JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for COMMUNITYPSYCHUK Archives


COMMUNITYPSYCHUK Archives

COMMUNITYPSYCHUK Archives


COMMUNITYPSYCHUK@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

COMMUNITYPSYCHUK Home

COMMUNITYPSYCHUK Home

COMMUNITYPSYCHUK  December 2004

COMMUNITYPSYCHUK December 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: FWD: History chapter

From:

"Paul@home" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

The UK Community Psychology Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Sun, 19 Dec 2004 22:33:44 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (229 lines)

I agree Annie,

I would like to see this as a piece of community psychological research in
process as well as content. As such, I would expect critical reflexivity
firstly over who has the power over how, where, when and why certain
questions get asked and to whom they get asked. Secondly, I would expect
critical reflexivity over how the answers are processed, by whom and for
what purpose and what social acts might be generated by the analysis.
Thirdly, I would expect critical reflexivity over who benefits from the
research process and outcome (ie., in terms of kudos, publications, peer
recognition etc). As a community psychologist, I would want the reflexivity
on the first two matters to be based on a need to reduce power inequalities
in the research process and, as Annie points out, to ensure the process is
fully inclusive (both in design and execution) rather than exclusive and
also to avoid replicating existing power inequalities. On the third area of
reflexivity, my concern would be for a socially just outcome for all who
participate.

In relation to the questionnaire, I think it would be ripe for critical
reflection in itself. I think that would actually be more interesting than
any results it reports to produce. I agree with David in that this type of
research is crude and pretty meaningless other than giving us some
suggestive insights/illuminations into the preconceptions of the
researchers.

In terms of us (the list serve members who are non-authors of the chapter)
having the opportunity of being included in a rushed process that has not
gone through critical, ethical scrutiny by the list-serve membership, some
of us might prefer non-involvement rather than a non-community psychological
involvement.

Sorry, I don't think it useful to talk of 'the fuss' over the questionnaire
as this could be read disparagingly.

Finally, I don't find it useful for us to think of our critical engagement
with one another as being unsupportive to one another. For me it is a sign
of utmost respect to know that others take my ideas seriously enough to
critically engage with them from within a common terms of reference
(politically driven). On that note, I don't wish for peaceful comrades in
2005, I wish to belong to a group that is critical, political, challenging
and questioning. I would prefer criticality over commradity. We do not live
in a peaceful world...

paul duckett

-----Original Message-----
From: The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of amitchel
Sent: 19 December 2004 01:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [COMMUNITYPSYCHUK] FWD: History chapter


>==Dear Mark and David ( and all),

On reflection, I wouldn't mind   an open -ended set of prompts coming out as
an attachment, with an invitation to respond,  through the list, on the
topic
of the history of community psychology in the UK.  I would like to have the
opportunity to take part. I'd approve it even more if there was, in
addition,
an opportunity for some participant  influence on/ voice in the research
process as well as provision of information: as potential participants in
the
research, list members  could have an opportunity to comment on/ potentially
influence the process : eg comment on the questions before they were
finalised, suggest other questions and commnet on the ones that we think may
be missing,  and on the analysis and conclusions. Along with Craig (and
George
Kelly) I too think that  as humans we are all researchers,  and, taking a
critical realist stance as I do, I take it that all research activity is
socially constructed ( and should be overtly so - making the process as
widely
and inclusively  social as is manageable in the circumstances) and
tentative
in the conclusions that can be drawn.  As far as I can judge it I trust the
people involved in this histroy writing project to be open and reflective/
reflexive/ tentative  about their process - and these email exchanges will
likely make them even more so which seems to be good to me.  I do think that
David is right to challenge us to stop and think collectively about the
processes of gathering sharing knowledge and views in our world. (Within our
mutually shared identity it must  be possible to critique but of course that
inevitably slows ius down and makes it hard to meet deadlines). We might
wonder what a history of community psychology would look like from the
perspective of people who are not prfessional psychologists, ( community
experts rather than psychologists by training) or who are psychologists of
other persuasions (supposing they were interested). But these are different
questions to the ones you are wanting to address here, as far as I can
judge.

An issue for me in research is whether the intention is  attempting to be in
line with the values of community psychology ( eg relationship based, not
grasping for personal power/gain  at expense of  others, trying to promote
the
interests of those who have less access to socially valued resources etc).
I
don;t feel anything like as suspicious of this endeavour as I am of others
when the vested interests are rather more malign than I judge them to be
here.
As far as I can see it, drawing in the views of others who have an interst/
stake in conveying the history of community psychology from a shared
perspective seems a worthwhile endeavour.

So - my proposal would be - send out the questionnaire on the list - and,
instead of apologising ( or as well as!), invite  us to comment on the
research process as you do so, and offer the chance as well to comment on
the
analysis/ chapter - before publication - and include something of the
debate/
critique on the process  in the final version.

Here i am writing emails at some ungodly hour - there would be no hope of me
taking the time to reflect like this in the daily grind.  When we debriefed
from the Exeter conference  recently the non-professional psychologists/
community members said that the question that struck them most on reflection
was why  as workers we aren't  doing more to look after ourselves - so we've
put that down as our topic for our next south west network meeting. ( some
user -led research looking at why professional helpers don't look after
themeselves - that would be a turn-around).  And it's become even an more
timely question for me as I had a small car crash in a hurry to get away
from
work in rush hour  last week. Surely we all need to slow down.

So - dear  all - let's look after ourselves over the winter festivities!

Love from

Annie






 == Original Message From The UK Community Psychology Discussion List
    <[log in to unmask]> =====
>------- Forwarded message follows -------
>From:                   Mark Burton <[log in to unmask]>
>To:                     David Fryer <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:                History chapter
>Copies to:              [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask]
>Send reply to:          [log in to unmask]
>Date sent:              Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:06:49 -0000
>
>David
>Thanks for your email. Here is a response.
>
>All research methods are problematic.  Perhaps 'questionnaire' is a
>misleading term for what we are doing here.  It isn't the more usual
>kind of questionnaire with fixed answer options (multiple choice or
>yes/no - for example).  Instead it provides respondents with the
>opportunity to write down their thoughts in relation to the prompt
>questions.  There is no pretence that the sample is representative
>(representative of what?) but rather the method is what has been
>called 'illuminative' - i.e. to seek some other participants' ideas to
>cast light on the topic. Nor is this the only information that we will
>use in writing the chapter - see the previous outline I circulated and
>some of us discussed at Exeter. With regard to the assumptions made in
>selecting the questions, some of these are based on our previous work,
>which was partly based on bibliographical research, but also on having
>been in British psychology since the beginning of the 1970s.  But yes
>they are arbitrary in the sense that others might have chosen
>different questions.  What I think we are doing here, in both writing
>the chapter, and in seeking input from the wider CP community is
>essentially a kind of qualitative investigation - that is (as the
>Banister et al text defines it)
>    ... the interpretative study of a specified issue or
>    problem in which the researcher is central to the sense
>    that is made.
>                                   Banister, et al., 1994:  2
>As such, there is no pretence of given objectivity - we need to
>construct the objectivity through the engagement of our various
>subjectivities with the multiple sources of information we gather.
>Unfortunately, as we are indeed all busy this can be no more than a
>provisional and tentative attempt - something we will need to be clear
>about when writing the chapter.
>
>With regard to the possible abuse of the list, I've had a look at the
>listserve site and can't find any rules for its use - unless there
>were a demand for such, that is probably no bad thing.  Nobody would
>have to respond, and I'd anticipate a pretty low response rate.  By
>signing up to a list, you in effect invite unsolicited correspondence,
>and I don't see how this is any different.  However, there are some
>alternatives:- Sendout the questionnaire but apologise as we do it (!)
>Sendout a preliminary email - that would allow people to object.
>      If there were a strong feeling against the distribution, then we
>
>    could go to the next option.
>Postthe questions on the website - this might sweep in some
>    more respondents, but also circulate the list, with the link and
>    invite responses.  I would advise, however, that the more
>    complicated it is to do, the fewer responses we'll get.
>The alternative of starting a discussion could be tried - I think
>    the questionnaire would be a good way to trigger this - but
>    realistically I'd be surprised if it is more than the usual
>    handful of contributors who join in (despite there being 94 on the
>    list).
>We  just write the chapter without offering people the opportunity
>    of contributing their views - this will happen if we can't agree a
>    way forward, since the deadline looms.
>
>Mark
>
>
>------- End of forwarded message -------
>
>___________________________________
>
>COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
>To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
>http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
>For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at
[log in to unmask]

___________________________________

COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at
[log in to unmask]

___________________________________

COMMUNITYPSYCHUK - The discussion list for community psychology in the UK.
To unsubscribe or to change your details visit the website:
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/COMMUNITYPSYCHUK.HTML
For any problems or queries, contact the list moderator at [log in to unmask]

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager