Emergence,Construction,and Authorial Intent in Community-based Projects

Personal Reflexive Statements

I have been working for years on community-based health projects. My experience is that knowledge does not simply emerge. This imagery is too passive and does not characterize accurately how persons participate actively in the construction and implementation of knowledge. However, those who adopt grounded theory, and some other similarly qualitative methods, tend to convey the impression that data categories, and the related knowledge, emerge during an investigation. The point of this article is to critique this descriptive and emphasize that through participation community members construct their realities—John W. Murphy.

Some of the inspiration for this article came from my research for my dissertation in the area of service learning. In writing about the methodology that I was considering, it appeared clear to me that grounded theory was wholly inappropriate for community-based endeavors, as it treats data as emerging, constant, objective, and there to be discovered. What is neglected is that people, through their interactions, come to create reality, and therefore have a hand in constructing data—Christian A. Schlaerth.

Introduction

Community-based projects are sustained by a particular principle, that is, participation. Both research and planning are thought to be improved if the members of a community are involved thoroughly in every phase of a project. Fals Borda (1988) notes, however, that this participation must be “authentic” if these benefits are to be realized. That is, rather than consulted periodically, when the need may arise, these persons should be able to direct or control any research or policy intervention (Minkler 2005).

Participation, in this context, has both a logistical and an epistemological dimension. As already noted, community members should guide projects if these endeavors are going to be pertinent and effective. On the other hand, participation signals the elevation of “local knowledge” in importance, since human agency mediates everything that is known (Fals Borda 1988). Along with the accompanying cultural reality, the resulting pool of knowledge that is created should be brought to bear on any issue, in order to create relevant interventions and policies.

In the current parlance, these projects should be directed “from below.” As opposed to a cadre of professionals, everyday persons are in control. The key implication of this maneuver is that such participation provides valid knowledge that would otherwise be overlooked as unscientific (Leung, Yen, and Minkler 2004). This novel insight, moreover, improves research and the delivery of social services. By encouraging community participation, social service delivery becomes engaged and sensitive to the needs of the local people. Furthermore, research findings are less likely to be distorted by an academic lens and come to more accurately reflect the everyday reality of the participants.

But this community orientation requires that data be treated in a new way. Particularly important is that all information be viewed as embedded in human action (praxis). Therefore, treating data as if they are objective, in the standard sense, is unwise (D. Smith 1987). After all, every phase of a community-based project is shaped by participation that engenders one perspective or another. The search for data that elude interpretation is thus considered to be futile. Simply put, according to this scenario, there are no bare facts.

Instead of focusing on the empirical qualities of data, emphasis is placed on their meaning. How persons interpret deviance or sickness, for example, is more important than official measurements or classifications that are presumed to be neutral. In this regard, the point of research or planning is to understand how social action shapes these phenomena and instills meaning.

Gaining access to data is different from how this process is approached in nomothetic science. Rather than relying on “fixed” and “standard” formats designed to distill information, the point is to allow data to reveal their meaning (Blumer 1969). Instead of filtered by a priori conceptual or methodological schemes, the action embodied in data should be coaxed into the open. As some critics like to say, the meaning of data should not be allowed to simply emerge, disconnected from the researcher who would only distort findings.

As should be noted, community-based projects have a unique epistemology. Specifically, data can never be separated from participation. This philosophy, in other words, is nondualistic and deals with data as modes of action (Bordo 1987). Within this context, reliable information is garnered at the nexus of participation and data. Clearly, becoming attuned to the resulting meaning poses some challenges to traditional approaches to data collection and analysis.

In this article, a distinction is made between typical planners and researchers and those who engage communities in these activities. The former are portrayed traditionally to be disinterested participants, while community-based workers do not harbor this illusion. Despite this distinction, neither group is truly divorced from participation and the accompanying construction of information. In effect, these two outlooks share an epistemology, one that is nondualistic, although this confluence is often overlooked. But in community-based work, a rejection of dualism is overt and necessary.

A Community-Based Philosophy

Traditional social science is underpinned by dualism. Known as Cartesianism, the idea is that knowledge can be divided into distinct parts, referred to commonly to subjective and objective (Bordo 1987). In this typology, subjectivity reflects bias and is not a very reliable source of information (Harris 2010). Overcoming the influence of subjectivity is thus the goal of traditional research or planning, so that trustworthy facts are revealed and utilized.

Through the use of various strategies, such as randomization and experimentation, the influence of subjectivity is believed to be minimized. Purged of this unreliable element, the resulting input is treated as empirical. These data, in other words, are unaffected by values and judgments, and their vital features are readily detectable. In other words, the impact of an investigator is limited through the use of these techniques. With subjectivity, avoided facts come into view, as sources of knowledge are encountered that are divorced from interpretation and objective. Social indicators are an example of this information (Land 1983).

Essential to Cartesianism is not only that subjectivity can be separated from objectivity, but the acquisition of valid knowledge depends on this separation (Bordo 1987). Hence, the goal is to invent strategies that are value free, and thus allow knowledge unencumbered by subjectivity to be discovered. In a manner of speaking, empirical data are the residue of this process.

The example of social indicators is instructive. For years, this methodology has been used to detect the presence of problems in communities. Often referred to as a quick and dirty strategy, so-called empirical indicators, such as the quality of housing, race, or income, are thought to provide insight into the degree of a drug problem (Rossi, Freeman, and Wright 1979). A community with low-income and poor-quality housing, for example, would be viewed as a likely target for an intervention. The problem with this approach, however, is that these indicators do not provide any insight into how a community’s members conceptualize drug use or abuse and any remedies.

In community-based projects, on the other hand, Cartesianism is considered to be passé. This new outlook is sustained by various philosophies—for example, phenomenology and constructionism—that abandon dualism. Following the elevation of participation in importance, knowledge is inextricably linked to human action. In contrast to dualism, subjectivity cannot be overcome so that objectivity can be confronted (Fish 1989). All knowledge, instead, is mediated completely and shaped by participation.

Due to the pervasiveness of participation, knowledge is now described to be constructed (Gergen 1999). At this juncture, language is often introduced as a creative vehicle. Rather than characterized as a tool, language is portrayed to taint everything that is known. Indeed, sometimes the theories of Wittgenstein (1958) or Merleau-Ponty (1968) are consulted to make this point. In this regard, how persons define themselves, their relationships, and their surroundings is essential to understanding their lives. To borrow from a noteworthy book in sociology, social reality is “constructed” through the language use of persons (Berger and Luckmann 1966). Valid knowledge thus represents a gestalt of these definitions.

As a result of this shift in orientation, referring to the social world as empirical is questionable. After all, data are thoroughly enmeshed in interpretation. As Melvin Pollner (1991) declares, rather than things or objects, facts are “accomplishments.” Facts are not encountered but framed, animated, and integrated through experience. For this reason, within the context of a community-based philosophy, the social life of a community is called a lebenswelt or “lifeworld” (Schutz and Luckmann 1973). Instead of comprised of “dead” empirical indicators, devoid of subjectivity and meaning, a community is organized around the values, beliefs, and commitments of these persons. The meaning of data, accordingly, is established by the various modes of action that are operative.

Given this elevation of the lifeworld in importance, social indicators are envisioned to be connected to the various actors in a community. What the quality of housing means, for example, is thought to be a contested issue. How persons respond to this condition, accordingly, depends on the interpretation that is operative. Accordingly, whether or not drug use can be linked to the quality of housing relates to the influence of interpretation and the logic that accompanies the reality or realities constructed by a community. For this reason, in community-based projects, local persons identify the sites of knowledge, conceptualize relevant information, construct any research instruments, and make the logical connections essential to any valid explanation of behavior. In other words, their knowledge, interests, and actions direct a project.

Grounded Data

Subsequent to this challenge to dualism, a new relationship exists with data. Particularly important is that different metaphors are needed to describe this association. Compatible with the old imagery, data are gathered. Similar to things, these bits of information are classified, processed, and displayed.

In a very systematic and methodical manner, data are manipulated and organized. Nothing is compromised by this activity, due to the value-free nature of this process. Categories and analytical practices that are assumed to be universal and transparent, and thus unbiased, are invoked to provide data with an identity and significance. Often this classification system is referred to as hypothetical deductive.

Once the conceptual scheme that is adopted is linked to deduction, bias is presumed to be eliminated. Or better said, prejudice is obscured. Because of dualism, certain categories are treated as if they do not represent a perspective but a universal outlook. These categories, in other words, are severed from any concrete situation and given a unique, universal status. And due to this level of abstraction, any classifications are imagined to be all encompassing.

The problem, particularly in terms of a community-based philosophy, is that all categories have parameters that categorize events or behaviors in distinct ways. All classificatory schemes have consequences, even those that are rendered abstract by dualism and envisioned to be universal. Nonetheless, in the manner suggested by Gadamer (1975), these prejudices are overlooked when categories are deductively identified. The result of this misperception is that perspectives are imposed on data with little concern. The assumption is that, almost by definition, universals do not shape data.

Despite this defense of deduction, community-based projects employ a more grounded approach to analyzing data. In fact, “grounded theory” is often adopted for this purpose (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Advocates of this thesis contend that deduction is inappropriate, because data are inadvertently manipulated. Because they are presumed to be universal and nonperspectival, categories are often imposed that are inappropriate and misconstrue data. In this way, what data have to say is obscured.

The aim of grounded theory is to let data “speak” in their own terms. Proponents of this theory, accordingly, view data in a more inductive manner but with a slight modification (Oktay 2012). That is, these writers are not necessarily empiricists but view data to have significance that should not be distorted by abstract, and likely irrelevant, categories. The prospect that the truth associated with data is “enacted” must be respected (Strauss and Corbin 1994).

Grounded theorists argue that data should not be coerced by the abstractions unleashed by deduction (Glaser and Strauss 1967). Consistent with the emphasis placed on participation, the human action that informs data should be allowed to gradually emerge. But such emergence is tricky! In this sense, data analysis should be flexible and sensitive to the themes that the data both conceal and reveal. Fixed and standardized protocols, even if they are cast as universal, tend to truncate the simultaneous data collection and analysis that leads to this meaning.

In grounded theory, data are not gathered; there is an ongoing connection, instead, between obtaining and analyzing data. The process of obtaining and analyzing data simultaneously is called the “constant comparative method,” which an investigator employs until the findings reach theoretical saturation—that is, that no new findings emerge from the data (Glazer and Straus 1967). The attempt is made, accordingly, to massage data to the extent that themes begin to appear.

But there is an important issue that must be addressed at this juncture. Specifically, and inconsistent with a community-based project, data seem to be autonomous. Because information is described to emerge from data, participation appears to be irrelevant, since data are assumed to exist, waiting to be confronted. As investigators become more intimate with their data and are closely attuned to this information, themes become apparent that were formerly concealed.

Due to this portrayal of emergence, dualism has returned. According to this rendition, data are not things but have meaning that is revealed under the proper conditions. This meaning, however, is associated with data and not necessarily human action. In this regard, Charmaz (2008) has expanded grounded theory to embrace a constructivist viewpoint. She argues, for example, that the researcher and those who are studied coconstruct knowledge and that interpretation cannot be avoided. Nothing is simply observed; data are always constructed from one perspective or another.

Clarke (2005), in a similar maneuver, strives to move grounded theory into the orbit of postmodernism. In this effort, she covers a lot of ground and tries to integrate many theories. In the end, she champions situated analyses. In this regard, she talks about social worlds and discourse. Obtaining valid data, accordingly, depends on world entry. That is, researchers and planners must become attuned to the worlds concreated by persons and communities, if planning or research is going to make sense.

Clearly, both of these newer versions of grounded theory attempt to deal with the epistemological side of community-based investigations. But the logistical side is an altogether different issue. Specifically, these versions of qualitative research, like many others, do not necessarily address the logistical component. Often the investigators, as opposed to community members, set the agenda. For example, these experts define the problem, construct the instruments, and interpret the findings. At times, community members may be consulted, but they do not control the research or planning process. With respect to the thrust of community-based projects, this omission is problematic.

Mediated by Construction

Some critics argue that data do not simply emerge but are brought into existence through participation and interaction. Rather than emerging, data are constructed. For this reason, there has been a move away from grounded theory to constructionism in community-based projects, in an effort to reconcile the multiple perspectives of a community into an orderly lifeworld (Minkler 2005).

Constructionism is operative at several levels in the processes of generating and analyzing data. But two are particularly noteworthy at this point. Based on this discussion thus far, the first is readily apparent: Through participation, the members of a community construct a unique social situation. Particular definitions, for example, generate and stabilize the normative base of this group. Data are thus a product of this activity.

In the context of a community, particular linguistic constructions are given priority over others. And rather than emerging, certain interpretations are elevated in importance and, to borrow from Alfred Schutz (1962:229-34), transformed into a “paramount reality.” Although other interpretations or constructions are possible, one or, possibly, several versions are given the latitude to dominate others until further notice and provide a frame of reference for all behavior.

But neither traditional researchers, planners, nor community-based workers are blank slates; they have orientations and construct data. In this sense, a double construction is occurring—the constructions of community members are also (re)constructed by these professionals during the activity of generating data. Here again, data do not emerge but are constructed through several, possibly conflicting modes of action.

Often this plethora of constructions, and the resulting polyvalence, is celebrated. As interpretations proliferate, the world is thought to be enriched. Likewise, insight into the meaning of behavior is thought to be enhanced. As additional interpretations are recognized, more perspectives are brought to bear on an event or behavior. The assumption is that explanations will surely improve with the introduction of more perspectives.

Others contend, however, that this expansion of interpretation culminates in relativism (B. H. Smith 2011). Because interpretation is everywhere and can never be pushed aside, any distinction between correct and incorrect constructions is blurred. Since interpretations supplement one another, and suggest new insights, any attempt to restrict this process is considered to be reductionistic. In this theoretical context, data are enriched by multiple constructions. Anything less would be considered a partial representation of an issue.

But the social world is not this ambivalent. One interpretation is not as valid as any other; correct interpretations, in fact, are expected (Blumer 1969). And with respect to a community-based philosophy, correct interpretations or constructions of data should guide any social interventions. The goal of engaged community workers, then, should be to ensure that their interpretations are culturally relevant to the people who are being studied. The question, therefore, becomes: What constitutes a correct interpretation? Key to any adequate answer is that local information is the centerpiece of community-based project.

Authorial Intent

Part of the relativism associated with constructionism is correct. That is, there are no inherently correct or valid constructions! Nonetheless, not all interpretations are equally valid (B. H. Smith 2011). In social life, some are more relevant than others and have serious implications. In this regard, the intent of the authors of any action is truly important. The storylines that they create serve to prioritize interpretations (Rigg and Murphy 2013). The paramount reality that they establish, in other words, provides the anchor used to judge all interpretations.

Persons do not act or respond haphazardly to events. Their behavior, instead, is meaningful and provides a framework for future actions. And the life project they develop supplies the storyline that unites events into a purposeful biography. Jacques Lacan (1977) refers to this juncture as the “point de capiton,” whereby the various threads of interpretation are joined as a coherent picture. The almost unlimited stream of possible interpretations is organized by this story. The point is that this existential commitment quells the potential flux of interpretations, until another construction is deemed to be relevant.

This commitment that inaugurates a particular storyline differentiates constructions. The aim of a community-based project, accordingly, is to enter this particular “biography” (Berger and Luckmann 1966). In terms of a community-based philosophy, authorial intent carries significant weight. Particularly noteworthy is that this primary storyline is the source of the local knowledge that community-based researchers and planners covet.

But an important caveat must be made about storylines. Specifically, these biographies are constructions and should never be simply attributed to persons, based on stereotypes or other essentialist conventions. Despite the desire for stability, the commitment to any particular construction is never guaranteed. Which storyline(s) is operative in a community can never be known beforehand, while changes are always possible. Nonetheless, a storyline is substantial enough to regulate and institutionalize behavior.

Storylines, accordingly, do not determine actions but supply a context that specifies a range of likely actions. Similar to a “paradigm,” these constructions are contingent, yet the focal point of both communities and relevant research and planning (Kuhn 1962). Those who direct such interventions, in fact, strive to enter the world created by these constructions. Within this realm is where the values, beliefs, and norms, for example, which are relevant to a community are found.

Although various constructions have impact on community-based projects, one or two may be particularly relevant. And as already noted, the construction(s) that unites a community has a special place in these interventions. Community-based researchers or planners, therefore, must diminish or overcome their constructions, so that the storylines of a community become visible. Through serious reflection, such a maneuver is possible and may reveal that a commonly held perspective is not necessarily universal.

For example, in the past, a typical question on a drug-use survey might be: How many times have you used heroin in the past 48 hours. Overwhelmingly, the response would be one. However, upon further inquiry, this number was found to refer to one run of use, which might involve three or four applications of this drug. But the intent of the question was to ascertain the number of applications. The moral of this story, accordingly, is that local intent matters. One does not always mean one.

As this example suggests, according to a community-based philosophy, persons are thought to be creative. As opposed to blank slates, they not only act but are capable of self-interrogation. Through this reflection, persons can recognize the limits of their constructions and entertain the storylines of others. Within the mélange of constructions that pervade a community-based project—associated with community members, researchers and planners, and political officials, for example—this reflection is vital to giving these endeavors proper guidance. All researchers and planners, in short, must give priority to the storylines that are relevant in a community. The authors of these constructions, in this sense, should have something to say about these interpretations and their use.

From this discussion of storylines, and the related community participation, the reason why local control of projects is important should be obvious. That is, due to the plethora of possible interpretations, a guide is needed to determine how a story should be read. Without this local participation, this reading is left to speculation. Divorced from such input, communities are interpreted by experts, or other outsiders, who do not know the proper storyline and, thus, how various issues should be understood.

Conclusion

Because community-based endeavors are guided by local knowledge, the focus is community constructions (Fals Borda 1988). As a result, research and planning strategies should be fluid and open. The storylines of a community should be allowed to speak through data, instead of disfigured by assumptions or practices that are insensitive to the constructions that are operative. These announcements, however, are contested by the various and often competing constructions that shape a community.

Although this community-based approach is fluid and offers many surprises, neither research nor planning should be sloppy. The rejection of deduction, for example, does not signal a lack of rigor. In fact, the ability to enter successfully the reality or biography of a community requires a lot of discipline.

Clearly, community-based projects are not guided by science in the traditional sense. But nowadays science has a fairly narrow definition, particularly when linked to a nomothetic viewpoint. On the other hand, the reflection necessary to engage the constructions of others demands systematic effort, reminiscent of science (Bauman 1978). True engagement, for example, requires a proper interpretation of data and corroboration by the members of a community (Blumer 1969). Careful selection, elaboration, and checking are central to this process.

In a recent community-based health project on the Island of Grenada, participation was presumed to be very important to gain insight into a particular community’s view(s) of health and care and was built into every phase of this endeavor. For example, every training session began with a discussion of the importance of community input. Additionally, community participants were given the opportunity to review and correct any instruments—for example, forms, questionnaires, or means of communication—that were used. The point was to be sensitive to the different perspectives were possibly operating and that the community should be involved intimately in reaching clarity.

A host of other writers have illustrated how local participation improves research and the delivery of social services. Paul Farmer and his colleagues (2001) have revealed how health care can be improved through local control of projects. Likewise, Nancy Krieger (2000) maintains that epidemiological research is improved by this strategy. In a similar vein, under various conditions, the use of lay community health workers has proven to be invaluable in generating important data and integrating health services into communities (Mutamba et al. 2013).

In opposition to the nomothetic position, this participation is not problematic in community-based projects. Rather than simply a manifestation of subjectivity, and an impediment to discovering real knowledge, this involvement provides entrée to the storylines constructed by communities and allows them to be prioritized. This process does not befoul research or planning. Participation, instead, places research or planning in the hands of community members, so that relevant data are made available. A community-based health or other program can thus come to fruition.