HOW’S YOUR RESEARCH GOING TO HELP US?: THE PRACTICES OF COMMUNITY-BASED RESEARCH IN THE POST-APARTHEID UNIVERSITY DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Daniel G. Oliver, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Professor Susan R. Jones, Adviser Approved by Professor Nancy Ettlinger Professor Leonard Baird __________________ Adviser College of Education ABSTRACT The purpose of this research was to examine the practice of university engagement at one South African university. I have examined one feature of engagement: community-based research in the Greenveld region of South Africa. Three research questions framed this study: 1) How do academic research and community service interact?; 2) What are the particular ways that context complicates this interaction?; and 3) What meaning does reciprocity have for researchers and residents? How is reciprocity practiced? How is reciprocity experienced? In this study, I examined how a host of relationships (e.g., researcher/participant, administrators, grantors) and contexts (e.g., institutional, local, regional, national) complicated the practice of community-based research. Using interviews, observations and documents, I examined the practices of community-based research at a rural, South African research facility. In speaking with researchers and administrators affiliated with the facility, and local residents often affected by facility projects, a nuanced image of community-based research emerged. Local residents believed that given the resources at the disposal of the facility and the poverty in the area, community-based researchers should offer tangible goods and services. In contrast, researchers had diverse preferences and practices regarding their use of community-based research, local participation and reciprocity, often providing very little in terms of direct service or tangible goods. ii Amid these diverse opinions and preferences were contexts that further complicated the practice of community-based research. First, the facility was located in one of the poorest regions of South Africa. When overlaid with apartheid, the result was an area suffering from many social, political and economic problems. Second, the institutional context of the university complicated the practice of community-based research. While a post-apartheid culture worked to popularize outreach and engagement, many at the university did not fully embrace such practices. In the end, it is suggested that community-based research be viewed as a social practice. When focused on practice and experience, community-based research begins to appear more diverse than characterized in the literature. Approached this way, community-based research shows the imprint of context (e.g., local, regional, national, institutional) and individual preferences (e.g., perceptions of reciprocity and participation). iii DEDICATION For Barbara Oliver, in memoriam iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project would have been impossible without the kindness of many people. For material support, thanks to the Sonkin-Bergman-Wasserman Fund and the Dong Ho Chai Fund. In South Africa, I have abiding appreciation for Innocent Ayipheli, Phillip Botha, Alan and Xana McCauley, Fortune Mhlanga, and Joseph Nkosi for offering their homes and friendship. The faculty and staff of the Facility and the men and women of Greenveld were always welcoming, even at the hands of often ridiculous probing. Particular thanks to Mapule for her wealth of local knowledge, help with translation and friendship. In Columbus, I offer sincere appreciation to my graduate committee. My adviser, Dr. Susan Jones, provided encouragement and patience (and patience) throughout this project. Dr. Nancy Ettlinger provided a perspective from geography that I have benefited from tremendously. Finally, thanks go to Dr. Leonard Baird who came on to the project much later than the rest of us but provided wonderful advice when it was needed most. In the end, my committee taught me what it meant to be a professional in and out of the academy. I feel thankful to have been in their company. Thanks also to Elisa Abes, Allen Delong, and Chris Shaffer for their friendship and support throughout this process. Special appreciation goes to Allen for the time he spent reading and re- reading much of this work. Thanks to my family for sharing their experiences and providing the occasional reality check. Finally, thanks to Julie King and her remarkable combination of love, wit, and intelligence that I had never before known. v VITA June 1, 1972 ……………………….Born, Olney, Illinois 1994 ………………………...……..B.A. International Affairs, Mary Washington College, Fredericksburg, Virginia 1996 ……………………………….M.A. Geography, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio 1996-1998 …………………………Labor Analyst, Department of Labor, Tallahassee, Florida 1998-2004 …………………………Administrative, Research and Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS 1. Grubesic, T. & Oliver, D. (2002). The spatial dimension of distance education in Virginia: An exploratory analysis. Southeastern geographer. 42(1), 310-330. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Education Minor Field: International Development Education vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract……………………………………………………….…………………...…........ii Dedication…………………………………………………………......……….…………iv Acknowledgments…………………………………………………….…….....………..…v Vita………………………………………………………….…….......…….…...………..vi List of Tables………………………………………………....…………………......…….x Preface……………………………………………………………..………………....……1 Chapters: 1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………..3 Post-apartheid South Africa and Higher Education……………………………….3 Theoretical framework...…………………………………………………………..7 Conceptual Framework……………………………………………………………8 University Engagement……………………………………………………8 Community-based research………………………………………………..9 Purpose and Design of the Study…………………………………………….…..12 Purpose of the study……………………………………………………...12 Research design.……………………………….………………………...13 Significance of the study...………………………………………..……..14 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….15 2. Review of the Literature…………………………………………………………16 Introduction………………………………………………………………………16 University engagement…………………………………………………………..16 University engagement and the ‘new’ knowledge production…………………..21 Community-based research……………………………………………………...28 A normative view of community-based research.......…………………...33 vii Community, Collaboration and Participation……………………33 Community-Based Research and Communicative Democracy….38 Reciprocity and community-based research……………………..45 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………….…49 3. Methodology…………………………………………………………..…………51 Purpose of the Study and Research Questions…………………………………...51 Research elements………………………………………………………………..51 Epistemology…………………………………………………………….51 Theoretical framework…………………………………………………...52 Methodology……………………………………………………………..53 Methods……………………………………………………………………...…...56 Sampling criteria…………………………………………………………56 Sampling strategies………………………………………………....……58 Data collection and analysis……………………………………………………...63 Observation………………………………………………………………63 Documents…………………………………………………………….....66 Interviews……………………………………………………………...…67 Analysis…………………………………………………………………..69 Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………..71 Ethics of critical ethnographic research………………………………………….75 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….77 4. Findings…………………………………………………………….……………79 Greenveld, South Africa: The stage of practice………………………………….80 History of the Facility………………............………...………………………….85 Key categories…………………………………………………………….……...89 Organizational culture……………………………………………………89 Feelings of collegiality…………………………………………...90 Academics in social change……………………………………...93 Relationship to Main campus…………………………………….98 Perceptions of reciprocity and participation……………………………115 Researcher perceptions of reciprocity…………………………..118 Alternative researcher views of reciprocity………..……...……125 Resident perceptions of participation…………………………...135 Feelings of exclusion………………………………...…137 Feelings of inclusion……………………………………144 Means of remediation…………………………………..147 Resident perceptions of reciprocity…………………………….148 Negative perceptions of reciprocity………………….…149 Positive perceptions of reciprocity……………………...153 Means for remediation……………………………….…159 viii Summary…………………………………………………………….………….163 5. Discussion……………………………………………………………..………..165 Discussion of findings in relation to the research questions................................165 Discussion of findings in relation to the literature...............................................175 Community-based research and civic engagement..................................175 Community-based research and participation..........................................185 The rhetoric of reciprocity……………………..……………………….192 Summary..............................................................................................................196 Implications for practice………………………………………………………..196 Implications for future research……………………………………………...…205 Limitations of study…………………………………………………………….207 Strengths of study……………………………………………………………....211 Summary…………………………………………………………….………….213 References: ……………………………………………………………………………..216 Appendices: A List of interview questions for Greenveld residents……………………………229 B. List of interview questions for Faculty and Staff………………………….……231 C. Statement of informed consent……………………………………………....…233 ix LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Description of