与加拿大土著社区开展参与性行动研究:方法论反思

Heather Schmidt
{"title":"与加拿大土著社区开展参与性行动研究:方法论反思","authors":"Heather Schmidt","doi":"10.7728/0203201207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A central challenge with participatory action research (PAR) pertains to discrepancies between principles and practice. What sounds simple in theory (e.g., establishing a respectful collaboration) is often much more complex in real community settings. The challenges, lessons learned, and successes of PAR were examined within the context of a large national research project that involved 8 First Nation communities and academics. To engage in the process of reflective examination, two methodological approaches were utilized: (1) a qualitative interview study with 19 project members about their experiences within the project, and (2) a secondary qualitative analysis of the author’s own experiences and observations (as recorded in research journals). This paper summarizes some of the barriers to conducting PAR with Indigenous communities (i.e., themes of distrust/personal safety concerns, community readiness, waning motivation, financial stress, power differences, and differing norms/expectations) , as well as some of the lessons that were learned about how to overcome these challenges and cultivate strong, healthy research relationships. Because of the long history of EuroAmerican colonialism and paternalism toward First Nations, the issue of conducting research with Indigenous communities has evolved into a rather delicate situation (Mihesuah, 1998). Robinson (1997) discusses the unusual paradox that while many First Nations people feel they have been “researched to death”, they also complain that there has not been enough of the “right kind” of research. The former refers to the fact that, for years, academics, government researchers and corporations have been collecting immense amounts of data from Indigenous peoples with very little of it ever benefiting the oppressed and impoverished First Nations, in spite of initial promises. On the other hand, many Indigenous communities are now engaged in revitalizing endeavours to regain selfdetermination and, in this context, many see the value in research methods that can help them to bring about desperately-needed social change and community healing. Participation Action Research (PAR) is a promising alternative in which a new brand of respectful research relationship may be nurtured. Yet, PAR presents challenges in translating principles into practice. It is not enough for non-Native academics simply to have good intentions or to try to “show respect” and collaborate, as too often, this manifests as paternalism in a new guise (Menzies, 2001). Ermine, Sinclair and Jeffery (2004) describe the need to negotiate an “ethical space”: an equal and inclusive common-ground between worldviews. Privileged members of society are challenged to acknowledge their unquestioned assumptions and social relativity before humbly entering into the ‘negotiation’. Research, like schooling, once the tool of colonization and oppression, is very gradually coming to be seen as a potential means to reclaim languages, histories, and knowledge, to find solutions to the negative impacts of colonialism and to give voice to Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 2, Issue 3 January 2012","PeriodicalId":87260,"journal":{"name":"Global journal of community psychology practice","volume":"22 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conducting Participatory Action Research with Canadian Indigenous Communities: A Methodological Reflection\",\"authors\":\"Heather Schmidt\",\"doi\":\"10.7728/0203201207\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A central challenge with participatory action research (PAR) pertains to discrepancies between principles and practice. What sounds simple in theory (e.g., establishing a respectful collaboration) is often much more complex in real community settings. The challenges, lessons learned, and successes of PAR were examined within the context of a large national research project that involved 8 First Nation communities and academics. To engage in the process of reflective examination, two methodological approaches were utilized: (1) a qualitative interview study with 19 project members about their experiences within the project, and (2) a secondary qualitative analysis of the author’s own experiences and observations (as recorded in research journals). This paper summarizes some of the barriers to conducting PAR with Indigenous communities (i.e., themes of distrust/personal safety concerns, community readiness, waning motivation, financial stress, power differences, and differing norms/expectations) , as well as some of the lessons that were learned about how to overcome these challenges and cultivate strong, healthy research relationships. Because of the long history of EuroAmerican colonialism and paternalism toward First Nations, the issue of conducting research with Indigenous communities has evolved into a rather delicate situation (Mihesuah, 1998). Robinson (1997) discusses the unusual paradox that while many First Nations people feel they have been “researched to death”, they also complain that there has not been enough of the “right kind” of research. The former refers to the fact that, for years, academics, government researchers and corporations have been collecting immense amounts of data from Indigenous peoples with very little of it ever benefiting the oppressed and impoverished First Nations, in spite of initial promises. On the other hand, many Indigenous communities are now engaged in revitalizing endeavours to regain selfdetermination and, in this context, many see the value in research methods that can help them to bring about desperately-needed social change and community healing. Participation Action Research (PAR) is a promising alternative in which a new brand of respectful research relationship may be nurtured. Yet, PAR presents challenges in translating principles into practice. It is not enough for non-Native academics simply to have good intentions or to try to “show respect” and collaborate, as too often, this manifests as paternalism in a new guise (Menzies, 2001). Ermine, Sinclair and Jeffery (2004) describe the need to negotiate an “ethical space”: an equal and inclusive common-ground between worldviews. Privileged members of society are challenged to acknowledge their unquestioned assumptions and social relativity before humbly entering into the ‘negotiation’. Research, like schooling, once the tool of colonization and oppression, is very gradually coming to be seen as a potential means to reclaim languages, histories, and knowledge, to find solutions to the negative impacts of colonialism and to give voice to Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 2, Issue 3 January 2012\",\"PeriodicalId\":87260,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Global journal of community psychology practice\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global journal of community psychology practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7728/0203201207\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global journal of community psychology practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7728/0203201207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

参与性行动研究的一个核心挑战是原则与实践之间的差异。在理论上听起来很简单的事情(例如,建立相互尊重的合作关系)在实际的社区环境中往往要复杂得多。在一项涉及8个原住民社区和学者的大型国家研究项目的背景下,对PAR的挑战、经验教训和成功进行了研究。为了进行反思性检查,采用了两种方法:(1)对19名项目成员进行定性访谈研究,了解他们在项目中的经历;(2)对作者自己的经历和观察(记录在研究期刊上)进行二次定性分析。本文总结了在土著社区开展PAR的一些障碍(即不信任/个人安全问题、社区准备、动机减弱、经济压力、权力差异和不同的规范/期望),以及如何克服这些挑战和培养强大、健康的研究关系的一些经验教训。由于欧美殖民主义和对第一民族的家长式统治的悠久历史,与土著社区进行研究的问题已经演变成一个相当微妙的情况(Mihesuah, 1998)。Robinson(1997)讨论了一个不寻常的悖论,即当许多原住民感到他们被“研究得要死”时,他们也抱怨没有足够的“正确的”研究。前者指的是这样一个事实:多年来,学术界、政府研究人员和公司一直在从土著人民那里收集大量数据,尽管最初做出了承诺,但其中很少有数据使被压迫和贫困的第一民族受益。另一方面,许多土著社区现在正在进行重新恢复自决的努力,在这方面,许多土著社区看到研究方法的价值,这些方法可以帮助他们实现迫切需要的社会变革和社区愈合。参与行动研究(PAR)是一种很有前途的选择,可以培养一种新的相互尊重的研究关系。然而,PAR在将原则转化为实践方面提出了挑战。对于非本土学者来说,仅仅有良好的意图或试图“表示尊重”和合作是不够的,因为这往往表现为一种新的家长式作风(Menzies, 2001)。Ermine, Sinclair和Jeffery(2004)描述了协商“伦理空间”的必要性:世界观之间的平等和包容的共同点。在谦卑地进入“谈判”之前,社会特权成员被要求承认他们毫无疑问的假设和社会相对性。研究,就像学校教育一样,曾经是殖民和压迫的工具,正逐渐被视为收回语言、历史和知识的潜在手段,为殖民主义的负面影响找到解决方案,并在《全球社区心理学实践杂志》第2卷第3期2012年1月发表意见
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Conducting Participatory Action Research with Canadian Indigenous Communities: A Methodological Reflection
A central challenge with participatory action research (PAR) pertains to discrepancies between principles and practice. What sounds simple in theory (e.g., establishing a respectful collaboration) is often much more complex in real community settings. The challenges, lessons learned, and successes of PAR were examined within the context of a large national research project that involved 8 First Nation communities and academics. To engage in the process of reflective examination, two methodological approaches were utilized: (1) a qualitative interview study with 19 project members about their experiences within the project, and (2) a secondary qualitative analysis of the author’s own experiences and observations (as recorded in research journals). This paper summarizes some of the barriers to conducting PAR with Indigenous communities (i.e., themes of distrust/personal safety concerns, community readiness, waning motivation, financial stress, power differences, and differing norms/expectations) , as well as some of the lessons that were learned about how to overcome these challenges and cultivate strong, healthy research relationships. Because of the long history of EuroAmerican colonialism and paternalism toward First Nations, the issue of conducting research with Indigenous communities has evolved into a rather delicate situation (Mihesuah, 1998). Robinson (1997) discusses the unusual paradox that while many First Nations people feel they have been “researched to death”, they also complain that there has not been enough of the “right kind” of research. The former refers to the fact that, for years, academics, government researchers and corporations have been collecting immense amounts of data from Indigenous peoples with very little of it ever benefiting the oppressed and impoverished First Nations, in spite of initial promises. On the other hand, many Indigenous communities are now engaged in revitalizing endeavours to regain selfdetermination and, in this context, many see the value in research methods that can help them to bring about desperately-needed social change and community healing. Participation Action Research (PAR) is a promising alternative in which a new brand of respectful research relationship may be nurtured. Yet, PAR presents challenges in translating principles into practice. It is not enough for non-Native academics simply to have good intentions or to try to “show respect” and collaborate, as too often, this manifests as paternalism in a new guise (Menzies, 2001). Ermine, Sinclair and Jeffery (2004) describe the need to negotiate an “ethical space”: an equal and inclusive common-ground between worldviews. Privileged members of society are challenged to acknowledge their unquestioned assumptions and social relativity before humbly entering into the ‘negotiation’. Research, like schooling, once the tool of colonization and oppression, is very gradually coming to be seen as a potential means to reclaim languages, histories, and knowledge, to find solutions to the negative impacts of colonialism and to give voice to Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice Volume 2, Issue 3 January 2012
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信