May, R. and Patillo-McCoy (2000) "Do You See What I See? Examining a Collaborative Ethnography, Qualitative Inquiry, Vol. 6, Issue 1, pp. 65-87.

• We found that collaborative ethnography increases the body of data that can be used to describe and understand the social world under observation. 66
• By collaborative ethnography, we mean those studies in which two or more ethnographers coordinate their fieldwork efforts to gather data from a single setting. 66
• In collaborative ethnographies, (a) important details from the field are supplemented, (b) inconsistencies in data are brought to the fore, (c) the influence of the ethnographers' social identities is recognized. 85

Smith, D. (1989) "Feminism and Sociological Theory," in Ruth Wallace (ed.) Sociological Theory: Methods of Writing Patriarchy, Sage.

• The opening of public discourse to multiple voices and perspectives calls into question the very notion of a single standpoint from which a final overriding version of the world can be written. 58

Hodson, R. (1996) "Dignity in the Workplace under Participative Management: Alienation and Freedom Revisited, American Sociological Review, Vol. 61, October, pp. 719-738.

• Craft organizations of work are those in which autonomous worker decisions about the details of production, based on the possession of craft skills, play a dominant role. 726
• the effects of worker participation on job satisfaction, pride, insider knowledge and effort bargain aspects of work are consistently positive ands significant. Some of the settings with high levels of worker participation are worker-owned companies. These settings in particular evidence high levels of pride and effort. 731
• The strong negative effect of direct supervision suggests the important of human and organizational factors over technical factors in determining levels of alienation and freedom. 734
• Participative organizations of production are associated with a positive turn in workers' experiences of work, reversing a long series of setbacks following the decline of craft production. 735
• workers work harder in participative organizations but also experience greater pride and job satisfaction and possess greater insider knowledge. 735
• These consequences of participative production, especially the increase in insider knowledge, may be potential sources of power that workers can use to bargain for greater freedom, self-actualization, and dignity in participative work settings. 735

Cancian, F. (1989) "Truth and Goodness: Does the Sociology of Inequality Promote Social Betterment," Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 38, No. 3, pp. 339-356.

• "Reducing Inequality"--This position advocates doing more research and teaching that is directly related to solving social problems and that is aimed at audiences involved in social change. 341
• Sociology that reduces inequality, I will argue, should investigate social problems and remedies and, at the same time, be reflexive about values and committed to high scientific standards. 341
• In the first issue of The American Journal of Sociology, published in 1895, editor Albion Small defined the four goals of sociology as: (1) building theory to identify the principles of social relations, (2) relating abstract sociology to everyday life and the interests of leading citizens, (3) promoting the general welfare, and (4) restraining premature public opinion. (Small, 1895) 343
• The Society for the Study of Social Problems and its Journal, Social Problems, were founded in the early 1950s to promote the study of social problems and provide "the knowledge for sound social action". Burgess 1953:2 345
• Structural realism holds that distinct classes emerge as a consequence of socially created arrangements that maintain economic, political, and social integrity. 346
• In sum, much of our practice of sociology continues to follow the pure science ideal--the belief that sociology contributes to social betterment by producing objective knowledge which is then applied by others to address social problems. 348
• participatory research, that is, community groups that often help determine the research agenda and sometimes participate in carrying out and disseminating the research. 350
• Activist teaching and research...is a model of sociology that reduces inequality, as long as it avoids the two pitfalls of reformist sociology: sloppy research methods and close-minded moralizing. 351

Maxwell, J. (1996) Qualitative Research Design: An Interpretive Approach, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• In a qualitative study, "research design should be a reflexive process operating through every stage of a project" (Hammersley and Atkinson, 1983 p28).
• The activities of collecting and analyzing data, developing and modifying theory, elaborating or refocusing the research questions, and identifying and eliminating validity threats are usually going on more or less simultaneously, each influencing all of the others. 3
• the model of qualitative research design...emphasizes that research design does not begin from a fixed starting point or proceed through a determinate sequence of steps, and it recognizes the importance of interconnection and interaction among the different design components. 3
• Write lots of memos, throughout the course of your research project; remember that in qualitative research, design is something that goes on during the entire study, not just at the beginning. Memos can be written on methodological issues, ethics, personal reactions, or anything else about your study. Think of memos as a kind of decentralized field journal; if you prefer, you can write your memos in an actual journal.12
• the purposes of your study are an essential part of your research design. 14
• There are five particular research purposes for which qualitative studies are especially suited: 1. Understanding the meaning, for participants in the study, of the events, situations, and actions they are involved with and of the accounts that they give of their lives and experiences. 2. Understanding the particular context within which the participants act, and the influence that this context has on their actions. 3. Identifying unanticipated phenomena and influences, and generating new grounded theories about the latter. 4. Understanding the process by which events and actions take place. 5. Developing causal explanations. 19
• Variance theory deals with variables and the correlations among them; it is based on the analysis of the contribution of differences in values to particular variables to difference in other variables. Process theory, in contrast, deals with events and the processes that connect them; it is based on the analysis of causal processes by which some events influence others. 20
• Separating your research from other aspects of your life cuts you off from a major source of insights, hypotheses, and validity checks. 28
• Lecompte and Preissle state (1993:239) that "theorizing is simply the cognitive process of discovering or manipulating abstract categories and the relationships among these categories". 31
• A useful high-level theory gives you a framework for making sense of what you see. Particular pieces of data that otherwise might seem unconnected or irrelevant to one another or to your research questions can be related by fitting them into the theory. The concepts of the existing theory are the "coat hooks" in the closet; they provide places to "hang" data, showing their relationship to other data. However, no theory will accommodate all data equally well; a theory that neatly organizes some data disheveled and lying of the floor, with no place to hang them. 33
• A useful theory illuminates what you are seeing in your research. It draws your attention to particular events or phenomena and sheds light on relationships that might otherwise go unnoticed or be misunderstood. 33
• a variance map usually deals with abstract, general concepts and is essentially timeless; it depicts how some factors or properties of things (conceptualized as variables) influence others. A process map, on the other hand, tells a chronological story; there is a beginning and end, and the categories are presented as specific events rather than variables. 43
• specific questions are generally the result of an interactive design process, rather than being the starting point for that process. 49
• Instrumentalists formulate their questions in terms of observable or measurable data. They worry about the potential validity threats (such as self-report bias) that inference to unobservable phenomena entails, and prefer to stick with what they can directly verify. Realists, in contrast, do not assume that research questions and conclusions about feelings, beliefs, intentions, prior behavior, effects, and so on need to be reduced to, or reframed as, questions and conclusions about the actual data that one uses. Instead they treat their data as fallible evidence about these phenomena, to be used critically to develop and test ideas about the existence and nature of the phenomena. 57
• the general principle known as triangulation [is] collecting information from a diverse range of individuals and settings, using a variety of methods. 75
• In qualitative research...the goal of coding is not to produce counts of things, but to fracture the data and rearrange it into categories that facilitate the comparison of data within and between these categories and that aid in the development of theoretical; concepts. 78-9
• contextualizing strategies operate quite differently from categorizing ones such as coding. Instead of fracturing the initial texts into discrete elements and re-sorting it into categories, contextualizing analysis attempts to understand the data (usually, but not necessarily, an interview transcript or other textual material) in context, using various methods to identify the relationships among the different elements of the text. 79
• As Brinberg and McGrath (1985: 13) put it, "Validity is not a commodity that can be purchased with techniques". Instead it depends on your relationship of your conclusions to the real world, and there are no methods that can assure you that you have adequately grasped those aspects of the world that you are studying. 86
• Validity is a goal rather than a product; it has been assessed in relationship to the purposes and circumstances of the research, rather than being a context-independent property of methods or conclusions. Finally, validity threats are made implausible by evidence, not methods; methods are only a way of getting evidence that can help you rule out these threats. 86
• validity refer[s] to the correctness or credibility of a description, conclusion, explanation, interpretation, or other sort of account. 87

Morgan, D. "Focus Groups: Forthcoming in the Annual Review of Sociology," morgand@pdx.edu.

• [Focus groups] acknowledges the researcher's active role in creating the group discussion for data collection purposes. 2
• focus groups should be distinguished from other groups whose primary purpose is something other than research, including such purposes as: therapy, decision-making, education, organizing, or behavior change. 2
• According to dimensions that define their typology, group interviews are something other than focus groups if they: are conducted in informal settings; use non-directive interviewing; or use unstructured question formats. 3
• Others have argued, however, that the value of focus groups goes well beyond listening to others, since they can serve as either basis for empowering "clients" or as a tool in action and participatory research. 5
• focus groups are of greatest utility when they reproduce the results of the standard methods in a particular field. 8
• such interaction offers valuable data on the extent of consensus and diversity among the participants. 12
• it is the moderator, rather than the ongoing work of the group, that determines the agenda and form of discussion. 12
• it is important not to confuse the standard decision-making paradigm in small groups research with the data gathering goals of focus groups.

Dey, I. Grounding Grounded Theory, Guidelines for Qualitative Inquiry, Academic Press.

• Glaser and Strauss suggested that theory must "fit the situation being researched, and work when put into use" (1967, p.3). 3
• In grounded theory, Glaser and Straus argued, "initial decisions are not based on a preconceived theoretical framework" (1967, p.45). 3
• the researcher had to explore evidence in its own terms rather than immediately fitting it into some preconceived framework. 4
• In grounded theory...sampling decisions were based on the preceding analysis. 5
• Theory is not stable but "evolves," and in the process it accommodates to and absorbs new information about the conditions and complexities of social interaction. Thus theory as a systematic set of interrelated concepts is not static, since the relationship between concepts is subject to continual adaptation and modification. New evidence rarely overthrows the original theory--instead it shows how to adapt or modify it to take this evidence into account. Thus theoretical progress is made through a smooth process of continual enrichment rather than marked by a staccato of sporadic rejections and renewals. 31
• G&S: verifying as much as possible with as accurate evidence as possible is requisite while one discovers and generates his theory--but not to the point where verification becomes so paramount as to curb generation. (p. 28) 37

Schuman H., and Presser, S. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments on Question form, Wording, and Context, New York: Academic Press.

• different ways of measuring magnitude can yield different conclusions and therefore no estimated magnitude can be definitive, even apart from sampling error. For this reason, significance testing is indispensable to our research, although we attempt throughout to be sensitive to factors such as sample size that are critical to evaluating obtained levels of significance. p.20
• A major threat to the interpretation of any question for difference--or indeed any survey result at all--is the possible impact of preceding parts of the questionnaire. What looks to be a response due to question form or content may be in fact partly or entirely due to question order. Moreover, order effects can conceivably occur within questions, as well as between them, and such unintended response-order effects may be confounded with more deliberate experimental variations in question form. 23
• The ambiguity [of questions] has to do with the nature of language, the fact that words and sentences take part of their meaning from the context in which they occur. 30
• merely placing two questions with similar content next to each other does not necessarily create an order effect. Only if respondents have a need to make their answers to the second question consistent with their answers to the first will such an order effect be created. 35
• answers to closed questions can...be affected by the order in which alternatives are read. Thus differences in responses to open and close questions could be due merely to order effects on the closed version of the question. 62
• it is not the sheer number of alternatives or even the total number of words that create response order effects. 62
• we do not see any consistent evidence that response-order effects vary systematically by educational level. 71
• The open question can allow responses that an investigator does not anticipate, yet at the same time it can subtly prevent responses that the investigator considers legitimate. 87
• Once so developed, however, we think that closed form of the question is superior because it separates types of responses that were often indistinguishable in the open coding, while at the same time it merges responses that the open coding tends to separate because of nonsubstantive verbal differences in expression. Whatever the advantages of the open question for assessing salience and for avoiding social desirability effects--and we have been unable to discover firm evidence that either of these advantages actually occurs--there seem to be even greater disadvantages arising from vagueness of expression by respondents, frequent failures to probe adequately by interviewers, and occasional misunderstanding by coders. All this is avoided in closed questions, where respondents are in essence asked to chose themselves, with minimal intervention by third parties. In sum, although open questions seem essential in obtaining the frame of reference of respondents and for wording alternatives appropriately, once this is done we are unable to find any compelling reason to keep the open form for the work values question. 104
• We have shown that DK [Don't Know] filters can substantially increase the proportion of respondents who give DK responses, and that this increase itself is a function of the nature of the filter used. 143

Stringer, E. (1999) Action Research, 2nd edn., Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

• Policies and programs should not dictate specific actions and procedures but should provide the resources to enable appropriate action to be taken. 2
• In this process, we must change our vision of social service workers and administrators from one of professional as mechanic/technician to one of professional as creative investigator and problem solver. This new vision rejects the mindless application of standardized practices across all settings and contexts and instead advocates the use of contextually relevant procedures formulated by inquiring and resourceful practitioners. 3
• Research can also incorporate actions that attempt to resolve the problem being investigated. 5
• Action research is based on the assumption that the mere recording of events and formulation of explanations by an uninvolved researcher is inadequate in and of itself. A further assumption is that those who have previously been designated as "subjects" should participate directly in research processes and that those processes should be applied in ways that benefit all participants directly. Community-based action research is a derivative of this approach to inquiry. 7
• Its purpose (AR) is to assist people in their understanding in their situation and thus in resolving problems that confront them. Put another way, community based action research provides a model for enacting local, action-oriented approaches to inquiry, applying small-scale theorizing to specific problems in specific situations. 10
• Community-based action research works on the assumption, therefore, that all stakeholders--those whose lives are affected by the problem under study--should be engaged in the processes of investigation. Stakeholders participate in a process of rigorous inquiry, acquiring information (collecting data) and reflecting on that information (analyzing) to transform their understanding about the nature of the problem under investigation (theorizing). This new set of understandings is then applied to plans for resolution of the problem (action), which, in turn, provides the context for testing hypotheses derived from group theorizing (evaluation). 10
• The role of the research facilitator, in this context, becomes more facilitative and less directive. Knowledge acquisition / production proceeds as a collective process, engaging people who have previously been the "subjects" of research in the process of defining and redefining the corpus of understanding on which their community or organizational life is based. As they collectively investigate their own situation, stakeholders build a consensual vision of their life-world. Community-based action research results not only in a collective vision but also in a sense of community. It operates at the intellectual level as well as at social, cultural, political, and emotional levels. 11
• Community-based action research can have purely academic outcomes and may provide the basis for rich and profound theorizing and basic knowledge production, but its primary purpose is as a practical tool for solving problems experienced by people in their own professional, community, and private lives. If an action research project does nor make a difference, in a specific way, for practitioners and/or their clients, then it has failed to achieve its objective. 11
• This approach to research favors consensual and participatory procedures that enable people (a) to investigate systematically their problems and issues, (b) to formulate powerful and sophisticated accounts of their situations, and © to devise plans to deal with the problems at hand. 17
• Community-based action research is not a panacea for all ills and does not resolve all problems, but it does provide a means for people to "get a handle" on their situations and formulate effective solutions to problems they face in their public and professional lives. 18
• Community-based action research seeks to change the social and personal dynamics of the research situation so that it is noncompetitive and nonexploitative and enhances the lives of all those who participate. This collaborative approach to inquiry seeks to build positive working relationships and productive interactional and communicative styles. Its intent is to provide a climate that enables disparate groups of people to work harmoniously and productively to achieve their various goals. 21
• It seeks to link groups that potentially are in conflict so that they may attain viable, sustainable, and effective solutions to their common problems through dialogue and negotiation. 21
• In community-based action research, the role of the researcher is not that of an expert who does research but that of a resource person. He or she becomes a facilitator or consultant who acts as catalyst to assist stakeholders in defining their problems clearly and to support them as they work toward effective solutions to the issues that concern them. 25
• The "bottom up" or grassroots orientation uses stakeholding groups as the primary focus of attention and a source of decision-making. 26
• The type, nature, and quality of relationships in any social setting will have direct impacts on the quality of people's experience and, through that, the quality of outcomes of any human enterprise. Community-based action research has a primary interest, in establishing and maintaining positive working relationships. 29
• When disparate groups of people are brought together to enact cbar, the nature and style of communication among people will have significant impacts of their ability to work together effectively. Communication has direct effects on feelings of well-being and can enhance or detract from the efficacy of individuals' work. 32
• To the extent that people can participate in the process of exploring the nature and context of the problems that concern them, they have the opportunity to develop immediate and deeply relevant understandings of their situation and to be involved actively in the process of dealing with those problems. 35
• Active participation is the key to feelings of ownership that motivate people to invest their time and energy to help shape the nature and quality of their community lives. 38
• CBAR seeks to enact an approach to inquiry that includes all relevant stakeholders in the process of investigation. It enables contexts that enable diverse groups to negotiate their various agendas in an atmosphere of mutual trust and acceptance and to work toward effective solutions to problems that concern them. 38
• By including people in the decisions about the programs and services that serve them, practitioners extend their knowledge base considerably and mobilize the resources of the community. Including more people in the process may seem to increase the possibilities for complexity and conflict, but it also enables practitioners to broaden their focus from one that seeks the immediate resolution of specific problems to more encompassing perspectives that have the potential to alleviate many interconnected problems. 40
• The task of CBAR, therefore, is to develop a context in which individuals and groups with divergent perspectives and interpretations can formulate a construction of their situation that makes sense to them all--a joint construction. 45
• Facilitators should establish convenient times and places to meet with people and should, after initial visits, contact people regularly. This way, people are more likely to feel they are included in the process, that their input is significant, and that the projects is theirs is some fundamental sense. The condition of ownership is an important element of CBAR. 49
• Research facilitators should conduct a social analysis of the setting to ensure that all relevant groups are included in the research process. Such a social analysis should identify the groups that have a stake in the problem under consideration, so that men and women from all age, social class, ethnic, racial, and religious groups, in all agencies institutions, and organizations, feel they have a voice in the proceedings. 50
• Charting the social dimensions of a setting can be useful in enabling people to visualize the diversity of groups in any social setting. All groups may not be involved in the research process, but the charting of stakeholders will help research participants identify those people who are primarily concerned with the issue at hand--sometimes known as the critical reference groups. 51
• The facilitator, therefore, first must establish a stance that is perceived as legitimate and nonthreatening by all major stakeholding groups. Problems will soon emerge if the researcher is perceived as a stranger prying into people's affairs for little apparent reason or as an authority attempting to impose an agenda. Although the researcher will usually be there under the auspices of some authority, that fact alone is insufficient to engage the attention or cooperation of all groups in the setting. In many situations, associations with authority may be a marked hindrance, especially if people perceive that the researcher is there to judge, control, or interfere in their affairs. 53
• Research facilitators also cannot afford to be associated too closely with any one of the stakeholding groups in the setting. Members of all groups need to feel that they can talk freely with facilitators, without fear that their comments will be divulged to members or other groups, whom, for one reason or another, they do not trust. 55
• The more freely researchers are able to participate I the ordinary lives of the people with whom they work, the more likely they are to gain the acceptance crucial to the success of CBAR. 56
• The agenda, stance, and positioning of research facilitators thus can have a considerable impact on the success, or lack of success, of an CBAR process. 56
• Initially, research facilitators should develop an understanding of the setting's social dynamics. They need to identify stakeholding groups, key people, the nature of the community, the purposes and organizational structure of relevant institutions and agencies, and the quality of relationships between and among individuals and groups. 57
• Part of the process involves learning the history of the situation with which the researchers are concerned. This will be done in more detail at a later stage of the process, but researchers need to know what has gone on with regard to key issues prior to their arrival. 57
• The open dialogue that constitutes a core ingredient of our research processes runs the risk of disturbing a carefully controlled and regulated social environment. 62
• The relationships and forms of communication that evolve set the stage for the inclusive and participatory processes that are the basis for common unity and productive action. 62
• Problems do not exist in isolation but are part of a complex network of evens, activities, perceptions, beliefs, values, routines, and rules--a cultural system maintained through the life of the group, organization, or community. As people reveal relevant details of their situation, they see more clearly the ways in which the research problem or focus is linked to features of their organizational, professional, and/or community lives. This disclosure leads people past their taken-for-granted perspectives and promotes more satisfying, sophisticated, and complete descriptions of their situation. 66
• CBAR, however, seeks a negotiated account that includes the perspectives, interests, and agendas of all parties. Described in the management literature as a "win, win, win" scenario, consensus is attained through careful processes of translation, modification, and accommodation. 67
• Research facilitators should take a neutral stance throughout these activities, and neither affirm, nor dispute, verbally, or nonverbally, the information that emerges. At the same time, they should remain keenly attentive, recording responses as accurately as possible. 70
• A community profile provides a structured way for participants to determine clearly the range of influences likely to have an impact on the problem under investigation. The information ensures that a broad range of relevant features of the situation are taken into account and paves the way for effective and sustainable projects and programs. 79
• public meetings provide contexts in which individuals or groups in conflict meet for the first time. Without preliminary work, these types of meetings may degenerate into conflict-laden situations that serve only to reinforce antagonisms and exacerbate existing problems. Public meetings, therefore, should be used only after various stakeholder groups have had the opportunity to meet in safe and comfortable contexts to explore their issues and to clarify their thoughts and perceptions. This is imperative when large organizations and institutions provide the context for a people. 81
• Meetings should reflect the participatory intent of CBAR; it is important, therefore, to ensure that people who can legitimately speak for the interests of each stakeholding groups attend. 82
• Researchers should view heir initial social analysis to confirm that all groups are appropriately represented by individuals who can legitimately take on the role of spokesperson. 83
• A meeting is best led by a neutral chair or facilitator--a person perceived as having no overriding loyalty to any particular stakeholding group. 83
• The chair or facilitator should employ judicious, diplomatic, yet firm processes to ensure that such people do not stifle the diverse agendas and perspectives that are essential components of the process. 83
• Meetings should operate on the basis on consensus, rather than on the basis of majority vote. The latter encourages competitive, divisive polticking, which usually ensures that the least powerful groups will not have their interests met. Although consensus is sometimes difficult to attain, it is a powerful instrument for change when it is achieved. 85
• Because diverse perspectives exist in any situation, an action research process ensures that members of each stakeholding group can comprehend the interpretations of other groups with whom they are working. 91
• Researchers should be wary, however, of simplifying the research process by confining it to a small iner circle or by omitting "troublesome" stakeholders. Participation boosts personal investment in the process, extends people's understanding of the contxts and social processes in which they are involved, and minimizes the possibility that the research will bog down in conflict. CBAR is not just a tool for solving problems; it is a valuable resource for building a sense of community. 112
• As they reflect on the information derived from processes of interpretation, they have opportunities to conceive of solutions to problems with a degree of clarity often difficult to accomplish in the rush and clutter of their day-to-day lives. If research facilitators have been successful in developing productive working relationships in the early stages of the research process, the planning stage should be relatively painless. 116
• If stakeholders can agree on a course of action and become engaged in activities that they see as purposeful and productive, they are likely to invest considerable time and energy in research activities, developing a sense of ownership that maximizes the likelihood of success. 117
• Voting procedures should be avoided, as they tend to result in win/lose processes that weaken the community-building process. 117
• The heart of CBAR is not the techniques and procedures that guide action but the sense of unity that holds people to a collective vision of their world and inspires them to work together for the common good. 121
• The participatory and inclusive relationships enacted in CBAR provide the benefit of a harmonious, supportive, and energizing environment that is not only personally rewarding but also productive practically. 123
• As participants attempt to implement the tasks that have been set, research facilitators should (a) provide the emotional and organizational support they need to keep them on track and to maintain their energy, (b) model sound community-based processes, and © link the participants to a supportive network. 124
• Facilitators should communicate with each participant regularly and organize simply ways in which participants with similar or related tasks can communicate. 14
• the researcher's mediating role is to assist the parties in conflict in coming to a resolution that is satisfactory to everyone. The task is to manage the conflict so that all parties can describe their situation clearly, analyze the sources of conflict, and work towards a resolution that enable them to maintain positive working relationships. 126
• This method of evaluation is consonant with the constructivist philosophy that is inherent in CBAR. It defines outcomes in ends that are acceptable to stakeholders, rather than those whose degree of success may be measures against some set fixed criteria. 132
• In almost all situations, some people will resist changes of any sort unless the processes are carefully defined and their interests taken into account. 137
• Facilitators must work with participants to ensure that they are able to maintain the autonomy and integrity of their work but avoid the style, manner, and forms of operation that typify many bureaucratic settings. They need, above all, to maintain approaches to their work that preserve active participation and a sense of community among all participants. 137
• As community-based research projects increase in extent and complexity, the tools and resources of management become increasingly relevant. Research facilitators and other participants need organizational and management skills to ensure the wide range of activities, constraints, forces, and pressures that impinge on their activities. 139
• As people work toward a collective vision that clarifies the nature of the problems that have brought them together, they gain a greater understanding of the complexities of the situation in which they are enmeshed. They also gain a more holistic understanding of the multitude of factors within which problems are embedded and realize the need to formulate increasingly sophisticated plans to resolve them. 140
• The first impulse in CBAR must be to build links and formulate complementary coalitions, rather than divide the social setting into friends and enemies. 146
• Research facilitators need to be aware of the political dimensions of the settings in which they work to deal with these situations. They can enlist those individuals and groups who are likely to assist them or to be in favor of their activities, as well as those who are likely to resist because they believe the researchers' activities to be against their interests. 147
• Sometimes it is easier to set up a committee within an existing institution or organization. The research facilitator should be wary of taking this step, however, because research processes are easily taken over or distorted by the policies and procedures of established organizations. Further, existing institutions, agencies, and organizations are sometimes held in disfavor by, or alienated from, some stakeholder groups, to the extent that they may be unwilling to work under the auspices of particular organizations. Members are marginalized groups, for instance, are particularly distrustful of government agencies and institutions, often perceiving them as agents of control as much as service deliverers. 151
• As facilitators assist participants in organizing and implementing activities, they should consciously enact the key concepts and principles of community-based research, constantly providing with information about what is happening, maintaining positive working relationships, and including all stakeholders as active participants in planning and decision-making activities. 155
• As stakeholders work through the recursive processes of observation, reflection, planning, and review, they are involved in a constant process of evaluation that enables them to monitor their activities and their progress. 158
• Evaluation should, ultimately, assess the worth of a set of activities or a project according to its impacts on the primary stakeholders. Many evaluations focus on the activities in which project members engage but 158 fail to provide any indication of the extent to which the process has made an impact on the lives of the people for whom the project was formulated. 159
• Credibility is established by prolonged engagement with participants; triangulation of information from multiple data sources; member checking procedures that allow members to check and verify the accuracy of the information recorded; and peer debriefing processes that enable research facilitators to articulate and reflect on research procedures with a colleague or informed associate. 176
• Transferability is established by describing the means for applying the research findings to other contexts. Fundamentally, the possibility of applying findings across settings is established through thickly detailed descriptions that enable audiences to identify similarities of the research setting with other contexts. 176 Put another way, it enables other audiences to see themselves and / or their situations in the accounts presented. 177
• its [CBR] purpose is to build collaboratively constructed descriptions and interpretations of events that enable groups of people to formulate mutually acceptable solutions to their problems. 188
• The dynamism of social life and the creative and willful facets of human behavior prevent the high degrees of control that are embedded in scientific method and technological production. Attempts to impose the same type and extent of control in the delivery of human services have led to increasing levels of stress and alienation as practitioners struggle to provide necessary services within the boundaries of increasingly restrictive policies and procedural rules. 194
• The desire to give voice to people is derived not from an abstract ideological or theoretical imperative but from the pragmatic focus of action research. 207