539948

research-article2014

JAXXXX10.1177/1936724414539948Journal of Applied Social ScienceMerenstein

Article

Community-based Research Methods: Putting Ideas into Action

Journal of Applied Social Science 1­–14 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1936724414539948 jax.sagepub.com

Beth Frankel Merenstein1

Abstract This article explores how we can more fully engage our students in research and social problems by creating community-based research methods courses. I describe a course I created in which students learned qualitative research methods and then conducted the majority of the interviews for a homelessness prevention program evaluation project. Showing how we worked closely with the community organization and the students were fully engaged in using their sociological imagination, I explain the details of the course and the project. I provide specific feedback from both the students and the organization, as well as explain areas of limitation and complication in conducting these types of courses. Keywords Community-based research, public soc, poverty, homeless Sociology has a long tradition of directly addressing social problems. From August Comte through Lester Ward, W. E. B. DuBois, and Jane Addams, sociologists maintained that the discipline could improve society (Finkelstein 2012). Sixty years ago, C. Wright Mills wrote that sociology needed to have “practical and moral significance” in the everyday intellectual life of a society—what he called the Sociological Imagination. But as radical sociologists in the 1960s and many of today’s public sociologists contend, even the sociological imagination must be operationalized to challenge the powerful forces that constrict democracy and entrench inequality and injustice (Korgen and White 2010). As a contemporary sociologist, I argue we have a responsibility to engage our students in both the intellectual development of a sociological imagination, as well as the practical application of analysis to create social change (Trevino 2013) I try to accomplish this by teaching Community-based Research. I will begin this article by explaining the importance of this kind of work, and the immediate relevance to sociology students’ careers, both during college and after. Not only is it important to get students to engage in using their Sociological Imagination but it is also imperative to recognize the changing landscape of our global economy (Finkelstein 2012; Huisman 2010). I will then explain the student project over the course of a semester and the benefits to this kind of work with students (Rice 1991). Finally, I will include an extensive conclusion that outlines the limitations, challenges, and problems in doing this kind of work. I teach at a mid-level-sized (approximately 10,000 students) public state university in the Northeast. Many of the students are first-generation college students, with the majority working 1Central

Connecticut State University, New Britain, USA

Corresponding Author: Beth Frankel Merenstein, Central Connecticut State University, 1615 Stanley St., New Britain, CT 06050, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

2

Journal of Applied Social Science 

full-time jobs while taking full course loads. Faculty teach a 4/4 course load. Our sociology major is the second largest arts and sciences major (after psychology), and most of our graduates intend to go into social work, counseling, or human resources. According to Spalter-Roth and Van Vooren (2010), almost 27 percent of students graduating with sociology as a major end up going into counseling, psychology, or social service work. In addition, the largest group of respondents who went to graduate school enrolled in professional fields. Of these professional fields, the largest percentage (18.3) enrolled in social work and human services (Spalter-Roth and Van Vooren 2010). For students entering the social service field, interacting closely with a disadvantaged population can be enormously beneficial. As Marv Finkelstein (2012:34) writes, “those with a bachelor’s degree in the liberal arts often lack hands-on knowledge and an understanding of practical application in concrete workplace settings.” As Finkelstein (2009:93) argues elsewhere, it is our responsibility to help students “see practical and legitimate alternatives beyond the academic context.” In 2009, Marullo, Moayedi, and Cooke (2009:63) make a strong case for advancing our students and ourselves beyond the realm of service-learning by working toward a community-based research (CBR) model. As the authors state, they “view CBR as a particular type of service learning through which students and faculty undertake research projects (sometimes using a participatory action research model) in collaboration with community-based organizations (CBOs) to address needs/questions identified by the community.” As Marullo et al. (2009) further argue, CBR helps us recognize potential power imbalances between the university and community partners, as well as the need for increased student preparation and training. Specifically, Marullo and his associates (2009) point to three areas in which CBR goes beyond service-learning. First, CBR focuses on long-term partnerships and an increased understanding of local community needs. Second, students need to have more sophisticated training as well as reflection pieces to be sure they understand how this work is related to the discipline. Third, there must be power-sharing between the partners. The purpose of this article is to demonstrate just such a project. While some scholars write on the idea of incorporating service-learning into research methods courses (Potter, Caffrey, and Plante 2003; Stoecker 2005; Ferman and Shlay 1997; Takata and Leiting 1987), fewer scholars reflect on the idea of using the CBR model advanced by Marullo and his associates and incorporating it into a research methods class. Service-learning tends to be more individually student based, and CBR attempts to be more community and group centered. This argument is further supported by Morton et al. (2012:6–7) when they maintain the social justice potential for both civic engagement and public sociology must come from practitioners’ links to community-based politics and social movement organizing. These connections are grounded in teaching and scholarship and in the real politics of everyday life—people, institutions, and communities.

As I will explain in detail, the courses I developed go beyond simply encouraging students to engage in volunteer work; these courses challenge the students to understand the non-profit community organization from the inside and witness how these organizations are truly “doing sociology.” I created a two-course CBR model that focused on homelessness prevention. In one course, students learned the substantive material, and in the corresponding methods course, they learned to conduct research specific to this substantive area. Students were required to sign up for both courses simultaneously. The creation of a learning community enabled students to make real connections between the experiences they would have in the field and their classroom learning. This provided the opportunity for students to bond together as a community, and it also provided more opportunity for students to reflect individually and together on the project. Students enter into this course sequence with junior and senior standing. They were required to have completed a

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

3

Merenstein

research methods course, as well as a minimum of two additional courses in sociology. By ensuring that students had already taken these requirements, I could expect a certain level of student readiness (Stocking and Cutforth 2006). The first part of the article will examine the benefits of a CBR methods course as it relates to service-learning. Next, I will explain the project. I will then discuss the effectiveness of these types of classes, and finally, I will explore some of the limitations and concerns to consider when creating such courses.

Community-based Learning In their important book, Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts and Models for Service-Learning in Sociology, Ostrow, Hesser, and Enos (1999) bring numerous authors together to make the argument for integrating more service-learning into the discipline. Authors such as Blau (1999), Kendrick (1999), Porpora (1999), and Hesser (1999) remind us of the importance of a campus–community partnership in not making the community simply the object of study but rather a participant in the research (Porpora 1999). Others such as Strand (1999) and Marullo (1999) urge us to take a critical look at the role of “volunteer work” in sociology. Without this critical lens, service-learning courses run the risk of reinforcing the notion of an individualistic helping society, where social problems can be remedied through individual hard work. Therefore, CBR aims to bring these ideas together into a more cohesive, critical, and mutually beneficial relationship. Working closely with the community to determine its needs and concerns, sociologists can be more effective agents of social change (Greenwood and Levin 2006). Using CBR in our classrooms, we can teach our students to be agents of change as well. As Mobley (2007) contends, using this method in the classroom can teach our students to recognize self-efficacy in engaging in social change efforts. Community-based learning is one component of the service-learning model. As Bucher (2012:272) states, “service-learning is inherently about community needs, effective servicelearning involves aligning the goals of the course with the goals of community partners.” Servicelearning has often started and finished with students conducting some kind of individual volunteer work in the field. However, community-based course efforts are more partnership oriented and engaging of the whole class. One of the aspects that differentiate CBR from service-learning is the close collaboration with the community-based organization. It is not enough to say we simply want to “go into” the field and study some social problem. We must engage the community in which our academy resides and learn the pressing social issues (Nyden et al.1997). This type of service-learning is also being referred to as action research (Finkelstein 2009; Rajaram 2007). Finkelstein (2009:98) lays out essential models of research and practice, with action research seen as creating the closest relationship between the community stakeholders and the academic researchers. This action research way of viewing service-learning (Rajaram 2007), with the goal of engaging the community in the process and providing students with a lens of social action and engagement, is at the crux of CBR. It is within this context that I created a CBR methods course sequence. My intention was to create a CBR methods course model that (1) involves a great deal of introspection and reflection on the part of the students, (2) intense and deliberate training before and during their time in the field, (3) an ongoing relationship with the non-profit community organization to ensure their needs and concerns are being met, and (4) a careful consideration of the local community and its specific needs and concerns.

The Project In keeping with one of the first goals of CBR (Marullo et al. 2009), I worked to create a strong relationship with the non-profit organization who requested the research program. Before ever

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

4

Journal of Applied Social Science 

engaging the students in the work, I met frequently with the organization to understand their needs, fully appreciate their concerns, and clarify their expectations for the research project. This preliminary work took place over the course of about eight months. Therefore, the CBR courses were structured around the needs of the non-profit organization. The Coalition on Housing and Homelessness (TCHH) conducts a variety of activities in support of ending homelessness and creating supportive housing for individuals and families in the County communities (approximately 15 towns). As part of their Ten-Year plan to end homelessness, TCHH created a Prevention Fund. One of the activities of this Fund has been to provide small, emergency assistance to those in need. At the time we first met, TCHH had given out almost $100,000 in small grants, yet they had no knowledge of whether these funds were actually preventing homelessness in any way. After much discussion, we ascertained that their overarching question was whether the funds they were providing were actually resulting in less homelessness. As Puma et al. (2009) explain, evaluation research is an excellent vehicle for CBR. Through ongoing discussions with the Prevention Fund committee, we came to an agreement that one way to ascertain the success of their program was to conduct interviews with those who had received the small grants. The Prevention Fund committee members were more than amenable to students conducting these interviews.

Power-sharing with Community Organization To maintain this relationship with TCHH, as well as engage in an ongoing process of powersharing (goal three of CBR), I had regular individual meetings with staff members and began attending the monthly meetings of the Prevention Fund. I also attended other countywide meetings held at various times by the TCHH End in Ten committee. I was initially approached by executive staff members of TCHH to conduct the report. However, it became apparent after several months of meetings that the caseworkers in the field were a primary source of communication and necessary for a successful power-sharing endeavor. These caseworkers worked for various organizations in the community (i.e., one worked for the local Community Health Clinic). While their job was primarily to assist clients in navigating the complicated bureaucracy of social services, they were the ones who informed clients about the Prevention Fund money. Therefore, while these caseworkers did not work specifically for TCHH, we would need their assistance to gain access to the clients who received the funds. The committee membership is comprised of the caseworkers who have the initial contact with clients applying for funds, shelter Directors, members of other local non-profits involved in the End in Ten plans, and the staff members of TCHH. It was necessary to receive regular input from the caseworkers. This meant multiple meetings going through the interview guide page by page to ensure that the questions being asked were the questions they needed and wanted. It was important to ensure that the caseworkers felt their voices were being heard during the planning stages of the evaluation project. The ultimate partnership with TCHH involved the final report. We intended to have a total of 45 households interviewed. Unfortunately, the report ended up being based on only 35 household interviews. Although all of the 15 students were expected to complete three interviews, some were unable to do so. Others did complete the three interviews, but subsequent coding found limited useful information in terms of what the clients were willing to share and its relevance to the overarching research question. Due to the time constrictions of a single semester course, most of the students were unable to help with the final pieces, including the concluding analysis or the recommendations based on the findings. I was, however, able to bring in one student from the courses to help with the coding and analysis. This was a unique opportunity for this student to see the final report process. I provided TCHH with a final evaluation report one year from when we began talking about the project and six months from when we began the interviewing process.

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

5

Merenstein

The report included detailed descriptions of the homeless and near homeless population in the county, as well as a demographic outline of all the participants in the evaluation. It included both a detailed analysis of the results from the interviews (based on the coding), as well as a summary of the main points that emerged. Finally, and most importantly, I included a specific list of recommendations for the committee to consider (see Appendix A). These recommendations incorporated our own results as well as relevant literature on homelessness prevention. I met with the committee to submit the report, and we had a lengthy discussion about the report itself and the suggested recommendations. The student who assisted with the coding and analysis was also able to come to this meeting. Since then, the committee has met on their own to further discuss the outcomes and have since divided into smaller working groups aimed at addressing three of the specific recommendations. In the two and a half years since this project ran, I have met periodically with the staff members as well as maintaining contact via email and phone.

The CBR Courses: Methods and Substantive In keeping with the second goal of CBR, I believe that the students needed extensive training to conduct the research, as well as ample time for learning and reflection. Therefore, the model of CBR that I created was a two-course model; one course involving the substantive component focused on poverty and homelessness, the other, the methods instruction. In the research methods component of the two-course model, the field-based research activities were supported by weekly seminar meetings. These meetings combined instruction in qualitative research methods with detailed examination of conducting an evaluation. We began our methods component by learning about the area and towns in which we would be conducting our research. We then took a field trip to the primary location for the interviews. With helpful collaboration from the non-profit community organization, we visited a family shelter, an adult homeless shelter, a temporary residence, and a food pantry. At each locale, students met with staff members and had plenty of opportunities to ask questions and learn more about the work and resources at these various centers. In addition to talking firsthand with staff at these various locations, I brought in a guest speaker from the local chapter of the Coalition to End Homelessness. Additional issues we covered in the methods course were issues of ethics and responsibility (students were required to take the National Institute of Health (NIH) Ethics tutorial online) and familiarity with the interview guide. Approximately six weeks into the semester, we had interviews scheduled. I was responsible for all coordination between the caseworkers who were setting up the appointments and the students who needed to show up for scheduled interviews. Students were expected to complete three interviews by the end of the semester. The majority of students were able to do this. Some had unforeseen situations that resulted in only two interviews being conducted. We conducted interviews at four different locations, at various times. The number of students in the course (15) provided various time slots for interviews to be scheduled. Once students had each conducted a minimum of one interview, we then moved to the next phase of the qualitative interview project and began coding. Students who registered for the CBR methods course were also required to simultaneously register for the Special Topics substantive course. I believed that within a one-semester methods course, there would simply not be enough time to also research the pertinent issues. Therefore, the substantive course provided students with an opportunity to read about and discuss the issues we were researching in the methods class. We began with issues of class inequality overall, and then focused on the more specific issues of homelessness and policy (Morrell 2007; Newman and Chen 2007). As instructors of sociology, it is important for us to continuously encourage and assist our students in making connections between what they read and what is surrounding them in the social world (Korgen and White 2010). I created the substantive course called “Homelessness, Poverty and the Politics of Public Policy,” to keep the goal of the community Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

6

Journal of Applied Social Science 

partner in mind. In this course, students read material that explored economic inequality in the United States in general and our state and local environment in particular (see Appendix B for a complete reading list). In both the courses, there was the opportunity for students to reflect and discuss. They kept journals, had detailed conversations about their experiences, and did a final reflection paper. I created a learning and research community among the students, myself, and the community organization by linking together the two classes. The unique creation of these two courses leads to a deeper and more profound type of learning than could be achieved in a traditional classroom setting.

Effectiveness Knowledge Gained As Blau states (1999:xiv), “relating course materials to real-life experiences enhances the challenges for students to think in original ways about substantive problems in sociology.” Had I only taught the substantive course to the students, with no enhanced community-based research, they would have, perhaps abstractly, understood the issues of poverty and homelessness. However, students heard firsthand accounts of families struggling with balancing a very limited budget, not knowing where next month’s rent is coming from, or constantly juggling which bills get paid every month. This direct contact is incomparable to reading about it in a book. In addition, one of the things that make CBR unique from service-learning work is that students are working jointly, not just independently. Students conducting internship or service work at these sites would certainly have learned valuable insight into the world of social service work and poverty. However, by only encountering a few people in the field, they would likely be unable to see the overarching social problem of poverty and, instead, might focus on the personal troubles. For example, one of the primary concerns to emerge from the interviews was the constant struggle with physical and mental health issues. Students were amazed at the amount of time, money, and energy devoted to caring for a member of the household struggling with these issues. They learned of individuals losing their jobs for taking too much time off to care for a sick child. They heard of individuals losing their disability checks due to too many hours working. They discovered parents who moved their families to a school district better able to work with their mentally challenged child. We shared this information in class, in small groups, and during the coding process. By doing so, the prevalence and predominance of these (social) issues challenged what might seem like a (personal) trouble. Through their own interviews and then the sharing of these interviews, students learned these issues are social problems, not personal troubles. Students understood the difficulty for state and private institutions to adequately address the often complex and demanding needs of low-income households. Furthermore, they were able to connect what they read about economic inequality on a macro scale to individuals living it on a micro level. To prevent a common problem with service-learning work, where Strand (1999:32) says, “we implicitly reiterate the common view that social problems can be significantly alleviated or solved through individual efforts, and in so doing implicitly condone existing social arrangements, rather than challenging or changing them,” students were required to complete a final paper that incorporated what they learned through the interviews and field experience but tied to the knowledge gained from literature. We continuously challenged the common explanations for poverty and homelessness by relying on questions posed throughout the course. We had various discussions in class centered on the readings and the interviews, I posed specific questions for reflection in their journals, and we engaged in the issues that emerged out of the readings. We looked at the way the media depicted these issues, at the way lower-income people were described and defined, and at the way the very organization we were studying was engaging with this population. I expected and encouraged the students to challenge what they thought, what they believed, and what they were seeing.

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

7

Merenstein

To challenge their preconceptions about the homeless, students were required to participate in a group project for National Hunger and Homelessness Week. Starting early in the semester, students were assigned to small groups and worked closely together to create an activity for this week of awareness. I shared with the students what activities had been conducted nationally in previous years, and the students had two months to fully develop their ideas. Each group came up with their own unique and creative way to raise awareness of hunger and homelessness. For example, one group went into a second grade class at an elementary school and taught an entire lesson (reading a story on homelessness, having the kids make pictures about home, etc.) on homelessness and poverty. These activities taught them that change can happen on an organizational level through group effort and that we can be agents of social change. They learned by conducting their own activities, as well as hearing from others in the class. The final, more academic, result for the students was to complete a final research paper that tied together the two courses. To write this final paper, they had to choose one theme that emerged from the interviews. They then had to use our readings from the substantive course and their own additional research to more fully explore this topic. Students chose a variety of topics, ranging from the specifics of supportive housing, to the housing impact of minimum wage employment, to mental health and substance abuse problems on maintaining permanent housing. Using all they had learned from the substantive course, their own interviews, and their classmates’ interviews, these final papers exemplified the best in CBR. Most of the students successfully connected what they had learned in the methods and substantive courses and were able to explore each of these issues as a social problem and not a personal trouble. Many of the students felt empowered to think about ways they could continue to challenge common misperceptions about the poor. They also looked for ways they could incorporate their new ideas about poverty into their future careers.

Benefits to Students It is ongoing reflection that will enable the undergraduate student to “clarify the lessons learned and ensure conceptual understanding of how their work fits with their disciplinary training” (Marullo et al. 2009:63). In keeping with the reflection and introspection necessary in a CBR course, all the students were required to keep journals. In addition to maintaining a journal, we spent a great deal of time in the classroom discussing and reflecting on their experiences in the field. Finally, at the end of the semester, in addition to their final paper, students were required to write a reflection essay that looked back over the two courses and incorporated their thoughts from their journals. The following discussion of student reflection comes out of these sources.

The Sociological Imagination in Action As Hironimus-Wendt and Wallace (2009:83) explain, “when students work with groups that are clearly ‘other,’ they typically experience major changes in the knowledge and attitudes about those individuals.” While all of these students were upper level sociology majors who had taken required courses that dealt with issues of poverty and inequality, the realities were enlightening and, in many cases, overwhelming. As one student wrote in her reflection essay, “it took the ideologies of sociology to a new level by not only encouraging us to look at a societal issue . . . , but to actually see the issue firsthand and look at ways to best address it.” Or as another student wrote, “it truly opened my eyes to many aspects of homelessness that I was clearly blind to.” Some students were most affected by the field trip, as one student who became quite emotional wrote this in her journal: Today was our trip . . . and I kind of feel wrong saying I was excited, but I was. I was anxious to put more of a picture with things we discussed in the Wasserman and Clair (2010) book . . . but I ended

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

8

Journal of Applied Social Science  up feeling so uncomfortable. Really the whole day I felt uncomfortable. After leaving the {second shelter} I was really holding back my tears. I wanted to cry so bad. That place was really the typical image that comes to my head when I think of a shelter. I think what made me the most upset was thinking about what I have . . . I don’t know it’s hard to put my feelings into words.

We spent a good deal of time discussing this field trip experience. It was important that the students had plenty of opportunities to discuss their thoughts and feelings. While they were encouraged to express their thoughts privately in their journals, they also had ample opportunity to further discuss their feelings in the classroom. Midway through the semester, the students were required to have individual meetings with me. I used these meetings not only to gauge how they were doing academically in the two courses but also to discuss with each student their thoughts and feelings with regard to the experiences so far. Some students were empowered by their experiences in these classes, experiencing what almost seemed like an awakening. They began to believe that they could “make a difference” and impact people’s lives in a positive way. For example, one student continued his work in this field the following semester by gaining an internship position at the very shelter we had visited. Before attaining this position, he wrote in his journal: Overall I do feel like this class has been one of the most rewarding experiences of my college career. When I started as a sociology major I did not know what I was doing in life and now, especially after taking this class, I have cemented myself in a position of advocate for social change, and a fighter for social justice. While my solid career path is still uncertain, I feel this course has helped to open my eyes even wider than I previously thought, to enable me to have more empathy for a largely forgotten section of society.

Another student, in his reflection paper, also wrote about the changing life impact this course had on him. As the semester progressed and the more material I was exposed to, the more passionate and devoted to help stopping homelessness from negatively affecting any more lives. I have become so passionate about it I have decided to spend my life advocating and assisting as many people as possible to better their situation.

This student also got an internship the following semester in this field, working at a food pantry in a nearby town. Another student, intending to go on to graduate school in psychology, talked about her newfound interest in the impact of homelessness on children. She also expressed her intention to further research this in her graduate program. Some students found the course enlightening and worthwhile, but were also stymied and depressed by the enormity of the problem. As one put it in her reflection essay, “Some may say that knowledge is powerful, but I feel powerless towards not being able to do more to raise awareness for homelessness.” A majority of the students also discussed their belief in the importance of these kinds of CBR courses and the benefit it provided in their education. In their journals and final reflection papers, students used words such as “grateful,” “appreciative,” “enlightening,” and “personal growth.” As one put it in her reflection paper, “The experience and newfound insights that I obtained from this class were more beneficial to my education than any other classes or assignments offered, even my other sociology classes.”

Benefits to Community Organization Although the outcomes of the evaluation project might not have been exactly what TCHH wanted to hear, they expressed gratitude and appreciation at receiving the final results. For example, one Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

9

Merenstein

of the main findings to emerge from the research was that few of the households we interviewed would actually end up truly homeless without the funds. Most of the clients spoke of family or friends they would turn to in need. Therefore, we discovered that a definition of homeless can actually affect the results. The national agenda sets homelessness as ending up on the street or in a homeless shelter. If the Prevention Fund uses this definition of homelessness, then the majority of those we spoke to would not be considered homeless. However, if a definition of homeless includes doubling up and staying with families and friends—that is, losing your home—then the majority of those we spoke to would fit this definition. TCHH has taken this report and used it to further explore their application for funds, as well as their criteria for those receiving funds. They have also tightened their evaluation methods and are attempting to keep better records of those who receive funds and those who do not receive funds.

Conclusion Limitations One of the primary areas of challenge in working with students in a CBR course is the limitations of the academic calendar (Mobley 2007). Students only sign up for one semester at a time; they leave over breaks and, because of other courses and work commitments, often cannot commit to maintaining their work on a project (Marullo et al. 2009). One way that some (Curwood et al. 2011) have overcome this is by incorporating a multiple year required course into their curriculum. This, however, will usually only work if it is a graduate-level work. Others (Marullo et al. 2009) have addressed this issue by engaging in collaborative work across universities (thereby increasing the number of students working on the project) and engaging multiple classes across several semesters. As Porpora (1999:130) notes, however, even if a project spans several semesters, not all students will sign up for the subsequent semesters, and therefore, the faculty member is “confronted with the possibility of too few students to maintain project continuity or, at best, students at different levels of initiation.”

Challenges and Adjustments One of the many challenges we faced during the semester was the constant need for discussion and analysis of what the students were experiencing and witnessing. For example, I did not take into account the need for immediate reflection after the field trip. Some of the students were visibly (crying) upset, and while they obviously had the opportunity to write about it in their journals, I needed to provide them the opportunity to discuss it immediately. In subsequent courses, I have changed this. Now, after the field trip, I take the students out for dinner, and we spend several hours discussing in detail what they saw. I also learned something else after the first field trip experience. I realized that the students would benefit from a discussion with individuals who had previously been homeless before they went to the shelters and food pantries. Therefore, I have since brought in guest speakers from the Homelessness Speakers Bureau early in the semester to share their experiences with the students. Earlier exposure benefitted the students in many ways, including giving them greater insight to what they were witnessing out in the field. In addition, it is very important for us not to reiterate the individualistic notions of this kind of work. Students need to feel they can be agents of change and that social problems can have social solutions. Some students, as mentioned above, were left with a great deal of resignation and bitterness about what they heard and saw. In hindsight, there needed to be more discussion of this negativity and hopelessness. Students needed to leave the semester believing there are realistic avenues for assistance and social change. It is not enough for us to teach about inequalities, we

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

10

Journal of Applied Social Science 

must provide answers as well. Stocking and Cutforth (2006) remind us that as the instructors of CBR courses, we need to maintain a rapport with the students and continuously engage their reflections on the project. Continuous engagement and reflection can provide them with concrete examples of successful CBR projects, and the possibilities of using their sociological knowledge to create social action. While the projects the students engage in during Hunger and Homelessness Week are a good start, we need to have ongoing discussions of change throughout the semester. In the subsequent semesters of teaching this similar course sequence, I made it a point to share with the students examples of successful CBR projects. In addition, I spent considerable time discussing varying levels of social change, for example, explaining what they could do on an individual level, as well as realistic opportunities for change within organizations and institutions.

Problems Encountered In addition to some of the above-mentioned concerns and limitations, this particular project encountered some other difficulties. Above all, there were problems with participants not showing up for designated interviews. As all qualitative researchers know, this can be a common occurrence. For the students, the inconsistency of client appearances was both an excellent learning experience in doing qualitative research and increasingly frustrating. I began the course requiring all students to complete a minimum of three interviews. By the end of the semester, it became apparent not all students would be able to do this, and not because of their own doing. The logistics when creating these types of courses can be extremely difficult. For me, the logistical nightmare was in attempting to coordinate students’ schedules, the caseworkers who were often the ones scheduling the interviews, the clients, and my own full teaching load and commitments. Some students had very limited availability, for example, they worked full-time or had a full class load or had special needs (could not drive themselves, would not travel at night, would not conduct interview with a male). As is the case in many situations, some caseworkers were easier to work with and were more accommodating than others. Therefore, in maintaining the relationship between the agency and the academy, faculty must be cognizant of the various levels of commitment and interest in the project. Not all staff members at an agency might understand or see the importance of the research. There might be resistance—passive or aggressive— and we cannot simply assume the staff is there to accommodate our needs. In particular, social service agencies, such as the one I was working with, are heavily overworked and understaffed. We must be careful about asking the staff to take on additional work, as I did by asking them to schedule interviews. This can be taxing on an already overburdened social service worker. Certainly, there were some problems and challenges that occurred in teaching this course sequence. Nonetheless, I do believe that CBR is one of the best ways to teach students how to truly use their sociological imagination. Faculty, who are willing to give their time and commitment to establish a CBR program for their students, will likely find it to be one of the most rewarding teaching experiences. Sociology as a discipline is most definitely remembering its roots in the “practical realm,” with groups such as American Sociological Association’s (ASA) Section on Sociological Practice and Public Sociology (SPPS), the Society for the Study of Social Problems Special Division on Community Research and Development, and the ongoing and growing organization the Association for Humanist Sociology. It is up to us as instructors to further guide our students in these practices. Service-learning and CBR courses allow students the opportunities to learn firsthand about topics they have read about and studied throughout their sociology program. Furthermore, these courses can allow students to learn about the social problems directly from those most affected by them.

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

11

Merenstein

Appendix A Summary of Recommendations •• Recognize that perhaps instead of calling this program a Homelessness Prevention Fund, a more accurate title might be Crisis Aversion Fund, or Crisis Prevention Fund. If we rely on a definition of homelessness that means ending up at a shelter, then very few of those we interviewed would fit that definition. Nonetheless, every household who received funds were in the midst of a crisis, and receiving these funds helped them avoid that crisis—for the time being. •• According to the National Alliance to End Homelessness, there are some core principles communities can use to target prevention. 1. Use data on households in emergency shelters to target prevention. 2. Prioritize households with the most imminent and intense housing crises. •• This means focusing efforts on those at true, imminent risk of being displaced from their home. || One way to determine this is to use an assessment tool as soon as someone attempts to enter into a shelter system. The assessment tool must be carefully constructed to fit with the demographics of the local homeless and shelter population. •• Prevention targets people at imminent risk of homelessness versus diversion practices that targets people as they are applying for entry into shelter. || If diversion strategies are being used at local shelters in Middlesex County, then these service providers should be coordinating with members of the Prevention Fund. || A successful diversion strategy incorporates questions on what it would take to enable the household to find housing and/or remain in their current housing situation. To successfully divert a household, the service provider might be able to use the funds from the Prevention Fund. •• Overall, there needs to be more precise targeting of those receiving the Prevention Fund money. Based on what we discovered here, it is not likely that those who are receiving the funds are necessarily at most imminent risk of entering a shelter.

Appendix B Reading List for Substantive Course: “Homelessness, Poverty and the Politics of Public Policy” Collins, Chuck and Felice Yeskel. 2005. Economic Apartheid in America: A Primer on Economic Inequality & Insecurity. Chapters One and Two. New York: The New Press. Connecticut Coalition to End Homelessness. 2010. Portraits of Homelessness in Connecticut. Hartford. (http://www.cceh.org/pdf/portraits_full.pdf). Culhane, Dennis, Wayne Parker, Barbara Poppe, Kennen Gross, and Ezra Sykes.. 2007. “Accountability, Cost-effectiveness and Program Performance: Progress since 1998.” Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/). Gladwell, Malcom. February 13, 2006. “Million-Dollar Murray.” The New Yorker, P 96-107.. Jencks, Christopher. 2002. “Does Inequality Matter?” Daedalus 131:49–65. Retrieved May 29, 2014 (http:// www.amacad.org/publications/winter2002/Jencks.pdf). Kuhn, Randall, and Dennis Culhane. 1998. " Applying cluster analysis to test a typology of homelessness by pattern of shelter utilization." American Journal of Community Psychology. 26 (2): 207-236.

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

12

Journal of Applied Social Science 

Larimar, Mary, Daniel Malone, Michelle Garner, David Atkins, Bonnie Burlingham, Heather Lonszak, Kenneth Tanzar, Joshua Ginzler, Seema Clifasefi, William Hobson, and Alan Marlatt. 2009. “Health Care and Public Service Use and Costs Before and After Provision of Housing for Chronically Homeless Persons with Severe Alcohol Problems.” Journal of the American Medical Association 301(13): 1349–57. Latham, Nancy. 2008. The Shifting Gears Initiative 2004-2007. San Francisco, CA: LFA Group. Retrieved May 29, 2014 (www.lfagroup.com). Liebow, Elliot. 1993. “Day by Day.” Pp 25-50 in Tell Them Who I Am. New York: Penguin Books. Locke, Grethen, Jill Khadduri, and Ann O’Hara. 2007. “Housing Models.” in Toward Understanding Homelessness: The 2007 National Symposium on Homelessness Research. US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DC. Retrieved May 29, 2014 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/). Newman, Katherine S. and Victor Tan Chen. 2007. The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America. Boston: Beacon Press. O’Connor, Alice. 2001. “‘The Poverty Research Industry’ and ‘Dependency, the Underclass and the New Welfare Consensus.’” Pp. 213–83 in Poverty Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Rog, Debra and John Buckner. “Homeless Families and Children.” in Toward Understanding Homelessness. Retrieved May 29, 2014 (http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/homelessness/symposium07/rog/index.htm). Rosenthal, Rob and Maria Foscarinis. 2006. “Repsonses to Homlessness: Past Policies, Future Directions and a Right to Housing.” Pp. 316–39 in A Right to Housing, edited by Rachel Bratt, Michael Stone, and Chester Hartman. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Shinn, Marybeth, Beth C. Weitzman, Daniela Stojanovic, James R. Knickman, Jiménez Lucila, Lisa Duchon, Susan James, and David H. Krantz. 1998. “Predictors of Homelessness in New York City: From Shelter Request to Housing Stability.” American Journal of Public Health 88(11): 1651–57. Tsemberis, Sam, Leyla Gulcur, and Maria Nakae. 2004. “Housing First, Consumer Choice, and Harm Reduction for Homeless Individuals with Dual Diagnosis.” American Journal of Public Health 94:651–56. Wasserman, Jason Adam and Jeffrey Michael Clair. 2010. At Home on the Street: People, Poverty, and a Hidden Culture of Homelessness. Boulder: Lynne Rienner. Yinger, John. 2002. “Housing Discrimination and Residential Segregation as Causes of Poverty.” Pp 359391 in Understanding Poverty, edited by Sheldon H. Danziger and Robert H. Haveman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Blau, Judith R. 1999. “Service-learning: Not Charity, But a Two-way Street.” Pp. ix-xv in Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts and Models for Service-learning in Sociology, edited by James Ostrow, Garry Hesser, and Sandra Enos. Washington, DC: ASA. Bucher, Jacob. 2012. “Old and Young Dogs Teaching Each Other Tricks: The Importance of Developing Agency for Community Partners in Community Learning.” Teaching Sociology 40(3): 271–83. Curwood, Susan Eckerle, Felix Munger, Terry Mitchell, Mary Mackeigan, and Ashley Farrar. 2011. “Building Effective Community-University Partnerships: Are Universities Truly Ready.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 17(2): 15–26. Ferman, Barbara and Anne B. Shlay. 1997. “The Academy Hits the Streets: Teaching Community-Based Research.” Pp. 129–34 in Building Community: Social Science in Action, edited by Philip Nyden, Anne Figert, Mark Shibley, and Darryl Burrows. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

13

Merenstein

Finkelstein, Marv. 2009. “Toward Teaching a Liberating Sociological Practicality: Challenges for Teaching, Learning and Practice.” Teaching Sociology 37(1): 89–102. Finkelstein, Marv. 2012. “Sociology’s Icebergs: Jobs, Workplace Change, and the Applied Imperative.” Journal of Applied Social Science 6(1): 31–42. Greenwood, Davydd and Morten Levin. 2006. Introduction to Action Research: Social Research for Social Change. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Hesser, Garry. 1999. “Examining Communities and Urban Change: Service-Learning as Collaboration Research,” Pp 135-149 in Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts and Models for Servicelearning in Sociology, edited by James Ostrow, Garry Hesser, and Sandra Enos. Washington, DC: ASA. Hironimus-Wendt, Robert J. and Lora Ebert Wallace. 2009. “The Sociological Imagination and Social Responsibility.” Teaching Sociology 37(1): 76–88. Huisman, Kimberly. 2010. “Developing a Sociological Imagination by Doing Sociology: A Methods-Based Service-learning Course on Women and Immigration.” Teaching Sociology 38(2): 106–18. Korgen, Kathleen and Jonathan M. White. 2010. The Engaged Sociologist: Connecting the Classroom to the Community. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Kendrick, J. Richard. 1999. "Building Campus-Community Connections: using Service-Learning in Sociology Courses, Pp 39-53 in Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts and Models for Service-learning in Sociology, edited by James Ostrow, Garry Hesser, and Sandra Enos. Washington, DC: ASA. Marullo, Sam. 1999. “Sociology’s Essential Rule: Promoting Critical Analysis in Service-Learning,” Pp 11-28 in Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts and Models for Service-learning in Sociology, edited by James Ostrow, Garry Hesser, and Sandra Enos. Washington, DC: ASA. Marullo, Sam, Roxanna Moayedi, and Deanna Cooke. 2009. “C. Wright Mills’s Friendly Critique of Service Learning and an Innovative Response: Cross-Institutional Collaborations for Communitybased Research.” Teaching Sociology 37(1): 61–75. Mobley, Catherine. 2007. “Breaking Ground: Engaging Undergraduates in Social Change through Service Learning.” Teaching Sociology 35(2): 125–37. Morrell, Jessica. 2007. Voices from the Street: Truths about Homelessness from Sisters of the Road. Portland, OR: Gray Sunshine. Morton, Mavis, and Corey Dolgon,Timothy Maher, and James Pennell. 2012. “Civic Engagement and Public Sociology: Two ‘Movements’ in Search of a Mission.” Journal of Applied Social Science 6(1): 5–30. Newman, Katherine S. and Vincent Tan Chen. 2007. The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America. Boston: Beacon Press. Nyden, Philip, Anne Figert, Mark Shibley, and Darryl Burrows, eds. 1997. Building Community: Social Science in Action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Ostrow, James, and Garry Hesser, and Sandra Enos, eds. 1999. Cultivating the Sociological Imagination. Washington , DC: ASA. Porpora, Douglas V. 1999. “Action Research: The Highest Stage of Service Learning?” Pp. 121–34 in Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts and Models for Service-learning in Sociology, edited by James Ostrow, Garry Hesser, and Sandra Enos. Washington, DC: ASA. Potter, Sharyn J., Elizabeth M. Caffrey, and Elizabethe G. Plante. 2003. “Integrating Service Learning into the Research Methods Course.” Teaching Sociology 31(1): 38–48. Puma, Jini, Laurie Bennett, Nick Cutforth, Paul Stein, and Chris Tombari. 2009. “A Case Study of a Community-based Participatory Evaluation Research (CBPER) Project: Reflections on Promising Practices and Shortcomings.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 15(2): 34–47. Rajaram, Shireen S. 2007. “An Action-research Project: Community Lead Poisoning Prevention.” Teaching Sociology 35(2): 138–50. Rice, Eugene. 1991. “The New American Scholar: Scholarship and the Purposes of the University.” Metropolitan Universities 1:7–18. Spalter-Roth, Roberta and Nicole Van Vooren. 2010. Mixed Success: Four Years of Experiences of 2005 Sociology Graduates. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association. Stocking, Vicki B. and Nick Cutforth. 2006. “Managing the Challenges of Teaching Community-based Research Courses: Insights from Two Instructors.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 13(1): 56–65.

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014

14

Journal of Applied Social Science 

Stoecker, Randy. 2005. Research Methods for Community Change: A Project Based Approach. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Strand, Kerry. 1999. Sociology and Service-Learning: A Critical Look. Pp. 29–38 in Cultivating the Sociological Imagination: Concepts and Models for Service-learning in Sociology, edited by James Ostrow, Garry Hesser, and Sandra Enos. Washington, DC: ASA. Takata, Susan R. and Wanda Leiting. 1987. “Learning by Doing: The Teaching of Sociological Research Methods.” Teaching Sociology 15(2): 144–50. Trevino, A. Javier. 2013. “On the Facilitating Actions of Service Sociology.” Journal of Applied Social Science 7:95–109. Wasserman, Jason Adam and Jeffrey Michael Clair. 2010. At Home on the Street: People, Poverty and a Hidden Culture of Homelessness. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.

Author Biography Beth Frankel Merenstein is an associate professor of sociology at Central Connecticut State University. She teaches, conducts research and publishes in the areas of race, poverty, immigration, and community engagement. Her book Immigrants and Modrern racism: reproducing inequality was published in 2008 by lynne Rienner publishers.

Downloaded from jax.sagepub.com at GEORGE MASON UNIV on June 27, 2014