IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/comdev/v45y2014i4p353-367.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Community research within a social constructionist epistemology: implications for "Scientific Rigor"

Author

Listed:
  • Wally Karnilowicz
  • Lütfiye Ali
  • Jenny Phillimore

Abstract

Evaluation research continues to be dominated by the positivist paradigm and a commitment to factual and value free research. Policy makers and associated evaluators, in particular, consistently approach program evaluation from a positivist perspective in which methodological rigor is assessed through their interpretation of valid and generalizable results. More recently, mixed-method approaches have been adopted with qualitative methods used in combination with quantitative. However, the exclusive use of qualitative methods is less regular. With a focus on social justice shifting from the margins to the center of evaluation research, there is a call for qualitative study and participatory evaluation where planning and evaluation are not predetermined and instead embrace the voices of stakeholders and participants. This has coincided with the emergence of various methods and branches of evaluation research including empowerment research evaluation, collaborative research, and community participatory research. This paper advocates a constructionist approach in community engaged research as an appropriate and necessary approach within increasingly culturally diverse societies in Australia and the United Kingdom.

Suggested Citation

  • Wally Karnilowicz & Lütfiye Ali & Jenny Phillimore, 2014. "Community research within a social constructionist epistemology: implications for "Scientific Rigor"," Community Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(4), pages 353-367, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:comdev:v:45:y:2014:i:4:p:353-367
    DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2014.936479
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/15575330.2014.936479
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/15575330.2014.936479?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:comdev:v:45:y:2014:i:4:p:353-367. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RCOD20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.