Applied research in the pursuit of justice: creating change in the community and the academy.

• Date: 22 December 2003
• Author: Joyner, Laurie M.
• Published date: 22 December 2003
• Author: Joyner, Laurie M.

THIS ARTICLE DELINEATES THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN BASIC, APPLIED, AND CLINICAL sociological work and the role of applied research in the development of the discipline. (1) I argue that the call for social science research to be "value-free" is untenable and that a legitimate role for the sociologist involves using one's disciplinary perspective and research to inform program and policy development in an attempt to improve the quality of life for marginalized groups. Drawing from my own research experiences, I make the case that the distinction between basic and applied research is frequently overdrawn and that attempts to support an objective and detached research identity within the context of community-based projects may undermine the success of interventions and weaken understanding of social life and processes. The challenges of integrating applied work into an academic career are acknowledged, given prevailing academic norms related to faculty responsibilities. The promising role of service learning and applied sociological research in developing socially conscious students, engaging faculty in the community, and contributing to incremental change geared toward social justice are discussed. Last, strategies for altering the faculty recognition and reward structures to support and encourage applied work directed toward social change are highlighted.

What Distinguishes Basic, Applied, and Clinical Sociology?

DeMartini (1989) argues that basic sociological research is discipline oriented, focused on knowledge production, and geared toward fellow sociologists. In contrast, applied sociological research is client oriented, focused on problem solving, and dedicated to the persuasive use of data to respond to diverse stakeholders (DeMartini, 1989: 137). He further emphasizes the distinction between basic or "sociology as social science" and applied or "sociology as problem solving" and points out that the two types of work are often difficult to merge. This perspective is not shared by Alexander Boros, the founder of the Society for Applied Sociology (SAS), who argues that for sociology to be "workable" and prosper, it must validate its knowledge and theories through practice in the real world (1997: 41). In other words, Boros envisions basic and applied research as complementary and mutually beneficial in refining our understanding of social life.

Straus (2002) conceptualizes applied and clinical sociology as two elements or components of sociological practice. Under this model, he and others (e.g., Fritz and Clark, 1989) define applied sociology as problem-solving research that utilizes sociological concepts and methods, whereas clinical sociology is distinguished by the "application of sociological concepts, perspectives, and methods to interventions for individual and social change" (Straus, 2002: 17). In my experience, the distinctions between applied and clinical sociology are frequently not transparent given that applied research often results in recommendations that the sociologist/ practitioner may be invited to help initiate or implement. In short, we can think of basic, applied, and clinical work as existing along a continuum without clear lines of demarcation in either their conceptualization by sociologists or in the way they are actually practiced, Iutcovich (1997: 15) points out that these divergent definitions result from "the process of identity formation and legitimation." The nature of this "contested terrain" has led to my own preference for a rather broad conception of applied work, such as that offered by Steele (1997: 87): "Any use (often client-centered) of the sociological perspective and/or its tools in the understanding of, intervention in, and/or enhancement of human social life."

History of Applied Work in Sociology

It is interesting that early sociologists at influential institutions such as the University of Chicago would have viewed the distinction between basic and applied sociology as "redundant" given their concern with social progress and reform (Du Bois, 2001; Iutcovich, 1997). The prevailing view was that the point of analyzing social conditions was to use the information to improve social life and make the world a better place to live.

This perspective was challenged by the conservatism of the 1940s and 1950s and the corresponding shift in academic emphasis from social reform to social theory. This change partially resulted from attempts by the discipline to seek legitimacy as a respected field of knowledge within the academy (see e.g., Fritz and Clark, 1989; Lee, 1978). Within a generation this goal was accomplished, if measured by the presence of sociology departments within universities across the country (Gollin, 1983; Lazarsfeld and Reitz, 1989).

The changing social, political, and economic forces of the 1960s and early 1970s led to increased calls from within the discipline to renew its commitment to use sociological theories, methods, and substantive knowledge to shape social interventions and change (Iutcovich, 1997). During this time there was also growing pressure for sociology to illustrate its relevance and make clear its contributions to the welfare of society. This shift toward an applied focus was coupled with groups of sociological practitioners that came together to form national organizations, including the Society for Applied Sociology (SAS) and the Clinical Sociology Association (CSA)--renamed the Sociological Practice Association (SPA) in 1986. In addition, factions within the American Sociological Association (ASA) formed the Section on Sociological Practice in 1978 (Iutcovich, 1997: 17; Straus, 2002).

According to Iutcovich (1997:15),"this dual orientation of developing sociology as a scientific discipline versus applying sociological knowledge for solving social problems has influenced the course of the discipline since its inception--albeit in varying degrees of importance." In fact, the question of "Sociology for what?" raised by Lynd remains just as relevant today as in 1939 (see, e.g., Du Bois, 2001). In any case, the correlation between sociology and social action remains moderately strong given the number of academic departments that describe their programs as "applied" in nature (Breese, 2000), the existence of professional associations, books, and specialized journals for those with applied interests (Straus, 2002), and the proportion of sociologists working outside of academia (Koppel and Denzler, 2001). Further, it is likely that the applied side of sociology will be bolstered by growing public demand for increased relevance and accountability and the relatively stagnant academic employment market.

The Debate over the Role of Values and Level of "Utilization" of Applied Social Research

Questions surrounding the role of sociology--and social science in general --in influencing and shaping change as we try to envision a more humane society persist. Two recurring debates emerge within this context. The first concerns the role of values in social research and the second deals with complex issues regarding the utilization (or lack thereof) of applied research findings in shaping programmatic interventions and social policy.

Is "Value-Free" Social Research Possible?

I begin with the assumption that social science research cannot be value neutral. All social research is conducted from a particular perspective that is embedded with assumptions and value judgments regarding what is correct or appropriate. Although some claim this value-free position, it is clear that values influence decisions at every step of the research process, including the way in which we formulate research questions, the theoretical perspectives we invoke to understand social reality, the methodological tools we employ in collecting and analyzing data, and the way in which we present research findings. The challenge is to be clear and forthright about one's biases, while utilizing multiple methodological approaches to maximize the validity and reliability of research findings. In my experience, the "story" revealed by employing multiple approaches typically converges, giving one more confidence in results and recommendations.

In an interesting consideration of the value question, Klein (1982: 121) advocates for the creation of a "public interest sociology," which would focus on social justice defined as "the examination of the civil liberties, economic opportunities, and social conditions of our society ... as well as how our society affects the political, economic, and social institutions of other nations." According to Klein, the role of the sociologist could be to "represent certain groups by publishing studies of them, or of the individuals, groups, or structures which promote or hinder their attainment of social justice" (p. 121).

For applied sociologists, efforts to understand social conditions in order to address inequities built into our institutions comprise important (and legitimate) work. Further, my experience suggests that this work frequently extends beyond research and writing and may also include a variety of other roles, including teacher, community organizer, planner, program developer, board or committee member, trainer, or administrator (see, e.g., Laue, 1989). In fact, participation in these other roles often strengthens research by increasing its validity and usefulness. The criticism that such work is questionable because it is based on passion and commitment that may "contaminate" research is not particularly compelling. As Cox (1997) points out, we don't argue that a medical researcher who spends her life attempting to discover a cure for cancer should be viewed with suspicion for her dedication to research geared toward the common good. Indeed, he argues that a strong commitment to such work is likely to make one even more careful in the process of conducting research, precisely because one is not detached and disinterested...