a historical bloc could counter the elite (also an historical bloc). Revolution was conceived as the gradual formation of the collective will, an intellectual and moral framework that would unite a diverse range of groups and classes through an organic relation between leaders and the praxis of subjects. This was a conception of revolution as issuing from the immanent will of the people wherein praxis constituted the very process of history itself (Martin 2002). For example, when teachers have an organic intellectual relationship with students and their theories and action combine to shift power for social justice this constitutes a process of social change historically.Using Gramsci's innovation to abolish the liberal distinction between public and private that he applied to the praxis of factory production through workplace solidarity is a concept extended by some activist researchers applying it as counter hegemonic work in educational and social science studies such as justice studies.
Where Gramsci posited a worker's "higher consciousness" as integral parts of an organic whole I posit a student's consciousness raising process that would unite them as a bloc. Gramsci's theory posed that domination by an economic class grows as they successfully embed economic activity (e.g., profit before people) as a universal principle (Martin 2002). He identified how domination was accomplished in conjunction with what he called ‘organic crisis' in which the various points of contact between the dominant economic class intersected with other classes, specifically with the help of intellectuals in institutions of education that link the classes in a common identity (e.g., a nation) (Martin 2002). Gramsci believed this same program could be countered using similar methods within the non-dominant classes and groups. Thus a popular identity among students could be fostered by using organic crisis (such as the present terror wars) to link groups with the help of organic intellectuals (you, the student) guiding and guided by vanguard intelligentsia (the teacher) creating a community with a popular identity such as "the movement" as Gramsci hoped to maintain and "the brotherhood".
Using this model would mean building a universalizing identity drawn from the praxis of the students, by which to supplant the ruling class (Martin 2002). For the purpose of our study, both theoretically and practically, the terms and phrases such as "organic intellectual," and "historical bloc" are Gramscian. Gramsci's organic intellectual is someone whose knowledge is derived through firsthand experience, and whose life-learning is complemented by self education and other alternative forms of learning. The organic intellectual emerges from a social class to speak against the established order in a manner directly connected to the goals of a political movement and a community (Martin 2002). For example, I as activist researcher am an organic intellectual emerged from the working class to speak against the established order in a manner directly connected to anti-capitalist movements.
Gramsci identified how the various cultural and economic structures force and reinforce people's consent to subjugation. This point goes to the heart of our research. How and why do students, after gaining access to the academy in the USA concede to taking the paths that are counter to the aims of social justice? Methodologically, Gramsci proposed education as a process of dialogue that would bring the working classes together in projects and organizations politically and would develop a base of worker intellectuals who would inform the intelligentsia of the Vanguard Party (those who know and practice theories of social justice). Will the practices identified in our research bring students together or develop a base of student intellectuals informing praxis? Gramsci advocated reflexivity as a mode for counter hegemonic discourse and identified its importance as foundational for cultural revolution (Gramsci 1971). Gramsci summarizes this important concept:
Consciousness of a self which is opposed to others, which is differentiated and, once having set itself a goal, can judge facts and events other than in themselves or for themselves but also in so far as they tend to drive history forward or backward. To know oneself means to be oneself, to be master of oneself, to distinguish oneself, to free oneself from a state of chaos, to exist as an element of order-but of one's own order and one's own discipline in striving for an ideal. And we cannot be successful in this unless we also know others, their history, the successive efforts they have made to be what they are, to create the civilization they have created and which we seek to replace with our own . . . And we must learn all this without losing sight of the ultimate aim: to know oneself better through others and to know others better through oneself. (Gramsci 1971)
The Gramscian definition of reflexivity is primary for the purposes of our research and study. We will engage in processes and programs which aim at knowing oneself better through others and to know others better through oneself. Gramsci held that each individual was the synthesis of an "ensemble of relations" and also a history of these relations . . . the constitution of the subject, then, is the result of a complex interplay of "individuals" and larger-scale social forces (Hartsock 1998). The process by which the observations that we make are dependent upon our prior understandings of the subject of our observations-that they ‘refer back' to past experiences based on class, culture, etc. are of central importance in engaged research approaches. The centrality of reflexivity in the research process parallels its centrality in academic philosophical, social-scientific and psychological constructivism (Siraj-Blatchford 1997).
Reflexivity is said to be as relevant to the macro-contexts of knowledge production as it is to the micro-context of research design. As such, we must acknowledge the double hermeneutic (the development and study of theories of the interpretation and understanding of texts) nature of social science. When we learn about people and about social events, the process is complex (Siraj-Blatchford 1997).The Gramscian leitmotif of reflexivity served as a counter hegemonic method fostering liberatory alliance among oppressed and exploited people. Reflexive methodologies are intended to focus on the experiences and interpretations of the oppressed toward the aims of increased understanding of peoples relationships to power structures as they play themselves out in social relations.
Historically the ruling class and appointed privileged class intelligentsia have defined and constructed meanings and interpreted the world for the poor, the labor class and middle class. In its literal sense, the term reflection derives from the Latin verb reflectere, which literally means "to bend back." Reflexive emancipatory methods require that people in the roles of researcher and subject ( such as students) claim the positions they already occupy, and account for what working from and for such positions means-in particular, in terms of what ends these positions advance and what interests these positions serve (Campbell 2002). In other words, who benefits if you learn research methods wherein you study yourselves and your peers as a historical bloc for social justice?
Researchers represent positions, ends, and interests as is evidenced in their individual articulations and actions in and out of the field. Engaged methods such as reflexive ones are intended to produce conscious participation in praxis advancing aims as effectively as possible for direct, immediate and relevant ways that end oppression and exploitation. Emancipatory reflexivity is a methodology wherein people take up the complexities of place and biography; deconstruct the dualities of power and antipower, hegemony and resistance, and insider and outsider constructs revealing the variety of experiences and interpretations across class, race, and gender. Reflexive methodological trends have described and ascribed representations of the worlds of the exploited. When confronting the problems and issues of social and economic justice praxis in education, reflexive methodology invites us to explore and analyze while hearing the voices and understanding the thinking of the marginalized, exploited, and oppressed. An engaged analysis requires our thinking as researcher and educator to be challenged-to be made problematic so that we can locate that which in material relations gives rise to various interpretations and points of view. In this mode we are called to assess relations in the context of whether they are liberating or dehumanizing.
For Gramsci, to know self and others was a revolutionary act to resist oppression and totalitarianism. For Gramsci to know self meant to come to an understanding of the ways you and your people are debased into conditions of servitude, which maintain subjugation, exploitation and misery. Knowledge of how the ruling class obtains peoples, consent to servitude provides the initial steps in the process of emancipation when the people use the knowledge. Such knowledge through dialectic processes may produce the possibilities for new sites of struggle and resistance or shape consumerism and the capitalist futures market.
For Gramsci, social theory at its best expands the meaning of the political by being self-conscious. To focus on self-consciousness was to examine the way pedagogy works through its own cultural practices in order to legitimate its own motivating questions, secure particular modes of authority, and privilege particular "institutional frameworks and disciplinary rules by which its research imperatives are formed" (Gramsci 1971).
Liberation Theology and Liberation Psychology
It is the theoretical and methodological base of liberationists that I continue to be most interested in as a focus for my own studies. The increasing disparity between rich and poor along with increasing global control through overt and covert wars in Latin America led to dialogues in the Catholic and protestant churches about faith, transformation and liberation. The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by creativity influenced by the times (decolonization, independence struggles, and a proliferation of socialist ideologies, Marxism and revolutionary and liberation theorists post WWII) (Boff and Clodovis 2001).
This creative theological atmosphere could be seen at work among both Catholic and Protestant thinkers with the emergence of the group Church and Society in Latin America (ISAL) taking a prominent role. There were frequent meetings between Catholic theologians such as Gustavo Gutiérrez, Segundo Galilea, Juan Luis Segundo, Lucio Gera, to name a few. This movement led to intensified reflections on the relationship between faith and poverty and the gospel and social justice. In Brazil, between 1959 and 1964, the Catholic Left produced a series of basic texts on the need for a Christian ideal of history, linked to popular action, with a methodology that foreshadowed that of liberation theology.
They urged personal engagement in the world, backed up by studies of social and liberal sciences, and illustrated by the universal principles of Christianity. (Boff and Clodovis 2001) The foundational work defining a liberation theology praxis came from Gustavo Gutiérrez who described theology as critical reflection on praxis. Although I can trace these theological preferences for the poor even further back to my Waldensian ancestors of Europe, today liberation theology today should be understood as a family of theologies-including the Latin American, Black, and feminist varieties (Boff and Clodovis 2001). All three respond to some form of oppression: Latin-American liberation theologians say their poverty-stricken people have been oppressed and exploited by rich, capitalist nations. Black liberation theologians argue that their people have suffered oppression at the hands of racist whites. Feminist liberation theologians lay heavy emphasis upon the status and liberation of women in a male-dominated society (Boff and Clodovis 2001).
Liberation theology begins with the premise that all theology is biased-that is, particular theologies reflect the economic and social classes of those who developed them. Accordingly, the traditional theology predominant in North America and Europe is said to "perpetuate the interests of white, North American/European, capitalist males." This theology allegedly "supports and legitimates a political and economic system-democratic capitalism-which is responsible for exploiting and impoverishing the Third World" (Gutierrez 1971).
Liberation theologians say theology must start with a "view from below"-that is, with the sufferings of the oppressed. Within this broad framework, different liberation theologians have developed distinctive methodologies for "doing" theology (Boff and Clodovis 2001). Gutierrez rejects the idea that theology is a systematic collection of timeless and culture-transcending truths that remains static for all generations. He views theology as a fluid process, a dynamic and ongoing movement of human beings providing insights into knowledge, humanity, and history. Emphasizing that theology is not just to be learned, it is to be done he says that "praxis" is the starting point for theology.
Praxis involves revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed-and out of this, theological perceptions will continually emerge. The theologian must therefore be immersed in the struggle for transforming society and proclaimed his message from that point. In the theological process, then, praxis must always be the first stage; theology is the second stage. Theologians are not to be mere theoreticians, but practitioners who participate in the ongoing struggle to liberate the oppressed (Gutierrez 1971). In this context, academic liberation praxis must be immersed in the struggle for transforming society as revolutionary action on behalf of the poor and oppressed. Using methodologies such as Gutierrez's and Baro's, liberationists interpret sin not primarily from an individual, private perspective, but from a social and economic perspective. Gutierrez explains that "sin is not considered an individual, private, or merely interior reality. Sin is regarded as a social, historical fact, the absence of brotherhood and love in relationships among men" (Gutierrez 1996).
Liberationists view present-day capitalism as sinful specifically because it has embedded systems of oppression and exploitation encompassing the majority of the world's people. Capitalists have become prosperous at the expense of impoverishing people. This is often referred to as "dependency theory"-that is, the development of the rich depends on the underdevelopment of the poor (Gutierrez 1996). There is another side to sin in liberation theology. Those who are oppressed can and do sin by acquiescing to their bondage. To go along passively with oppression rather than resisting and attempting to overthrow it-by violent means if necessary-is sin (Gutierrez 1996).
For academic liberationists going along passively takes many forms but certainly the most consistent form is by participating in the production of knowledge that benefits the production of both material and psychological weapons of mass destruction. However, another form of destructive knowledge production is the contribution to mass media and educational propaganda which "dumbs down" the people's development as critical thinkers and critical knowers.
The use of violence has been one of the most controversial aspects of the liberation theology and liberation psychology of the 1960s through the 1980s. Such violence is not considered sinful or psychologically damaging if it is used for resisting oppression. Indeed, certain liberation theologians will in some cases regard a particular action as sin if an oppressor commits it, but not if it is committed by the oppressed in the struggle to remove inequities (Gutierrez 1996). The removal of inequities is believed to result in the removal of the occasion of sin as well" (Gutierrez 1996). This praxis too has seen some shifts in the past two decades from radical to pacifistic approaches.
Like Gutierrez's influences on my praxis, Baro's methodology was foundational to the praxis of the primary case advocacy program. Jose Ignacio Martin Baro was strongly influenced by Gutierrez, and lived and worked in El Salvador. He developed a praxis model described in his book, Writings for a Liberation Psychology. He used the term "de-alienating social consciousness" as a core focus for dialogue. There are three aspects to this process in the theoretical paradigm of Liberation Psychology: (1) Dialogue-human beings are transformed through changing their reality. This is a dialectical process that only happens through dialogue, conversation about our thoughts and feelings in relationship to our world and our history. (2) Decoding-through the gradual decoding of their world, people grasp the mechanisms of oppression and dehumanization. This crumbles the consciousness that posits a situation of oppression as natural, and opens up the horizon to new possibilities for action (Baro 1994). The individual's critical consciousness of others and the surrounding reality brings with it the possibility of a new praxis, which at the same time makes possible new forms of consciousness (Baro 1994), and, (3) Social Identity-people's knowledge of their surrounding reality carries them to a new understanding of themselves and, most important, of their social identity (Baro 1994). They begin to discover themselves in their action that transforms the problematic and in their active role in relation to others. Thus, the recovery of their historical memory offers a base for a more autonomous determination of their future (Baro 1994).
Baro says that liberation theory asks us to respond to oppression on the social level in three specific ways: (1) by promoting a critical consciousness of the objective and subjective roots of social alienation (like the socioeconomic mechanisms that cement the structures of injustice) and the fatalistic thought processes and accompanying behaviors that give ideological sustenance to the alienation of the popular majorities such as women, children, elderly, the impoverished and colonized peoples of the world (Baro 1994). (2) By breaking down the machinery of the relationships of dominance and submission through dialogue and relationship. The dialectical process that fosters individual self-knowledge and self-acceptance presupposes a radical change in social relations, to a condition where there would be neither oppressors nor oppressed, and this change applies whether we are talking about formal schooling, production in a factory, or everyday work in a service institution (Baro 1994), and (3) by reclaiming our past, by experiencing the present and by projecting that into a personal and national plan we cast ourselves in our social and national context, thereby setting forth the problem of one's authenticity as a member of a group, part of a culture, a citizen of a country (Baro 1994).
For the oppressed, Baro says, this undoubtedly yields adequate food, housing, health, work, personal development and humanizing relationships, for love and hope in life (Baro 1994). It means questioning the basic schemata of how social roles are determined for people. Baro says that this is achieved by aiming directly at: (1) social identity worked out through the prototypes of oppressors and oppressed, (2) learning to confront the reality of existence through critical thinking, and, (3) a new identity for people as members of a human community, in charge of history shaped by consistently questioning the historical consequences of activity produced (Baro 1994).
Brazilian educator Paulo Freire also understood poverty from first hand experience and was influenced by Liberationist methodologies in Latin America. His life and work as an educator was full of hope in spite of poverty, imprisonment, and exile. He was a world leader in the struggle for the liberation of the poor and a great teacher to many who are teaching using the model he developed. Paulo Freire worked to instill the strengths and skills necessary for men and women living in poverty to overcome their sense of powerlessness to act in their own behalf. Freire said: I do research so as to know what I do not yet know and to communicate and proclaim what I discover . . . It's really not possible for someone to imagine himself/herself as a subject in the process of becoming without having at the same time a disposition for change. And change of which she/he is not merely the victim but the subject. (Freire and Faundez 1989)
Freire believed that freedom through critical literacy necessitates carefully conceived ethnographic research of a given community, and this means, again, becoming one with the people. That is, the ethnographer must learn to "respect the reality" of the people in order to minimize the distance between the people and him or herself so as to be positioned to effectively work in their reality. He gave practical instructions for educational praxis with his insistence that dialogue involves respect (Olson 1992). Freire observed and experienced intense repression and oppression in Latin America (Brazil, Chile, and Nicaragua). He developed and practiced a radical approach to education that, as Gramsci had also identified as necessary, must be linked to social movements. Paulo, starting from a psychology of oppression influenced by the works of psychotherapists such as Freud, Jung, Adler, Fanon and Fromm, developed a "Pedagogy of the Oppressed." He believed that education could improve the human condition, counteracting the effects of a psychology of oppression, and ultimately contributing to what he considered the ontological vocation of humankind: humanization.
In the introduction to his widely-acclaimed Pedagogy of the Oppressed, he argued that: "From these pages I hope at least the following will endure: my trust in the people, and my faith in men and women and in the creation of a world in which it will be easier to love." Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which has been influenced by a myriad of philosophical currents including Phenomenology, Existentialism, Christian Personalism, Marxism and Hegelianism, calls for dialogue and ultimately conscientization as a way to overcome domination and oppression among and between human beings. Interestingly enough, one of the last books that Paulo wrote, Pedagogy of Hope, offers an appraisal of the conditions of implementation of his Pedagogy of the Oppressed in our days. (Godotti 1997) Freire also was concerned with praxis. He thought that dialogue isn't just about deepening understanding-but is part of making a difference in the world.
Dialogue in itself is a co-operative activity involving respect that has the potential to foster a community of people who work together for community well being. Freire's attention to naming the world has been of great significance to those educators who have traditionally worked with those who do not have a voice and who are oppressed (Smith 2001). The idea of building a "pedagogy of the oppressed" or a "pedagogy of hope" and how this may be carried forward has formed a significant impetus to those of us seeking ways to develop a consciousness that is understood to have the power to transform reality.
Freire's insistence on situating all educational activity in the lived experience of people has opened up a series of possibilities for the way activists and educators can approach practices in research and pedagogy (Smith 2001). Several generations of educators, anthropologists, social scientists and political scientists, and professionals in the sciences and business, felt Freire's influence and helped to construct pedagogy based in liberation. What he wrote became a part of the lives of an entire generation that learned to dream about a world of equality and justice that fought and continues to fight for this world today. Many will continue his work, even though he did not leave behind ‘disciples.' In fact, there could be nothing less Freirean than the idea of a disciple, a follower of ideas. He always challenged us to ‘reinvent' the world, pursue the truth, and refrain from copying ideas.
Paulo Freire leaves us with roots, wings, and dreams. (Godotti 1997) For Freire, naming one's experience and placing that voiced experience in context is the essence of dialogue (Freire 1970). Freire distinguished discussion from dialogue which is characterized as a kind of speech that is humble, open, and focused on collaborative learning. It is communication that can awaken consciousness and prepares people for collective action. A generative theme is one that emerges from the lives of learners as they engage a course of study. It presents a point of entry for learning that has meaning and relevance to a particular group of learners at a particular time.
There are four aspects of Paulo Freire's work that are important in our work... Freire had seen the effects of vanguardism and elitism in the academy and even community organizing and felt very strongly that dialogue was about people working with each other (Smith 2001). Second, Freire was concerned with praxis-action that is informed (and linked to certain values). Dialogue wasn't just about deepening understanding-but was part of making a difference in the world. Dialogue in itself is a co-operative activity involving respect. The process is important and can be seen as enhancing community and building social capital, and to leading us to act in ways that make for justice and human flourishing (Smith 2001). Third, Freire's attention to naming the world has been of great significance to those educators who have traditionally worked with those who do not have a voice, and who are oppressed. The idea of building a ‘pedagogy of the oppressed' or a ‘pedagogy of hope' and how this may be carried forward has formed a significant impetus to those seeking ways to develop consciousness, the consciousness that is understood to have the power to transform reality (Smith 2001). Fourth, Freire's insistence on situating educational activity in the lived experience of people has opened up a series of possibilities for the way activist educators can approach practice (Smith 2001). Dialogue occurs when people appreciated that they are involved in a mutual quest for understanding and insight.
SOURCE LIST AND WORKS CITED
Baro, Ignacio-Martin. 1994. Writings for a liberation psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Baym, Nina. 1995. The emperor redressed: Critiquing critical theory. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
Boff, Leonardo and Clodovis Boff. 2001. A concise history of liberation theology. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
Boyce, Mary. 2003 Teaching critically as an act of praxis and resistance. http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/Research/ejrot/Vol_3/Vol2articles/boyce.asp.
Brookfield, Stephen. 1995. Becoming a critically reflective teacher. New York: Jossey-Bass.
Fine, Michelle. 1994. Working the hyphens: Reinventing self and other in qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research, Norman K. Denzin and Yvonna S. Lincoln. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice interruptus: Critical reflections on the "post-socialist" condition. New York. Routledge Press.
Freire, Paulo. 1970. Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Press.
Freire, Paulo and Antonio Faundez. 1989. Learning to question: A Pedagogy of liberation. New York: Continuum Press.
Gadamer, Hans Georg. 1975. Truth and method. New York: Continuum Press.
Gadotti, Moacir. 1997. Homage to Paulo Freire. Speech delivered at the Latin American Center, UCLA. http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/12.1/Articles/1.htm/ [EFS2]
Geertz, Clifford. 1973. Thick description: Toward an interpretive theory of culture. In The interpretation of culture, ed. Clifford Geertz. New York: Basic Books.
Giroux, Henry. 1991. Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge. [EFS3]
________. 1999. Rethinking cultural politics and radical pedagogy. In The work of Antonio Gramsci. New York: Routledge.
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. Edited and translated by Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith. New York: International Publishers.
________. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. London: Lawrence and Wishart.
Grundy, S. 1982. 3d ed. Three Modes of Action Research. In The Action Research Reader. Geelong: Deakin University Press.
Grundy, Shirley. 1987. Curriculum: Product or praxis. London: The Falmer Press.
Gutiérrez, Gustavo. 1993. [EFS4] Las casas: In search of the poor of Jesus Christ. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books.
________. 1996. Gustavo Gutierrez Essential Writings. Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books.
________. 1973. Teología de la liberación, perspectivas (A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, & Salvation). Maryknoll NY: Orbis Books.
Harding, Sandra. 1991. Whose science? Whose knowledge? Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Hoffman, John. 1975. Marxism and the theory of praxis. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Holter, I.M. and D. Schwartz-Barcott. 1993. Action research: What is it? How has it been used and how can it be used in nursing? In Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1993:128; 298-304.
Humphries, Beth. 1997. From critical thought to emancipatory action: Contradictory research goals? Sociological Research Online 2, no. 1: PAGES. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/2/1/3.html
Kincheloe, Joe and Peter McLaren. 2000. Rethinking critical theory and qualitative research. In Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Jameson, Fredric. 1988. History and class consciousness as an `unfinished project'." In Rethinking marxism. Spring 1988, 1(1): 49-72.
Lather, Patti and Smithies, Chris. 1997. Troubling the angels: Women living with HIV/AIDs. Boulder: Westview Press.
Lather, Patti. 1986a. Issues of Validity in Openly Ideological Research: Between a Rock and a Soft Place. Interchange 17, no. 4: PAGES.
________. 1986b. Research as praxis. In Harvard Educational Review 56, no. 3: 257-277.
Letherby, Gayle. 2002. Claims and disclaimers: Knowledge, reflexivity and representation in feminist research. Sociological Research Online 6, no. 4. http://www.socresonline.org.uk/6/4/letherby.html
Macbeth, Douglas. 2001. On reflexivity in qualitative research: Two readings, and a third. Qualitative Inquiry 7, no. 1.
Martin, James. 2002. Poststructuralism and radical politics. In Poststructuralism and politics: An introduction, ed. Jeremy Valentine and Alan Finlayson. Edinburgh: Edinurgh University Press.
McLaren, Peter. 2000. Che Guevara, Paulo Freire, and the pedagogy of revolution. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
________. 1995. Critical pedagogy and predatory culture: Oppositional politics in a postmodern era. New York & London: Routledge. [EFS7]
________. 1998. 3d ed. Life in schools: An Introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York: Longman.
________. 1997. Revolutionary multiculturalism: Pedagogies of dissent for the new millennium. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. [EFS9]
McLaren, and Ramin Farahmandpur. 2000. Reconsidering marx in post-marxist times: a requiem for postmodernism? In Educational Researcher. Vol. 29 (3):25-33.
Moody-Adams, Michelle. 1997. Fieldwork in familiar places: Morality, culture, and philosophy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Nowlan, Bob. 1993. Radical political praxis within the late capitalist academy. The Alternative Orange 3, no. 1.
Olson, Gary. 1992. Introduction to Freire and his work in the light of his contemporary critics. http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/12.1/Articles/1.htm. [EFS10]
Panitch, Leo & Sam Gindin. 2004. Global capitalism and American empire. In The new imperial challenge, ed. Leo Panitch and Colin Leys. New York: Socialist Register.
Petras, James. 2001. Notes Toward an Understanding of Revolutionary Politics Today. No 19, Links. New York: New Course Publications.
Renner, Peter. 2002. Vulnerable to possibilities: A journey of self-knowing through personal narrative. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
.
Schwandt, Thomas A. 1997. Qualitative inquiry: A dictionary of terms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Siraj-Blatchford, Iram. 1997. Reflexivity, social justice and educational research. Cambridge Journal of Education 27: PAGES.
Slaughter, Sheila and Larry L. Leslie. 1997. Academic capitalism: Politic, policies, and the entrepreneurial university. CITY: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Smith, M. K. 2001. Dialogue and conversation. The Encyclopaedia of Informal Education. http://www.infed.org/bibio/b-dialog.htm.
Soros, George. 1994. The theory of reflexivity. Delivered April 26, 1994 to the MIT Department of Economics World Economy Laboratory Conference Washington, D.C.
Steiner, Claude, ed. 1975. Readings in radical psychiatry. New York: Grove Press.
Taylor, Charles. 2001. Two theories of modernity. In Alternative modernities. Ed. Dilip Parameshwar Gaonkar, 172-96.
Tripp, David. 1992. Critical theory and educational research. Issues In Educational Research 2, no. 1: 13-23. http://education.curtin.edu.au/iier/iier2/tripp.html
Weber, Max. 1963. The sociology of religion. Translated by Ephrain Fischoff. Boston: Beacon Press.
Wyckoff, Hogie. 1976. Love, therapy and politics: Issues in radical therapy. New York: Grove Press.
Young, Michael. 1971. Knowledge and control: New directions for the sociology of education. London: Collier Macmillan.
ENGAGED METHODOLOGIES IN ACADEMIC PRAXIS
According to Hans Georg Gadamer, our past influences “everything we want, hope for, and fear in the future” and only as we are “possessed” by our past are we “opened to the new, the different and the true” (1976). Yet university-based research has been slow to acknowledge the legitimacy and importance of personal history as a way of understanding the adult educator’s world (Renner 2002).Reflexive Methodologies: Gramsci
Much can be said about Antonio Gramsci, simply however, Gramsci’s contributions to critical pedagogy derive from his propositions of a powerful (but not seamless) hegemonic control of society and subjects that possess common sense, dialectical thinking, and intellectual possibilities . . . Although dominated, critical subjects can find sites (or spaces) for counterhegemonic practices and solidarity. Universities can be such spaces. Schools and universities are sites in which intellectuals can develop a critique, articulate values of dominated groups, amplify stories of subordinated experience, and practice resistance and solidarity. (Boyce 2003)Liberation Theology and Liberation Psychology
I applied to Loyola University Chicago to complete a graduate degree in my late forties because of its history of priests who participated in and supported a Liberation Theology praxis. This along with its stated social justice mission gave the appearance of a space where a liberationist positionality would be welcome and encouraged. It was the theoretical and methodological base of liberationists that I was most interested in as a focus for my studies. The increasing disparity between rich and poor along with increasing global control through overt and covert wars in Latin America led to dialogues in the Catholic church about faith, transformation and liberation. The Second Vatican Council produced a theological atmosphere characterized by creativity influenced by the times (decolonization, independence struggles, and a proliferation of socialist ideologies, Marxism and revolutionary and liberation theorists post WWII) (Boff and Clodovis 2001).Ethnography and Thick Description
Historically, the transition to qualitative research in the British sociology of education was heralded by Young’s (1971) ‘new sociology of education’. This foregrounded neo-Marxist and interactionist perspectives in the analysis of education and schooling. For interactionists, ethnography posed the possibility of an opening for reforming the assembly line model of education (Taylorism) and focused on revealing the ‘content’ of education to critical examination. (Macbeth 2001)Pedagogy of Process/Praxis in Process
Finally, the methods used in conducting the analysis in this study are based on what Disla Campbell (2001) calls pedagogy of process and what I have come to call, praxis in process, an ongoing self-evaluation, consisting of both praxis and self-ethnography. Through praxis, I draw upon the theoretical frameworks that I implemented in the primary case study program. The methodology in this study reflects the recent trends in engaged and emancipatory (reflexive, interpretive, auto-ethnographic and critical) research designs. I employ these methods as a means of opening a space in which to critically examine praxis, my own and others. This inquiry, like others in this trend captures my lived experience while paralleling the experiences of allies, power holders, peers and subjects in the field then and now. The study does not renounce engaged methodologies: rather I use them to assess the social conditions that structure our use of engaged methods and its efficacy thus far in the context of the academy.