Another specific goal you might have with your research is to be responsive to the cultural context in which your research is taking place, or the action you want to see take place from it. Let’s explore how those can influence your research process.

Culturally Sensitive Research

“Research” in the way we’ve conceptualized it in this course is fraught with challenges. Ethical quandaries, measurement questions, sample biases, and overall challenges in choosing designs are all things you’ve encountered already! Beyond decisions about the design of a study itself, we also need to consider how what we are studying, and what we do with the results, is situated in our cultural contexts. Thus, we need to consider how we can practice culturally sensitive research. Due to general cultural differences between different groups of people, and specific horrific historical events (some of which you’ve already read about), not all research methods are appropriate or acceptable in all cultures or with all groups. However, we can’t just throw up our hands and ignore culture, or exclude certain groups of people from research altogether, because that’s how we end up with WEIRD research like we’ve talked about too!

Anytime you desire to do research, with any culture (and think broadly about culture – we often think of it in terms of ethnicity, but also religions, nationalities, and even things like rural communities or athletic teams can develop culture), you must think carefully about what is appropriate and acceptable within the bounds of the culture you’re working in. You must also consider how you will present your results to those who belong to the culture you’re describing, and those outside of it.

Awad and colleagues (2015) provide an excellent framework for conducting culturally sensitive research methods. This might include questions of design, like using qualitative methods when appropriate to either fill in gaps left by quantitative research (such as in the local meaning of a given construct) or help in obtaining rich data in a small sample. They also give recommendations in the interpretation and framing of research, like making clear the level of acculturation and language proficiency of a sample when interpreting assessments. Some of their suggestions are good practice for all research, like building trust among the population being studied through involving stakeholders or avoiding over-generalizing the research findings. Instead, they suggest being careful to explain research samples and collection methods in detail so that results can be interpreted correctly and with the right limitations in mind. Finally, one key suggestion they give is to avoid comparative frameworks unless they are key to the study design. What this means is that unless the study is specifically about testing a theory in one group compared to another, or comparing results across two or more groups, then it is acceptable, and even desirable, to focus only on the given study population without having to compare results to a “control” population (often the majority culture in an area). This means that if you are studying how Asian families construct mealtime conversations, you don’t need to compare results to a sample of White families unless you are explicitly making comparisons. If your goal is simply to understand the Asian families’ experiences, then focus only on them.

Community Based Participatory Research 

Beyond just being careful in our designs and reporting, there are additional ways in which we can consider cultural concerns in our research practice. Some more involved ways include bringing the research to the population, and the population into the research. In fact, there are important methods that center around the participation of the community under study!

Some marginalized communities have developed mistrust toward researchers due to unethical treatment in the past. This has led to a need for collaborative partnerships with populations of interest by forming high-quality relationships and involving community members or leaders as co-researchers. Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is an approach to research that actively involves the community being studied in the research process. It requires building trusting relationships with the population of interest prior to conducting research and working with community leaders or representatives to conduct studies that will be mutually beneficial for the researchers and the community members. Ethical researchers will need to set aside their own research agendas to better understand the needs, perspectives, and values of the community they want to study.

For example, Indigenous communities in Canada have experienced unjust treatment by researchers historically (Schnarch, 2004). This has included a lack of understanding and respect for cultural beliefs, and researchers imposing their own worldviews, leading to unethical data collection practices and perpetuating untrue and even harmful messages about Indigenous peoples. Indigenous communities have also expressed concern that historically, research has not been relevant to the contexts, experiences, or needs of participants’ communities, and may not provide benefit to those communities (Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit, 2009). Since the early 2000s, Indigenous communities have formed their own research councils and have outlined ethical codes of practice for productive research partnerships with Indigenous peoples. This includes requiring researchers to form collaborative partnerships with Indigenous research representatives and community leaders, involving them in all stages of decision-making in the research process, and focusing on research on topics Indigenous communities identify as needed. To learn more about their standards, see The Seven Directives outlined by the First Nations Health Authority in Canada and standards for ethical data use practices.

Action research

Action research is research that is conducted for the purpose of creating social change. When conducting action research, scholars collaborate with community stakeholders at all stages of the research process with the aim of producing results that will be usable in the community and by scientists. Social scientists who engage in action research never just go it alone; instead, they collaborate with the people who are affected by the research at each stage in the process. Stakeholders, particularly those with the least power, should be consulted on the purpose of the research project, research questions, design, and reporting of results.

Action research also distinguishes itself from other research in that its purpose is to create change on an individual and community level. Kristin Esterberg puts it quite eloquently when she says, “At heart, all action researchers are concerned that research not simply contribute to knowledge but also lead to positive changes in people’s lives” (2002, p. 137). As you might imagine, action research is consistent with the assumptions of the critical paradigm, which focuses on liberating people from oppressive structures. Action research has multiple origins across the globe, including Kurt Lewin’s psychological experiments in the US and Paulo Friere’s literacy and education programs (Adelman, 1993; Reason, 1994). Over the years, action research has become increasingly popular among scholars who wish for their work to have tangible outcomes that benefit the groups they study.

Action research does not bring any new methodological tricks or terms, but it uses the processes of science in a different way than traditional research. What topics are important to study in a neighborhood or with a target population? A traditional scientist might look at the literature or use their practice wisdom to formulate a question for quantitative or qualitative research. An action researcher, on the other hand, would consult with the target population itself to see what they thought the most pressing issues are and their proposed solutions. In this way, action research flips traditional research on its head. Scientists are more like consultants who provide the tools and resources necessary for a target population to achieve their goals and address social problems.

According to Healy (2001), the assumptions of participatory-action research are that (a) oppression is caused by macro-level structures such as patriarchy and capitalism; (b) research should expose and confront the powerful; (c) researcher and participant relationships should be equal, with equitable distribution of research tasks and roles; and (d) research should result in consciousness-raising and collective action. Action research supports the self-determination of oppressed groups and privileges their voice and understanding through the conceptualization, design, data collection, data analysis, and dissemination processes of research.

There are many excellent examples of action research. Some of them focus solely on arriving at useful outcomes for the communities upon which and with whom research is conducted. Other action research projects result in some new knowledge that has a practical application and purpose in addition to the creation of knowledge for basic scientific purposes.

One example of action research can be seen in Fred Piercy and colleagues’ (2011) work with farmers in Virginia, Tennessee, and Louisiana. Together with farmers in these states, the researchers conducted focus groups to understand how farmers learn new information about farming. Ultimately, the aim of this study was to “develop more meaningful ways to communicate information to farmers about sustainable agriculture” (p. 820). The researchers and farmers believed that this improved communication would benefit not only researchers interested in the topic but also farmers and their communities. Farmers and researchers were both involved in all aspects of the research, from designing the project and determining focus group questions to conducting the focus groups and finally to analyzing data and disseminating findings.

Many additional examples of action research can be found at Loyola University Chicago’s Center for Urban Research and Learning (CURL). The mission of the center is to create “innovative solutions that promote equity and opportunity in communities throughout the Chicago metropolitan region” (CURL, n.d., para. 1). For example, in 2006 researchers at CURL embarked on a project to assess the impact on small, local retailers of new Walmart stores entering urban areas (Jones, 2008). The study found that while the effect of Walmart on local retailers seems to have a larger impact in rural areas, Chicago-area local retailers did not experience as dramatic an impact. Nevertheless a “small but statistically significant relationship” was found between Walmart’s arrival in the city and local retailers’ closing their doors (Jones, 2008, para. 3). This and other research conducted by CURL aims to raise awareness about and promote positive social change around issues affecting the lives of people in the Chicago area. CURL meets this aim by collaborating with members of the community to shape a research agenda, collect and analyze data, and disseminate results.

Perhaps one of the most unique and rewarding aspects of engaging in action research is that it is often interdisciplinary. Action research projects might bring together researchers from any number of disciplines, from the social sciences, such as sociology, political science, and psychology; to an assortment of physical and natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry; to engineering, philosophy, and history (to name just a few). Anyone interested in social change can benefit from having some understanding of social scientific research methods. The knowledge you’ve gained from your methods course can be put to good use even if you don’t have an interest in pursuing a career in research. As a member of a community, perhaps you will find that the opportunity to engage in action research presents itself to you one day. Your background in research methodology will no doubt assist you in making life better for yourself and those who share your interests, circumstances, or geographic region.

Adelman, C. (1993). Kurt Lewin and the origins of action research. Educational Action Research, 1, 7-24.

Assembly of First Nations Environmental Stewardship Unit. (2009). Ethics in First Nations research. https://www.ktpathways.ca/system/files/resources/2019-02/rp-research_ethics_final.pdf

Awad, G. H., Patall, E. A., Rackley, K. R., & Reilly, E. D. (2015). Recommendations for Culturally Sensitive Research Methods. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474412.2015.1046600

CURL. (n.d.) Mission. Retrieved from: https://www.luc.edu/curl/Mission.shtml ↵

Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. ↵

Healy, K. (2001). Participatory action research and social work: A critical appraisal. International Social Work, 44, 93-105. ↵

Jones, S. M. (2008, May 13). Cities may mute effect of Wal-Mart. Chicago Tribune. ↵

Piercy, F. P., Franz, N., Donaldson, J. L., & Richard, R. F. (2011). Consistency and change in participatory action research: Reflections on a focus group study about how farmers learn. The Qualitative Report, 16, 820–829. ↵

Reason, P. (1994). Participation in human inquiry. London, UK: Sage. ↵

Schnarch, B. (2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research. A critical analysis of contemporary First Nations research and some options for First Nations communities. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1, 80-95.