Considering Power in Community-Based Research: Shifting Toward New Pedagogical Approaches with a 'Public Work for Public Things' Framework

IF 0.9 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Gateways-International Journal of Community Research and Engagement Pub Date : 2021-11-14 DOI:10.5130/ijcre.v14i2.7754
Susan Haarman, Patrick M. Green
{"title":"Considering Power in Community-Based Research: Shifting Toward New Pedagogical Approaches with a 'Public Work for Public Things' Framework","authors":"Susan Haarman, Patrick M. Green","doi":"10.5130/ijcre.v14i2.7754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"One of the fundamental questions of power in the pedagogy of community-based research (CBR) is who gets to decide what is research worthy and what is the focus of CBR questions? The reality of the power imbalance in community-based research and learning is often reflective of a systemic disengagement with the broader community. Even when instructors and administrators are intentional in how they solicit feedback or think through the impact of their work, they may not know the neighbourhood. Prioritising the voice of community partners does not provide a simple solution, as the individuals we work with to organise community-based learning opportunities may not be residents of the neighbourhood. \nThis article adopts a theory-building approach to this crucial question. Building on the work of Boyte (2014) and Honig (2017), community-based research is reoriented as ‘public work for public things’ (Haarman 2020). After establishing the ‘public work for public things’ framework, the article explores how this new framework impacts collaborative research by addressing the power differential and creating new lines of inquiry – specifically the practice of ‘elicitation of concerns’. Through the lens of critical service-learning pedagogy (Mitchell 2008) and a practitioner-scholar framework (Lytle 2008; Ravitch 2013; Salipante & Aram 2003), we then interrogate two community-based research courses we have recently taught, examining how a ‘public work for public things’ approach would have altered the course and its methods.","PeriodicalId":53967,"journal":{"name":"Gateways-International Journal of Community Research and Engagement","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gateways-International Journal of Community Research and Engagement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5130/ijcre.v14i2.7754","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

One of the fundamental questions of power in the pedagogy of community-based research (CBR) is who gets to decide what is research worthy and what is the focus of CBR questions? The reality of the power imbalance in community-based research and learning is often reflective of a systemic disengagement with the broader community. Even when instructors and administrators are intentional in how they solicit feedback or think through the impact of their work, they may not know the neighbourhood. Prioritising the voice of community partners does not provide a simple solution, as the individuals we work with to organise community-based learning opportunities may not be residents of the neighbourhood. This article adopts a theory-building approach to this crucial question. Building on the work of Boyte (2014) and Honig (2017), community-based research is reoriented as ‘public work for public things’ (Haarman 2020). After establishing the ‘public work for public things’ framework, the article explores how this new framework impacts collaborative research by addressing the power differential and creating new lines of inquiry – specifically the practice of ‘elicitation of concerns’. Through the lens of critical service-learning pedagogy (Mitchell 2008) and a practitioner-scholar framework (Lytle 2008; Ravitch 2013; Salipante & Aram 2003), we then interrogate two community-based research courses we have recently taught, examining how a ‘public work for public things’ approach would have altered the course and its methods.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
考虑社区研究中的权力:以“公共工作为公共事物”的框架转向新的教学方法
社区研究(CBR)教育学中的一个基本权力问题是谁来决定什么是研究的价值以及社区研究问题的焦点是什么?以社区为基础的研究和学习中的权力不平衡的现实往往反映了与更广泛的社区的系统性脱节。即使教师和管理人员在征求反馈或思考他们的工作的影响时是有意的,他们也可能不了解周围的环境。优先考虑社区伙伴的声音并不是一个简单的解决方案,因为我们合作组织以社区为基础的学习机会的个人可能不是附近的居民。本文对这一关键问题采取理论建构的方法。基于Boyte(2014)和Honig(2017)的工作,基于社区的研究被重新定位为“公共事物的公共工作”(Haarman 2020)。在建立了“公共工作为公共事物”的框架之后,本文探讨了这个新框架如何通过解决权力差异和创造新的探究线来影响合作研究——特别是“引发关注”的实践。通过批判性服务学习教学法(Mitchell 2008)和从业者-学者框架(Lytle 2008;Ravitch 2013;Salipante & Aram 2003),然后我们询问了我们最近教授的两门基于社区的研究课程,研究了“公共工作为公共事物”的方法如何改变课程及其方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
28.60%
发文量
5
审稿时长
34 weeks
期刊最新文献
Stroke Community Rehabilitation Centre (SCORE): A community transformation program Oral health education for school children and capacity building of local community health workers in cleft care: An experience of student-led community service in a West Java village Voice, Choice and Power: Using co-production to develop a community engagement strategy for an ethnically diverse community Gardening education in early childhood: Important factors supporting the success of implementing it Re-imagining the research article: Social-semiotic signposts and the potential for radical co-presence in the scholarly literature
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1