Understanding How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change: the Beginning Development of Formal Practice Theory

Journal of Community Practice

ISSN: 1070-5422 (Print) 1543-3706 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wcom20

Understanding How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change: The Beginning Development of Formal Practice Theory

Shane R. Brady & Mary Katherine O’Connor

To cite this article: Shane R. Brady & Mary Katherine O’Connor (2014) Understanding How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change: The Beginning Development of Formal Practice Theory, Journal of Community Practice, 22:1-2, 210-228, DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2014.901263

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705422.2014.901263

Published online: 29 May 2014.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 707

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 1 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=wcom20

Download by: [University of Michigan] Date: 19 October 2015, At: 14:42 Journal of Community Practice, 22:210–228, 2014 Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1070-5422 print/1543-3706 online DOI: 10.1080/10705422.2014.901263

Understanding How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change: The Beginning Development of Formal Practice Theory

SHANE R. BRADY and MARY KATHERINE O’CONNOR Department of Social Work, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA

Community organizing practice can be traced back to the settle- ment house era. Although the literature of community organizing is rich in approaches to practice built from practice wisdom, case studies, and conceptual frameworks, the literature lacks formal practice theory. This article provides beginning results from research with a long–range aim of building formal practice theory for social workers engaged in community organizing practice with empowerment related social change goals.

KEYWORDS community organizing theory, delphi method, empowerment based community organizing, community organizing, community practice, progressive community organizing

PROBLEM STATEMENT

Social work throughout history has maintained an explicit ethical commit- ment to promoting social justice (Allen-Meares & Garvin, 2000;Finn& Jacobson, 2003). According to the NASW Code of Ethics, “social workers

Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 promote social justice and social change with and on behalf of individuals, families, groups, organizations, and communities” (National Association of Social Workers, 2008, preamble). Although social justice is deﬁned very differently in the literature as both a process and a product of practice (see, for example, Freire, 1970; Kahn, 2010; Rothman, 1979; Sen, 2003), many scholars relate social justice to professional ethics and values (Adams, Bell, & Grifﬁn, 2007; Finn & Jacobson, 2003;P.M.Morris,2002; Nussbaum, 2003).

Address correspondence to Dr. Shane R. Brady PhD, Virginia Commonwealth University, Social Work, 1001 W. Franklin Street, PO Box 842027, Richmond, VA 23284-2027. E-mail: [email protected]

210 How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 211

Finn and Jacobson (2003) viewed social justice as relating to values that promote human rights, fairness, and equity, while opposing inequality, degradation, and violence against humankind. Nussbaum (2003) utilized a feminist and ecological perspective to define social justice through the pres- ence of 10 distinct capabilities that every just society should possess. These 10 capabilities focus on human rights, liberties, and freedoms. Nussbaum’s framework includes such entitlements as the right to participate in politics, freedom of speech, and the right to creativity. This article is thus grounded in these core social work definitions of social justice. Over the years, social work has encountered a good deal of criti- cism from the scientific community related to a lack of formal, scientifically built theory to guide professional practice (McNeece & Thyer, 2004; Payne, 2005). Although social work has borrowed from other disciplines such as psychology, sociology, medicine, physics, economics, political science, and anthropology, it has also made strides in developing its own approaches to professional practice (Gutierrez, Parsons, & Cox, 2003; Rubin & Babbie, 2011). Although social work has made strides in professional practice and research across micro and macro practice, it is clinical practice that has benefited most from the development of formal practice theory and models (Payne, 2005). Although clinical practice makes use of practice level theories such as cognitive and behavioral theory to build formal practice models such as Dialectical Behavior Therapy and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, community practice, and specifically community organizing, lacks this level of formal practice theory and models (Payne, 2005;Walsh, 2006). The goal of this research study was to extend the current knowledge base of community organizing by taking initial steps to build formal community organizing practice theory grounded in the literature and utilizing the expertise of highly experienced community organizers. Although practice wisdom, conceptual frameworks, approaches to practice, case studies, and grand and mid-range theories have been, and continue to be, important guides for professionals engaged in community organizing (see for example; Addams, 1930; Alinsky, 1971; Brager & Specht, 1973; Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 Checkoway, 1995; Gamble & Weil, 2010; Gutierrez, 1990;Gutierez&Lewis, 1994; Hardcastle, Powers, & Wenocur, 2004; Horton, 1998; Hyde, 1996; Jefferies, 1996;MacNair,1996; Netting, Kettner, & McMurtry, 2008; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Reisch, 2008; Rothman, 1979, 2008; Rothman et al., 2001; Solomon, 1976; Weil, 1996), there is an unfulfilled need for formal practice theory in community organizing. It is through the development and test- ing of formal practice theory that organizing practitioners will have direct guidance for how to do practice, as well as the process of community organizing derived from the real world experiences of seasoned community organizers. 212 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Community organizing has no single agreed upon definition (Szakos & Szakos, 2007). Community organizing is not unique to professional practice or to the profession of social work (Brown, 2006;Garvin&Cox, 2001; Kahn, 2010). Community organizing is also not inherently progressive, liberal, radical, or conservative, and is utilized by professionals and nonprofessionals alike for a wide range of goals (Netting et al., 2008; Sen, 2003). Although definitions of community organizing vary (see Brager & Specht, 1973; Rothman, 1979, 2001, 2008; Weil, 1996, 2010), the authors were concerned with community organizing that had explicit goals of bring- ing together and/or working with members of marginalized groups for the broad purpose of attaining social justice and social change. Here we define social change by synthesizing and building upon previous definitions and define social change as: progressive and beneficial changes to individuals, groups, and systems coming about as a result of community organizing that involves to some degree persons experiencing marginalization (Checkoway, 1995; C. M. Payne, 1995; Solomon, 1976). Community organizing in professional practice has been used to refer to various purposeful activities aimed at helping develop communities, challenge unjust systems and policies, and promote interconnectedness among community members (Brager & Specht, 1973; Gamble & Weil, 2010; Rothman, Erlich, & Tropman, 2001). The literature supportive of these efforts is rich in frameworks and conceptual models of how community organizing relates to specific goals, macro theories, typologies of organizing, and desired outcomes (Rothman et al.; Thomas, O’Connor, & Netting, 2011; Weil, 1996). To fully understand the formal practice theory aim of this study, it is important to define terms. Formal practice theory is defined here as theory derived directly from empirical evidence attained through rigorous scientific inquiry for the purpose of providing specific guidance to practitioners about how to do practice and what can be expected (M. Payne, 2005; Turner, 1996). Formal practice theory differs from terms such as approaches to practice or frameworks, because it is empirically derived, has a goal of generalizability, Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 and can be empirically tested and improved upon through further research (M. Payne, 2005). The term framework in community practice refers to a heuristic that provides a logical categorization of some aspect(s) of community practice (Thomas et al., 2011). Often times, frameworks are used in community organizing to categorize the types of organizing practice that are possible by criteria, such as goals, outcomes, power dynamics, leadership, and ideology (Netting et al., 2008). Approaches to community practice and organizing provide practitioners with guidance about how to do practice based on practice wisdom and/or various conceptualizations of practice (Lee, 2001; Solomon, 1976; Thomas et al., 2011). Practice approaches and frameworks How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 213

in the literature are also ideologically derived by professionals based on their own values in relation to what is the best way to do organizing practice or the best way to think about organizing practice, and therefore are seldom built from the inductive-deductive theory building approach needed for formal practice theory (Creswell, 1998; M. Payne, 2005). Brager and colleagues (1973, 1987) provided conceptual frameworks for understanding community-organizing goals as they related to whether or not consensus was achievable or whether conflict was assumed. Rothman’s pivotal work (1979, 2001, 2008) also influenced how community organizing has been conceptualized in practice. Rothman provided a framework that divides organizing into three distinct modes or categories of practice, based on goals and outcomes. Rothman (2008) most recently referred to his modes of community practice as planning and policy, local capacity development, and social advocacy. Gamble and Weil (2010) provided another conceptual framework for understanding community practice that is based on eight different approaches to community practice: neighborhood and community organizing, organizing functional communities, community social, economic and sustainable development, program development and community liaison, social planning, coalitions, political and social action, and movements for progressive change. Gamble and Weil’s approaches to community practice provide an illustration of the breadth of what is possible in community practice. Gamble and Weil’s framework provides practitioners and students of community practice with an understanding of the types of community organizing that may be undertaken and the characteristics of each approach. Other scholars from fields such as community psychology, adult education, political science, and sociology, along with social work have contributed to the conceptual understanding of community organizing through developing practice approaches useful to community organizing efforts. Gutierrez and colleagues have made substantial contributions to the understanding of community organizing through applying feminist, empowerment, and multicultural theories to how community organizing is practiced with Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 various groups and/or populations (Gutierrez, 1990; Gutierrez & Lewis, 1994; Gutierrez et al., 2003). Additionally, scholars have contributed to the literature of community organizing through case studies and historical analysis of social movements and organizing efforts (Kahn, 2010; Lee, 2001; Morris, 1984; Piven, 2006; Piven & Cloward, 1977; Reisch, 2008). Additionally, although community organizing draws heavily from many theories, such as social movement, Marxism, feminist theory, multicultural theories, critical theory, and empowerment theory, these theories are grand or mid-range theories and are not specific or detailed enough to be utilized as formal practice theories on their own (Walsh, 2006). 214 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

The aim of this research is to build upon the existing knowledge base of community organizing to develop beginning-level formal practice theory, which can be tested and built upon in the future. It is not our desire to dis- count or discredit the usefulness of practice wisdom, conceptual frameworks, or larger scale social theory, but to complement it with the development and addition of formal practice theory in community organizing.

METHODS

This study utilized the Delphi methodology, which was originally developed by researchers of the RAND Corporation in the 1950s as a flexible and pragmatic way for conducting research in fields of practice where empirically derived knowledge was needed for everyday decision making purposes (Alder & Ziglio, 1996;Dalkey&Helmer,1963). The Delphi methodology has been utilized in a variety of disciplines and studies, as well as with quanti- tative and qualitative data collection methods (Skulmoski, Hartman, & Kran, 2007). The qualitative Delphi utilizes the knowledge of experts to build theory, develop instruments, and build models that can later be verified and tested (Linstone & Turoff, 1975; Skulmoski et al., 2007). The sample size of qualitative Delphi’s varies from 7 to 100, depending on the topic, what is already known, and richness of the expertise of participants (Dalkey & Helmer, 1963; Dietz, 1987) The Delphi methodology was chosen for this study for its flexibility and proven effectiveness in developing theory for direct practice (Skulmoski et al., 2007). The Delphi methodology uses the expertise of people with accepted knowledge and expertise about a given situation, issue, or phenomenon to better understand, describe, or solve problems; thus the decision to recruit community organizers with an average of nearly 30 years of practice experience provided a sound and justified foundation for beginning steps in formal theory building. Although participants were originally separated into organizing groups based on how they came to learn community organizing, through the civil rights or union organizing tradition, it was learned through this study Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 that participants had worked in a variety of organizing contexts including civil rights; organized labor; feminist; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgen- der (LGBT); grass roots; issue based; and many other traditions or types of organizing. This Delphi methodology followed in this study used an emergent design and qualitative methods to explore the intersection between community organizing, consciousness raising, social justice, and social change. These constructs were deemed important based upon their frequent use in the literature of community organizing. Although the original question posed for this study was grounded in the literature, as were the questions How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 215

developed for wave one data collection, subsequent questions and proto- cols, including the ﬁnal theoretical model was shaped by the responses of participants. The original research question asked in this study was: What is the relationship between community organizing and consciousness raising for the purpose of social justice and social change?

SAMPLING

This study used purposive sampling to select 10 participants with expertise in community organizing from two major traditions of organizing: the civil rights and union organizing traditions. These two traditions were chosen based on their importance in the history and literature of community organizing, as well as our memberships in these two networks of organizers, which minimized the invasion of privacy and also permitted inquiry among an often guarded group of lifelong organizers, who are often hesitant to speak with members of the research and academic communities. We acknowledge that rich traditions of community organizing also exist among feminist, LGBT and queer (LGBTQ), conservative, and many other groups; however, it is these two groups that we could most easily and ethically conduct research with for this study. The sample of union organizers and civil rights organizers provides both a starting point for understanding community organizing, along with two different groups for comparative analysis. The terms union organizers or organizing and civil rights organizers or organizing are used broadly here to describe practitioners of organizing practice that learned about and worked in organizing efforts rooted in the US civil rights movement and organized labor movement. These two organizing traditions are thoroughly discussed in the literature (see (Alinsky, 1971; Bobo, Kendall, & Max, 2001; Gamble & Weil, 2010;Garvin&Cox,2001; Kahn, 2010; Morris, 1984;C.M. Payne, 1995; Piven, 2006; Reisch, 2005; Sen, 2003) and although they do not provide a comprehensive sample of all applicable community organizing groups or traditions, they do provide a relevant, however small, sam- Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 ple of participants with expertise about community organizing suitable for this study. We recruited participants directly from existing memberships in organizing networks, as well as through respected and known gatekeepers in Michigan and Mississippi, geographic locations with well documented histories in these organizing traditions. The criteria for inclusion in the study was at least 10 years of community organizing experience, and self-identiﬁcation as having learned about and worked in community organizing in civil rights or union (organized labor) organizing traditions or contexts. Additionally, diversity in race, gender, and types of organizing experience were also considered when selecting the ﬁnal sample for this study. 216 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICS

Five participants were union organizers and five participants identified with the civil rights tradition of organizing. It is important to note that many study participants had experience that crossed over both traditions of organizing, as well as many other areas of community organizing. Many organizers stated that although they may have learned from or began their careers in union or civil rights organizing, they were also active in feminist, LGBTQ, Chicano rights, Black power, disability rights, human rights, international, and domes- tic violence organizing efforts; therefore, although two groups were initially selected for this study, the range of organizing experience among members of both groups was diverse. The mean age of participants was M = 53.1 years old with M = 27.2 years of organizing experience. The study included six men and four women, fairly typical of community organizing within the civil rights and union traditions. Participants were asked to report their race/ethnicity as they saw themselves. Four participants identified as White or of European descent; three identified as African American, and three participants identified as being Chicano. The scope of community organizing work undertaken by study participants was diverse in type of organizing, context of organizing, location of organizing, and the organizing roles of participants. Participants in this study belonged to groups and organizations such as; the Student Non-Violence Coordinating Committee, La Raza, the Grey Panthers, National Organization for Women, AFL-CIO, and many other groups and organizations. Although the sample for this study is small (N = 10), the participants possess a wealth of experience, knowledge, and insights about the practice of community organizing appropriate for building beginning level practice theory.

DATA COLLECTION

The data collection for this study consisted of open-ended and semistruc- tured questions that participants completed via e-mail and send back to the Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 researcher. The initial questionnaire was grounded in the literature and asked organizers to respond to questions related to the process and outcomes of community organizing. After all ﬁrst- wave questionnaires were returned via e-mail, the responses for each group were copied and pasted into one docu- ment and sent out to all participants from that group for additional feedback. Participants provided additional feedback, clariﬁcation, and commentary on the responses of other participants from their organizing group, so civil rights organizers commented on the responses of other civil rights organizers and the same with the union organizing group. This step of the research process was done as a check for trustworthiness of the original data and an opportunity to extend data. How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 217

After waves one and two of data was analyzed, additional questions were formed to extend data where needed and to test theoretical relationships between concepts coded and identiﬁed in the ﬁrst two waves. These questions were sent to participants of both groups. In this wave of data collection, participant responses were not separated out for each group, but left combined for analysis purposes. After wave-three questionnaires were returned, this marked the end of data collection for this study.

ANALYSIS

Although literature related to the Delphi methodology indicates thematic analysis as the preferred method of qualitative analysis, little guidance was found in the literature to explain how to engage in thematic analysis of qualitative Delphi studies (Alder & Ziglio, 1996; Skulmoski et al., 2007). It was for this reason that we chose to follow the framework for conducting thematic analysis provided by Bazeley (2009), who identifies rigorous thematic analysis as undergoing three important stages: identifying concepts, grouping concepts together to form categories, and explaining category relationships through the identification of themes (Bazeley, 2009). This type of thematic analysis took place after each stage of data collection to move from units of least abstraction and explanatory power (concepts) to greatest abstraction and explanation (themes). Thus, the concepts that were identified in the study were very close to the words of participants; categories were identified by grouping together concepts using the logic provided by participants; and themes were formulated by identifying relationships between categories. Consensus in this study was defined by a predetermined decision rule of majority of responding participants must identify a relationship or concept for it to be included in the final theoretical model. The final concepts, categories, and themes form the theoretical model of how community organizing works in practice to achieve outcomes related to social change. The final model was presented to all 10 participants, who then verified by consensus that the model was an accurate representation of how they see community Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 organizing working to achieve social change in a practice context. None of the participants in this study indicated disagreement with the final model developed in this study.

FINAL PRACTICE MODEL

The analysis conducted in this study yielded concepts, categories, and themes associated with how community organizing practice operates. Table 1 illustrates the concepts, categories, and themes that were identiﬁed from data analysis and that will be further illustrated in the ﬁnal practice model Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015

TABLE 1 Final Concepts, Categories, and Themes of Community Organizing Practice

Concepts Categories Category Descriptions Relevant Themes

Oppression awareness Motivations Relates to the values and reasons that influence individuals to participate in Interconnectedness Means for creating community organizing efforts, either as organizers or community members, versus social change and that keep individuals engaged in organizing over time. Individuals Detachment Greater good values thus become or remained involved in organizing to overcome oppression, Opportunity to reform create social change, because of faith or spirituality, and as an opportunity injustice to reform injustice. Raise awareness Community Encompasses stage one of the organizing process and relates to key Trust Issue identification building organizing tasks such as raising awareness, identifying issues, and getting versus 218 Knowing community to know the community that occur during the community building stage. Mistrust Organizing plan Plan Represents the second stage of the organizing process and includes concepts Inclusive Social change as part of related to organizer tasks and considerations such as; developing an versus the organizing plan organizing plan, defining social change, and setting goals. Exclusive Set Goals Overcome oppression Mobilize Represents the third stage of the organizing process and encompasses Collective power Build power phenomena that occur at the mobilize stage of community organizing. versus Tactics Community members overcome oppression, build power, and use tactics Lack of power in order to implement the organizing plan. Systemic social change Outcomes Represents the outcomes that occur after organizing efforts are complete and Empowered Individual social change encompasses concepts related to successful and unsuccessful community versus Awareness not raised organizing. Disempowered How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 219

of community organizing. The concepts represent the units of data closest to participant responses, followed by categories that help group concepts together to form more meaningful relationships, and finally themes were formed through logical progression of data, as well as through knowledge of the literature and the author’s practice expertise. The categorical definitions encompass the range and consensus in participant responses related to concepts within a specific category. The category definitions describe what occurs at each stage of the organizing process, as well as why individuals get involved in organizing and what outcomes are attained from successful community organizing. Table 1 provides an overview of all of the concepts, categories, and themes identified from data analysis. Although it is unlikely that this table encompasses all of the tasks, stages, or themes associated with community organizing practice in all contexts, it does present those identified in this study. The concepts, categories, and themes presented also appear in the final conceptual model of community organizing practice. The table and subsequent conceptual model illustrate that community organizing consists of five major categories or interrelated components to organizing that often do not occur in a linear fashion. The major components of the model are best thought of as categories (motivations, community building, plan, mobilize, and outcomes) with the intersection between categories representing the themes (trust vs. mistrust, inclusive vs. exclusive, collective power vs. lack of power, and finally the overall theme of empowered vs. disempowered). The arrows represent various components of themes and their movement is dictated by whether or not community members achieve more or less of the desired outcome associated with that particular stage of the organizing process. The final theme of empowered versus disempowered has a bearing on whether or not individuals are likely to continue involvement in community organizing in the future. The theme of interconnectedness or detachment that crosscuts the organizing process related directly to how well the organizing process is going as per- ceived by community members. If community members feel as though the process is going well, they will gain a greater sense of interconnectedness Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 over time, which may act as a protective factor for coping with failures or setbacks in the organizing process. The concepts, which are illustrated inside the various stages or categories of the model, are simply some tasks or considerations that organizers must attend to through activities and facilitation of the organizing process. The concepts are not meant to be an exhaustive list of all organizer considerations, simply those identifiable in this study to be built upon in future studies. How organizers chose to attend to these considerations was directly dependent upon the organizing context of that particular effort. For instance, the activities that organizers might engage in to build community in Detroit, Michigan might not be the same as those undertaken to build community 220 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

in the Mississippi delta; however the importance of community building and the need for trust among those involved is potentially translatable from one community to the next according to the practice theory identified in this study. Figure 1 illustrates that community-organizing practice operates in three distinct, but interrelated stages, along with an entry period that, together, lead to various outcomes. Progression from one stage to the next is dictated by whether or not a specific goal or stage-specific characteristic is properly developed among community members. The themes illustrated in this model represent a continuum between an optimum and least desirable outcome; however, the model is not sophisticated enough to predict how much of the optimum stage-specific goal is needed to successfully predict successful progression from one stage to the next. Although the data analysis process went from raw data to concepts, concepts to categories, and categories to themes, for the purpose of explanation we describe the categories first, as they comprise the major components and stages of the organizing process, followed by the concepts (organizing tasks and objectives), and lastly themes (the continuum between most and least desirable goals).

THEORETICAL MODEL EXPLAINED

The model presented in Figure 1 illustrates that community organizers are led into organizing for a variety of reasons. Participants indicated that people Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015

FIGURE 1 A dialectical empowerment model of community organizing practice. How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 221

become involved in community organizing due to a variety of reasons and values. The motivating factors leading people to become involved in community organizing include greater good values (a term used to combine social justice values, religious values, and values related to social responsibility into a term that all participants could agree on), a means to create social change, an opportunity to reform injustice, and as a result of their own awareness of experienced oppression. The category of motivations directly relates to the category of interconnectedness. As people experience success in the organizing process, they grow a greater sense of interconnectedness with others involved in the effort, which makes it more likely that they will stick around until the end. If community organizing efforts experience tension and conflicts that cannot be adequately addressed by organizers and community members, interconnectedness decreases and detachment begins to grow. Eventually, a lack of interconnectedness will lead to community members leaving organizing efforts as their original motivation will be minimized by a lack of interconnectedness with others involved in the effort. Although this study does not provide significant insight into how much interconnectedness is needed for people to stay involved in organizing efforts, it provides practitioners with insight that it is an important characteristic of the organizing process that practitioners need to be aware of throughout the organizing process, including when members leave or become inactive. The first major stage of community organizing is community building, where organizers and community members engage in various context- dependent activities that help them get to know one another, learn about the community, raise awareness about oppression, and begin to identify mutual issues and needs. The goal of community building in the organizing process is to build enough trust among community members to successfully move forward in the organizing process. Although this theory does not explain how much trust among community members is enough to successfully move forward in an organizing effort, it serves as a guide and reminder to organizing practitioners to regularly assess and be conscious of the level of trust or mistrust present among community members involved in an organizing Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 effort. After trust is sufficiently built among community members, organizers shift focus to the planning stage of organizing. During the planning stage, organizers with community members develop an organizing plan with explicit goals. Participants of this study indicated that social change is both an implicit and explicit part of the organizing plan, regardless of whether the goals relate to improving community capacity or challenging oppres- sive systems. The main consideration of community organizers during the planning stage is how inclusive or exclusive the planning stage is in relation to the community. Participants indicated that deciding who should or should not be at the table when developing the organizing plan is a critical 222 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

component of this stage of organizing. If key sectors or people are left out of the organizing process, the entire effort may suffer; however, participants acknowledged that oftentimes certain sectors or people are left out of the planning stage to protect community members from being marginalized by professionals, members of status quo groups, and from people who may disrupt or derail planning efforts. Although there is no for sure method for organizers to determine whether everyone who needs to be at the table for planning has been invited, the theme of inclusive versus exclusive serves as a reminder to organizing practitioners about the importance of monitoring who is or is not involved in the plan stage of community organizing. After community members and organizers have successfully developed an organizing plan, they come together in the mobilize stage to enact the plan and meet goals. During the mobilize stage of community organizing, community members will work collectively to overcome oppression, build power, and use a variety of tactics to attain the goals set forth in the organizing plan. The success of the mobilize stage of community organizing is dependent upon whether or not enough collective power is generated to meet the goals set forth in the plan. If enough people participate during the mobilize stage, it is likely that enough collective power will be fostered for the effort to be successful; however, if there is a lack of power in the community organizing effort, due to not enough people participating, the organizing effort will have limited success or even failure. As with the other stages of this practice theory, the model developed in this study does not quantify what proportion of community members needs to be involved in the mobilize stage for it to be successful; however, it does provide organizing practitioners with a consideration useful for assessing readiness of the community to take action as well as the successes or failures experienced at this stage of organizing. Although it can be difﬁcult to determine when one organizing effort ends and another begins, assessing organizing outcomes is an essential part of the community organizing process. Participants of this study indicated that successful community organizing leads to two major outcomes of positive social change: individual social change and systemic social change. Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 Individual social change relates to the positive gains achieved by community members from successfully engaging in the organizing process. Systemic social change relates to positive outcomes attained from the organizing process and relates to meeting tangible organizing goals. The speciﬁc outcomes attained will depend on the community and context of the organizing plan. Although positive outcomes can be attained in an organizing effort, negative outcomes may also result and be illustrated in the form of a lack of power in the community, awareness not raised successfully across community members, and other unknown outcomes. Ultimately, if community members perceive that organizing has been successful in attaining social change, they will experience empowerment and likely participate or How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 223

continue to participate in community organizing in the future; however, if community members experience negative outcomes (as they perceive them to be), they will experience disempowerment. The small sample in this study did not yield enough data to determine what happens to individuals experiencing disempowerment as a result of a negative experience with community organizing, however, this provides an opportunity and need for future research.

IMPLICATIONS FOR COMMUNITY-ORGANIZING PRACTICE

Although the results of this study should be taken with caution due to the limited scope and small sample, some beginning practice implications were identified. First, due to the unique and complex nature of community organizing practice, evidence-based practice in community organizing needs to be conceptualized differently by practitioners, researchers, and educators than how it is conceptualized in clinical practice. Although community-organizing practice, at least organizing with empowerment goals, can potentially be undertaken utilizing the process outlined by participants of this study, the activities undertaken within each stage of organizing to facilitate community building, planning, and mobilization is contingent upon the context of the community and people involved. Therefore, the specificity needed to develop formal practice models with predictive and prescriptive qualities may not be possible in community organizing as it is in clinical practice. Last, the results of this study indicate that although formal practice theory is possible and helpful to organizing practitioners, practice models are best developed on a community-level basis by community members and organizers to assure they are appropriate to the community context of the organizing effort. The second major implication of this study is that the tradition of community organizing that organizers learn from may be of little importance for understanding organizing practice. Organizers who participated in this study indicated that they learned organizing or began their careers in either civil Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 rights or union organizing traditions; however, all participants in this study pointed out that they had also been involved in feminist, LGBTQ, issue specific, faith-based, and many other organizing approaches or traditions over the course of their career. Although the tradition of organizing that practitioners learn organizing from may be of little importance to understanding community organizing practice, organizers in this study indicated that they followed grass roots, capacity-centered, or social action approaches to community organizing, which each possess similar underlying values that may be helpful for understanding who might best be able to benefit from the practice theory developed in this study. Each of the organizing types engaged in by participants in this study shared common values that emphasized 224 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

local leadership, community member decision making and participation, and empowerment goals. Another implication of this study revealed that a potential difference may exist between how organizing scholars view community-organizing practice and how organizers at the community level view practice. This difference in perspective may be due to the increasing professionalization of community organizing. This study began with major concepts frequently found in the literature of community organizing. Terms such as social justice, consciousness raising, critical consciousness, empowerment, social change, power,and community organizing were utilized during the development of the first questionnaire sent out to participants. Although participants addressed the questions asked, many participants suggested that there were major differences in the language of academia and that of community organizing. Terms like social justice and critical consciousness had little to no mean- ing to participants of this study. For instance, participants replaced social justice with terms such as faith, religion, responsibility, right, fairness,and justice.Thetermconsciousness raising was especially problematic for many participants. One participant indicated, “The mere idea that people who are oppressed are not conscious of their own oppression that they go through day in and day out is condescending and narrow minded.” Participants agreed that awareness and education were important aspects of community organizing, but terms such as conscious raising were not readily used or helpful to them in practice, and could even be inflammatory to community members. Additionally, much of the literature discussed community building separate from community organizing (see Alinsky, 1971; Bobo, Kendall, & Max, 2001; Brager & Specht, 1973;Brown,2006; Checkoway, 1995; Defilippis & Saegert, 2012; Hardcastle, Powers, & Wenocur, 2004), while emphasizing mobilization over other aspects of community organizing deemed important by participants of this study, regardless of the goals of the organizing process. Participants in this study see community building as an essential and necessary stage to all community organizing that values empowerment. Participants in this study indicated that without successful community building, mobilization will have limited success. Participants also indicated that Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 a community may be able to mobilize one time without community building, but a community that has properly engaged in community building and built trust among each other will be able to mobilize frequently and organize proactively to address changing needs. Last, pracademics, or practitioners formally trained in research, may be best suited for community-organizing scholarship, as they possess both relevant practice knowledge as well as a sound research knowledge base. Pracademics have learned about community organizing from directly engaging in organizing at a community level. They understand the ethics of entry, possess cultural humility, understand the barriers to research, and possess the practice wisdom needed to understand how best to use formal practice theory. Pracademics also possess the research knowledge base necessary How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 225

for conducting empirical research through their education and professional training, which is necessary for furthering the knowledge base of community organizing. Persons able to identify as pracademics are in unique positions to serve as bridge persons between community organizing practice and academia, as they tend to have a foot in both worlds. Pracademics understand the histories, barriers, and tensions that exist within and between community organizing and academia.

LIMITATIONS

Although the results of this study undoubtedly move forward the development of formal practice theory in community organizing, there are several limitations to the study. The biggest limitation of the study is the small sample size. Although 10 participants with diverse expertise and lengthy experience in community organizing were chosen, it is difficult to general- ize the results of this study until similar studies with more organizers can be conducted. Another limitation of this study is that it focused on organizers from two major organizing traditions; civil rights and union organizing traditions. Future studies should be conducted that include participants from feminist, LGBTQ, issue-based, and other organizing traditions and contexts to determine if the beginning practice theory developed in this study translates to their work in the community. Also, given that participants in this study indicated that they organized in a variety of contexts, it is important that future studies gather more specifics about the organizing experience of participants and build it into the research question and hypotheses. The Delphi methodology was implemented via online questionnaires in this study, which allowed the research to be conducted across states and minimized potential bias that could result from in-person interviews; however, it is possible that in-person interviews could produce more data from participants and prompts could be used to fill in existing gaps that were left in questionnaire responses. The sample for this study was also taken from two geographic locations, Michigan and Mississippi, which in future studies should be broadened to Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 account for potential differences related to location, context, and history. Finally, this study defined community organizing, social justice, and social change in broad, yet very positive, ways that others could argue bias the results and may make them not applicable to organizing efforts taking place among conservative groups or in top down or expert led initiatives.

NEXT STEPS

The obvious next step that needs to be taken is the replication of this study with a larger and more diverse sample of community organizers. Through 226 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

conducting this study with a larger and more diverse sample, it will be possible to determine if the process of community organizing illustrated by participants of this study is accurate for organizers across contexts and types. After the results of this study are reﬁned and validated, it will be possible to utilize it in practice with community organizers to determine how effec- tive and generalizable the theory is for guiding organizing practice. Finally, it is essential that practitioners and researchers begin to work more closely together for formal practice theory to be further developed and reﬁned in real world practice settings, as it will take expertise in both research and practice to push formal theory development in community organizing forward.

REFERENCES

Adams, M., Bell, L. A., & Grifﬁn, P. (Eds.). (2007). Teaching for diversity and social justice. New York, NY: Routledge. Addams, J. (1930). The second twenty years at Hull House. New York, NY: MacMillan. Alder, M., & Ziglio, E. (1996). Gazing into the oracle: The Delphi Method and its application to social policy and public health. London, UK: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Alinsky, S. D. (1971). Rules for radicals: A pragmatic primer for realistic radicals. New York, NY: Random House. Allen-Meares, P., & Garvin, C. D. (2000). The handbook of social work direct practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Bazeley, P. (2009). Analyzing qualitative data: More than identifying themes. Malaysian Journal of Qualitative Research, 6, 6–22. Bobo, K., Kendall, J., & Max, S. (2001). Organizing for social change: Midwest Academy manual for activists. Washington D.C.: Seven Locks Press. Brager, G., & Specht, H. (1973). Community organizing.NewYork,NY:Columbia University Press. Brager, G., Specht, H., & Torezyner, J. L. (1987). Community organizing. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Brown, M. J. (2006). Building powerful community organizations. Arlington, MA:

Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 Long Haul. Checkoway, B. (1995). Six strategies of community change. Community Development, 30(1), 2–20. doi: 10.1093/cdj/30.1.2 Creswell, J. (1998). Qualitative research and design: Choosing among ﬁve traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi methods to the use of experts. Management Science, 9, 458–467. Dietz, T. (1987). Methods for analyzing data from Delphi panels: Some evidence from a forecasting study. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 31(1), 79–85. Finn, J., & Jacobson, M. (2003). Just practice: A social justice approach to social work. Peosta, IA: Eddie Bowers. How Community Organizing Leads to Social Change 227

Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International. Gamble, D., & Weil, M. (2010). Community practice skills: Local to global perspective. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Garvin, C. D., & Cox, F. M. (2001). A history of community organizing since the civil war with special reference to oppressed communities. In J. Rothman, J. L. Elrich,J.E.Tropman,J.Rothman,&J.L.Erlich(Eds.),Strategies of community intervention (pp. 65–100). Belmont, CA: Wadworth/Thomson Learning. Gutierrez, L. M. (1990). Working with women of color: An empowerment perspective. Social Work, 35(2), 149–154. doi: 10.1300/J125v01n02_03 Gutierrez, L., & Lewis, E. A. (1994). Community organizing with women of color: A feminist perspective. Journal of Community Practice, 1(2), 23–36. doi: 10.1300/ J125v01n02_03 Gutierrez, L. M., Parsons, R. J., & Cox, E. O. (2003). Empowerment in social work practice: A sourcebook. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Hardcastle, D. A., Powers, P. R., & Wenocur, S. (2004). Community practice: Theories and skills for social workers. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Horton, M. (1998). The long haul: An autobiography. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Hyde, C. (1996). A feminist response to Rothman’s the interweaving of community intervention approaches. Journal of Community Practice, 3, 127–145. doi: 10.1300/J125v03n03_05 Jefferies, A. (1996). Modelling community work: An analytic framework for practice. Journal of Community Practice, 3(3–4), 101–125. doi:10.1300/J125v03n03_04 Kahn, S. (2010). Creative community organizing: A guide for rabble-rousers, activists, and quiet lovers of justice. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler. Lee, J. A. (2001). The empowerment approach to social work practice: Building the beloved community (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applica- tions. Reading, MA: Addison-Weshley. MacNair, R. (1996). Theory for community practice in social work: The example of ecological community practice. Journal of Community Practice, 3(3–4), 181–202. doi:10.1300/J125v03n03_07 McNeece, C. A., & Thyer, B. A. (2004). Evidence-based practice and social work. Journal of Evidence Based Practice, 1(1), 7–24. Morris, A. D. (1984). The origins of the civil rights movement: Black communities organizing for change. New York, NY: Free Press. Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015 Morris, P. M. (2002). The capabilities perspective: A framework for social justice. Families in Society, 83(4), 365–374. National Association of Social Workers. (2008). NASW Code of Ethics. Retrieved September 9, 2013, from NASW: http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/ code.asp Netting, F. E., Kettner, P. M., & McMurtry, S. (2008). Social work macro practice (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Nussbaum, M. C. (2003). Capabilities as fundamental entitlements: Sen and social justice. Feminist Economics, 9(2–3), 33–59. doi: 10.1080/14649880500120509 Payne, C. M. (1995). I’ve got the light of freedom: The organizing tradition and the Mississippi freedom struggle. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. 228 S. R. Brady and M. K. O’Connor

Payne, M. (2005). Modern social work theory (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Lyceum Books. Piven, F. F. (2006). Challenging authority: How ordinary people change America. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littleﬁeld. Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. (1977). Poor people’s movements: Why they succeed and how they fail. New York, NY: Random House. Reisch, M. (2005). Radical community organizing. In M. Weil (Ed.), The handbook of community practice (pp. 287–304). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Reisch, M. (2008). From melting pot to multiculturalism: The impact of racial and ethnic diversity on social work and social justice in the USA. British Journal of Social Work, 38, 788–804. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcn001 Rothman, J. (1979). Three models of community organizing practice, their mixing and phasing. In F. Cox, J. Erlich, J. Rothman, & J. Tropman (Eds.), Strategies of community organizing (pp. 25–44). Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers. Rothman, J. (2008). Multi modes of intervention at the macro level. Journal of Community Practice, 15(4), 11–40. doi: 10.1300/J125v15n04_02 Rothman, J., Erlich, J. L., & Tropman, J. E. (Eds.). (2001). Strategies of community intervention (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Rubin, A., & Babbie, E. (2011). Research methods for social work (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Brooks and Cole. Sen, R. (2003). Stir it up: Lessons in community organizing and advocacy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Skulmoski, G., Hartman, F. T., & Kran, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1–21. Solomon, B. (1976). Black empowerment: Social work in oppressed communities. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Szakos, K. L., & Szakos, J. (2007). We make change: Community organizers talk about what they do and why. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press. Thomas, M. L., (Author), & Netting, F. E. (2011). A framework for teaching community practice. JournalofSocialWorkEducation, 47, 337–355. doi: 10.5175/JSWE.2011.200900081 Turner, F. (1996). Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches.New York, NY: Free Press. Walsh, J. (2006). Theories for direct social work practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson. Weil, M. (Ed.). (1996). Community practice conceptual models. New York, NY: Haworth Press. Downloaded by [University of Michigan] at 14:42 19 October 2015