An integrated framework of critical cultural competence and anti-oppressive practice for social justice social work research

Abstract

Qualitative research continues to excite interest in social work inquiry spurring, in the process, a corresponding interest in social justice research. Yet, much remains to be done concerning the development of innovative frameworks for doing social justice social work research. Lack of effective research tools stymies social workers’ efforts at responding appropriately to the needs of culturally diverse service users and the structures that oppress them. This article introduces an integrated framework of critical cultural competence and anti-oppressive practice for doing qualitative social work research. Juxtaposing the cultural sensitivity powers of critical cultural competence with the social justice values of anti-oppressive practice enhances understanding of the salience of culture in human behavior, while promoting deeper appreciation of difference and the effects of oppression as experienced through social identities.

Keywords

Anti-oppressive practice critical cultural competence cultural diversity qualitative research social justice research social work practice

Introduction

Research can be a powerful tool for social change (Bocarro and Stodolska, 2013). Research generates knowledge that produces “studies of complex social problems, sheds light on contradictions in social policy, attends to change across multiple scales of human action, and assists in the process of translating theory-to-practice” (Floersch et al., 2014: 4). Research can be just as powerful in propping the status quo and supporting the evolution of societies that privilege some people and inhibit others. Research can also be used to suppress ideas and social justice and foster stereotypes (Potts and Brown, 2005). Conversely, research can be used to liberate and empower oppressed people.

Social work practice depends considerably on knowledge derived from particular contexts. The indispensability of context-dependent knowledge to guide professional practice thrusts the need for research tools that generate and disseminate such knowledge to the fore (Floersch et al., 2014). Although there has been significant growth in research and evaluation as well as evidence-based studies and, consequently, the inclusion of research on degree program curricula in schools of social work (McCrystal and Wilson, 2009), social justice research is generally lacking in social work (Lyons, 2000). Social justice research is needed to raise new questions about policies and practices that sustain oppression. Social justice research can explicate empowerment issues and subsequently reframe discussion of the studied phenomenon (Charmaz, 2011). The paucity of empowerment research circumscribes our ability to adequately unravel the complexities of the dynamic phenomena and contexts within which empowerment social work education and practice occur. It also stymies efforts at developing effective tools for engaging meaningfully with these dynamic processes and contexts and creating positive social change.

This article introduces an innovative “meta-framework” for doing social justice research. Bridging critical cultural competence and anti-oppressive practice (CCAOP), the framework offers an alternative perspective that challenges traditional ways of doing social work research. I begin the article with overviews of anti-oppressive practice and critical cultural competence, the two key components of the CCAOP framework. Next, I describe the main features and utility of CCAOP and offer guidelines for doing CCAOP research.

Anti-oppressive practice and critical cultural competence

Anti-oppressive practice (AOP) is hailed as a key methodological and theoretical paradigm in social work (Clarke and Wan, 2011). AOP epitomizes current “state-of-the-art” thinking and practice by social justice-oriented social workers committed to helping people and communities to understand the causes of their oppressions and how to transform society (Baines, 2007). AOP provides a framework for understanding how difference has often been used to oppress people. AOP is attractive because it interrogates social structures and embraces service users as collaborators in change, rather than the subject of change efforts (Weber, 2010). AOP advocates contend that the roots of the problems people face lie not in personal failings but in oppressive social structures and relations. AOP thus commits itself to promoting social justice by addressing the systems of oppression and unequal power relations that characterize the current social order. AOP is also concerned about the strategies oppressed people use to resist oppression and transform social institutions (Holley et al., 2012).

Despite its dominance in social work discourse and potential for guiding research, few works have examined the research potential of AOP in social work. The liberating principles and empowering values of AOP are still marginal in social work research (Strier, 2007). Historically, social work accepted the dominant research methodologies of the social sciences in which researchers conduct research on “subjects” who may have little involvement in the research (Koster et al., 2012). Yet, these methodologies are not in harmony with the social justice aims of AOP. For instance, research involving indigenous peoples has often been prescribed and undertaken by nonindigenous researchers using Western research paradigms that treated indigenous peoples as passive subjects. Besides neglecting to consult or share the aims, methods, and results of their study with indigenous communities (Castleden et al., 2012), nonindigenous researchers also failed to protect indigenous cultural heritage and intellectual property rights (Castellano, 2004).

Culturally insensitive research practices undermine the social justice values that are so central to the core mission of anti-oppressive social work practice (Rogers, 2012). Strier (2007) challenges social work to embrace anti-oppressive ways of conducting research by resisting the dominant traditions upheld in social science research. AOP plays a central role in linking issues of social justice with culture and can provide useful guidelines for carrying out research that can help social workers develop knowledge for supporting culturally marginalized populations to address the exploitative use of power. Integrated research frameworks are needed to address structural oppressions (Danso, 2012).

Like AOP, cultural competence has become a prominent discourse in social work and other professions in the last 20 years (Harrison and Turner, 2011). Cultural competence is presented as a key mandate of the social work profession and a model capable of promoting respect for difference and cultural diversity (Hogan, 2013). Cultural competence commonly refers to the awareness, knowledge, and skills social workers need to develop in order to deliver culturally appropriate services. This article presents the notion of “critical cultural competence” to extend traditional conceptualizations and understanding of cultural competence.

I employ the concept critical cultural competence to refer to social workers’ ability to engage in high-level action-oriented, change-inducing analyses of culture- and diversity-related phenomena. It entails practitioners becoming analytically skilled in intercultural relations (Cooper et al., 2011) and demonstrating a capacity for understanding the way culture shapes people’s idiosyncratic identities and behaviors. Critical cultural competence argues that awareness, knowledge, and skills alone are inadequate for culturally empowering social work research; they should be harnessed for social change. Social work practice devoid of critical cultural competence runs the risk of contributing to ineffective or poorer quality of services (Casado et al., 2012) and deepening the marginalization of oppressed communities. Critical cultural competence is an imperative, not an option in social work. Already, there is emphasis on core competencies in social work education and training that are a natural fit with a critical cultural competence perspective (Lum, 2011).

Cultural competence has received both unfettered praise and sharp criticism in the literature. Lauding or faulting cultural competence or AOP is outside the purview of this article. Rather, I propose an integrated model of critical cultural competence and AOP as a tool for producing research capable of empowering and responding effectively to the needs of oppressed communities. Social work research focusing exclusively on cultural competence or anti-oppression is reductionist and inadequate in that it fails to capture the essence of the dynamic, multidimensional processes associated with culture and oppression. The social phenomena and environments social workers engage with, especially the cultural needs of service users are very complex and fluid, suggesting that our understanding may be inadequate if we relied on single methodologies to social work research (Danso, 2012; Houston and Mullan-Jensen, 2012). An integrated approach that aligns culture and diversity with social justice issues is therefore indispensable to empowerment research (Parrott, 2009).

CCAOP: Conceptual foundations

Rogler alludes to the research potential of critical cultural competence when he defines culturally competent research as an “incessant and open-ended series of substantive and methodological insertions and adaptations designed to mesh the process of inquiry with the cultural characteristics of the group being studied” (Rogler, 1989: 296). Although this definition highlights the need to give culture due consideration in research studies, critical cultural competence is largely missing from the social work research agenda (Rubin and Babbie, 2013). This oversight is partly due to the challenges encountered in cross-cultural research and the growing diversity among the populations using social work services (Casado et al., 2012). Besides, many social workers lack the skills, training, and knowledge necessary for culturally competent research (Bhuyan et al., 2012). Empowerment research can be strengthened and researchers better equipped by aligning the respect-for-cultural-diversity stance of critical cultural competence with the social justice orientation of AOP. The key features of CCAOP are described below.

I present the CCAOP framework as embodying the following elements: (a) a social justice social change orientation (Dominelli, 2005); (b) an egalitarian and consultative relationship between researcher and participants; (c) a spirit of inquiry and holistic engagement with different aspects of the issue being investigated (Kim, 2011); (d) use of self as research instrument; (e) the researcher as co-learner; (f) use of qualitative methods; (g) emphasis on inductive and emic approaches to understanding experiences and communities; (h) emphasis on context; and (i) accountability to research participants and communities for the products of their work (Dominelli, 2005).

The CCAOP framework enables the social justice researcher and participants to collaborate in a dialogical relationship (Healy, 2010) to identify common needs and issues of concern to the community. The researcher and the participants enter the relationship seeking to develop an understanding of the identified problem so they can identify viable strategies and pursue the most efficacious course to address the problem. Working as co-learners, the researcher and the participants create new knowledge for addressing specific issues within the community. In a dialogical, collaborative relationship, both the researcher and the participants are equals, wherein each learns from and teaches the other (Mullaly, 2007). The research relationship is based on mutual respect and horizontal exchange rather than vertical impositions (Healy, 2010). Power is shared as much as possible between the researcher and the community and each is considered to have different but equivalent wisdom, knowledge, and experience. Academic or professional learning is not privileged over indigenous knowledge (Mullaly, 2007).

Within the CCAOP model, the researcher is a key instrument in shaping the course of the research project (Mertens and Ginsberg, 2008); the researcher becomes the medium by which information is generated, analyzed, interpreted, and disseminated. CCAOP researchers engage in qualitative research practices while using emic and inductive approaches to understand the traditions and “cultural idiosyncrasies” of the community. Qualitative research practices enable CCAOP researchers to immerse themselves more directly in the culture of the community and enhance assessment of the researchers’ own level of critical cultural competence (Haight et al., 2014).

Context and environment shape human behavior and experiences very profoundly, especially given that the prevailing contexts tend not to have been developed with the pursuit of social justice goals in mind (Lynch, 2010). Cultural environment may be particularly important to marginalized communities. CCAOP researchers understand that personal and group experiences vary as a function of geographical, historical, and sociopolitical contexts (Holley et al., 2012). They also see themselves as accountable to research participants and communities for the research they produce.

CCAOP adopts a structural approach to social work research thereby resisting the dominant traditions prevalent in social science research (Rogers, 2012). Although it incorporates certain aspects of the traditional scientific method, CCAOP research is not value free. CCAOP questions the idea of objective, value-free researchers who can produce verifiable truth about the phenomena they study (Van de Sande and Schwartz, 2011). CCAOP holds that knowledge is culturally produced and that no research activity is devoid of political biases.

Strategies for integrating critical cultural competence and AOP into a unified methodological framework for empowerment research include using indigenous worldviews and frameworks to design the research and acknowledging these elements as authentic sources and tools for producing knowledge. Researchers and the community can organize training workshops and support community needs and interests “if it means sacrificing the researchers’ own personal interests” (Mikesell et al., 2013: 6). Circumstances may also require modifying the research design to avoid a clash of values and ensure greater cooperation. Researchers and participants can also engage in constructive confessional dialogue in which they openly acknowledge and work through their cultural biases and assumptions to propel the research to successful completion. Confessional dialogue “relies on a human interactive mode that pays close attention to culture, comparisons, insider viewpoints, and accountability to the self and others” (Hogan, 2013: 5). Confessional conversations promote respect for difference.

In defence of CCAOP

Social work is increasingly becoming diverse in terms of the cultural characteristics of service users, educators, and practitioners as well as the environments within which social work research is done. Increasing diversity justifies the need for culturally competent social work research. It necessitates adjustments in how social work research is conceived and implemented, including developing better understanding of how ethnocultural differences may impact research design and data analysis and interpretation.

The CCAOP model ensures that all aspects of the research project are designed and implemented with culture and social justice in sharp focus. The model allows the conceptualization and formulation of research topics to occur in ways that are responsive to the cultural needs of the relevant community. Research data are also analyzed and interpreted in a culturally minded way, as is the dissemination of research (Rubin and Babbie, 2014). Besides helping to unearth lines of inquiry and experiences relevant to participants, which may translate into effective strategies for social change (Lyons et al., 2012), CCAOP research can also holistically represent underrepresented populations by promoting and affirming their cultural needs (Coggins and Campbell, 2008), challenging hegemonic power, and embracing research practices that are truly collaborative and emancipatory. CCAOP can help social work accomplish its core mission of pursuing social justice by replacing oppressive structures and relations with egalitarian ones. CCAOP offers opportunities for exploring the interface between individuals and communities and their interactions with the cultural landscapes they inhabit (Hardwick and Worsley, 2011).

CCAOP provides a methodological framework for developing rigorous social work knowledge base for research in an increasingly diverse and global world (D’Cruz and Jones, 2013). CCAOP allows for critical reexamination of established concepts and offers social justice researchers tools for developing innovative analyses (Charmaz, 2011). CCAOP research can help social workers to appreciate better the lived experiences of oppressed populations, which would in turn help to shape social work training and practice and result in the implementation of more effective social change efforts (Rubin and Babbie, 2014). CCAOP can foster advocacy work on behalf of minority populations and contribute to the development of better social policies. CCAOP offers a perspective that draws on strengths and capacities first, rather than a primary focus on “problems and deficits.” This alternative way of doing social work research aligns with the values and tenets of social work practice (Heinonen and Spearman, 2010). The synergistic value of CCAOP provides social justice researchers with a powerful tool for gaining a deeper and broader understanding of cultural diversity within “the context of wider social structures, taking account of power and structural cleavages” (Houston and Mullan-Jensen, 2012: 279). A CCAOP approach enables empowerment researchers to draw on the practice values of AOP to seek partnership with and the empowerment of service users within the context of service users’ culture (Parrott, 2009).

Challenges to implementing CCAOP may include how “critical cultural competence” and “oppression” are conceptualized. Culture and oppression are complex phenomena that may be perceived and interpreted differently by people in different contexts. For instance, some researchers may ignore intragroup diversity and assume cultural homogeneity among all members of a group. Research involving culture and oppression is a journey over highly contested terrains, which could limit CCAOP researchers’ ability to define clearly the scope and outcomes of research projects (Lee and Zaharlick, 2013). Tensions may arise from different expectations and agendas of the researchers and community partners that involve conflicting values and beliefs about research aims and outcomes. Community members’ lack of experience in adhering to research protocols could also become an obstacle to completing projects (Mikesell et al., 2013). Seeking equality among partners with different backgrounds and skill sets and overcoming communities’ mistrust may also present ethical dilemmas.

Practice considerations

Much more consistent with qualitative methods of inquiry than with evidence-based research designs, CCAOP requires that social workers self-analyze their biographies and how they intersect with their research practices to impact research participants and communities. Reflexivity shapes how CCAOP researchers build relationships with participants, assess situations, or resolve cultural dilemmas (Lynch, 2010). Reflexivity allows for critical examination of cultural contexts and meaning of research, which may offer an opportunity to respect and validate cultural differences in a unique way (Sisneros et al., 2008). CCAOP researchers should develop sufficient knowledge of the group that is the focus of their research, including understanding of the group’s experiences of oppression. The following paragraphs discuss guidelines for doing CCAOP research.

Research topic selection

CCAOP research must be meaningful and beneficial to the research community; selecting the research topic therefore becomes crucial. Research topics and their selection require exhaustive discussion with members of the community. Community members may generate research topics themselves by drawing on personal or community experiences and observations. Researchers who are not members of the community may also formulate research topics by identifying and conducting research to correct gaps and biases in the literature (Lyons et al., 2012). Feeling “over-researched,” many minority communities have become wary of “parachute” (Castleden et al., 2012) and “helicopter” researchers (Ferreira and Gendron, 2011) who fly in unannounced to collect data at their own convenience and exit as quickly as they appear never to be heard from again. Engaging the community can help build research partnerships that position community “voices” and concerns at the center of the research, as well as sustain equitable relationships throughout the project (Greene, 2012). For instance, having community members on the research team will ensure that the research questions reflect the community’s priorities and interests.

That many communities embrace collective values accentuates the need for CCAOP researchers to acknowledge that obtaining consent from prospective participants would not be enough; it would still be necessary to obtain consent and support from elders, that is, high-esteem community members, or “gatekeepers” within the community. Without gatekeeper support, especially for researchers who do not share ethnocultural, socioeconomic, or geographical affinity with the community, obtaining access to and cooperation from community members can be time-consuming (Lyons et al., 2012) and frustrate the researcher’s efforts at building trust within the community.

Sample selection

CCAOP researchers should critically reflect on why they are choosing the desired sample and how respectfully they can connect with the sample, as this would ensure greater participation (Lyons et al., 2012). Inductive research methodologies are preferred over traditional deductive approaches, whose primary goal is to test hypotheses and generalize research findings. Purposive and snowball sampling procedures would facilitate the recruitment of hard-to-reach participants and “hidden” populations.

Selecting a representative sample to generalize research findings is typically not a concern in qualitative inquiry. Still, sampling is critically important in qualitative research. For many qualitative studies, sample selection may be guided by the needs of the community rather than the researcher’s professional goals. For the researcher, however, sampling is often strategic, or it may be theoretically driven. Where goals diverge, the researcher and relevant community members can discuss their differences and negotiate a mutually acceptable solution.

Being able to recruit and retain participants in CCAOP research requires critical cultural competence skills. Community members can be hired to help recruit research participants and obtain informed consent, or as “peer research assistants,” that is, people who are personally affected by the issue being investigated (Greene, 2012). In Guishard and colleagues’ (2005) study of the experience and history of an educational justice organization in the South Bronx, New York City, research participants conducted interviews and were involved in the data analysis.

Insensitivity to the way research problems are formulated can lead to problems in recruitment and retention of participants as well as findings that are irrelevant to the concerns of the community. Culturally callous research practices spawned by previous studies have often created a poisoned environment leading many minority communities to distrust research or members of the dominant culture in general. Culturally inappropriate informed consent procedures can offend some prospective participants (Rubin and Babbie, 2014). Similarly, the academic protocols required by research ethics review boards may intimidate participants for whom English is an acculturated language (EAL). Culturally inappropriate research practices can poison the climate for future research with marginalized populations.

Site selection

To maximize cooperation and participation by research participants, CCAOP researchers should ensure that the setting for data collection is sensitive to participants’ concerns. Data collection may be done at a location within the community that participants find comfortable or, if convenient, in the participants’ homes to provide them with the comfort of “home turf” (Lyons et al., 2012). Some participants would welcome being interviewed in their home while others may find it intrusive. A research process that allows flexibility in arranging the interview site is necessary to accommodate participants’ concerns about interview location. Conducting interviews within the community in which the issues and behaviors the researcher is interested in naturally occur helps the researcher to get a feel of the participants' lived experiences. All told, the site chosen for the data collection should be easily accessible, ambient, and safe for participants, especially if they have to travel to the location (Rubin and Babbie, 2014).

Research team

CCAOP research involves a team that is committed to both the research process and social justice. The research team can be trained in critical cultural competence and AOP skills throughout the research process, helping them to pay attention to culture as a major factor in advancing understanding of the research topic. Training is particularly important if the prospective research team varies by ethnicity, language, or socioeconomic status. Regardless of the cultural makeup of the research team, it is crucial that research team members demonstrate respect for the data provided by research participants (Lyons et al., 2012).

Data collection instruments

As the primary goal of social justice research is the emancipation and empowerment of marginalized communities, qualitative research instruments and data gathering methods are preferred over quantitative approaches in CCAOP research. Traditional research practices often employ instruments and methods of analysis and interpretation that are culturally inappropriate, marginalize minority communities, or reflect a warped view of difference. A failure to appreciate difference as diversity is to perceive it as deficiency. CCAOP researchers summarily reject this hegemonic and reductionist view of difference, arguing that there is nothing innate to difference that makes it pathological. Problematizing difference is the problem, as are the people who problematize difference (Danso, 2012).

The ecomap, genogram, and culturagram are effective tools for collecting CCAOP research data, especially research with communities espousing collectivist values. Rempel et al. (2007) used ecomaps and genograms to examine the impact of social networks on caregiving. Using these tools promoted a relational process between researcher and participant and helped the researchers to uncover findings such as unrealized potential in the participant’s social network that may remain hidden without these tools. The culturagram can help unravel the impact of culture on individuals and communities as well as patterns of social relations in the context of culture (Congress, 1994). Use of the ecomap and genogram for data collection requires sound judgment. For instance, members of some cultures may perceive a genogram interview intrusive. Participants should be free to answer or refuse to answer questions that make them uncomfortable. Carefully explaining the utility of these tools may allay participants’ fears and facilitate the collection of important research data. While many options are available to CCAOP researchers, in-person interviews remain the most widely used data collection tool in qualitative research (Lyons et al., 2012).

Conducting interviews

Power differentials permeate all levels of human interaction. “Power is expressed at both the explicit and implicit levels” (Smith, 1999: 43). Society is so structured that social relations and our quotidian practices and activities are deeply lodged in lopsided power relations (Kumsa, 2011). Social work research is not immune to this reality. The social work research process unravels in a complex terrain with differing forms of power relationships that can perpetuate systems of oppression (Rogers, 2012). Nowhere is the power and asymmetry of power inherent in research more profoundly manifested than in the interview process, especially when the researchers are from a privileged population (Rubin and Babbie, 2014). Typically, the researcher controls the interview process, including defining the course and duration of the interview. It is counterproductive, therefore, for CCAOP researchers to marginalize disempowered populations further by ignoring the regressive potential of power in the researcher–participant relationship (Rogers, 2012).

Interview practices that align with the community’s cultural norms could reduce power differentials in the interview process. Interviews should be conducted in ways that acknowledge and respect personal and cultural idiosyncrasies. Using cultural concepts and expressions, or inviting participants to suggest ways for conducting interviews within the community would enable participants to feel validated regarding their culture or self-esteem. These reciprocal research strategies could “leverage power imbalances that may exist during and beyond the data collection stages of the research, and emphasize the importance of building and maintaining relationships” (Tobias et al., 2013: 130). Reciprocity empowers marginalized communities by positioning them not as rich “lodes of data” to be mined for the researcher’s benefit, but as research partners.

The amount and quality of data collected for CCAOP research largely depend on how well interviews are conducted. Although ethnocultural similarity between researcher and participant may facilitate the recruitment and retention of participants, that alone would not necessarily guarantee rapport or a viable working relationship, or result in the collection of good quality research data. Interviewer competence may be more important in successful interviewing than ethnoracial matching (Rubin and Babbie, 2014). Training interviewers in effective interviewing skills is crucial in CCAOP research.

Training CCAOP interviewers may include teaching them how to build cultural rapport and respect difference. It may also include practising how best to discuss informed consent and voluntary participation and learning the intricacies of the data collection instruments to be used. Interviewers can role-play practice interviews with each other. These simulation sessions should be reviewed and critiqued (Rubin and Babbie, 2014). Culturally insensitive data-gathering tools can generate unreliable information, offend participants, and lead to results that participants perceive as inimical to their community. Pilot testing the interview tool can help in fine-tuning it and forestall unanticipated problems.

CCAOP research seeks to develop deep understanding of the reality of the people involved in the phenomenon of interest by building a holistic picture, analyzing words and images, and reporting detailed views of participants’ life experiences. To capture the essence of these dynamic processes more effectively requires qualitative-style questions. Statistics-oriented questions are often inappropriate in CCAOP research as they “silence” participants’ voices by precluding the free expression of opinions. Open-ended questions facilitate the gathering of detailed information about peoples’ experiences with social institutions so that appropriate plans could be developed in pursuit of social justice. Doing CCAOP research just for purposes of generating knowledge is not enough; ultimately, CCAOP research should lead to political action by communities to create desired change and a redistribution of power (Van de Sande and Schwartz, 2011).

Data analysis and interpretation

Various methods, including content analysis, grounded theory, and phenomenology exist for analyzing and interpreting CCAOP research data. Given the plethora of options, CCAOP researchers would select a method that most closely reflects researcher competence and values and most accurately frames the research questions. Selecting the most appropriate methods requires careful consideration of the sociopolitical contexts within which the research is conducted and the role that data interpretation and dissemination of research will take in a particular community (Lyons et al., 2012). The method selected for data analysis and interpretation must holistically communicate participants’ voice and reflect the cultural worldviews of the target community. Data analysis and interpretation should also consider how the research results could benefit the community.

Privileging participants’ voice and ensuring coauthorship of the research can be done by having participants vet transcripts and tentative interpretations, having them offer their own interpretations of the data (which may help researchers and readers understand potentially differing worldviews), or engaging participants as cocreators in the interpretation process (Lyons et al., 2012). Inclusion of participants would help improve the quality and relevance of interpretations made.

CCAOP researchers acknowledge that data analysis and interpretation practices are subjective and that their personal biographies and level of critical cultural competence can affect how they analyze and interpret the research data. Researchers should intentionally report on these subjective experiences and how they influenced the data analysis and interpretation (Lyons et al., 2012). Cultural chauvinism in data analysis and reporting often results in interpreting ethnic differences in a prejudicial manner, focusing too much on “weaknesses” and too little on strengths (Rubin and Babbie, 2014).

Reporting and disseminating research findings

Although the writing of the final report on a CCAOP research project would follow the general contours of traditional scientific writing, it should contribute to community empowerment. Including participants in the report writing would both validate their input and acknowledge them as coauthors and owners of the research. Traditional scientific research favors the writing of research reports in the third-person passive rather than the first-person active voice. This approach emphasizes use of expressions such as “It was found” rather than “We found that” in order to portray an image of objectivity and neutrality (Van de Sande and Schwartz, 2011). Postmodernist, feminist, and constructivist critiques of traditional science have opened up a slew of possible approaches to writing and presenting research reports, including writing in the first person. Even so, for empowerment researchers to reach our goal and intended audiences, some of our writing “may have to accommodate conventions that may not fit comfortably with postmodern, feminist, or narrative sensibilities.… [T]o refuse to adapt to such conventions may just as easily reflect arrogance as integrity” (Ellingson, 2011: 606). The practice of not conforming stubbornly to established writing conventions, which I call transgressive or tactical scholarship, is inescapable when certain ways of knowing are strictly enforced while others are excluded.

CCAOP researchers’ primary concern is the people we serve. Therefore, while we may have to craft our research reports in a traditional format to meet the needs of an academic or government audience, our research should benefit the target community (Van de Sande and Schwartz, 2011). Our research should be presented in ways that are accessible and intelligible to the community, including writing research reports in language devoid of academic jargon or technical gibberish. Reports could be so composed that the research findings and recommendations could be easily translated into actionable strategies for social change. Research reports may have to be written entirely in the language of the community to preserve the cultural and linguistic integrity of the report. Language is very slippery and much meaning is lost in translation. Engaging community members in the report preparation and over interpretation of both language and cultural content is empowering because it could forestall misrepresentation and misallocation of indigenous knowledge (Castleden et al., 2012).

Even as CCAOP researchers interrogate traditional ways of presenting research reports, they should not neglect to acknowledge their location in the research report, including documenting their values, biases, and interests. While there is no one standard format for the interpretivist approach, it is important to write up qualitative studies using qualitative language. Given its interpretivist heritage, CCAOP emphasizes use of extensive direct quotes to illustrate interpretations and conclusions and privilege participants’ voices. CCAOP researchers can establish trustworthiness of their research by describing the techniques used in the study, such as keeping detailed field records, using triangulation and peer debriefing, analyzing negative cases, where they revise their analysis until they have accounted for all cases, and doing member checking, by asking participants to provide feedback on the conclusions (Van de Sande and Schwartz, 2011).

After analyzing research findings and disseminating the report, the next stage of the research cycle is to “activate” the findings by using them for social action (Van de Sande and Schwartz, 2011). Research findings can be presented to the community at a meeting convened for the purpose to galvanize community members about organizing to address the problem documented in the report. Presenting the report to the community can solidify the trust the community has developed in the researcher by collaborating with them to implement the project. Community members would have irrefutable evidence that the research was done to benefit them by addressing their concerns. Thus convinced, they would be more open to collaborating on future projects. Research findings can also be presented to government officials responsible for community development and social services to convince them that the participating community needs more resources to tackle their issues (Van de Sande and Schwartz, 2011). CCAOP research must lead to social change.

Conclusion

Methodological diversity is needed to provide social work researchers with more opportunities to creatively address social injustices. The CCAOP model represents an innovative methodological development in social work research in that it brings together domains that have traditionally been dichotomized in social work. CCAOP can promote greater interest in qualitative social work research since, unlike social work practice and education social work’s governing bodies have not provided explicit standards for culturally competent or anti-oppressive social work research. Culturally appropriate and empowerment social work practice should be anchored in CCAOP research that advances and solidifies the knowledge base for social work practice and policies and that result in the delivery of culturally empowering services and the implementation of more effective social change efforts. Emerging diversity realities require innovative research tools that can effectively harness the combined powers of critical cultural competence and AOP. Nothing inherent to CCAOP research automatically makes it produce social justice outcomes. Moreover, the interest, ability, and commitment of social workers to utilize CCAOP will vary with researchers and participants’ context and experience (Lyons et al., 2013). Therefore, social workers should purposefully inject social justice principles and goals into their work with marginalized communities. Weaving social transformation into CCAOP research processes can happen successfully when social work researchers reflect on and integrate the social justice principles presented in this article.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

I would like to thank two reviewers for their comments on a draft of this article.

References

Baines

(2007) Doing Anti-Oppressive Practice: Building Transformative Politicized Social Work, Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

Bhuyan

Park

Rundle

(2012) Linking practitioners’ attitudes towards and knowledge of immigrants with their social work education. Social Work Education 31(8): 973–994.

Bocarro

Stodolska

(2013) Researcher and advocate: Using research to promote social justice change: Leisure Research Symposium. Journal of Leisure Research 45(1): 2–6.

Casado

Negi

Hong

(2012) Culturally competent social work research: Methodological considerations for research with language minorities. Social Work 57(1): 1–10.

Castellano

(2004) Ethics of Aboriginal research. Journal of Aboriginal Health 1(1): 98–114.

Castleden

Morgan

Lamb

(2012) “I spent the first year drinking tea”: Exploring Canadian university researchers’ perspectives on community-based participatory research involving indigenous peoples. The Canadian Geographer 56(2): 160–179.

Charmaz

(2011) Grounded theory methods in social justice research. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 359–380.

Clarke

Wan

(2011) Transforming settlement work: From a traditional to a critical anti-oppression approach with newcomer youth in secondary schools. Critical Social Work 12(1): 13–26.

Coggins

Campbell

(2008) Using cultural competence to close the achievement gap. The Journal of Pan African Studies 2(4): 44–59.

10.

Congress

(1994) The use of culturagrams to assess and empower culturally diverse families. Families in Society 75(9): 531–540.

11.

Cooper

Levin

(2011) Developing Critical Cultural Competence: A Guide for 21st-Century Educators, Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

12.

Danso

(2012) Racial Oppression in a ‘Post-Race’ North America: Transformative Social Work Responses, New York: Nova Science Publishers.

13.

D’Cruz

Jones

(2013) Social Work Research in Practice: Ethical and Political Contexts, 2nd ed. London: SAGE Publications.

14.

Dominelli

(2005) Social work research: Contested knowledge for practice. In: Adams

Dominelli

Payne

(eds) Social Work Futures: Crossing Boundaries, Transforming Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 223–236.

15.

Ellingson

(2011) Analysis and interpretation along the continuum. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research, 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 595–610.

16.

Ferreira

Gendron

(2011) Community-based participatory research with traditional and indigenous communities of the Americas: Historical context and future directions. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy 3(3): 153–168.

17.

Floersch

Longhofer

Suskewicz

(2014) The use of ethnography in social work research. Qualitative Social Work 13(1): 3–7.

18.

Greene

(2012) Improving practice and affecting policy: Research in diverse contexts. In: Drolet

Clark

Allen

(eds) Shifting Sites of Practice: Field Education in Canada, Toronto: Pearson Education, Inc., pp. 111–135.

19.

Guishard

Fine

Doyle

(2005) The Bronx on the move: Participatory consultation with mothers and youth. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation 16(1–2): 35–54.

20.

Haight

Kayama

Korang-Okrah

(2014) Ethnography in social work practice and policy. Qualitative Social Work 13(1): 127–143.

21.

Hardwick

Worsley

(2011) Doing Social Work Research, London: SAGE Publications.

22.

Harrison

Turner

(2011) Being a ‘culturally competent’ social worker: Making sense of a murky concept in practice. British Journal of Social Work 41(2): 333–350.

23.

Healy

(2010) Community education. In: O’Hara

Weber

Levine

(eds) Skills for Human Service Practice: Working with Individuals, Groups and Communities, Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, pp. 280–287.

24.

Heinonen

Spearman

(2010) Social Work Practice: Problem Solving and Beyond, 3rd ed. Toronto: Nelson Education Ltd.

25.

Hogan

(2013) Four Skills of Cultural Diversity Competence: A Process for Understanding and Practice, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

26.

Holley

Stromwall

Bashor

(2012) Reconceptualizing stigma: Toward a critical anti-oppression paradigm. Stigma Research and Action 2(2): 51–61.

27.

Houston

Mullan-Jensen

(2012) Towards depth and width in qualitative social work: Aligning interpretative phenomenological analysis with the theory of social domains. Qualitative Social Work 11(3): 266–281.

28.

Kim

(2011) The pilot study in qualitative inquiry: Identifying issues and learning lessons for culturally competent research. Qualitative Social Work 10(2): 190–206.

29.

Koster

Baccar

Lemelin

(2012) Moving from research ON, to research WITH and FOR indigenous communities: A critical reflection on community-based participatory research. The Canadian Geographer 56(2): 195–210.

30.

Kumsa

(2011) A resettlement story of unsettlement: Transformative practices of taking it personally. In: Baines

(ed.) Doing Anti-Oppressive Practice: Social Justice Social Work, 2nd ed. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing, pp. 229–248.

31.

Lee

Zaharlick

(2013) Culturally Competent Research: Using Ethnography as a Meta-Framework, New York: Oxford University Press.

32.

Lum

(2011) Culturally Competent Practice: A Framework for Understanding Diverse Groups and Justice Issues, 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

33.

Lynch

(2010) Cultural diversity in practice: Working with immigrants and refugees. In: O’Hara

Weber

Levine

(eds) Skills for Human Service Practice: Working with Individuals, Groups and Communities, Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, pp. 58–75.

34.

Lyons

Bike

Johnson

(2012) Culturally competent qualitative research with people of African descent. Journal of Black Psychology 38(2): 153–171.

35.

Lyons

Bike

Ojeda

(2013) Qualitative research as social justice practice with culturally diverse populations. Journal for Social Action in Counseling Psychology 5(2): 10–25.

36.

Lyons

(2000) The place of research in social work education. British Journal of Social Work 30(4): 433–447.

37.

McCrystal

Wilson

(2009) Research training and professional social work education: Developing research minded practice. Social Work Education 28(8): 856–872.

38.

Mertens

Ginsberg

(2008) Deep in ethical waters: Transformative perspectives for qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work 7(4): 484–503.

39.

Mikesell

Bromley

Khodyakov

(2013) Ethical community-engaged research: A literature review. American Journal of Public Health 103(12): e7–e14.

40.

Mullaly

(2007) The New Structural Social Work, 3rd ed. Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press.

41.

Parrott

(2009) Constructive marginality: Conﬂicts and dilemmas in cultural competence and anti-oppressive practice. Social Work Education 28(6): 617–630.

42.

Potts

Brown

(2005) Becoming an anti-oppressive researcher. In: Brown

Strega

(eds) Research as Resistance: Critical, Indigenous and Anti-Oppressive Approaches, Toronto: Canadian Scholars’/Women’s Press, pp. 255–286.

43.

Rempel

Neufeld

Kushner

(2007) Interactive use of genograms and ecomaps in family caregiving research. Journal of Family Nursing 13(4): 403–409.

44.

Rogers

(2012) Anti-oppressive social work research: Reflections on power in the creation of knowledge. Social Work Education 31(7): 866–879.

45.

Rogler

(1989) The meaning of culturally sensitive research in mental health. American Journal of Psychiatry 146(3): 296–303.

46.

Rubin

Babbie

(2013) Essential Research Methods for Social Work, 3rd ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

47.

Rubin

Babbie

(2014) Research Methods for Social Work, 8th ed. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

48.

Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books Ltd.

49.

Sisneros

Stakeman

Joyner

(2008) Critical Multicultural Social Work, Chicago: Lyceum Books, Inc.

50.

Strier

(2007) Anti-oppressive research in social work: A preliminary deﬁnition. British Journal of Social Work 37(5): 857–871.

51.

Tobias

Richmond

CAM

Luginaah

(2013) Community-based participatory research (CBPR) with indigenous communities: Producing respectful and reciprocal research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: An International Journal 8(2): 129–140.

52.

Van de Sande

Schwartz

(2011) Research for Social Justice: A Community-based Approach, Halifax: Fernwood Publishing.

53.

Weber

(2010) Conducting assessment: Some general guidelines. In: O’Hara

Weber

Levine

(eds) Skills for Human Service Practice: Working with Individuals, Groups, and Communities, Don Mills, ON: Oxford University Press, pp. 145–159.