Richard M. Hessler is Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Family and Community Medicine, University of Missouri, Columbia. Peter Kong-Ming New is Professor of Sociology, Department of Behavioral Science, University of Toronto. J. Thomas May is Assistant Professor of Human Ecology, Department of Human Ecology and Environmental Health, University of Oklahoma Health Science Center, Oklahoma City. The research on which this paper is based was supported by Contract # HSM-110-60-255. Health Services and Mental Health Administration, USPHS, and by Grant # IRO INH 21 742-01. National Institute of Mental Health. All interpretations are solely those of the authors. We wish to thank Donald Granberg, (University of Missouri-Columbia) for his valuable suggestions involving the researcher-sponsorsubject distinction. Martha Bartlett assisted in preparing the manuscript. Special thanks to Peter Singlemann for his advice. This paper is a much revised version of two earlier papers presented at the Midwest Sociological Society meeting, St. Louis, Missouri, April, 1970, and at the Society for Applied Anthropology meeting, Sun Diego, California, April, 1977. A FEW YEARS AGO our attention was focused on the problem of designing a research methodology which would serve two purposes that we felt to be of major importance to the future of behavioral science research as a component of community development. The two areas occupying so much of our attention at the time were (1) the problem of gaining entry into closed or highly restrictive social settings, and (2) the issue of doing research on powerless people so as to increase their access to power and control over research decision making and application of research findings. Five papers were written in which these two areas were addressed and the research commune model was developed and tested (Hessler and New 1972a, b; New, Hessler, and Kemnitzer 1972; New, Hessler, May et al. 1973; Hessler and Walters 1976). Subsequent to this work several sociologists formulated the concept o f conflict methodology (Lundman and McFarlane 1976; Lehmann and Young 1974; Sjoberg and Miller 1973; Spencer 1973; Young 1971, 1973; Galliher 1973; Nolan and Galliher 1973). Much debate ensued and the opposition countered with approaches which have been labeled consensus methodology. Basically the consensus methodologists assert that conflict methodology is inherently unethical (Blau 1964; Warwick 1974). In reply the conflict methodologists accuse the consensus people of doing the dirty work for the power elites, thereby helping t o suppress the poor, powerless, and exploited classes of society. Our observation is that this debate has raised very important methodological and ethical issues for behavioral science research. However, there are conceptual weaknesses in the way the debate has been presented and we have identified what appears to be a major issue which the conflictconsensus dialogue simply cannot resolve. The purpose of this paper is to clarify the debate and define this issue which we call the research development link. The exchange model is presented as a third strategy representing a more differentiated approach which allows the researcher t o address fundamental research-development issues which the conflict/consensus dichotomy precludes. In doing this we have divided our paper into the following three parts: (1) Conflict-consensus methodologies and the research-development issue; (2) Exchange methodology as a conceptual tool for developing the research-development link; and (3) Implications of the exchange model for the role of the behavioral science researcher in community development and social change.
Read full abstract
Jun 30, 2021
Sergey A Lysenko + 1
Open Access