Community-Based Research: from Practice to Theory and Back Again Randy Stoecker University of Toledo

Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning Spring 2003, pp. 00-00

Community-Based Research: From Practice to Theory and Back Again Randy Stoecker University of Toledo

Community-based research (CBR) is a recently popular model of community–higher education collaboration that combines various forms of action-oriented research with service-learning to support social action for social justice. This paper explores the theoretical strands being combined in CBR—charity service-learning, social justice service-learning, action research, and participatory research. Charity service-learning and action research combine to produce the dominant mainstream CBR model. Social justice service-learning and participatory research combine to produce the radical CBR model. The paper shows how these different models of CBR, based in different theories of society and different approaches to community work, may combine or conflict.

“When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. world works. Finally, it explores social change When I ask why the poor have no food, they models, showing the implications of the two ver- call me a communist.” sions of CBR in realizing CBR’s goal of social —late Archbishop Dom Helder change for social justice. Camara of Recife, Brazil (1909-1999) CBR Defined and Deconstructed This quote from the “Red Bishop” and leader in An attempt to expand the practice of CBR Liberation Theology sums up the tensions in a new nationwide, sponsored by the Corella and Bertram community-based practice being popularized F. Bonner Foundation (2002), has led to three gen- across higher education. Over the past few years eral CBR principles: there has been a groundswell of interest in a model of community–higher education collaboration • CBR is a collaborative enterprise between called “community-based research” (CBR). As researchers (professors and/or students) and practiced in most settings, CBR combines an community members. emphasis on doing community-based research pro- • CBR validates multiple sources of knowledge jects with a focus on student skill development and and promotes the use of multiple methods of civic engagement. This would seem to be the per- discovery and of disseminating the knowl- fect combination, bringing together two previously edge produced. separate strategies: action-oriented research and • CBR has as its goal social action and social service-learning (Strand, 2000). CBR is designed change for the purpose of enhancing social to combine community empowerment with student justice (Strand, Marullo, Cutforth, Stoeker, & development, to integrate teaching with research Donohue, forthcoming). and service, and to combine social change with civic engagement. CBR is thus adaptable to all In the most concrete sense, CBR involves stu- institutions, serving the research emphasis of dents and faculty working with a community orga- megaversities, the student development mission of nization on a research project serving the organiza- small colleges, and the new community involve- tion’s goals. But there is much variation in how that ment goals that many institutions of higher educa- happens. tion are incorporating into their mission state- Each of the three aspects of this definition can be ments. interpreted in radical ways that fundamentally This paper begins by defining CBR, and looking challenge the structural status quo or conservative at the service-learning and action-oriented research ways that preserve it. In its most basic sense, “col- models it attempts to integrate. In doing so, it laboration” means that researchers and community explores the split between action research and par- members should jointly define the research ques- ticipatory research, and between service-learning tion, choose the research methods, do the research, based in Dewey and Freire. Further, it locates those analyze the data, construct the report, and use the splits in contrasting theories about how the social research for social action. Conservatively, however,

35 Stoecker the community could be social service agencies action and social change for social justice. rather than grass roots residents, and collaboration In looking at the theories underlying CBR, this could simply mean obtaining approval for a paper employs an “ideal type” analysis to compare researcher-defined project. Radically, collaboration and contrast participatory research with action could mean placing researcher resources in the research, and charity service-learning with social hands of grass-roots community members to con- justice service-learning. In sociology, an ideal type trol, thereby reversing the usual power relationship analysis attempts to accurately describe the charac- between the researcher and the researched. teristics of pure categories or “types” of phenomena. “Validating multiple sources of knowledge” con- Such an analysis facilitates comparisons and clari- servatively could be limited to including communi- fies studies of the “impure” real world by allowing ty members’ experiential knowledge as research us to see how specific characteristics of the ideal data. Radically, it could mean using community types are combined. In addition, it allows us to understandings of social issues to define the project develop theoretical predictions of the pure types that and the theories used in it, undermining the power can then be tested empirically against the combined structure that currently places control of knowl- practices more often found in the real world (Weber, edge production in the hands of credentialized 1949 [1904]). Thus, the following analysis will con- experts. “Social change,” defined conservatively, struct and contrast a radical CBR ideal type with a involves restructuring an organization or creating a mainstream CBR ideal type, recognizing that much new program. But it can also be defined radically, work may combine elements of both. By construct- including the use of militant tactics to promote ing the ideal types, and showing their potentially massive structural changes in the distribution of contradictory qualities, we can better understand the power and resources through far-reaching changes dynamics of mixed models as well. in governmental policy, economic practices, or cul- tural norms. From Practice to Theory What is the value of a definition with such broad- Participatory Research vs. Action Research ly different interpretations? The easy answer is that it can have broad appeal while still promoting more A plethora of labels is now being used in action- or less consistent patterns of program development. oriented research, and they have all blended togeth- A definition too narrow would exclude too many. er, as practitioners develop their own definitions of The definition of CBR above was built out of the their practices. So it may be useful to review the practices we saw, studied, and in which we engaged. roots of the main division between what were orig- The dual interpretations, however, also point to inally called participatory research and action conflicting assumptions being integrated into CBR. research.1 Both the service-learning and the action-oriented Participatory research was a radical practice research components combined in CBR can be influenced by the third world development move- constructed from conservative or radical theories. ment of the 1960s. Academics, activists, and As we will see, there is an increasing amount being indigenous community members collaborated to written about charity vs. social justice approaches, conduct research, develop education programs, and and Dewey vs. Freire influences in service-learn- create plans to counter global corporations’ efforts ing. And there has been historical writing on par- to take over world agriculture. Their research, edu- ticipatory research vs. action research (Brown & cation, and planning processes led to sustainable, Tandon, 1983). But nothing has been written community-controlled agricultural and develop- exploring how these theories are combined in ment projects. The “participatory research” model CBR. This is important, because in an era that pro- resulting from this movement across India, Africa, vides career tracks for service-learning and CBR and South America, along with such practitioners experts, there continues to be discrimination as Rajesh Tandon and Paulo Freire, has been the against some forms of the practice (Robinson, leading model around much of the world (Brown & 2000a). There is a particular split between those Tandon, 1983; Freire, 1970; Hall, 1993; Paulo doing service-oriented research with social service Freire Institute, n.d.). Participatory research was and government agencies, and those working with also promoted in the United States through the grass-roots social change efforts whose jobs are famous Highlander Research and Education threatened and careers stymied (Cancian, 1993; Center, beginning with its founder Myles Horton, Gedicks, 1996). That split, and the dominance of and the ground-breaking work of its later leaders conservative forces that militate against true grass- Helen Lewis, Billy Horton, and John Gaventa roots social change oriented CBR, are inhibiting (Adams, 1975; Glen, 1988; Horton, 1989). realization of the third principle of CBR: social The origin of action research is most associated

36 From Practice to Theory and Back Again with Kurt Lewin (1948). He and his colleagues ularly in its early formation, no forms of service- focused on race relations, attempting to resolve inter- learning promoted the idea of social change racial conflicts, along with conducting applied (Barber, 1992; Brown, 2000; Eby, 1998; Kahne & research to increase worker productivity and satisfac- Westheimer, 1996). A social change emphasis has tion. Action research does not challenge the existing developed in some service-learning programs only power relationships in either knowledge production recently, and now service-learning too seems to be or material production. Its importance is in empha- dividing into conservative and radical approaches. sizing mixing theory and practice. It has been used in A main distinction is between the “charity” model education settings, and in union–management collab- and the “social justice” model of service-learning. oration in research to save jobs and improve worker Charity service-learning is the overwhelmingly satisfaction facilitated by William F. Whyte (1991). dominant model in the field. In this model, service- Action research values useful knowledge, devel- learning is about providing service (Crews, opmental change, the centrality of individuals, and 2000)—feeding the poor—rather than social consensus social theories. The point of reference change—asking why the poor have no food and for action researchers is the profession more than then acting on the answers. O’Meara and Kilmer the community, and the practice is very similar to (n.d.) review the definitions of civic engagement, the models used by professional planners. The and nowhere is “social change” part of the defini- action research model emphasizes collaboration tion. Mooney and Edwards (2001) distinguish six between workers and management, and denies the forms of “experiential learning” and find only structural antagonism between those groups that is one—service-learning advocacy—with an action recognized by the participatory research model. component. Even when “community organizing” is Action research does not address power differences included, it is lumped in uncritically with commu- but seeks to resolve conflicts between groups nity building and community development, which (Brown & Tandon, 1983). are politically mainstream community develop- Historically, it has been very important for partici- ment approaches distinct from community organiz- patory researchers (Brown & Tandon, 1983; Hall, ing (Stoecker, 2002). Robinson (2000a) notes 1993) to distinguish themselves from the action recent research showing that only 1% of service- research model. An important article by Brown and learning programs were involved in grass roots Tandon showed how participatory research maintains social change work, and apolitical service work is a view of social change that emphasizes the centrality officially promoted by organizations such as the of social conflict and collective action, and the neces- Corporation for National and Community Service. sity of changing social structures (Comstock & Fox, This is because, in the charity model, service-learn- 1993). Participatory research is about people produc- ing is organized as a system of cooperation across ing knowledge to develop their own consciousness and differences rather than focusing on the conflict further their social change struggles (Gaventa, 1991). between differently positioned groups in society. A As Rahman argues (1991), “domination of masses by charity model service-learning program would fit elites is rooted not only in the polarization of control quite well with a management-worker collabora- over the means of material production but also over the tion and quite problematically with a militant means of knowledge production…These two gaps social movement. Again and again in the service- should be attacked simultaneously wherever feasible” learning literature the “community partners” are (p. 14). In practice, participatory research is very much not social change organizations, but “agencies.” a community organizing approach that includes a The “community-based organization resources” research process. It begins in the community and ends Web page of the Learn & Serve America National with structural social change. The highest form of par- Service-Learning Clearinghouse (n.d.) does not ticipatory research is seen as research completely con- identify a single resource focused on service-learn- trolled and conducted by the community. It is interest- ing with grass-roots organizations, but of the 17 ing in this regard that the most well-known practition- resources listed, 8 specifically focus on working ers of this model, such as the Highlander Research and with agencies. The charity model is thus consis- Education Center (2002), the Applied Research Center tently used as an expert-based process (which fits (2002), and Project South (2002), are all organizations an agency-based social service perspective) linking outside of academia (Hall, 1993). faculty expertise and interests, and student needs Charity Service-Learning vs. Social Justice and interests, with community individuals’ and Service-Learning groups’ defined and prioritized needs [italics added] (Dorsey, 2001). In higher education, CBR has also been heavily In the social justice model, social change does influenced by service-learning models. But partic- become part of the practice, but not yet in a uni-

37 Stoecker form way. Hironimus-Wendt and Lovell-Troy (1996) describes Dewey’s approach to change as (1999) compare Dewey, the progressive era one of mediation and gradual reform. American educational philosopher, and C. Wright In contrast, the social justice service-learning Mills, the American critical sociologist, to develop model is increasingly linked with the popular edu- a more critical social justice model of service- cation approach of Paulo Freire (1970; also see learning, but does not develop the broader social Paulo Freire Institute, n.d.). Brown (2001) advo- conflict implications of such a model. Robinson cates that service-learning be based in Freire’s (2000b) asserts the importance of integrating par- (1970) critical pedagogy and especially his process ticipatory action research with service-learning in of dialogue, praxis, and historical analysis. Heavily the justice model, but does not fully discuss how to influenced by Marxist theories, Freire built his do that. Marullo and Edwards (2000) pose a justice model working with rural Latin American commu- service-learning model to move students toward nities. It is now a well-developed popular education critically examining root structural causes of social model used in many social change efforts. Brown problems. They also address resource inequalities uses the Freire popular education model in working issues in university-community collaborations and with service-learning students but does not careful- integrate community development principles. ly discuss how to also use the model in working Marullo (2000) helped put this into practice with a with community partner groups. Myers-Lipton youth-based CBR project on neighborhood hous- (1998) also discusses the importance of integrating ing conditions that support resident tenant organiz- critical pedagogy into service-learning, but only ing. The difficulties of practicing such a model are applies that process to pedagogy with students and illustrated by Robinson’s (2000a) story of engaging not with the community. students with housing activists rather than with Only in an atheoretical context can Dewey and housing agencies. In the course of their work, their Freire be lumped together, and then only in the service-learning program came under fire from similarity of their support for experiential educa- federal, state, and local nonprofit officials, pressur- tion. It is through exploring their theoretical under- ing them to shift their partnerships from activists to pinnings that differences are revealed. Dewey’s agencies, and clearly showing the structural divi- commitment to the philosophy of pragmatism, sions between power holders and residents. compared to Freire’s Marxist theoretical stance, One way to clarify the distinction between the shows these differences. Dewey did not see struc- charity model and the social justice model is to tural barriers to the increasing democratization of examine their distinct theoretical roots. The charity society under capitalism. For Freire, capitalism and model draws its inspiration from John Dewey the unequal structural power it creates builds barri- (1944), who has been called everything from a fel- ers to democracy. Thus, for Dewey, education itself low Marxist traveler (Brooks, n.d.) to a conserva- is not political, but only prepares people to operate tive communitarian (Kosnoski, 2000). His influ- progressively in the political sphere. For Freire, ence has been linked to the progressive social work there is no separation between education and poli- of Jane Addams, the critical sociology of C. Wright tics (Deans, 2000, p. 38-41). Margonis (1993) sim- Mills (Hironimus-Wendt & Lovell-Troy, 1999), ilarly argues that Dewey links the problem of and to functional psychology (Brennan, 1998). We democracy to the practice of the scientific method. could also charge Dewey with being a social But for Freire, the method is praxis. The problem, Darwinist, though we need to understand the his- as Margonis poses, has to do with the liberal ques- torical context in which Dewey was working, tion of the relationship between the individual and where the application of Darwinian thinking to society. For Dewey, the integration of the individ- human social dynamics was considered progres- ual with society is a real possibility. For Freire, sive. In Dewey’s case, that context influenced his oppressive social structures must be changed by role in the development of functional psychology collective social action for the individual to be free. (Brennan, 1998). But it is also important to note We can see Freirian influences in critiques of the that Dewey attempted to work with Hegel’s ideas charity service-learning model. Eby (1998), citing (who so influenced Marx), but was more taken McKnight (1996), argues that service-learning is with Darwin (Field, 2001). Cummings (2000) seen as, “filling community needs,” and often to the argues that Dewey conceived of community as suc- extent of reinforcing victim-blaming (Ryan, 1976) cessfully overcoming, rather than eliminating, on the part of students. Eby also notes that many ser- social divisions. Deans (2000) reveals how vice-learning programs, by providing client services Dewey’s critique of social inequality stops short of such as tutoring, implicitly individualize social prob- a critique of capitalism, and particularly avoids lems. This diverts attention from structural, systemic support for radical social change (p. 38). Saltmarsh explanations. Brown (2001), a CNS National Service

38 From Practice to Theory and Back Again Fellow, similarly argues that service-learning is research and Freirian popular education, is a prod- based in the theories of experiential education and uct of higher education institutional structures. civic engagement, following Dewey’s Democracy Further, service-learning in higher education is and Education (1944), and consequently lacks the constructed and constrained by standards of teach- critical perspective that can help students go beyond ing, grading, and assigning credit hours, as well as a surface level analysis to see social structural caus- by curricular demands. So great is the embedded- es. This is a telling critique, since one of the current ness of mainstream service-learning and CBR concerns about service-learning is that it has not been models in higher education institutional structures able to significantly move students from volun- that when tensions are discovered they are not seen teerism to social action (Center for Human as tensions between the community and academy Resources, 1999; Loeb, 2001). but only within the academy itself (Kezar & Rhoads, 2001). Even those who develop a Freire- Two Models of CBR, One Practice? based service-learning model apply it primarily to Dewey’s educational philosophy, charity service- working with students, rather than to working with learning, and action research fit together to create a the community, and consequently get pulled back mainstream CBR model that sees reform as a grad- toward the charity service-learning/action research ual, peaceful, linear process. This model attempts to model. Mooney and Edwards (2001) do not see any mediate divisions across social structural boundaries, form of service-learning as engaging the communi- implicitly reflecting that common interests between ty in social action. Their “service-learning advoca- the rich and the poor, for example, are more power- cy” model only speaks to engaging students in col- ful than their differences. All follow an expert model, lective action. Eby’s (1998) critique of service- either through choosing agencies rather than grass- learning leads him to argue that agency partners roots groups as partners, or through professional con- must have authentic roots in the community, the trol over both the research and teaching processes. process must include analysis of structural issues, Smith (2001) compares Dewey’s method directly and the action part of the process must include with Lewin, showing how they both use a problem- advocacy and community development. But advo- solving planning approach. Exemplifying this model, cacy and community development are both prob- Parsons (n.d.) argues that the teaching mission comes lematic strategies for community empowerment first in education-based action research, the teacher (Beckwith & Lopez, 1997), as we will see. Absent controls the research process, and the teacher owns from the literature is discussion of how to integrate the research. service-learning with social movements and com- In contrast, Freire’s popular education, social munity organizing. In addition, reference to the justice, service-learning, and participatory research broader literature on popular education is sorely fit together to create a radical CBR model. In this lacking in the social justice service-learning model, model, structural barriers, particularly of race, missing the lessons of such notables as Myles class, and sex/gender are crucial impediments to Horton (Horton & Freire, 1990), the famous individual and societal progress. Oppression and founder of the Highlander Research and Education conflict are seen as endemic to such structurally Center, and Augusto Boal (1982), the founder of divided societies, and conflict strategies as neces- the Theatre of the Oppressed model. sary for eliminating the divisions. In addition, this Considering the imbalance of influence these approach emphasizes the importance of making the two approaches exhibit in higher education, the process part of the goal. Thus, hierarchies in the question arises whether they constitute a spectrum process of knowledge production are as oppressive containing mix and match components that practi- as other hierarchies and must be eliminated in the tioners can combine as they see fit, or whether they process of research and teaching. Knowledge in are built on foundations that contradict each other. this model is grass-roots based and directed rather To address that question, we turn to a long term than primarily expert-based. The focus is on the theoretical dispute in the field of sociology. grass roots community, rather than social service Theories of Society and Versions of CBR agencies, students, institutions, and professional researchers. Theoretical discussions are not particularly pop- By juxtaposing these two ideal types, it becomes ular, but they are absolutely crucial here. Our clear just how difficult it is to develop radical CBR attempts to develop a CBR model that will support in higher education. In charity service-learning, the and promote far-reaching social change efforts will primary focus is on serving students (Crews, 2000; succeed to the extent that we understand how the Belbas, Gorak, & Shumer, 1993). Service-learning two models of CBR disagree. Brown and Tandon in general, in stark contrast to participatory (1983) established the relevance of social theory

39 Stoecker for participatory research and action research. They finds the role that best fits him or her? While the argued that participatory research was based in a intense debates between proponents of these theo- conflict theory of society, and action research was ries are no longer as prominent as they once were, based in a functionalist theory of society. The split that is not because the contradictions were resolved between these two theoretical approaches have (Demerath III, 1996). Rather, grand theories have expressed themselves across the social sciences, become marginalized in intellectual circles but perhaps nowhere as well as in sociology. (Bordwell & Carroll, 1996; McQuillan, In sociology, functionalist theory argues that MacDonald, Purves, & Thomson, 1999). Even as society tends toward natural equilibrium and its late as 1992, however, Sanderson and Ellis (1992) division of labor develops through an almost natur- documented the divide between proponents of al matching of individual talents and societal these two theories and their corresponding political needs. For functionalists, healthy societies place all ideologies. They found, with a strong significant of their members into the roles for which they are correlation, that those who defined themselves as fit. The implication (though few today admit it) is conflict theorists also defined themselves as politi- that the poor and the oppressed are supposed to be cally radical, while those who defined themselves poor and oppressed. Of course, those who do not as functionalist theorists saw themselves as politi- belong there (i.e., those who are willing to work cally conservative or moderate. hard) are provided new roles. This theory also To the extent that people’s social theories and assumes that people have common interests even political ideologies are consistent, we can say that when they have different positions in society. those following functionalist theory will support Healthy, persistent societies are in a constant state practices that peacefully integrate people into of gradual equilibrium-seeking improvement. existing institutional structures. They will look for Thus, a group organizing to force change is actual- social service approaches to social problems (see, ly unhealthy, as it can throw off equilibrium, and for example, Munson, 1978). Those following con- cooperation to produce gradual change is a better flict theory will support practices that confront and alternative (Eitzen & Baca Zinn, 2000; Morrow, attempt to change existing social structures. They 1978). In this model, poor people only need oppor- will look for social movement approaches to social tunity, not power, and cooperation between the problems. Participatory research and popular edu- haves and the have-nots is the best means to pro- cation, historically operating outside of the con- vide opportunity. But because the model does not fines of higher education, attempt to expose, under- recognize structural barriers to equality, it can only mine, and de-legitimize existing institutional struc- provide opportunities determined by existing tures. Charity service-learning and action research, power holders. historically operating inside the confines of higher In contrast, conflict theory sees no natural ten- education, attempt to integrate those left out, build dency toward anything but conflict over scarce bridges between the haves and have-nots, and rein- resources. In this model society develops through vigorate the existing system through an emphasis struggle between groups. Stability in society is on civic engagement. only fleeting, and to the extent that it is achieved Which one of these theoretical world views a prac- even temporarily, it is not because society finds titioner works from, however casually, has enormous equilibrium but because one group dominates the implications for what kind of CBR they use and what other groups. Conflict theory sees society as divid- kinds of partnerships they find most comfortable. As ed, particularly between corporations and workers, Brown (2001) notes, practice reflects theory even men and women, and whites and people of color. when the theory is not made explicit. Those from The instability inherent in such divided societies middle-class, white backgrounds, for whom structur- prevents elites from achieving absolute domination al discrimination is often just background noise, are and provides opportunities for those on the bottom less likely to appreciate the importance of conflict to create change through organizing for collective theory than people who have suffered from structur- action and conflict (Eitzen & Baca Zinn, 2000; al discrimination. And indeed, influential white aca- Morrow, 1978). demics and professionals have been moving away There have been attempts, of course, to reconcile from conflict models of social change over the last these two perspectives (see Eitzen & Baca Zinn, decade, emphasizing instead models of community 2000), but many argue that their respective building, consensus organizing, community develop- assumptions are just too contradictory to do this. ment, and other non-conflict forms of community How do you, for example, reconcile the assumption action whose theoretical foundations are more con- that society is characterized by domination, with sistent with functionalist theory (see, for example, the assumption that everyone in society naturally Gittell & Vidal, 1998). Thus, there is a tension

40 From Practice to Theory and Back Again between the structural social change goal and occa- services casework approach and the community sional confrontational strategy of CBR based in con- organizing approach. Reisch and Wenocur (1986) flict theory, and practices more consistent with func- clarify the split between community organizing tionalist theory that emphasize cooperation and the and professional casework approaches to social centrality of individuals rather than social structures work that parallel the differences between the two in seeking change (Brown & Tandon, 1983). versions of CBR: social service casework developed as a professional model quite similar to char- From Theory to Practice ity service-learning and action research in its struc- How might these two versions of CBR play out tural control by professionals, its lack of focus on in practice? To address that question, we must first political action, and its emphasis on social integra- define “the community.” Many CBR practitioners tion rather than social change. Social service case- are tired of trying to define the community, either work requires technical expertise and cooperation because they have found the concept undefinable with power holders that make community-based or because they suspect their practice reflects the decision-making difficult. Given these parallels, it wrong definition. For me, the answer is quite sim- makes sense for the charity service-learning/action ple. In the context of CBR, the community is the research form of CBR to gravitate to social service people living with the problem and those organiza- agencies rather than grass-roots partners. tions that they democratically control. It may be a Community organizing focuses on local settings, tight geographic community such as a neighbor- empowering individuals to build relationships and hood or a more widely dispersed identity group organizations, and create action for social change such as a gay community. The outsiders trying to (Beckwith & Lopez, 1997; Bobo, Kendall, & Max, solve the problem or the funders who are paying 1991; Kahn, 1991). Successful community orga- the outsiders trying to solve the problem are typi- nizing can lead to a larger social movement. The cally not part of the community, though there may practice is often confrontational and explicitly be bridge people who have roots in the community avoids developing alliances with power holders, and can help build relationships between the com- instead developing strong community-based orga- munity and outsiders. nizations that can hold independent power. In the It is possible that the community may not act like United States, community organizing is most a community, and its members may not even define attributed to Saul Alinsky (1969; 1971), but is also themselves as a community in the way we casually exemplified by small local organizations like the think about it in North American culture. Montgomery Improvement Association, which Furthermore, the emphasis on community empow- helped lead the Montgomery Bus Boycott (Morris, erment in the radical CBR model requires a form of 1984) and provided the early momentum for the community practice that most academics are not Civil Rights Movement. The emphasis on conflict, skilled at—community organizing (Stoecker, the belief in grass-roots control, and the goal of 1999). These two matters can have serious implica- social change make community organizing a good tions for practicing CBR. So, it is in juxtaposing fit with radical CBR. the practices of community organizing and the As Figure 1 shows, the community work field is social service casework approach that we can see more complicated than a simple division between the important differences between radical and community organizing and social service case- mainstream CBR. Figure 1 draws on the distinc- work, because the field of community work is tions made by Beckwith and Lopez (1997) between much larger than just social work. In fact, much of different forms of community work, adds a theo- what is called community organizing today actual- retical dimension, and links them to their corre- ly better fits community development.2 Community sponding CBR models. building, consensus organizing, women-centered The clearest distinctions are between the social organizing, and a host of similar processes do not

Figure 1 Social Theory and Forms of Community Work Conflict Theory Functionalist Theory Agency-Based Advocacy Social Service Casework (mixed CBR model?) (mainstream CBR model) Grass Roots-Based Community Organizing Community Development (radical CBR model) (mixed CBR model?)

41 Stoecker share the conflict theory approach of community approach of radical CBR. Community develop- organizing and are much more amenable to devel- ment fits neither model perfectly, sharing the grass- op alliances with power holders (Stoecker, 2002). roots characteristic of radical CBR, but the non- The main difference between organizing and devel- conflict process of mainstream CBR. Advocacy fits opment is in their focus. Community organizing the expert-based approach of mainstream CBR, but focuses on building power through resilient com- the conflict emphasis of radical CBR. munity-controlled organizations, while community Does this mean that the community development development focuses on building buildings and and advocacy models provide an opportunity to programs. As a consequence, community develop- overcome the divisions between the two approach- ment is more limited to a strategy of cooperation es? Probably not. I have explored previously with the powerful compared to community orga- (Stoecker, 1997) the internal contradictions of the nizing, though there are exceptions. Both commu- community development model that make it diffi- nity organizing and community development can cult to successfully apply by itself, let alone with a be community controlled, as the most sensitive potentially ill-fitting CBR model. I suspect a simi- community development corporations have shown. lar diagnosis can be made of the advocacy model, But that is extremely challenging, as the need for though that is outside the scope of this paper. This technical expertise in community development can does not mean you cannot do CBR with communi- easily disrupt community-based decision-making. ty development or advocacy. It only means that the The other approach often confused with commu- process could be messy, as both the internal con- nity organizing is advocacy. Advocacy is trying to tradictions of the community practice model, and create social change on behalf of others (such as the messiness introduced by the lack of fit with any children, trees, or illegal immigrants who are particular CBR model both have to be confronted. unable to advocate for themselves). The similarity Implications for Practice and Research between community organizing and advocacy is that both see the rules as unfairly benefiting the What are the implications of the two versions of powerful, and see themselves in a struggle to CBR, one emphasizing conflict oriented social change those rules. Thus, they see themselves in change, and the other emphasizing functionalist conflict with the powerful. Both are in contrast to social integration, for realizing CBR’s “social service delivery and community development, change for social justice” goal? whose emphasis on cooperation with power hold- Those who follow and support the mainstream ers and working within the existing system makes CBR model are not just acquiescing when they them more consistent with functionalist theory. But argue that it is the only model that can survive there are a number of important differences within higher education, as there is plenty of evi- between community organizing and advocacy. dence showing the antipathy of higher education to Perhaps the most important difference is that advo- the radical CBR model (Cancian 1993; Gedicks, cacy is a practice of professionals working on 1996; Robinson 2000a). They also are honestly behalf of or for a group, while community organiz- arguing against a confrontational social change ing involves the group advocating for itself. There model. From their perspective, working through are times when advocacy can actually disempower social service agencies, helping one individual at a a community. The lobbyist meets with the legisla- time, is the most successful strategy. It is a long- tor, rather than the community members gaining term strategy, but one that avoids the conflict inher- the sense of power and skill by meeting directly ent in the social justice service-learning/participa- with the legislator. In other situations, however, tory research model. From their standpoint, con- advocacy serves a crucial function for such groups flict never solved anything. as undocumented workers (who cannot act as pub- But the most successful model we have of high- lic figures), children (who cannot legally represent er education faculty and student involvement in themselves), and other similar groups. real social change is the Civil Rights Movement. The cleanest correspondence between social the- From desegregating buses to desegregating lunch ories, models of service-learning and action-orient- counters to passing voter rights legislation, the ed research, and forms of community practice, are involvement of students and faculty of historically with the social service approach and the communi- black colleges and universities in the South, partic- ty organizing approach. The social service ularly through the Student Nonviolent approach fits the expert-based gradualism and Coordinating Committee (Carson, 1981), has been mediation philosophy of mainstream CBR. The ignored in the creation of today’s service-learning community organizing approach fits best the grass- and CBR programs. This is partly due to the fact roots, confrontational institutional change that, while the philosophy of the movement was

42 From Practice to Theory and Back Again nonviolent, it was also confrontational and it was needed. But there are regrettably few real examples based in a conflict theory of society. It is difficult of those conditions. for many of us today to imagine how such a con- There is a need for radical CBR. But can such a flict-based practice could be integrated into higher model work in higher education? Robinson education. Even back then, most of the work took (2000a) is skeptical, though not hopeless, about the place outside of official cooperation with the high- possibility of expanding more activist forms of er education institutions themselves. CBR across higher education. Identifying and Times have changed, some say, adding that today developing a distinct practice of CBR is a neces- we do not need confrontational community orga- sary prerequisite to having it recognized. Those nizing to make change. And yet even over the last who have been doing the work are still a distance decade, the most important progressive changes from having a fully developed model. What are the have been won on issues, such as municipal living initial practical steps one can take in developing wage laws, which were pressed by conflict-model and using radical CBR? community organizing. The need is clear for a • If you are working with social service agen- model of CBR that can match the power being built cies, use CBR to bring the people normally in community organizations across the country. restricted to the role of “client” into decision Many of these groups are going unserved by high- making positions. If, for example, you are er education because of the dominance of the main- helping a social service agency trying to eval- stream CBR model in colleges and universities. In uate the effectiveness of its programs, sug- a society where the gap between rich and poor con- gest recruiting service recipients for the tinues to widen, and where economic control seems research design team and then into the pro- to lie more solidly in the hands of ever fewer peo- gram planning process. This disrupts the ple, the insights of Piven and Cloward (1979) power imbalances inherent in social service become crucial. They argue that the rich and pow- practice and the power imbalances of tradi- erful make deals with each other because each side tional research. of the deal sees the other as having something they can either bring to the table or take away from it. • If you want to work with a community sym- But poor people are seen as having nothing with pathetic to practice based in conflict-theory, which to bargain and nothing to withhold, so they but are not a skilled community organizer, try are easily excluded from decision-making. The to find a community organizer and begin only way for the poor to gain a seat at the table, partnering with them. This is no different then, is for them to counter the power of money from the typical partnerships with social ser- with the power of numbers. Just as in the Civil vice agencies, except that a good community Rights Movement, mass disobedience is a powerful organizer will bring community members bargaining chip. CBR in the service of assisting the into the research process from the beginning. poor to organize on their terms is a crucial service • If you want to develop conflict-based com- indeed. munity organizing skills, it may be easiest to This does not mean we should avoid working begin with using a popular education process with social service agencies, especially those inter- in regular classes. Popular education quickly ested in democratizing their own practice and orga- upends normal knowledge hierarchies, nizing the population they serve rather than con- putting students in charge of the creation and trolling them as clients. Indeed, those social service transmission of knowledge process. It is then, agencies that are building collective power among less difficult to transfer that practice to work- their service populations offer some protection for ing with community groups. using a radical CBR approach under a veil of relative safety. Clearly, what we have now is a relative- Of course it is true that most of us work with ly undeveloped radical CBR model. We do not some combination of the two models. But many of know how it can be stretched, adapted, and expand- us do so uncomfortably and often unsuccessfully. ed for structural social change that comes from Understanding how the combination we are using grass roots work. We also do not know much about attempts to integrate incompatible assumptions and the circumstances under which one version of CBR contradictory practices is the first step to potential- might work better than another. As Brown and ly combining aspects of the two models. To better Tandon (1983) note for action research, under understand the implications of these models in social conditions of structural inclusion and partic- practice, we must recommend research around ipatory democracy, radical CBR may in fact be less important empirical questions: effective as it will create conflict where it is not 1. To what extent do radical and mainstream

43 Stoecker CBR produce different outcomes, especially Beckwith, D., with Lopez, C. (1997). Community orga- in relation to realizing the CBR principles of nizing: People power from the grassroots. COMM- validating multiple sources of knowledge and ORG: The On-Line Conference on Community creating social change for social justice? Organizing and Development. http://comm-org.utoledo.edu/papers.htm 2. To what extent is the underdevelopment of Belbas, B., Gorak, K., & Shumer, R. (1993). Commonly radical CBR a result of barriers in higher used definitions of service-learning: A discussion education or other factors? piece October (1993). http://www.servicelearning. 3. In what ways might the two versions of CBR org/who/def.htm productively be combined? Boal, A. (1982). The theatre of the oppressed. New York: Routledge. 4. To what extent can a version of CBR based in one theory be used with a community prac- Bobo, K., Kendall, J. & Max, S. (l991). Organizing for social change: A manual for activists in the l990s. tice based in another theory? Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press. It is always easier to work within a given social Bordwell, D., and Carroll, N. (Eds.). (1996). Post-theory: structure and set of institutional confines than it is Reconstructing film studies. Madison: University of to push their boundaries. And yet, the communities Wisconsin Press we work with are hoping we will join them in push- Brennan, J. F. (1998). Readings in the history and systems ing those boundaries. This paper pushes those of us of psychology, 2/e. New York: Prentice Hall. in higher education to the next level of practice that Brooks, W. (n.d.). Was Dewey a Marxist? http://www. many of our potential partner communities have stlawrenceinstitute.org/vol13brk.html already achieved. Brown, D. (2001). Putting it together: A method for Notes developing service-learning and community partnerships based in critical pedagogy. http://www.outerver- sity.org/slmonograph.html Thanks to Matthew Lawson and the energetic MJCSL reviewers for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Brown, D. (2000). Learning to serve?: The necessity of Marxist critique in service-learning curricula. 1 The labels are so confused today. People oftentimes Rethinking Marxism, 2000, conference paper. use interchangeably “participatory research,” “participa- http://www.u.arizona.edu/~danika/learningtoserve.html. tory action research,” “action research,” “collaborative research,” “community-based research,” “community- Brown, L. D., & Tandon, R. (1983). Ideology and politi- based participatory research,” and others. My use of the cal economy in inquiry: Action research and participatory research. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, historically distinct labels of “participatory research” and 19, 277-294. “action research” should not be taken to mean that anything called “action research” today follows the original Campus Compact. (2001). http://www.compact.org action research model. Campus Outreach Opportunity League. (n.d.). http:// 2 In fact, Reisch and Wenocur (1986) also use a very www.COOL2SERVE.org/. broad definition of CBR, and still see a split from social Cancian, F. M. (1993). Conflicts between activist service casework. Using the narrow definition in this research and academic success: Participatory research paper makes the split very pronounced. and alternative strategies. The American Sociologist, 24, 92-106. References Carson, C. (1981). In struggle: SNCC and the black awak- ening of the 1960s. Cambridge: Harvard University Adams, F. (1975) Unearthing seeds of fire: The idea of Press. Highlander. Winston-Salem, NC: John F. Blair, pub- lisher. Center for Human Resources. (1999). Summary Report, National Evaluation of Learn and Serve America School Alinsky, S. (1969). Reveille for radicals. New York: and Community Based Programs. Waltham, MA: Vintage Books. Brandeis University. Alinsky, S. (1971). Rules for radicals. New York: Vintage Corella and Bertram F. Bonner Foundation. (2002). Books. http://www.bonner.org. Applied Research Center. (2002). http://www.arc.org/ Crews, R. (2000). What is service-learning? http://csf. Barber, B. R. (1992). An aristocracy of everyone: The pol- colorado.edu/sl/what-is-sl.html itics of education and the future of America. New York : Crews, R. (n.d.). Benefits of service-learning. http://csf. Ballantine Books. colorado.edu/sl/benefits.html

44 From Practice to Theory and Back Again Cummings, C. K. (2000). John Dewey and the rebuilding Horton, M., & Paulo F. (1990). We make the road by walk- of urban community: Engaging undergraduates as ing: Conversations on education and social change (B. neighborhood organizers. Michigan Journal of Bell, J. Gaventa, & J. Peters, Eds.). Philadelphia: Community Service-learning, 7, 97-108. Temple University Press. Deans, T. (2000). Writing partnerships: Service-learning Kahn, S. (1991). Organizing: A guide for grassroots lead- in composition. Urbana, IL: National Council of ers. Silver Springs, MD: NASW Press. Teachers of English. Kahne, J, & Westheimer, J. (1996). In the service of Demerath III, N. J. (1996). Who now debates functional- what? The politics of service-learning. Phi Delta ism? From system, change and conflict to culture, Kappan, 77, 592. choice, and praxis. Sociological Forum, 11, 333-345 Kosnoski, J. (2000). Is John Dewey a communitarian? In Dewey, J. (1944). Democracy and education: An intro- Thinking Fundamentals: IWM Junior Visiting Fellows duction to the philosophy of education. New York: The Conferences, Vol. 9: Vienna. http://www.univie.ac. Free Press. at/iwm/publ-jvc/jc-09-07.pdf Dorsey, B. (2001). Linking theories of service-learning Learn & Serve America National Service-Learning and undergraduate geography education. Journal of Clearinghouse (n.d.). http://www.servicelearning Geography, 100, 124-132. .org/res/faqs/faqs.php?page=faqs18.htm Eby, J. W. (1998). Why service-learning is bad. http:// Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected www.messiah.edu/agape/pdf%20files/wrongsvc.pdf papers on group dynamics (G. W. Lewin, Ed.). New Field, R. (2001). John Dewey (1859-1952). The Internet York: Harper & Row. Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://www.utm.edu/ Loeb, P. R. (2001). Teaching for Engagement. Academe, research/iep/d/dewey.htm July/August. http://www.soulofacitizen.org/articles/ Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Teaching%20for%20Engagement.htm Continuum. Margonis, F. (1993). Leftist pedagogy and enlightenment Gaventa, J. (1993). The powerful, the powerless, and the faith. Philosophy of Education. http://www.ed.uiuc. experts: Knowledge struggles in an Information Age. edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/93_docs/MARGONIS.HTM In P. Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson Marullo, S. (2000). Summary of Georgetown (Eds.), Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the University’s community based research project, Third United States and Canada (pp. 21-40). Westport, CT: Report to Bonner Foundation, L&S Three-Year Bergin and Garvey. Narrative. Gedicks, A. (1996). Activist sociology: Personal reflec- Marullo, S., & Edwards, B. (2000). From charity to jus- tions. Sociological Imagination, 33,http://comm- tice: The potential of university-community collabora- org.utoledo.edu/si/sihome.htm. tion for social change. American Behavioral Scientist, Gittell, R., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: 43, 895-912. Building social capital as a development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McQuillan, M., MacDonald, G., Purves, R., & Thomson, S. (Eds.). (1999). Post-theory: New directions in criti- Glen, J. M. (1988). Highlander: No ordinary school. cism. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.. Mooney, L. A., & Edwards, B. (2001). Experiential Hall, B. (1993). Introduction. In P. Park, M. Brydon- learning in sociology: Service-learning and other com- Miller, B. Hall, & T. Jackson (Eds.) Voices of Change: munity-based initiatives. Teaching Sociology, 29,181- Participatory research in the United States and Canada 194. (pp. xiii-xxii). Westport, Connecticut: Bergin and Garvey. Morris, A. (l984). The origins of the civil rights movement: Black communities organizing for change. New York: Highlander Research and Education Center. (2002). Free Press. http://www.hrec.org/ Morrow, P. C. (1978). Functionalism, conflict theory and Hironimus-Wendt, R. J., & Lovell-Troy, L. (1999). the synthesis syndrome in sociology. International Grounding service-learning in social theory. Teaching Review of Modern Sociology, 8, 209-225. Sociology, 27, 360-372. Munson, C. E. (1978). Applied sociology and social Horton, A. I. (1989). The Highlander Folk School: A his- work: A micro analysis. California Sociologist, 1,89- tory of its major programs, 1932-1961. Carlson 104. Publishing. Horton, B.D. (1993). The Appalachian land ownership Myers-Lipton. (1998). Effect of a comprehensive ser- study: Research and citizen action in Appalachia. In P. vice-learning program on college students’ civic Park, M. Brydon-Miller, B.L. Hall, & T. Jackson responsibility. Teaching Sociology, 26, 243-258. (Eds.), Voices of Change: Participatory research in the National Association of State PIRGs. (2000). U.S. and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey. http://www.pirg.org/.

45 Stoecker O’Meara, K., & Kilmer, H. (n.d.). Civic engagement: Smith, M. K. (2001). Kurt Lewin, groups, experiential Terminology. http://www.compact.org/mapping/civic- learning and action research, The encyclopedia of terminology.html informal education. http://www.infed.org/thinkers/et- O’Meara, K., & Kilmer, H. (n.d.). Gaps in the field. lewin.htm. http://www.compact.org/mapping/gapinfield.html Stoecker, R. (2002). Crossing the Organizing- Development Divide. Paper presented at the American Parsons, S. (n.d.). Teacher Research. http://www.acces- Sociological Association Annual Meetings, Chicago. sexcellence.org/21st/TL/AR/ Stoecker, R. (1999). Are academics irrelevant? Roles for Piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1979). Poor people’s scholars in participatory research. American movements: Why they succeed, why they fail. New Behavioral Scientist, 42, 840-854. York: Vintage Books. Stoecker, R. (1997). The community development cor- Paulo Freire Institute. (n.d.). http://www.paulofreire.org/ poration model of urban redevelopment: A critique Rahman, M. A. (1991). The theoretical standpoint of and an alternative. Journal of Urban Affairs, 19, 1-23. PAR. In O. Fals-Borda & M. A. Rahman (Eds.), Action Strand, K. (2000). Community-based research as peda- and knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participa- gogy. Michigan Journal of Community Service-learn- tory action-research (pp. 13-23). New York: Apex ing, 7, 85-96. Press. Strand, K., Marullo, S., Cutforth, N., Stoecker, R., & Project South. (2002). http://www.projectsouth.org/ Donohue, P. (forthcoming). Community-based research and higher education: Principles and prac- Reisch, M., & Wenocur, S. (1986). The future of com- tices. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass munity organization in social work: Social activism Weber, M. (1949 [1904]). Objectivity in social science and the politics of professional building. Social Service and social policy. In E. Shils & H. Finch (Eds.), The Review, 60, 70-93. methodology of the social sciences (pp. 50-112). New Robinson, T. (2000a). Dare the school build a new social York: Galaxy Books. order? Michigan Journal of Community Service-learn- Whyte, W.F. (Ed.) (1991). Participatory action research. ing, 7, 142-157. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Robinson, T. (2000b). Service-learning as justice advocacy: Can political scientists do politics? Political Author Science and Politics, 33, 605-612. RANDY STOECKER is professor of Sociology Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage at the University of Toledo. He has been doing var- Books. ious forms of community-based research for 17 years, mostly with community organizing and Saltmarsh, J. (1996). Education for critical citizenship: development groups, and manages COMM-ORG, John Dewey’s contribution to the pedagogy of com- an online academic-practitioner collaboration munity service-learning. Michigan Journal of devoted to advancing community organizing and Community Service-learning, 3, 13-21. development. He is also facilitating the evaluation Sanderson, S. K. & Ellis, L. (1992). Theoretical and of the Bonner Foundation Community Research political perspectives of American sociologists in the Project that involves developing CBR centers and 1990s. The American Sociologist, 23, 26-42. networks around the United States.