Is Collaborative, Community-Engaged Scholarship More Rigorous Than Traditional Scholarship? On Advocacy, Bias, and Social Science Research

《Is Collaborative, Community-Engaged Scholarship More Rigorous Than Traditional Scholarship? On Advocacy, Bias, and Social Science Research》

打印

关键字: action research; activist scholarship; social activism; urban; research methods; community partnerships; IMPACT VALIDITY; DISINVESTMENT

作者单位: [Warren, Mark R.] Univ Massachusetts, Publ Policy & Publ Affairs, Boston, MA 02119 USA. [Kupscznk, Luke Aubry] Univ Massachusetts, Publ Policy, Boston, MA 02119 USA. [Calderon, Jose] Pitzer Coll, Sociol & Chican Latino Studies, Claremont, CA 91711 USA. [Squires, Gregory] George Washington Univ, Sociol & Publ Policy & Publ Adm, Washington, DC USA. [Su, Celina] CUNY, Grad Ctr, New York, NY USA. Warren, MR (reprint author), Univ Massachusetts, 100 Morrissey Blvd, Boston, MA 02119 USA. E-Mail: mark.warren@umb.edu

摘要: Contrary to the charge that advocacy-oriented research cannot meet social science research standards because it is inherently biased, the authors of this article argue that collaborative, community-engaged scholarship (CCES) must meet high standards of rigor if it is to be useful to support equity-oriented, social justice agendas. In fact, they argue that CCES is often more rigorous than traditional scholarship. The authors draw from cases of CCES that they conducted to provide evidence and examples. They discuss the importance of relationship building and trust in addressing the tensions that can arise between the demands of knowledge production and action-oriented social change.