Dialectics
Above all, the ethical rubber hits the road with tensions or dialectics when we confront tough choices. This is perhaps the single most important meta-message of contemporary applied ethics, as brought into sharp relief by both historical-theoretical formulations (e.g., Nussbaum, 2001) and recent practical investigations (see, e.g., Cheney et al., 2011).
Within the context of conflict and community engagement, we consider these dialectics as relevant to “our” roles and those of “the engaged”: (a) openness versus protection (for self and other), (b) privilege versus equality (including potentials for and pitfalls of co-optation), (c) distance versus empathy (with respect to analysis and vis-a-vis various stakeholders involved), (d) listening versus advising (including determining moments for judgment), and (e) maintenance versus rupture (with respect to the meta-stance on conflict) (see, e.g., Cheney, 2008). Each of these dialectics and related parameters for principled action are discussed in turn.The first dialectic, openness versus protection, strikes to the heart of ethical concerns regarding interpersonal communication for the individual in society and, indeed, within the academic context. Self-disclosure issues are particularly relevant (Greene, Derlega, & Mathews, 2006). But the dialectic also invokes the potential practice of containing one’s interactions within “safe” groups, networks, or communities as opposed to reaching beyond them. This is a call for privileged researchers to be self-reflexive about the manner of engagement with community groups and parties to a conflict; this dialectic also reminds the researcher to be open to the possibility of being changed significantly by the engagement in the community.
The second dialectic, privilege versus equality, is framed in terms of Billig et al.’s (1988) ideological dilemmas about what counts as expertise.
This dialectic harkens back to the Durkheimian (Durkheim, 1933) sociological tradition of the analysis of professions and their roles in larger communities, particularly with respect to constituencies or communities who do not have equitable access to resources of information and power. The ongoing debate over the “digital divide” is an example.The growing attention to p ractical theory (see Craig, 1989) in communication is evidence of a constructive breakdown of a false dichotomy that has persisted in the discipline for many years. This matter is central in terms of how “town-gown” relationships are initiated, established, and maintained. Greater attention to peer-to-peer relationships—in the academy, in many social movements, and in community-based projects—should be taken as one way to transcend the dialectic, at least insofar as resources are shared. The fostering of these relatively equal relationships can be a significant goal of engaged research.
The thirddialectic, distance versus empathy, speaks to epistemological orientation and also concerns the ongoing nature of the relationship between investigators and communities of research participants or partners. This relationship is variously characterized and positioned in different epistemological traditions. Here, our concern is both more overarching and more fundamental. Put in the form of a question, the dialectic asks, regardless of the type of research being conducted, w hat ought to be the basis for working together with community members and constituencies? The metaphor of partnership has clearly emerged as the dominant frame in community-based research (see, e.g., Wallerstein et al., 2008), but this still begs the question of how to manage the expertiseequality tension.
The fourth dialectic, listening versus advising, metaphorically parallels different approaches to psychotherapy in terms of the types of responses made to the community conflicts under investigation or being engaged.
Here, communication studies offer a useful standpoint from which to consider the very process by which research will be conducted and, even more important, how it will be aimed. The long-standing, though dormant, tradition of listening research in communication focuses attention on the “Other” in interaction. This orientation is mirrored in Rogerian (Rogers, 1951, 1959) and related approaches to psychotherapy. At the same time, the ideas of advice giving, counseling, and policy prescription suggest a guidance role on the part of academic researchers. Reflecting on the nature and extent of intervention is especially important in a longitudinal research program, considering how different phases of the research may well call for different stances vis-a-vis research partners and other community parties.The fifth and final dialectic, m aintenance versus rupture, concerns both the conflicts themselves and researchers’ relationship to them post-investigation. Insofar as the research deals with community conflict, researchers must be cognizant of additional uncertainties surrounding the continuance of the work. Outcomes of investigations, of course, are contingent; but here, we are concerned with conflict itself, including any effects researchers’ work may have on communities. Thus, the dialectic described here relates to both specific questions such as feedback loops and to broader ones about how to “manage” (in multiple senses) the dissolution of an organization, project, or set of relationships. Literature on relationship decline and termination offers us some insights (Knapp & Vangelisti, 2007), but curiously, engaged community scholarship has been almost silent on this question.
These five dialectics are especially relevant when engaged scholarship encounters or even causes conflict. Ethical responsibilities become intensified in these contexts. Having explained some of the key factors of conflict, engagement, and ethics that bear on the shape and execution of research in the community, we now turn to a sustained example that illustrates how these three areas are interrelated and especially how understandings of them by the researcher necessarily evolve in a wide-ranging longitudinal investigation.
Profile of an Integrative Case Study