Abstract
In 1996 five Loyola University faculty members proposed limiting the term “social justice communication research” exclusively to studies whose designs focused on “usable knowledge.” For them, that criterion necessitates that a legitimate social justice research project entail immediate action recommendations and direct researcher intervention in the interests of immediate study participants. This essay contends that such a litmus test restricts acceptable research to short‐term case studies aimed at immediately measurable outcomes produced by the researcher him‐ or herself, qualities that do not necessarily match the complex nature of problems of social in(justice) or exclusively yield the type of research outcomes that most powerfully address such problems. Widespread acceptance of their criterion: 1) limits scholarly influence to those few sites of struggle where a researcher's location and finite schedule allow extended personal engagement; 2) encourages counter‐productive dependence by lay social justice advocates on Communication researchers; 3) works against discovering and integrating broader, long‐term systemic solutions or effectively empowering advocates in other social justice struggles; 4) discourages the innovation of “the scholarship of discovery” with respect to social (in)justice issues in favor of the safer, predictable strategies of responsible “scholarship of application” (and vice versa) by necessitating the combination of conflicting objectives in a single scholarly project; and 5) promotes dysfunctional isolation and territoriality within the Communication discipline.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call