Making Social Science Matter?: Case Studies from Community Development and Empowerment Education Research in Rural Ghana and Aboriginal Australia

Tsey, Komla

doi:10.5539/ass.v6n1p3

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(pp. 4-5) On the contrary, Flyvbjerg (2000;Tsey, 2010) reminds us that Foucault, while sitting with Habermas on the side of rationalism, opposes ideals as the adequate answer to the request for normative rules of action and warns that this view should never prevent the analysis of how rationality works in practice, that is, the real rationality.…”

Section: Exploring Rationality and Power In The 'Dark Side Of Planning'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the ‘dark side of planning’: Governmentality and biopolitics in urban garden planning

Certomà

2013

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article analyses Bent Flyvbjerg's 'dark side of planning' theory and proposes to increase its critical strength by including, together with ideas of rationality and power, two further theoretical tools: the Foucauldian concepts of governmentality and biopolitics. The potentiality of this inclusion is exemplified by the analysis provided about the influence of 18th-century colonial governmentality on the real rationality of public garden planning in the modern liberal cities of most western European colonising countries. It aims to show that Flyvbjerg's concept of 'real rationality' can be usefully regarded as the product of a broad interpretation of biopolitical technologies, including the disciplining of non-human further than human life, which makes it possible to control the 'uncivilised' instincts of society through public garden planning. This article aims to suggest, that by digging deep into the hidden rationality of planning, even in those cases in which only the progressive face of power is apparently involved, a dark side of planning is unavoidably present in the form of a disciplinary power.

show abstract

Section: Exploring Rationality and Power In The 'Dark Side Of Planning'mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expanding the ‘dark side of planning’: Governmentality and biopolitics in urban garden planning

Certomà

2013

Planning Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such poor research outcomes, perceptions of no benefit and an ongoing underlying mistrust of research on the part of Indigenous Australians leave little doubt that contemporary agendas for conducting Indigenous research require new regimes to realise change and have relevance to the lives of the people with whom we work [ 13 , 14 ]. New research regimes unquestionably lie at the confluence of the ethics of practice, the practice of ethics and Indigenous and Western knowledges and value systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

No one’s discussing the elephant in the room: contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThere remains a concern that Indigenous Australians have been over-researched without corresponding improvements in their health; this trend is applicable to most Indigenous populations globally. This debate article has a dual purpose: 1) to open a frank conversation about the value of research to Indigenous Australian populations; and 2) to stimulate ways of thinking about potential resolutions to the lack of progress made in the Indigenous research benefit debate.DiscussionCapturing the meaning of research benefit takes the form of ethical value-oriented methodological considerations in the decision-making processes of Indigenous research endeavours. Because research practices come from Western knowledge bases, attaining such positions in research means reconciling both Indigenous and Western knowledge systems to produce new methodologies that guide planning, evaluating and monitoring of research practices as necessary. Increasingly, more sophisticated performance measures have been implemented to ensure academic impact and benefits are captured. Assessing societal and other non-academic impacts and benefits however, has not been accorded corresponding attention. Research reform has only focussed on research translation in more recent years. The research impact debate must take account of the various standards of accountability (to whom), impact priorities (for whom), positive and negative impacts, and biases that operate in describing impact and measuring benefit.SummaryA perennial question in Indigenous research discourse is whether the abundance of research conducted; purportedly to improve health, is justified and benefits Indigenous people in ways that are meaningful and valued by them. Different research stakeholders have different conceptions of the value and nature of research, its conduct, what it should achieve and the kinds of benefits expected. We need to work collaboratively and listen more closely to the voice of Indigenous Australians to better understand, demonstrate and measure health research benefits. The authors conclude that as an imperative, a systematic benefit assessment strategy that includes identification of research priorities and planning, monitoring and evaluation components needs to be developed and implemented across research projects. In Indigenous health research, this will often mean adopting a benefit-led approach by changing the way research is done and preferencing alternative research methodologies. As a point of departure to improving impact and reaching mutually beneficial outcomes for researchers and partners in Indigenous health research, we need to routinise the assessment of benefit from outset of research as one of the standards toward which we work.

show abstract

“…Moreover, we contend that the development of theory grounded in data provides useful insights into the processes for promoting the health, well-being, and prosperity of Aboriginal Australians. We present Flyvbjerg's (2001) notion of phronetic social science as a philosophical framework for integration into professional research regimes to ensure the practice of ethics required when partnering in Aboriginal research (Tsey, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Being, Knowing, and Doing

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers working with Aboriginal Australian partners are confronted with an array of historical, social, and political complexities which make it difficult to come to theoretical and methodological decisions. In this article, we describe a culturally safe and respectful framework that maintains the intellectual and theoretical rigor expected of academic research. As an Aboriginal woman and two non-Aboriginal women, we discuss the arguments and some of the challenges of using grounded theory methods in Aboriginal Australian contexts, giving examples from our studies of Aboriginal empowerment processes. We argue that the ethics of care and responsibility embedded in Aboriginal research methodologies fit well with grounded theory studies of Aboriginal social processes. We maintain that theory development grounded in data provides useful insights into the processes for raising the health, well-being, and prosperity of Aboriginal Australians.

show abstract

Making Social Science Matter?: Case Studies from Community Development and Empowerment Education Research in Rural Ghana and Aboriginal Australia

Cited by 4 publications

References 21 publications

Expanding the ‘dark side of planning’: Governmentality and biopolitics in urban garden planning

Expanding the ‘dark side of planning’: Governmentality and biopolitics in urban garden planning

No one’s discussing the elephant in the room: contemplating questions of research impact and benefit in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australian health research

Being, Knowing, and Doing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About