Is Collaborative, Community-Engaged Scholarship More Rigorous Than Traditional Scholarship? On Advocacy, Bias, and Social Science Research
Is Collaborative, Community-Engaged Scholarship More Rigorous Than Traditional Scholarship? On Advocacy, Bias, and Social Science Research
复制标题
社区参与的协作奖学金比传统奖学金更严格吗？
DOI：
10.1177/0042085918763511
复制
发表时间：
2018
期刊：
影响因子：
2.3
通讯作者：
Celina Su
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Warren;J. Calderon;Luke Aubry Kupscznk;G. Squires;Celina Su
相反的指控，以学术为导向的研究不能满足社会科学研究标准，因为它是固有的偏见，本文的作者认为，合作，社区参与的奖学金（CCES）必须符合严格的高标准，如果它是有用的，以支持公平为导向，社会正义的议程。事实上，他们认为，CCES往往比传统的学术更严格。作者从他们进行的CCES案例中提取证据和例子。他们讨论了建立关系和信任在解决知识生产需求和以行动为导向的社会变革之间可能出现的紧张关系方面的重要性。
Contrary to the charge that advocacy-oriented research cannot meet social science research standards because it is inherently biased, the authors of this article argue that collaborative, community-engaged scholarship (CCES) must meet high standards of rigor if it is to be useful to support equity-oriented, social justice agendas. In fact, they argue that CCES is often more rigorous than traditional scholarship. The authors draw from cases of CCES that they conducted to provide evidence and examples. They discuss the importance of relationship building and trust in addressing the tensions that can arise between the demands of knowledge production and action-oriented social change.