Samantha Cocco-Klein
In “Praxis for the Poor”, Sanford Schram identifies the pragmatic approach to welfare research developed by Jane Addams as a source of inspiration for social science researchers today. A pioneering, social reformer, Addams articulated a vision for social research in which knowledge is generated through active engagement with the conditions in which the poor struggle and is based on their needs. Addams’s vision stands in contrast to the current state of welfare research as described by Schram, in which bottom-up approaches developed through social movements have been replaced by apolitical and technocratic methodologies. This paper takes up Jane Addams pragmatic approach as a way for forward for normative social policy research, questioning what implications it has for research methods, and for the types of political change that research should aim to achieve.
An active contributor to pragmatic thought, Addams embraced the philosophical movement’s core belief that an idea or theory’s value is determined through its practical consequences. This belief was developed as a way out of traditional dualisms, offering a middle-ground that emphasizes the usability or workability of theory. Pragmatic research emphasized the use of multiple methods to arrive at empirical evidence, using a blend of qualitative and quantitative analysis, and valuing lived experience alongside more formal approaches. [i] Addams’s approach to research is summed up by Schram; “First go the people, be among them and work among them, reflect on their conditions and constraints, gain perspectives through identification, theorize practice, practice practice, continue to struggle, then rest, dissent, push for change, then make a difference in people’s lives.”
Addam’s approach stands in contrast to the current situation in social science research described by Schram, in which research is increasingly apolitical and statistics-driven, looking to fine tune social policies. Complex, methodologically diverse research that is grounded in the lives of the poor is increasingly rare. Some action research continues, mostly outside the US and often under the title ‘Participatory Action Research’. (Hale, 2008) PAR, which treats communities as equal partners and values local knowledge on par with technical expertise, comes closest to the research undertaken by Addams, but should it be held up as the gold standard for pragmatically minded social welfare researchers? A challenge with PAR is the commitment and time required, often to uncertain ends, and the ability of researchers to find communities with the trust and capacity to take on substantive research roles. Addams, coming from a wealthy background and well-networked with donors of her day, was able to sustain Hull House as a site for research and practice over her lifetime. Located at the intersection of diverse immigrant communities, Hull House provided a rare opportunity to work with multiple communities at the same time. [ii]. Few researchers have such resources available to them.
A pragmatic solution is offered by Callahan and Jennings (1983) who offer as a guideline for ethical policy research that “the most powerful research designs appropriate to the problem should be chosen within the limits of available resources and situational contexts.” In short, when researching the poor for social welfare, aim for a sustained and equal engagement, but if the resources are not available, be as engaged to the extent possible. Compliment this with mixed methods, with the aim not to produce one strong, unshakeable piece of evidence, but instead to twine different strands of evidence together.[iii]
Across the social sciences, activist research is now a rarity in US universities, with a tendency to view external, political engagement as inimical to scientific objectivity. This stands in sharp contrast to Addams approach. Along with other pragmatists, Addams endorsed shared values such as freedom, democracy and equality as fundamental to research[iv], and she explicitly sought to generate theory about how the lives of the poor could be improved and put it into practice; including through political engagement. As befits its names, pragmatic political approaches to social reform do not seek immediate radical change, looking instead to work with for improvements within existing structures and systems, and emphasizing what can be done in the given circumstances.
The pragmatic approach, though progressive and politically engaged, nevertheless has been criticized for promoting incrementalism and failing to address needed structural changes in society. In response, Schram proposes ‘radical incrementalism’, in which reformers start with the given social realities but aim for disruptive change that addresses underlying structural inequalities. He enthusiastically highlights the political activism of Piven and Cloward, who in the late 1960s promoted the mass enrolments of the poor into urban welfare programs, with the explicit intention of flooding the system and bringing about a national guaranteed income scheme. Given that the action failed and welfare support to poor families has been politically marginalized and substantively reduced since, it seems questionable that this approach would be embraced as a pragmatic way forward for politically engaged social policy research. At this point in time, it seems to serve more as a cautionary tale.
Schram dedicates considerable energy to criticizing Theda Skocpol’s efforts to make social welfare reforms appealing to the middle class through family-centered populism. For Schram, this risks reinforcing hierarchies of privilege and deservingness, and fails to challenge existing biases and structural barrier such as racism. What he fails to note, is that through approaches that emphasize shared values, Skocpol comes closer to the citizen-based ideas promoted by Addams, who was deeply concerned with creating a shared idea of citizenship, for wealthy and poor alike, built on mutual respect and common values. It is an idea of social welfare that comes closer to the universal, citizenship-based programs in place in Northern European countries. These programs did not come about through a radical restructuring of the social order, but through a gradual expansion of the social and economic rights associated with citizenship.
In this troubled time, with inequality and populism on the rise, pragmatism’s emphasis on politically-engaged research based on shared values, together with and Addams vision for a citizenship that encapsulates the responsibilities of the poor and the wealthy, is well worth revival. Social policy research that is embedded in and guided by the poor, across lines of race and culture, and which combines the best of statistical approaches and qualitative methods, is greatly needed to generate new progressive theories and practice for the 21st century.
[i] R. Burke Johnson and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7 (Oct., 2004), pp. 14-26
[ii] Wikipedia, Jane Addams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Addams
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
In “Praxis for the Poor”, Sanford Schram identifies the pragmatic approach to welfare research developed by Jane Addams as a source of inspiration for social science researchers today. A pioneering, social reformer, Addams articulated a vision for social research in which knowledge is generated through active engagement with the conditions in which the poor struggle and is based on their needs. Addams’s vision stands in contrast to the current state of welfare research as described by Schram, in which bottom-up approaches developed through social movements have been replaced by apolitical and technocratic methodologies. This paper takes up Jane Addams pragmatic approach as a way for forward for normative social policy research, questioning what implications it has for research methods, and for the types of political change that research should aim to achieve.
An active contributor to pragmatic thought, Addams embraced the philosophical movement’s core belief that an idea or theory’s value is determined through its practical consequences. This belief was developed as a way out of traditional dualisms, offering a middle-ground that emphasizes the usability or workability of theory. Pragmatic research emphasized the use of multiple methods to arrive at empirical evidence, using a blend of qualitative and quantitative analysis, and valuing lived experience alongside more formal approaches. [i] Addams’s approach to research is summed up by Schram; “First go the people, be among them and work among them, reflect on their conditions and constraints, gain perspectives through identification, theorize practice, practice practice, continue to struggle, then rest, dissent, push for change, then make a difference in people’s lives.”
Addam’s approach stands in contrast to the current situation in social science research described by Schram, in which research is increasingly apolitical and statistics-driven, looking to fine tune social policies. Complex, methodologically diverse research that is grounded in the lives of the poor is increasingly rare. Some action research continues, mostly outside the US and often under the title ‘Participatory Action Research’. (Hale, 2008) PAR, which treats communities as equal partners and values local knowledge on par with technical expertise, comes closest to the research undertaken by Addams, but should it be held up as the gold standard for pragmatically minded social welfare researchers? A challenge with PAR is the commitment and time required, often to uncertain ends, and the ability of researchers to find communities with the trust and capacity to take on substantive research roles. Addams, coming from a wealthy background and well-networked with donors of her day, was able to sustain Hull House as a site for research and practice over her lifetime. Located at the intersection of diverse immigrant communities, Hull House provided a rare opportunity to work with multiple communities at the same time. [ii]. Few researchers have such resources available to them.
A pragmatic solution is offered by Callahan and Jennings (1983) who offer as a guideline for ethical policy research that “the most powerful research designs appropriate to the problem should be chosen within the limits of available resources and situational contexts.” In short, when researching the poor for social welfare, aim for a sustained and equal engagement, but if the resources are not available, be as engaged to the extent possible. Compliment this with mixed methods, with the aim not to produce one strong, unshakeable piece of evidence, but instead to twine different strands of evidence together.[iii]
Across the social sciences, activist research is now a rarity in US universities, with a tendency to view external, political engagement as inimical to scientific objectivity. This stands in sharp contrast to Addams approach. Along with other pragmatists, Addams endorsed shared values such as freedom, democracy and equality as fundamental to research[iv], and she explicitly sought to generate theory about how the lives of the poor could be improved and put it into practice; including through political engagement. As befits its names, pragmatic political approaches to social reform do not seek immediate radical change, looking instead to work with for improvements within existing structures and systems, and emphasizing what can be done in the given circumstances.
The pragmatic approach, though progressive and politically engaged, nevertheless has been criticized for promoting incrementalism and failing to address needed structural changes in society. In response, Schram proposes ‘radical incrementalism’, in which reformers start with the given social realities but aim for disruptive change that addresses underlying structural inequalities. He enthusiastically highlights the political activism of Piven and Cloward, who in the late 1960s promoted the mass enrolments of the poor into urban welfare programs, with the explicit intention of flooding the system and bringing about a national guaranteed income scheme. Given that the action failed and welfare support to poor families has been politically marginalized and substantively reduced since, it seems questionable that this approach would be embraced as a pragmatic way forward for politically engaged social policy research. At this point in time, it seems to serve more as a cautionary tale.
Schram dedicates considerable energy to criticizing Theda Skocpol’s efforts to make social welfare reforms appealing to the middle class through family-centered populism. For Schram, this risks reinforcing hierarchies of privilege and deservingness, and fails to challenge existing biases and structural barrier such as racism. What he fails to note, is that through approaches that emphasize shared values, Skocpol comes closer to the citizen-based ideas promoted by Addams, who was deeply concerned with creating a shared idea of citizenship, for wealthy and poor alike, built on mutual respect and common values. It is an idea of social welfare that comes closer to the universal, citizenship-based programs in place in Northern European countries. These programs did not come about through a radical restructuring of the social order, but through a gradual expansion of the social and economic rights associated with citizenship.
In this troubled time, with inequality and populism on the rise, pragmatism’s emphasis on politically-engaged research based on shared values, together with and Addams vision for a citizenship that encapsulates the responsibilities of the poor and the wealthy, is well worth revival. Social policy research that is embedded in and guided by the poor, across lines of race and culture, and which combines the best of statistical approaches and qualitative methods, is greatly needed to generate new progressive theories and practice for the 21st century.
[i] R. Burke Johnson and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Mixed Methods Research: A Research Paradigm Whose Time Has Come, Educational Researcher, Vol. 33, No. 7 (Oct., 2004), pp. 14-26
[ii] Wikipedia, Jane Addams, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Addams
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.