Week 7: Critical Traditions

Week 7: Critical Traditions
Jackie Clark

This weeks readings move into qualitative traditions that seek to not only research but change the world. I feel like any researcher who chooses this methodology is really doing more than research by engaging in action. These actions are geared to right perceived wrongs and injustice often created by systemic inequality. In some ways this work is more complex, involving people's whole selves, with unavoidable psychological and emotional connections to groups and people studied. I think it might be hard to determine where the research ends and activism begins. Are these people researchers or activists? Or politicians? The work is so encompassing and in depth that it is a way of life, and I doubt researchers ever really leave it. If you feel compelled to connect research and social change, you would never be satisfied. There is simply to much inequality in the world to work through.

Prassad's writing on Historical Materialism and Critical Theory set the stage with a great deal of history and application. I continue to appreciate her easy way of writing with clear examples to make her points. However, I will admit to finding Marxism's history and ties to historical materialism really difficult to understand. The application of Marx's ideas regarding the dehumanization of people through the drudgery of work systems, and the overall umbrella of capitalism makes sense. I don't think it's a leap to see he is talking about psychology and the need to feel engaged and purposeful in your work. However, the reader must keep in mind the historical context of the author and the era. Today, economic systems have evolved worldwide, and sometimes reading these idea through today's lens provides a different outcome. At least to me. But in terms of the concepts and foundations of critical thought and research, it's very helpful to consider the sources. In student affairs, there is quite a lot of critical work being done, and one of our faculty is currently involved in a PAR project, so I have some more immediate idea of what this looks like today in a current research project.

The 2 articles we read were helpful both in providing a historic context of critical research and a current application via the study of alienated youth. Both pieces were written in a language I could understand, and made their points with succinctly and with examples. My take-away from the origins chapter is the essence of struggle in creating a new methodology, and the steps needed to hone it into a valid and reliable way to to research. I could feel the many voices coming together in the field, to try and both create a new way of doing research and connect to research from the past. It was very clear that no matter what, the importance of doing research that is connected to social justice and social change is paramount. If the researcher is not helping the oppressed, then there is no point! The author captured the messiness of the new methodology, and the steps needed to continue to hone it for scholarly acceptance.

The second piece, regarding alienated youth was well written and clear in its critique of current educational pedagogy. In a well organized article, the foundations of the issue were clear, the methodology clear, and the results clear. I won't go into my personal thoughts here on the education system and how degraded it is in the US, but this article shines an excellent light on pedagogic changes that might improve the engagement of students. When you are dealing with an issue that involves social systems, family systems, school systems, and individual actors, it's complex. I think this complexity has really been the hindrance to change.You must approach improvement as a multi-system issue, and that is exponentially difficult to do. This article does a good job at identifying a social change need, and articulating a possible idea for improvement.