Excerpt from the full-text article:
What is done with the information developed by any researcher involves ethical and political considerations out of his control. In administrative research the sponsor has been able to dictate all conditions. We believe that this has contributed to the crisis in confidence about whether or not developing knowledge makes a difference in solving the problems of this world. It is time for professional societies to take more responsibility for the behavior of their members and to provide them with more protection

Chaiklin, Harris

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

The Journal of Sociology & Social WelfareVolume 2Issue 4 Summer Article 9July 1975Program Research as Social PracticeHarris ChaiklinUniversity of MarylandFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jsswPart of the Social Work CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Social Work atScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contactmaira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationChaiklin, Harris (1975) "Program Research as Social Practice," The Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare: Vol. 2 : Iss. 4 , Article 9.Available at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/jssw/vol2/iss4/9PROGRAM RESEARCH AS SOCIAL PRACTICE*Harris ChaiklinUniversity of MarylandSchool of Social Workand Community PlanningEloise Rathbone-McCuanLevindale Research CenterThe conventional wisdom attributes moral dubiousness to those whosponsor or execute research on programs designed to help the disadvantaged.Albert Murray provides a definitive portrait of this genre. He describesa new social science specialist; the "white or somewhat white hunter"who is a, "Two-finger Pig-Latin Swahili Expert, an image technician whofiles survey-safari reports on Ghettoland, U.S.A." Armed with thispicaresque image the researcher projects an aura of being on the lastfrontier of danger and adventure as he plumbs the depths of human misery.This stance has several advantages for the Ghetto-adventurer:(1) He is consolidating his one-upstatus over those base-camp white people (whosubsidize his reports because they are interestedin reading about Negroes but are terrified atthe mere notion of entering the Eight Ball)and also over other white reporters; (2) he isup-grading his credentials and bargaining powerwith white editors and publishers; and (3) he ismaking a public presentation of his black pass-port to such Eight Ball tribal chiefs as mightfigure in future safari assignments.1There is a darker and less romantic counterpart to the researcheras aggrandizer; that is the researcher as victim. Consider the followingsituation one of us experienced:Several years ago I was working as a community organ-izer in a poverty program based in a large urban* Revision of paper originally presented as "The Sponsorship of PovertyResearch," at the annual meeting of the Society for the Study of SocialProblems, Washington, D.C., August 29, 1970.iAlbert Murray, The Omni-Americans (New York: Outerbridge andDienstfrey, 1970), pp. 69-70.-508-center in the East. Part of the Job was to workwith black youth in the inner city. I functionedas a liaison between the teenagers and the neighbor-hood community action agency. I enjoyed the joband had good formal and informal communication withthose with whom I worked.After a little more than six months on the job, thedirector of the neighborhood agency where I wasbased asked me if I would be interested in doingsome research for the agency. He explained thatthe agency's citizens council was dissatisfiedwith the program for neighborhood youth. Thisagency had put most of its resources into a recre-ation program for children and teenagers. Thisprogram was not attracting the older teenagersand the citizens council wanted something doneabout it.The agency director's response to this was topropose a research survey that would help determinewhat kind of fall and winter programs would beattractive to these youth. I said I would dosome thinking about the feasibility of the studyand make a rough estimate of a budget. He assuredme that he would find the funds for the study andimplied that the bigger I could make the study themore valuable it would be to him. (The city hadjust received a cut in its OEO program and thecompetition for available funds was very stiff.)In thinking through the decision as to whether ornot a study was necessary I was fortunate in thatunlike many researchers I had intimate acquaintancewith the program and its recipients. From thisexperience it was already apparent that whetheror not the agency had a good or bad recreationprogram had nothing to do with whether or not itwas used. The real interests of these teenagerswere in something else, jobs. I remember one youngman putting it quite succinctly, "Man we don't needno games, we need jobs."The agency's policy guidelines stated that it hadto work with youth, they did not specify that recre-ation had to be the exclusive focus. The agencydirector's experience and interest was in recreation.He wanted to avoid developing the employment programhis citizen council was pushing for. The promise-509-of a research study on the recreation program wasa means of temporarily placating the citizens andavoiding action which he did not want to take.My observations had convinced me that there was noneed to study the recreation program but that therewas a need to do a study on how to develop a youthemployment program within the limitations of thecurrent staff resources. I informed the admini-strator of my conclusions. He told me to forgetabout doing the study and to go back to communityorganization, since that was what I was hired todo anyway. He then secured permission from thedirector of research at the central office to useone of his research staff to design and conductthe recreation study. The pressure from thecitizens council was relieved by hiring severalof them, at $2 per hour, to do the interviewing.I went back to community organization.What ties these illustrations together is that depending on thecircumstances the same person could reflect either situation. Whatdistinguishes between them is the source of research sponsorship.In general, the independent entrepreneur researcher receives his supportfrom foundations or federal grants. No matter how practical the investi-gation it is usually identified as basic research. And, most important,the researcher expects to publish the results of his work. Publicexposure is the saving grace of the independent researcher. It encouragesdebate on whether or not there is a culture of poverty, or the poorcan delay gratification, or cultural deprivation leaves the poor childrenunprepared for school, or any number of similar issues. As long as freediscussion continues there is always hope that over time some truths willbe identified.The researcher who works for the organization which is the subject ofhis examination seldom has the right to publish without permission. Hiswork is seldom disseminated except in limited editions of mimeographedreports. While all details of conceptualization and design are the sameas in basic research the goal is usually to initiate or justify programs.The hired hand must face the dilimma of knowing that the political justi-fication of a program requires claims that no research can ever substan-tiate. For example, the number of theories about delinquency is equaledonly by the number of programs designed to control this behavior. Notheory is definitive and no program has ever been seen as an unqualifiedsuccess.-5 10-Occasionally when the question of the continued value of a programbecomes a matter of public debate in-house reports receive public exposureand social science is roasted for its presumptuous claims, poor methodo-logy, and the lack of ethics by its practitioners. We question whetherthe problem is that simple. It is easy to be an after-the-fact moralistand philosophize about the responsible researcher's role. Who cannotbe self-righteous about those who participate in empirical frauds orfail to prevent or expose any distortion of truth. We can admire theresearcher who fails to cave in to inappropriate demands or sneer atthose who capitulate for personal glory, profit, or sheer survival.That does not solve the problem of how to make the knowledge of socialscience or the skills of the researcher useful for alleviating humanprivation.Social science research and the social science researcher have cometo be considered key factors in the efficient functioning of many socialwelfare programs. Usually when the word "research" or "survey" is men-tioned images of great objectivity, almost infallibility, are conjuredup. All too often the researcher does little to dispel these false notions.The point here is one of honesty, not of value free objectivity.Objectivity in science means that one presents his work in such away that another investigator can repeat it. It means, not that aperson is value free, but that he identifies his value positionexplicitly. The world is too complex to be described totally. Atany point one undertakes to describe a part of something he is makinga value choice that the elements he chooses for his description aremore important than those he is leaving out.When the social survey was first used it was as an instrument forreform. Most of the early surveys were frankly arguing for a positionand gave their results the widest possible circulation. In addition,the early surveys gave relatively limited attention to public opinionand devoted most of their effort to documenting social conditions whichthe sponsor and researcher felt needed to be changed. Today survey hascome to mean something different. It is not usually conceived of asan instrument of reform but as a form of participatory democracy whereopinions are solicited about likes and dislikes. Opinions became thebasis for program planning, but the data on which the planning is basedare seldom available.We do not dispute the right or even the necessity of any admini-strator to present his agency or his program in the best possible light.There is, however, a vast difference between an administrator arguingfor the program he wants and his saying "research," where he has stackedthe deck, supports the need for the program. In the illustration wepresented there would be little to say if the administrator had said,"I have certain program interests which I want implemented and I wantyou to help me do this." It doesn't even matter if he doesn't want to-511-look at alternatives. Any social scientist who is either a member ofthe agency staff or is hired to do such a job can certainly do so witha free conscience. What he should not do is present his work as a"scientific" research report. Merely using appropriate methodologicaltools does not make scientific research. Data does not speak for itself,even when it is collected under the most rigorous and perfect methodolo-gical circumstances. Science comes in when a basis is provided forinterpreting the data and the negative as well as concurring evidenceis examined.Researchers tend to overestimate the influence of their work inpolicy decisions about program planning or continuation. This oftendeludes them as to their real function. For example, sponsors at theoperating level often call in a researcher and present him with a problemthat is unsolvable. If this happens, no matter what the quality of theresearch, the nature of the factual information gathered, or recommen-dations for solutions, the administrator can use the research to supportthe decision he had already made. More important, the complex range ofinformation that goes into policy decisions about programs of necessitymakes the data from research findings play a small role. We have notbeen able to identify any major program that was saved or eliminated onthe basis of research findings.2To meet the dilemmas the "applied" researcher faces it is necessaryto consider research with action implications as a form of professionalpractice; this requires standards and review procedures. The NationalAcademy of Sciences provides a model definition for the changing roleof the researcher. They say:The job of the social scientist is clear.He can keep track of what is happening, workat understanding the sources of conflict andresistance to change and try to determine boththe intended and unintended consequences ofproblem solving actions. Through the analysisof specific instances, social scientists seekto illuminate the ways in which the societyis working.32Harris Chaiklin, "Evaluation Research and the Planning-Programing-Budgeting System," in Planning Programming Budgeting Systems and Social Welfare,ed. by Edward E. Schwartz (Chicago: The University of Chicago School of SocialService Administration, 1970), pp. 27-34.3 The Behavior and Social Sciences: Outlook and Needs, A report by theBehavioral and Social Sciences Survey Committee under the auspices of theNational Academy of Sciences (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,1969), p. 88.-512-In focusing on this issue we are concerned about the wider ethical issuesconnected with professional practice. Most of the current interest inthe ethics of research has focused on protecting the rights of the client.4This is only an element in the emergence of research as a form of socialpractice. One of the things which identifies a profession is its abilityto set and maintain its own standards. Where research as social practiceis concerned this effort is only in the beginning stages. Within sociology,for example, concern is expressed that the current code of ethics willrestrict free inquiry.5 Others see it as a way of protecting professionalstatus and position in the bureaucracy without really changing anyone'sbehavior.6 Meanwhile the movement to employ social researchers in directservice organizations grows. Foote sees this as necessary for a truesocial science. He says:...the salvation of sociology liesin shifting its attention from colleaguesto clients. That is not to becomeless professional, but at last to becomeprofessional. By concluding with acall to orient training to theintelligible, purposeful presentation ofsociology to non-sociologists, we arenot re-directing sociologists back toacademic sociology . . . we are re-directingthem at last to sociology.7Put in these terms one would have to ask how sociology would be distin-guished from social work. Gilbert and Specht identify skill in appliedresearch as the core of one of the two basic wings of social work.This convergence between the interests of sociologists and socialworkers is highlighted by the fact that current codes of ethics do littleto help the employed researcher who seeks truth while trying to meetthe needs of his employer. Trela and O'Toole present both ends of the4 Footnotes, February, 1975, pp. 1, 16.5John F. Galliher, "The Protection of Human Subjects: A Reexaminationof the Professional Code of Ethics," The American Sociologist, 8(August, 1973),pp. 93-100.6Dean S. Dorn and Gary L. Long, "Brief Remarks on the Association'sCode of Ethics," The American Sociologist, 9(February, 1974), pp. 31-35.7Nelson N. Foote, "Putting Sociologists to Work," The AmericanSociologist, 9(August, 1974), p. 134.8Neil Gilbert and Harry Specht, "The Incomplete Profession,"Social Work, 19(November, 1974), pp. 665-674.problem when they say the researcher, "must recognize and accept theservice organization's goals and interests," and at the same time, "hemust also retain his identity as a scientist and continue to subscribefully to the norms of science." 9 This neatly avoids the real fact thatthe goals of service organizations and science are usually necessaryand legitimately antithetical. Our suggestion is a modest one and isbased on the idea that continuing tension between organizational servicegoals is required if both are to be true to their aims. It is that codesof ethics should provide for independent review of the state of the artin applied research and arbitration mechanisms for specific conflicts.Setting standards and conducting periodic reviews are not seen asa panacea. In any practice situation conditions are always changing.The job of keeping ethical standards in focus is continual. We do notwant to set up review committees with dictatorial power; rather weenvisage something like the procedures used by the American Associationof University Professors. The AAUP is neither a militant nor a powerfulorganization. Its Committee on Academic Freedom probably handles onlya small number of the abuses of academic freedom which occur. Beingcensured by the AAUP has never closed a school. Yet by its very existenceit affords a measure of protection. Schools do not like to be censuredby the AAUP; most of those that are eventually make some effort to getoff of the list. But, because it exists many schools and many professorsdo alter their behavior to take its standards into account.We believe the same advantages could accrue if a similar deviceexisted within our professional organizations. The existence of anoutside professional body to which a researcher can appeal and whichmakes, maintains, and disseminates standards should help reduce some ofthe reprehensible relationships which have grown up in operating agencies.What is done with the information developed by any researcher involvesethical and political considerations out of his control. In administrativeresearch the sponsor has been able to dictate all conditions. We believethat this has contributed to the crisis in confidence about whether ornot developing knowledge makes a difference in solving the problems ofthis world. It is time for professional societies to take more responsi-bility for the behavior of their members and to provide them with moreprotection.HC:sms3/24/759James E. Trela and Richard O'Toole, Roles for Sociologists inService Organizations (Kent, Ohio: The Kent State University Press, 1974), p.-51L -

Program Research as Social Practice

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1104&amp;context=jssw

Program Research as Social Practice

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU