The Ethics of Participatory Action Research with People Living in Poverty

Bruno Tardieu, Donna Haig Friedman, Bonita Benett, Stacy Randell-Shaheen, Maya El Remaly, Alicia Barbas
{"title":"The Ethics of Participatory Action Research with People Living in Poverty","authors":"Bruno Tardieu, Donna Haig Friedman, Bonita Benett, Stacy Randell-Shaheen, Maya El Remaly, Alicia Barbas","doi":"10.1525/cs.2022.57386","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is based on the webinar “The Ethics of Research on Poverty” held in April 2018. Coauthored by the four presenters of the webinar, it brings together perspectives on poverty from lived experience in the United States, academia, the District Six Museum in South Africa, and the Joseph Wresinski Centre for Archives and Research in France. The article argues that the ethical principles of participatory action research (PAR) are too generic to address the specific characteristics of research projects conducted with people living in poverty. PAR projects on poverty require, in addition to the relevant general ethical principles of PAR (i.e., leading transformational PAR, treating all participants as co-researchers, nurturing respect for the individual and the group, and raising awareness on the level of literacy of each participant), specific ethical guidelines. For PAR to address the needs of people living in poverty, the choice of words on poverty should be aimed at reducing symbolic and epistemic violence, questions should be framed so as to encourage knowledge to be shared, research should yield direct benefits to participants and outweigh risks, and researchers should aim at eradicating extreme poverty. Researchers failing to apply these principles may find themselves guilty of committing unintended symbolic or epistemic violence to the thinking of people in poverty or fall for the soft bigotry of low expectations that inevitably triggers underperformance. To bridge the divide between narratives of people in poverty and interpretations of these narratives , researchers should be aware of their own biases and remain open to being challenged.","PeriodicalId":390930,"journal":{"name":"Civic Sociology","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Civic Sociology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1525/cs.2022.57386","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article is based on the webinar “The Ethics of Research on Poverty” held in April 2018. Coauthored by the four presenters of the webinar, it brings together perspectives on poverty from lived experience in the United States, academia, the District Six Museum in South Africa, and the Joseph Wresinski Centre for Archives and Research in France. The article argues that the ethical principles of participatory action research (PAR) are too generic to address the specific characteristics of research projects conducted with people living in poverty. PAR projects on poverty require, in addition to the relevant general ethical principles of PAR (i.e., leading transformational PAR, treating all participants as co-researchers, nurturing respect for the individual and the group, and raising awareness on the level of literacy of each participant), specific ethical guidelines. For PAR to address the needs of people living in poverty, the choice of words on poverty should be aimed at reducing symbolic and epistemic violence, questions should be framed so as to encourage knowledge to be shared, research should yield direct benefits to participants and outweigh risks, and researchers should aim at eradicating extreme poverty. Researchers failing to apply these principles may find themselves guilty of committing unintended symbolic or epistemic violence to the thinking of people in poverty or fall for the soft bigotry of low expectations that inevitably triggers underperformance. To bridge the divide between narratives of people in poverty and interpretations of these narratives , researchers should be aware of their own biases and remain open to being challenged.
贫困人口参与行动研究的伦理问题
本文改编自2018年4月举办的“贫困研究的伦理”网络研讨会。该报告由网络研讨会的四位主持人共同撰写,汇集了来自美国、学术界、南非第六区博物馆和法国约瑟夫·雷辛斯基档案与研究中心的生活经验对贫困的看法。这篇文章认为,参与性行动研究(PAR)的伦理原则过于笼统,无法解决针对贫困人口开展的研究项目的具体特点。关于贫穷的PAR项目除了PAR的有关一般伦理原则(即领导变革的PAR,将所有参与者视为共同研究人员,培养对个人和群体的尊重,提高对每个参与者的识字水平的认识)之外,还需要具体的伦理准则。为了使PAR解决生活在贫困中的人的需求,关于贫困的词语的选择应旨在减少象征性和认识上的暴力,问题的框架应以鼓励知识共享为目的,研究应给参与者带来直接利益而大于风险,研究人员应以消除极端贫困为目标。未能应用这些原则的研究人员可能会发现,他们对贫困人口的思维进行了无意的象征性或认知暴力,或者陷入了低期望的软偏见,这不可避免地会导致表现不佳。为了弥合贫困人口的叙述和对这些叙述的解释之间的鸿沟,研究人员应该意识到自己的偏见,并对挑战保持开放的态度。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信