Fostering Social Justice through Qualitative Inquiry

A Methodological Guide

Corey W Johnson, Diana C Parry

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315428239
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Research & Methodology in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Qualitative researchers increasingly flock to social justice research to move beyond academic discourse and aid marginalized communities and groups. This is the first textbook to address the methods of conducting qualitative research using a social justice paradigm. The book addresses the differences that a social justice stance requires from the researcher, then discusses how major qualitative methodologies are employed to create social justice in both the process and products of qualitative research. In this book-chapters cover grounded theory, phenomenology, ethnography, participatory action research, and other key qualitative designs;-methods chapters are written by experts in that methodology;-case studies illustrate show this style of research in action;-material is tightly organized and edited for course use although there are multiple authors.

Chapter 1
Theoretical Perspectives for Social Justice Inquiry

Diana C. Parry & Corey W. Johnson

How do we infuse theory with “justice to come”? (Derrida, 1994)

Once you have decided that a social justice paradigm is one that suits you, it is important to ground your work theoretically. Although by no means an exhaustive list or incompatible with each other, the following seven theoretical orientations represent the most common for qualitative research using a social justice approach. They include those that we have employed commonly in our own work and/or those taken up by our co-authors later in the text. These include Marxism, critical race theory, feminism, gay/lesbian theory, queer theory, poststructuralism, and postcolonialism. One word of caution: summarizing these theories in an introductory text such as this one is a tricky endeavor, for they are complex with their own cannons of literature, a variety of contributors, smaller theoretical trajectories within them, and debates on their deployment. We hope these summaries give you a place to start to delve into their complexity. Summarized key references for each approach are provided in an appendix at the back of the book; we hope you find these useful as you prepare to dig deeper.

Marxism

Although many still harbor post–Cold War perceptions about his ideas regarding communism, Karl Marx is widely recognized as a social activist. His success at blending philosophy, history, and economics suggest that he was an academic who was most interested in books and theories, yet his chief concern was ordinary people (Crotty, 1998). Arguing that change needs to start with social realities, Marxist philosophy is grounded in a belief that knowledge must come from those at the “bottom” (i.e., people who are marginalized and not in positions of power) as opposed to from the “top” down (i.e., those who oppress or exploit) to create change (Harding, 1991).

As a materialistic theory, physical realities of human existence serve as the “cause of change in beliefs, attitudes, values roles, institutions, and whole societies. In particular, it is facts about the modes of production, the means people employ to survive and perpetuate themselves, that dictate the rest of society” (Rosenberg, 2012). According to Marx, the crux of social problems lies in a class struggle or, as he conceived it, “a basic conflict between capital and labour, between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat” (Crotty, 1998, p. 118). These class struggles resulted in the proletariat (working class) having a more accurate perception on social reality than the dominant bourgeois. Indeed, Marx argued the bourgeois were incapable of truly understanding the functioning of society largely because they had constructed a system to suit their own needs (Harding, 1991). Such a privileged position prevented the bourgeois from understanding the lives of the proletariat. According to Marx, economic forces were the most important to address because those who hold financial power are able to shape the perceptions and viewpoints of those who do not (Crotty, 1998).

Others continued to develop Marx’s philosophies after his death in 1883, although often with less emphasis on the force of economics and instead with more grounding in culture—also known as the “superstructure” of society—including legal and political forces (Crotty, 1998). Regardless of the shift in focus, the commitment to social justice remained clear; some would argue that Marxist insights are foundational for any form of critical research today (Kincheloe, McLaren, & Steinberg, 2011).

For example, Marxism is a powerful theoretical approach when used to explain the origins and continuation of racism (Kincheloe, McLaren, & Steinberg, 2011), and much of feminist theory, in particular feminist standpoint theory, is rooted in “Marxist historical materialism in that knowledge develops in a complicated and contradictory way from lived experiences and social historical context” (Naples, 2007, p. 580). Thus, contemporary Marxist scholars continue to embrace critical, historical, and economic theory to argue the real-world implications of race, gender, and class (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). Empirical approaches and theoretical contributions are evaluated in terms of their emancipatory potential and often entail criteria such as dialogue and personal accountability (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011). A great illustration of the principles of Marxist theory put to work can be found in Jeff Rose’s chapter on ethnography in this book (chapter 5), where he uses both Marxist theory and poststructuralism (described below) in his study of people living in public space.

Critical Race Theory

Critical Race Theory (CRT) proponents operate with the understanding that the civil rights movement addressed only overt racism—primarily the exclusion of black people—but the subtle racism that encompasses American society continues, supported by the legal system. CRT facilitates an investigation of race and power, especially in arenas that insist they are devoid of overt, formal racism. Striving for the seemingly simple idea of fair and equal treatment of all without investigating how power is distributed only results in a false sense of equality that CRT is dedicated to addressing. (Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, & Thomas, 1995)

CRT enables an exploration of the social systems at work on a deeper level than merely addressing discrimination based on skin color. Racial identity is not cloaked entirely in skin color, but also in culture, community, and politics (Crenshaw et al., 1995). However, the acknowledged social construction of race still results in unequal distribution of money, power, and education as we place people in undefined, unexplained, and unquestioned social categories. As a result, researchers may perpetuate hegemonic power structures because the reader must use stereotypes to assume what it means to be placed in each category. (Kivel, 2000)

CRT theorists believe that it is not possible to be neutral or objective when speaking of legal studies and race. CRT strives to bring race consciousness to the forefront, in contrast to the accepted model of color-blindness, in an effort to combat the limited understanding of how racism exists within hegemonic power structures in American society. Because legal studies and the law reinforce white privilege, CRT challenges the construction of race in both legal studies and American culture to understand how white privilege is maintained and how the subordination of minorities continues. CRT must not only generate understanding and knowledge, but also support change. (Crenshaw et al., 1995)

In an attempt to combat the unequal distribution of power surrounding race and the social construction of race, Hylton (2005) identified five main tenants used by CRT proponents. The first is that race and racism cannot be isolated from power structures and are always affected by outside influences. The second component calls into question the use of colorblind policies, meritocracy, and so-called objective, race-neutral policies.

Meritocracy is an idea where people are judged on their individual abilities and not the social circumstances, relations, and/or access of resources available.

Third, CRT uses techniques of social justice to position the oppressed at the center of the discussion or research and not at the periphery. Fourth, topics that white researchers have examined and their resulting research are considered the truth in relation to races, resulting in a political viewpoint. Therefore, it becomes necessary to perform research from the viewpoint of the other. Finally, it is useful to employ CRT across disciplines; by applying information learned to other forms of social sciences, a transdisciplinary way of exploring race emerges. CRT belief holds that we live in an unequal society, with unequal distributions of power and resources. This distribution of power marginalizes minorities and their position in society (Hylton, 2005).

Glover (2007) outlines three interrelated principles that facilitate the social justice outcomes of CRT research. First, those who adopt CRT recognize and acknowledge that race is socially constructed. Race as a biological concept, posits Glover, has been refuted in the academic literature because there is greater genetic variation within racialized groups than between them (Haney Lopez, 2000). Despite this acknowledgement, critical race theorists assert that race continues to be a powerful social construct and as such, warrants attention. CRT therefore facilitates a focus on the myriad ways that race characterizes the lived experiences of people of color, which suggests it ought to be the starting point for much social justice inquiry (Glover, 2007).

The second principle of CRT is “skepticism of color-blindness and commitment to expose white privilege” (Glover, 2007, p. 196). As noted above, when colorblind policies are in effect, race is ignored or dismissed as a nonissue, and we fail to appreciate the significance of race in the lived experiences of people of color. Indeed, Glover (2007) argues that colorblind policies silence criticism about white privilege, which serves to thwart efforts to discuss the implications of institutional policies and practices that constrain people of color. With this in mind, one of the key goals of CRT is raising awareness regarding race and the implications of racism for people of color (Glover, 2007).

A racialized epistemology that privileges storytelling is the third principle of CRT (Glover, 2007). CRT appreciates that knowledge is not neutral. Instead, knowledge is often used as “a function of the ability of the powerful to impose their own views, to differentiate between knowledge and myth, reason and emotion, and objectivity and subjectivity” (Peller, 1995, p. 142). Certain types of knowledge, such as that produced from a postpositivist paradigm, are privileged within the social sciences. Parker and Lynn (2002) explain what is considered knowledge “often…become[s] shrouded in a language that fails to address important questions regarding the origins, uses, and abuses of social scientific inquiry and the importance of minority representation in this enterprise” (p. 13). The result is what Rappaport (2000) refers to as dominant cultural narratives that construct knowledge in a manner that reproduces the current social structures to the benefit of the majority group. Glover (2007) explains that CRT uses counter-stories as a way of intentionally resisting dominant cultural narratives. In his words,

Counter-stories build a common culture of shared understandings among minority communities whose voices are missing from scientific discourse while simultaneously destroying stock stories, which are challenged through the effective depiction of injustice. Counter-stories, therefore, are used for their transformative possibilities”. (p. 196)

Although he does not take up CRT specifically, Brett Lashua’s chapter in this volume (chapter 6) does offer an illustration of counter-stories.

Feminism(s)

Feminism is a social and collective identity that represents a complex intersection of political and personal ideologies (Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010). Feminists see gender as a

basic organizing principle that profoundly shapes/mediates the concrete conditions of our lives…. Through the questions that feminism poses and the absences it locates, feminism argues the centrality of gender in shaping our consciousness, skills, and institutions as well as in the distribution of power and privilege. (Lather, 1998, p. 571)

Feminists share a consciousness about women’s distinct and shared disadvantages within patriarchal society. They see the political nature of everyday life (hence the slogan “the personal is political”) and link these everyday experiences to larger social injustices (Rupp & Taylor, 1999). As a social, collective, and political identity, feminists are dedicated to calling attention to the existence, injustice, and negative impacts of sexism (hooks, 2000). Toward this end, feminists place “emphasis on the equal worth and rights of all people and [have a] collective orientation to social justice” (Zucker & Bay-Cheng, 2010, p. 1911).

Social justice from a feminist perspective involves envisioning and creating a society that is outside the bounds of patriarchy.

Patriarchy is a social system in which power rests with men and privileges them through greater access to institutional power, higher incomes, higher labor force participation, and greater access to all social and cultural resources among other beneficial arrangements (Hibbins, 2013; Kirkley, 2000).

With a focus on patriarchy, feminism is inclusive of everyone (women and men). To be clear, the patriarchy does not serve marginalized groups of men well (i.e., gay men, poor men, men with mental health challenges) (Hibbins, 2013). As Jaggar (1988) explains, feminism refers to all those who seek to end gendered injustice.

Feminists thus connect through a shared desire to challenge the social conditions of oppression that stem from the patriarchy. Beyond this unifying focus, however, there is a vast amount of difference across feminists based upon different conceptualizations of power as structuring, constraining, and regulating, as well as productive, affective, resistant, and relational. Feminists seek a new form of solidarity that unites folks across blurred, overlapping, and at times contradictory aspects of identities that results in multiple feminisms (Fixmer & Wood, 2005).

Indeed, there is growing interest within the feminist literature in thinking about gender identities, experiences, diversity, and interconnections. This approach moves us further away from “one size fits all” thinking and instead focuses on relationality and interconnections. Building on the concept of intersectionality that grew out of black feminist theorizing, recent scholars, such as Bhavani and Talcott (2012), have advocated for an interconnection that “connotes more movement and fluidity than lies in the metaphor of intersection, as well as offering a way of thinking about how not only race and gender, but also nation, sexuality, and wealth all interconnect, configure, and reshape each other” (p. 13...