5.5.4 Implications For Research In The Helping Professions

Given the circular type development which has prevailed in the non-medical approaches to helping people in distress over many centuries, where developments may indeed contain elements that are totally new, but which almost always will be grafted onto wisdom, philosophy, ancient knowledge, tradition, culture, folk memory and many other aspects of humanity already known, I believe that the vast majority of research undertaken should be of an evaluative research nature.

In other words, research that would really benefit families in the Focus Group.

(And I’d encourage you once again to remember the characteristics of our Focus Group – they are as central to this Chapter on Research and Evaluation as they are to every other Chapter).

Briefly, what might really benefit families would be to examine 1): what is being done well, 2): how it dovetails smoothly and seamlessly onto wisdom already known, and 3): how it can be replicated in different places and at different times so that life will be better for families and children. 

That is the kind of research that I’d spend my money on anyway.

I will explain why I think this way in this Sub-Chapter.

I said that I would give my opinions on the kind of research that I’d spend my money on and this post will offer a few ideas!

To begin I would like to invite you to view research through the eyes of someone who might be in emotional pain, and also dependent.  (For example a child who is growing up in a family in our Focus Group experiencing some of the scenarios as I described earlier). I described such a child in a previous post.  Just to recap:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If I am a child, and I am in emotional pain, I simply want it relieved as soon as possible by any person or means that will do it.  But unlike my toothache or earache which I can get a cure for quickly, the norm is that my emotional pain will linger a lot longer and eventually I begin to believe the fact that nothing can be done about it, or is being done about it, so it begins to define me.

Sometimes I may feel loved, protected, cared for and experience creativity and warmth, and my pain will be temporarily alleviated by these experiences.

But all too often in my life they will be present and then taken away, or conditional on something I cannot achieve, or beyond my reach, all of which results in relieving the emotional pain temporarily but actually compounding it in the long term.

(Now —– getting to the point………..)

If I understood fully what research meant, the last priority in respect of what I feel should be researched would be my plight, my circumstances, the teacher-pupil ratio in my school, how I got to where I am, family-wise, the effects of poor quality housing in the area I live in, how many others that there are like me, how addiction in my family affects my education, the percentage of young boys whose Dads are in prison who get into trouble themselves, or any of the above subjects, all so beloved of researchers.

No, I would far more likely choose – if I was mature enough to cognitively understand – 1): what might be working well with other children so that it would be applied in my situation to alleviate my emotional pain in the long term, and 2): that it should be available immediately.

After the suffering is alleviated, I may choose to put some work into putting in place policies, research some of the above or draft legislation to protect myself and other children!

Funders and statutory agencies now insist that programmes, projects etc. are outcome focused. If I understood what the term outcome focused meant I’d choose the alleviation-of-emotional-pain outcome.

There is a lot of pressure nowadays on voluntary agencies to ensure that all their work is evidence based. The evidence that external viewers would observe would simply be me enjoying my life; a growing, carefree, thriving, loving, safe and protected young child.

Would you agree with the above?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, after all that, if I, a responsible and concerned adult with loads of money to spare and/or my fingers on the purse-strings, wanted to spend my money on research that would make a difference to the suffering child, I’d spend it on the same thing – and then implement the findings without undue delay.

Also, I’d be very keen that the researcher would be alleviating the suffering while the research is going on, and be perceived by the child as someone he can have a trusting relationship with.

I think that I’d also be interested, as a secondary but important factor, in spending my money researching how the transference of any working well factors might be affected by different times, places and cultures, and previous knowledge, norms and wisdom. That is, how they might be scaled up!

This would involve; (typically), the researchers:

~ Immersing themselves in the culture of that which is to be researched.

~ Engaging in an exploration of how they feel when doing the research.

~ Examining how the process of doing it is impacting on them.

~ Ensuring that they maintain objectivity while being so immersed.

~ Staying firmly grounded in reality.

Simple enough!

The Pillars see the priorities of research into any aspect of the lives of people in the Focus Group as completely different to what I described in the previous post! 

With some notable exceptions – there are always exceptions – the Pillars generally research things that they feel might be:

~ Indirect (or proximate) causative factors in the child experiencing the suffering (for example; effects of addiction on relationships, or homelessness on children’s education, etc. etc.),

Rather than:

~ That which might be direct (root) causative factors in the alleviation of the suffering (for example; how warm relationships are built and sustained).

This is a bit vague so I’d better give an example!

Take the Project to work with under-14’s that I referred to in the General Critique Sub-Chapter above.

In that case, prior to setting up the Project that, it was hoped, would alleviate the suffering of the children, the Pillars researched what practitioners, parents, teachers etc. thought was going wrong.

Rather than include suffering children, build relationships with them and their families, and listen to them, through a consistent presence which would have been meaningful, and where both children and families might at least have felt heard and affirmed, the research was done at a distance. 

I hope that you don’t think that I am too hard on our dedicated researchers here – but I felt at the time, and I still feel – that children suffered needlessly for 12 months when money was given to strangers to research something so that a need that was obvious to everyone was identified and described in academic terms.

And then what was set up didn’t even work.

I have observed this expensive (and unethical, I believe anyway) rigmarole many times.

There are a number of reasons why the Pillars do this over and over again. 

Here are a few possibilities:   

1. The public service – academia merry-go-round is so ingrained in the consciousness of staff working in both of them – and remembering the term symbiotic from our Chapter on the Pillars – that it is almost impossible for them to think of any other way of approaching research.

2. The research can be done without anyone getting emotional. It would appear that researchers, or those who commission the research, fear being moved.  Once again the cognitive way is deeply rooted in the consciousness of all concerned.

3. Funders have deep distrust of handing over power to (or even sharing power with) communities to alleviate obvious suffering and so have to come up with a venture or initiative that they can control.

4. Research funding is once-off and does not require further funding year by year like funding for employment of staff that would be needed to alleviate children’s suffering.

5. Genuine, concerned people do not really know what to do!  This is a bit like the Government setting up a committee to look at a problem – kicking the can down the road – is, I think the expression.

6. There is pressure from academic institutions, which are very powerful, to produce papers and dissertations of interest.  There is also pressure to come up with subjects for doctorates and other post-graduate studies. (Though I am focusing more on research that costs a lot of money that could be spent on something else. Some studies done for academic awards fall into this category, some do not).

7. Foundations and Trusts wish to be agents of change in society and they believe that they are doing some good if they fund research.

8. There is a certain status in organisations having research done and, indeed, it may bring in further funding.

Very often, what I have called indirect research is done and done well, and thoroughly, costing the state a lot of money and containing very good and positive recommendations.

But I have rarely observed such research being used to develop truly new methods of working or to design out inefficient or ineffective processes that are wasteful of time and energy, as would be the case in manufacturing or business.

The results, published in journals, books, and articles on crime, children at risk, imprisonment etc. (even ones that I have read recently) and presented at endless conferences and seminars, generally focus on problems.

And when charting a way forward (in the recommendations – always the most interesting chapter) the research does not usually include the how which is the most important bit!  Or if there is a how it is often so aspirational and unrealistic that it is of very little use.

Now, to sum up, I need to stress that I have no problem with indirect reports per-se – what I have against them is that, though they may incur a feeling of well-being and achievement in those who work very hard towards their completion 1): they are very costly and the money could well be spent on something else 2): they’re not that exciting or relevant for the people who are suffering deeply because of the issues that are explored in the reports and 3): the action or change that results from the reports is so slow (glacial, I think is the word – if anything happens at all) that it is imperceptible to the people who matter most.

And a very harmful aspect of them is that in fact they may induce hope in people in distress and almost always it is not fulfilled.

Once again, you will probably see where I am going here.

In order to develop new methods of working that will break new ground and truly make a difference to suffering people, research needs to break out of the Pillars straitjacket and involve our emotions.

This would require researchers journeying with people to glean what inspiration, hope, creativity, courage and determination are available to the work to be done.

It is always easier to research something, and produce papers from lengthy and expensive consultations, than actually do something.