Growing up, we base our ideas of science and scientists on what we see in the media we consume. For me, being a scientist meant either digging up dinosaur bones or conducting psychic experiments in the basement of Columbia University. Then, when the University grew tired of their antics, a real scientist would buy an old run-down fire station, develop nuclear reactors that they could wear on their back, bust some ghosts, and save New York City.
As you grow older, your ideas of what a scientist is changes. You begin to see the scientist as an objective observer. One who conducts experiments on others, and watches to see what happens. Then, after evaluating what they see, a real scientist makes changes to their study to see just how miserable they can make their subject.
Everyone’s idea of what a scientist is differs, but the root of the belief is that the scientist is meant to be separated from their subjects. They are detached. They are aloof. Like gods playing with their creations just to see what happens. Like the Hebrew god and his adversary making a wager with each other, then taking away Job’s blessings to test the nature of his devotion and faith. The Science Council’s definition of a “scientist” leans into the detached and “other-ness” of scientists. They state on their website that: “A scientist is someone who systematically gathers and uses research and evidence, to make hypotheses and test them, to gain and share understanding and knowledge.” (The Science Council, 2020) This definition clearly draws a line in the sand between the scientist and their subjects. The subjects or phenomenon are there to be observed, and the main goal of the scientist is to gather and use the information that results from their research. It places the scientist above the thing they are studying.
Not everyone in the scientific world agrees that the researcher, and those being researched, should be separated, and detached from each other. Paulo Freire, a Brazilian educator, believed that the researcher and the researched were equal and active participants in the research process (Freire, 1970). He believed that the research process was a two-way street. He was teaching something to those he was researching, and they were returning the favor by teaching him something back. He was a champion for those he was researching, believing that the only way to truly combat the social and economic inequalities of his research subjects was to fully empower and include them in the process (Freire, 1970).
Freire’s work was revolutionary for many reasons, but its greatest contribution was to the creation of the concept of Participatory Action Research. This type of research declares that people have the universal right to participate in the generation and expansion of knowledge (Brydon-Miller, 1997).
Through this participation in the process, researchers and those being researched can help facilitate personal and social transformation. One PAR study asked both mental health providers and those seeking help for mental health issues to define recovery, then shared the results with both groups so that there could be a better understanding of treatment goals (Rempfer & Knott, 2012). It’s a collaboration between all parties involved.
Another PAR study used community members in a rural Australian Aboriginal village as researchers, empowering them to identify the main issues affecting their lives and giving them the resources they determined that they needed in order to take action to improve their circumstances (Tsey et al., 2004). Instead of someone observing and determining what this oppressed group needed, researchers gave the people in the community the power to determine what they needed. This cooperation is what makes PAR such a valuable and powerful tool to help create social change.
So, the next time you imagine a psychologist or a scientist, think of Paolo Freire and the other pioneers of Participatory Action Research. Instead of a stuffy old man in a white coat making notes on a clipboard (or, parapsychologists shocking people in the basement of Columbia University because they couldn’t correctly guess the symbol on a card), think about the studies where those being researched were empowered and included in the research process. If we are truly serious about creating positive social change, then Participatory Action Research methods should be explored.
References:
Brydon-Miller, M. (1997). Participatory action research: Psychology and social change. Journal of Social Issues, 53(4), 657–666. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00042
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
Our definition of a scientist. The Science Council. (2020, March 3). https://sciencecouncil.org/about-science/our-definition-of-a-scientist/#:~:text=A%20scientist%20is%20someone%20who,or%20data%20(data%20scientists).
Rempfer, M., & Knott, J. (2012). Participatory action research: A model for establishing partnerships between mental health researchers and persons with psychiatric disabilities. Recovery and Wellness, 157–171. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203049457-13
Tsey, K., Patterson, D., Whiteside, M., Baird, L., Baird, B., & Tsey, K. (2004). A microanalysis of a participatory action research process with a rural Aboriginal men’s Health Group. Australian Journal of Primary Health, 10(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1071/py04009