Involving Communities as Skilled Learners: The STRAP Framework

  • Chiara Milan
  • Stefania Milan
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Communication for Social Change book series (PSCSC)

Abstract

Conducting research in the field of development and social change entails working with communities, disadvantaged individuals and grassroots groups. This chapter takes such communities as skilled learners, and offers a ready-to-use community engagement checklist for research that is mindful of power relations. It explores five challenges, namely sharing, translation, relevance, accountability and power (STRAP), presented in the form of practical ‘questions’ that researchers should consider when doing fieldwork. The STRAP approach has the ability to create meaningful connections between researchers and the research subjects, while embedding the research into the process of social change itself. The chapter is illustrated with examples from our fieldwork with community Internet projects and radio stations across the world, and rural communities and grassroots women’s groups in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Keywords

Social Change Social Movement Gender Equality Skilled Learner Interview Partner 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bibliography

  1. Adler, P., Peter Adler, and Burke E. Rochford Jr. 1986. The politics of participation in field research. Urban Life 14(4): 363–377.Google Scholar
  2. American Political Science Association (APSA). 2012. A guide to professional ethics in political science. 2nd edn. Revised 2012. http://www.apsanet.org/portals/54/Files/Publications/APSAEthicsGuide2012.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2012.
  3. Benford, R.D. 1991. Framing Activity, Meaning, and Social Movement Participation: The Nuclear Disarmament Movement. Ann Arbor: UMI.Google Scholar
  4. Boyer, E.L. 1996. The Scholarship of Engagement. Journal of Public Service & Outreach 1: 11–20.Google Scholar
  5. Carragee, Kevin M., and Lawrence R. Frey. 2016. Communication activism research: Engaged communication scholarship for social justice. International Journal of Communication 10: 3975–3999.Google Scholar
  6. Chesters, G. 2012. Social Movements and the Ethics of Knowledge Production. Social Movement Studies 11: 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cox, L., and C. Forminaya. 2009. Movement Knowledge: What Do We Know, How Do We Create Knowledge and What Do We Do with It? Interface: A Journal For and About Social Movements 1: 1–20.Google Scholar
  8. Croteau, D., W. Hoynes, and C. Ryan, eds. 2005. Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics, and Social Movement Scholarship. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  9. della Porta, D. 2014. Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research, 1 edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Denzin, N.K., and Y.S. Lincoln. 2005. Introduction. The Discipline and Practice of Qualitative Research. In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, eds. N.K. Denzin, and Y.S. Lincoln. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Dewey, J. 1927. The Public and Its Problems. Denver, CO: Swallow Press/Ohio University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Diamond, L. 2010. Liberation Technology. Journal of Democracy 3: 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enghel, F. 2015. Towards a Political Economy of Communication in Development? Nordicom Review 36: 11–24.Google Scholar
  14. Flacks, R. 2005. The Questions of Relevance in Social Movement Studies. In Rhyming Hope and History: Activists, Academics, and Social Movement Scholarship, eds. D. Croteau, W. Hoynes, and C. Ryan. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Freire, P. 1994. Foreword. In Participatory communication for social change, ed. S. White, J. Ascroft, and S. Nair, 12–14. New Delhi: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Freire, P. 2012. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York and London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  17. Gamson, W.A. 1992. Talking Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hine, C. 2005. Virtual Methods and the Sociology of Cyber-Social-Scientific Knowledge. In Virtual Methods. Issues in Social Research on the Internet, ed. C. Hine. Oxford and New York: Berg.Google Scholar
  19. Hintz, A., and S. Milan. 2010. Social science is police science. Researching grassroots activism. International Journal of Communication 4: 837–344.Google Scholar
  20. Kivits, J. 2005. Online interviewing and the research relationship. In Virtual methods: Issues in social research on the internet, ed. Christine Hine, 35–50. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  21. Kvale, S. 1996. Interviews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Kvale, S., and S. Brinkmann. 2009. Interviews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research Interviewing. Los Angeles and London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Lewis, A.G. 2012. Ethics, activism and the anti-colonial: Social movement research as resistance. Social Movement Studies 11(2): 227–240.Google Scholar
  24. Malthaner, S. 2014. Fieldwork in the Context of Violent Conflict and Authoritarian Regimes. In Methodological Practices in Social Movement Research, ed. D. della Porta. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Matos, S. 2013. Designing Food Cultures: Propagating the Consumption of Seaweed in the Azores Islands Through Recipes. Iridescent, Icograda Journal of Design Research 2: 24–33.Google Scholar
  26. Melucci, A. 1992. Frontier Land. Collective Action Between Actors and Systems. In Studying Collective Action, eds. M. Diani, and R. Eyerman. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. ——— 1996. Challenging Codes. Collective Action in the Information Age. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milan, S. 2010. Towards an Epistemology of Engaged Research. International Journal of Communication 4: 856–858.Google Scholar
  29. ——— 2013. Social Movements and Their Technologies: Wiring Social Change. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moravcsik, A. 2014. Transparency: The Revolution in Qualitative Research. PS: Political Science & Politics 47: 48–53.Google Scholar
  31. Ryan, C., and K. Jeffreys. 2008. The Practice of Collaborative Theorizing, Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  32. Ryan, C., V. Salas-Wright, M. Anastario, and G. Camara. 2010. Making Research Matter… Matter to Whom? International Journal of Communication 4: 845–855.Google Scholar
  33. Snow, D.A., R. Benford, and L. Anderson. 1986. Fieldwork Roles and Informational Yield: A Comparison of Alternative Settings and Roles. Urban Life 14: 377–408.Google Scholar
  34. Stoecker, R. 2005. Research Methods for Community Change. Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Underwood, e.d., and L.R. Frey. 2008. Communication and Community: Clarifying the Connection Across the Communication Community. In Communication Yearbook, vol 31, ed. C.S. Beck. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  36. World Bank, World Congress on Communication for Development. 2007. Lessons, Challenges, and the Way Forward, The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Washington, DC: World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chiara Milan
    • 1
  • Stefania Milan
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Social and Political SciencesEuropean University InstituteSan Domenico di FiesoleItaly
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations