Social Science Research Council

This proposal is to carry out two activities, meant to discuss and critically explore the idea of "activist research," and to produce a conceptual map that those who wish to conduct activist research could consult, and perhaps, follow. The conceptual map would be a published document, probably a collection of essays, although it could be disseminated in other forms as well. The document would have a strong methodological focus, although inevitably it would raise a series of closely related issues from epistemological to ethical and logistical. There are two proposed funded activities: a) a small workshop, involving eight to ten participants, who prior to the event have produced written texts that offer analysis and reflection on the practice of activist research; b) a larger "institute" involving some of these same participants, and a selection of past and current GSC fellows who plant to practice some form of activist research in their project.

These activities build on one facet of the new dual focus of the "Global Security and Cooperation (GSC)" program, which Itty and John have summarized as follows: " . . . we seek to cross-fertilize the knowledge held by academic and practitioner to produce a new kind of thinking and understanding that embodies the best of both worlds." This emphasis on the convergence and collaboration of "academics" and "practitioners," in turn, brings the topic of activist research to the fore. I do not claim that all knowledge production at the crossroads of the work of academics and practitioners comes under, or should come under, the rubric "activist research." Likewise, I do not want to give the impression that this is always most useful, appropriate, productive or even most ethically sound way to develop academic / practitioner relationships. It is one important alternative among many, which is sure to play a central role in the GSC program.

Definitions are not always helpful in the initial discussion of a broad and complex topic like this one. The objective, especially at first, is not to delimit but to explore, and especially, to probe boundaries that definitions tend to present as fixed and given. With that proviso, let me suggest a rough preliminary description of the terrain under discussion here. Activist scholarship, in my understanding, is research that: a) helps us better to understand the root causes of inequality, oppression, violence and related conditions of human suffering; b) is carried out, at each phase from conception through dissemination, in direct cooperation with an organized group of people who themselves are subject to these conditions; c) is used, together with the people in question, to formulate strategies for transforming these conditions and to achieve the power necessary to make these strategies effective.

This description demarcates a terrain on which a number of the projects funded by the GSC are located. This could include, for example, research aligned with an oppressed cultural group claiming rights to autonomy, with people contesting gender inequality, promoting human rights, addressing basic material deprivation, etc. It could include scholar applicants who propose to work in collaboration with organizations involved in such efforts, as well as practitioners from such organizations, who propose to spend a year in a university setting before embarking on a research project that their own organization endorses. In both cases, these arrangements will require the grantee to carry out research according to a model that is not commonly practiced in either realm: in keeping with the highest standards of academic rigor and in keeping with the equally rigorous standards established by the organization in question (in terms of ethics, procedures, validity and usefulness of the results, etc.).

This is an extremely important frontier of knowledge production, but it is a "frontier" in the sense of entailing numerous complexities that have not been addressed in a systematic way, and in some case have not even been fully identified. We might divide these complexities into five broad categories:

1. Methodological: the "how to" of activist research incorporates many of the standard tenets of social science methodology, but also modifies some of these, in keeping with the principle of "co-participation" of the subjects in each facet of the research process. Careful work needs to be done to elucidate the contents and implications of these modifications.

2. Ethical-political: A series of ethical questions are raised, in terms of responsibility to the "subjects," as well as to disciplinary canons and academic communities at large. Standard doctrines of ethics, human subjects protocols, and the like are almost surely inadequate in relation to the questions raised. There also is a presumption of political efficacy, which raises additional questions. Further complexities arise when the subjects of research include the relatively powerful (e.g. the State, the elite adversaries of a cultural rights movement): what kinds of ethical-political responsibilities hold in this case?

3. Epistemological: activist research introduces the possibility that we are seeking to expand or transform conventional means of producing knowledge (starting with the principle of co-participation), and even, of evaluating the validity of the results. This last issue is especially thorny: how does a relationship of accountability to the subjects of research, or put more generally, a criterion of "usefulness" affect the ways in which we evaluate what counts as good, rigorous research outcomes?

4. Theoretical: One of the tenets of activist research, in my view is the assertion that the practice of activist research produces novel theoretical insights that otherwise would be impossible to achieve. Can this assertion be sustained?

5. Logistical and practical: related to the ethical-political and the methodological concerns, the issue here is the straight-forward question of feasibility. What are the risks and dangers of activist research? What kinds of benefits can this type of research methodology be expected to produce? Will the necessary access, trust, etc. of the subjects be possible to achieve? Etc.

This is a short list. I'm sure there are more topics, and under each rubric, much clarification is necessary. The next step is to examine how each of these cluster of issues work out in each phase of the research process, i.e.:

1. research design;
2. data collection;
3. analysis;
4. writing (or its alternative)
5. dissemination.

This will help further to specify the analytical work that needs to be done. (For example, much of the "reflexive turn" in anthropology is focused on trying to address the dilemmas of activist research in the writing phase, having largely neglected them in phases 1 through 3. This renders the author's achievements inherently limited and partial.)

Without much problem, we could identify a dynamic group of social science scholars whose work is located on this terrain (indeed, the committee contains many); but my sense is that most of these people who have been doing activist research have not had the time or inclination to engage in systematic reflection and writing about its practice. Consequently, there is relatively little written material on this topic that others could draw on and benefit from. Further, I am very sure that there are few or no graduate programs that properly prepare graduate students for this kind of work. In short, we would be asking fellows (especially pre-dissertation fellows) to propose methodologies and theoretical frames, confront epistemological problems, deal with ethical-political and practical complexities with very little in the way of a conceptual map that could serve as a guide. A key concern follows: that this lacuna could translate into a relative weakness of precisely the type of work that (I for one) have high hopes that this program will be able to encourage and support.

The concrete proposal that follows is that the GSC undertake an effort, under the rubric of "field-building activities" to create such a conceptual map.

Workshop on Activist Research Methods

This workshop would draw together eight to ten participants, from different parts of the world, all of whom would produce prior to the event a written contribution to discussions. The objectives would include: a) Critical scrutiny of the concept of activist research; b) Systematic review of the literature currently in existence that provides a sense of what activist research is, how it is practiced, with what results (see a very brief bibliography below); c) Discussion of diverse experiences, and the issues raised; d) Collective work toward the production of a document that could be useful in providing methodological guidelines for the practice of activist research and for thinking through problems, dilemmas, contradictions that activist research brings to the fore. The document could also be a means to support supports toward institutionalization of activist research training in formal educational settings.

Participants

Ideally, the participants would include both a selection of GSC committee members and others who are known leaders in this area of work. The emphasis in this first workshop would be on participants inclined to produce sustained written reflection on the topic; in subsequent phases (e.g. the "institute") it would be important to broaden the mix to include some that are primarily activists as well.

A preliminary selection of participants, in addition to a more comprehensive bibliography, will be presented at the Belfast meeting.

Meeting location to be decided based on logistical and financial considerations.

Institute for Activist Research

This would be a larger meeting, involving the participants in the workshop, and a group of invited participants from among fellows past and present. The objectives would be: a) to help the fellows think through issues related to the practice of activist research; b) improve on the conceptual map, benefiting from the fellows' input. The combined products of these two workshops would eventually be published as an edited volume.

I prefer to put forth the details of this second activity once the first is fully confirmed and planned. Approval of the two activities would be independent decisions.

Concluding notes

Another very important product of these efforts could be a blueprint, of sorts, for introducing principles of activist research into graduate training programs. The argument here is that just as MacArthur has (and still does?) fund university-based programs that promote alternative approaches to "security," similar training programs (with Foundation support) would be necessary to make activist research an option for interested graduate students. Otherwise, it is hard to imagine how the second goal of the GSC program could be achieved in a sustainable way.

These ideas can also be incorporated into discussions at the fellows conferences, as is already being planned at the Belfast meeting.

Bibliography

Fals-Borda, Orlando, and Mohammad Anisur Rahman 1991 Action and Knowledge. Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action-Research. New York: The Apex Press.

Fox, Jonathan A., and L. David Brown 1998 The Struggle for Accountability. The World Bank, NGOs, and Grassroots Movements. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Gordon, Edmund T. 1998 Disparate Diasporas: Identity and Politics in an African-Nicaraguan Community. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Greenwood, Davydd J., and Morten Levin 1998 Introduction to Action Research. Social Research for Social Change. London: Sage.

Rivera Cusicanqui, Silvia 1996 Los desafios para una democracia etnica y generica en los albores del tercer mileno. In Ser mujer indigena, chola o birlocha en la Bolivia postcolonial de los anos 90. S. Rivera Cusicanqui, ed. pp. 17-84. La Paz: Ministerio de Desarrollo Humano.

Scheper-Hughes, Nancy 1995 The Primacy of the Ethical. Propositions for a Militant Anthropology. Current Anthropology 36(3):409-420.

Sudbury, Julia 1998 'other kinds of dreams': black women's orgnaizations and the politics of transformation. London: Routledge.

Varese, Stefano 1996 The Ethnopolitics of Indian Resistance in Latin America. Latin American Perspectives 23(2):58-71.

(Gordon 1998)
(Fals-Borda and Anisur Rahman 1991)
(Greenwood and Levin 1998)
(Sudbury 1998)
(Scheper-Hughes 1995)
(Fox and Brown 1998)
(Rivera Cusicanqui 1996)
(Varese 1996)