Action and Participatory Research: A Forgotten Research Orientation in Hong Kong?

1. Action and Participatory Research: A Forgotten Research Orientation In Hong Kong? Daniel T.L. Shek Department of Social Work The Chinese University of Hong Kong The preparation of this presentation is financially supported by the Research Grants Council (CUHK4087/99H)

2. Attributes of the Participatory ParadigmDenzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Heron, T., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qualitative Inquiry, 3, 274-294. • Ontology: Participative reality – subjective-objective reality; participation forms the reality • Epistemology: Critical subjectivity in participatory transaction with the cosmos; experiential, propositional, practical and co-created knowledge • Methodology: Political participation in collaborative action inquiry, primacy of the practical • Nature of knowledge: Practical knowing; living knowledge; critical subjectivity • Knowledge accumulation: In communities of inquiry embedded in communities of practice • Goodness or quality criteria: Congruence of experiential, propositional and practical knowledge; leads to action to transform the world

3. Attributes of the Participatory ParadigmDenzin & Lincoln (2000); Heron & Reason (1997) • Values: Included; influence acknowledged • Training: Co-researchers are involved; facilitator requires emotional competence, democratic personality and skills • Voice: Mixed voices • Accommodation and commensurability: Incommensurable with positivistic paradigms; commensurable with constructivist, critical and liberationist approaches • Action: Intertwined with validity; inquiry not complete without action on the part of the participants • Control: Shared between researchers and co-researchers • Truth: Non-foundational • Relevance of philosophy of science in doing research?

4. Social Work Model of Action ResearchDePoy, E., Hartman, A., & Haslett, D. (1999). Critical action research: A model for social work knowing. Social Work, 44, 560-569. • Step 1: Recognize and articulate a social problem • Step 2: Convene a steering committee with all stakeholder groups • Step 3: Identify research scope and changes proposed by the S.C. • Step 4: Select a collaborative research Team • Step 5: Training lay researchers to design, conduct and use inquiry • Step 6: Design inquiry: research Qs, design & analytic strategies • Step 7: Conduct inquiry and analysis • Step 8: Report findings in accessible forms to all stakeholder groups • Step 9: Submit findings to social change planning and action • Step 10: Steering Committee identifies further areas for inquiry

5. Examples in the Social Welfare Literature • Altpeter, M., Schopler, J.H., Galinsky, M.J., & Pennell, J. (1999). Participatory research as social work practice: When is it viable? Journal of Progressive Human Services, 10, 31-53. • Alvarez, A.R., & Gutierrez, L.M. (2001). Choosing to do participatory research: An example and issues of fit to consider. Journal of Community Practice, 9, 1-20. • Bailey, S., Thoburn, J., & Wakeham, H. (2002). Using the ‘Look after children’ dimension to collect aggregate data on well-being. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 189-201. • Bischoff, U.M., & Reisch, M.S. (2000). Welfare reform and community-based organizations: Implications for policy, practice, and education. Journal of Community Practice, 8, 69-91. • Fetterman, D.M. (2001). Foundations of empowerment evaluation. Calif: Sage.

6. Examples in the Social Welfare Literature • Gellis, Z.D. (2001). Using a participatory research approach to mobilize immigrant minority family caregivers. Journal of Social Work Research and Evaluation, 2, 267-282. • Hicks, S. (1997). Participatory research: An approach for structural social workers. Journal of Progressive Human Services, 8, 63-78. • Kondrat, M.E., & Julia, M. (1998). Democratizing knowledge for human social development: Case studies in the use of participatory action research to enhance people’s choice and well-being. Social Development Issues, 20, 1-20. • McNicoll, P. (1999). Issues in teaching participatory action research. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 51-62. • Penuel, W.R., & Freeman, T. (1997). Participatory action research in youth programming: A theory in use. Child and Youth Care Forum, 26, 175-185.

7. Examples in the Social Welfare Literature • Reese, D.J., Ahern, R.E., Nair, S., O’Faire, J.D., & Warren, C. (1999). Hospice access and use by African Americans: Assessing cultural and institutional barriers through participatory action research. Social Work, 44, 549-559. • Reisch, M., & Rivera, F. (1999). Ethical and racial conflicts in urban-based action research. Journal of Community Practice, 6, 49-62. • Safyer, A.W., Griffin, M.L., Colan, N.B., Alexander-Brydie, E., & Rome, J.Z. (1998). Methodological issues when developing prevention programs for low income, urban adolescents. Journal of Social Service Research, 23, 23-46. • Sarri, R.C., & Sarri, .M. (1992). Organizational and community change through participatory action research. Administration in Social Work, 16, 99-122. • Sohng, S.S.L. (1996). Participatory research and community organizing. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 23, 79-99.

8. Examples in the Social Welfare Literature • WARNING: Wide range of meaning and practice related to action and participatory research with different languages used • Progressive Position (Park, 1993): research that puts “research capabilities in the hands of the deprived and disenfranchised people so that they can transform their lives for themselves” (p.1) • Participants involved in all stages of the project, including education, reflection, research and action • Researchers serve as experts (sharing research skills) and co-learners (benefits form the skills and knowledge of the participants) • Mid-Range Position: the views of the participants are respected and incorporated in the research; collaborate in the research process • Action Position: The participants may not be researchers, but the results generate some actions

9. Examples in the Social Welfare Literature • McNicoll, P. (1999). Issues in teaching participatory action research. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 51-62. (Progressive Position) • 60 students completed 14 projects on campus • A group of self-advocates not satisfied to be labeled mentally disabled. 3 participants surveyed the peers and organized exhibitions. Action: fight against the stereotypes affecting them • A study of problems of visually students impaired led to the formation of a self-help group • Students with different ethnicity discussed their mutual views and challenged the mass media to stop reporting misconceptions

10. Examples in the Social Welfare Literature • Reese, D.J., Ahern, R.E., Nair, S., O’Faire, J.D., & Warren, C. (1999). (Mid-Range Position) • Participatory action project to examine problems of African American access to and use of hospice • 7 strategies: literature review; integration with social work education; collaboration with respondents; collaboration with practitioners; ongoing social action efforts; qualitative study; quantitative study • Qualitative interviews based on 6 African American priests: identify the major themes to develop a scale • Quantitative study based on 127 African Americans and European Americans: understand the problems and barriers • Results transformed to social action efforts in the community

11. Examples in the Social Welfare Literature • Yoshihama, M. (2002). Breaking the web of abuse and silence: Voices of battered women in Japan. Social Work, 47, 389-400. (Action Position) • Focus group research project with battered women in Japan • 32 women participated (role of participants) • Resulted in the formation of first community-support group for battered women • Major collaboration at the end of the project (action initiation)

12. Current Status in Hong KongBased on Shek, D.T.L., Lam, M.C., & Tsoi, K.W. (in press). Evidence-based social work practice in Hong Kong. In Thyer, B. and Kazi, M. (Eds.), International perspectives on evidence-based practice in social work. London: Venture Press. • Shek, Lam and Tsoi (in press) reviewed published books on social work intervention and evaluation (e.g., casebooks published by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, Hong Kong Social Workers Association, local academics and NGOs) and articles in the Hong Kong Journal of Social Work. • Based on the review, the following conclusions can be drawn: • There are VERY FEW action research and participatory research studies and related research is MINIMALLY implemented in the social welfare settings in Hong Kong • The development of action research and participatory research is VERY PRIMITIVE in Hong Kong

13. Possible Contributing Factors Public Obsession About the “Scientific” Mode of Understanding • Dominance of the traditional “scientific” methods in different helping professions (e.g., medicine and psychology) • Emphases of “objective”, “neutral” and “uncontaminated” understanding • Superiority of scientists and scientific understanding • “Scientists” know how to do evaluation. Laymen don’t.

14. Possible Contributing Factors Elevated Status of “Professionals” Perceived by the Public • Cultural and societal respect for “learned scholars” and “professionals” • Obsessions about “qualifications” and “papers” • Professional knowledge is more superior than non-professional knowledge • “Professionals” know more than laymen • “Professionals” know how to do evaluation. Laymen don’t.

15. Possible Contributing Factors Severe Lack of Academic and Professional Training in Social Work Education • Dominance of the positivistic models in social work education in Hong Kong (e.g., surveys) • Weak coverage on non-conventional modes of understanding and related research methods • Weak coverage on philosophies of science • Research training relatively weaker than other helping professionals • Possible reason: problematic issues confronting action and participatory research

16. Possible Contributing Factors Severe Lack of Related Research and Expertise in the Field • General fear about research • General fear about philosophies of science • Dominance of research adopting survey research method • Very few qualitative research and few exemplars • Poor quality of qualitative research • Few agencies take the lead in related research

17. Possible Contributing Factors Government’s Expectations about Research and Evaluation • Dominated by the “scientific” mode: objective outcome indicators, generalizability, “valid” and “objective” data • Dominated by the “professional” view: qualified professionals are more qualified for research and evaluation • Non-conventional research is at best supplementary in nature • Problematic issues confronting action and participatory research • Implications on funding and grant applications

18. What Can Be Done? • Public Education: Meaning of “scientific” and “professional”; alternative ways of understanding and doing research • Professional Education: Basic position: enhanced understanding; Focus of training: ranges from re-socialization to critical rationalism; recognizes the strengths and limitations of the related research and cultural relevance of the approach • Educating Government Officials: enhanced understanding; recognize the wide application of action and participatory research in Western contexts and their legitimate usage

19. Final Reflections • Participatory action research: Common argument - consistent with social workers’ commitment to social justice; connect local action to progressive social changes; strong linkage to progressive forms of contemporary social work Reflection: What is (and should be) social work? Congruence between social work values, social work knowledge and social work research methods? • Gaventa (1993): Guerilla research Reflection: What guerilla research can offer? Challenges based on the Joint Committee on Evaluation Standards Reflection: Participation and collaboration are guarantees for good PAR? How are “biases” and “preoccupations” dealt with?

20. Final Reflections • Cross-cultural applicability: While there are examples in non-Western contexts, application in Asian contexts remains to be demonstrated. • Cross-cultural applicability: The “conflict thesis” hypothesis underlying PAR acceptable to Chinese (Chu & Carew, 1990; Healy, 2001)? Chu, K.F., & Carew, R. (1990). Confucianism: Its relevance to social work with Chinese people. Australian Social Work, 43, 3-9. Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless and the experts: Knowledge struggles in an information age. In P. Park (ed.), Voices of change: Participatory research in the Unites States and Canada (pp.21-40). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Healy, K. (2001). Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal. International Social Work, 44, 93-105.