As we have argued in the previous chapters, little scholarly attention has been focussed on the Portuguese community and on the issue of the underachievement of Portuguese-Canadian youth.[1] More importantly, no study has yet consulted with the Portuguese across Canada, nor attempted to discover what they perceive to be their roles within the social, political and economic context of this country. Furthermore, no academic work has examined how Luso-Canadians feel that these factors may impact upon the situation of their children’s academic future. Finally, few of the studies conducted on the Portuguese have been grounded on - and contributed to - established theoretical work on minority underachievement, both at the “macroethnographic” and “microethnographic” levels. In particular, John Ogbu’s “Cultural Ecological Theory of School Performance” and Paulo Freire’s work on critical pedagogy, seem to present frameworks for explaining the difficult educational situation of the Luso-Canadian community.

Scholars such as Ogbu and Cummins, who work within this underachievement research, have described how members of minority groups often exist within a context of the political, economic and cultural dominance of their community, on the part of the mainstream (Cummins, 1988, 1989, 1996, 1997; Ogbu, 1974, 1978, 1983, 1987; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). These authors have also postulated that the ways in which these minority individuals mediate and interpret the forces characterizing this dominance, may ultimately contribute to academic underachievement. In this fashion, Cummins and Ogbu have described the importance, within underachievement research, of exploring the situation of dominance within which these groups are found (Cummins, 1989; Ogbu & Simons, 1998). In particular, they have stressed the need to understand the ways in which this dominance affects the repertoire of ideas, assumptions, opinions and actions which community members have formed regarding education (Ogbu & Simons, 1998).

Yet, previous studies on Luso-Canadians have done little to examine this relationship of dominance, or to probe how Canadians of Portuguese descent might perceive it. On the contrary, these studies have sometimes served as vehicles for the transmission of the author’s own assumptions, political agendas and views on the problem (ex. McLaren, 1986).

One of the reasons why these studies have not examined the relationship of dominance, or challenged researchers’ assumptions, is that these have not included any real involvement in, or control over, the research process on the part of the Portuguese-Canadian community. In essence, these studies have actually reproduced, in the unequal partnership between researcher and researched, this same relationship of domination which Ogbu and Cummins have linked to underachievement. Previous studies on the Portuguese in Canada have relegated community members to the status of “passive participants.” Community members have not been involved in formulating or questioning the assumptions behind these studies, in helping to develop the study questions and research design, or in implementing the research projects.

Yet, scholars have argued that the design of a research or educational project is often as important in perpetuating (or overcoming) the assumptions behind a study as the actual research questions (Brown & Tandon, 1983; Freire, 1970)

Thus, in order for Luso-Canadians to be able to define their ontological and existential situation as a low-status minority living within the mainstream domination of this country, it is imperative that community members be allowed to develop, structure and realize a study which would examine this issue from their particular point-of-view.

In keeping with the preceding discussion and the following from those areas which have not been explored by previous work, the present study proposed to investigate the following specific questions, through a Participatory-Research framework:

1. What is the overall educational, economic, political, social and cultural context of the Portuguese-Canadian community? What relationships, if any, do community members feel exist between this context and the academic underachievement of their children?

2. What do Luso-Canadians perceive to be their situation, and their roles, in relation to mainstream Canadian society and other minority groups? What do Luso-Canadians perceive to be the role of the attitudes and practices of community members in the problem of academic underachievement?

3. What kinds of priorities and actions do community members see for a grass-roots, community organization such as the Congress in bringing about the resolution of these problems?

4. How does the case of the Portuguese in Canada serve to clarify prevailing theories on minority academic underachievement, or, how do these theories help to explain the educational problems of the Portuguese?

The study outlined in the following pages proposed to examine these very questions, through a theoretical framework which incorporated elements of Participatory Research, (Brown & Tandon, 1983; "Developments", 1981; "Focus", 1988; Park, 1993; Park, Brydon–Miller, Hall & Jackson, 1993; Participatory Research, 1982; "Special", 1975; Thiollent, 1994) in a process of Social Development Practice, (ex. Abrahams et al., 1990; Pilisuk, McAllister & Rothman, 1996). More specifically, this study aimed to explore the context in which Portuguese-Canadians exist - in particular, the issues of education, economics and culture - from the point of view of community members, and from a critical pedagogy perspective.

In this capacity, it was conceptualized as the first part of the participatory process - the “exploratory” phase comprising the collection of “generative themes” (Freire, 1970, pp. 75-118; Thiollent, 1994, p. 48-50). It also fulfilled the role of the information-collection phase within the social-development paradigm (Abrahams et al, p. 40). This project also incorporated the active participation of community members in the formulation of the research questions, design and in the implementation of the research activities.

Participatory Research, (or P.R.), is a framework for community development, which aims to create social action and critical consciousness amongst individuals who are suffering under situations of social disadvantage, through involving them, as equal partners, in the planning, development and implementation of a research project, that is intended to investigate and overcome their situations of inequality. The framework of Participatory Research has been developed to allow disempowered groups in various situations throughout the world to identify relevant questions relating to their social, economic and cultural domination and to help them effect real change in their circumstances, (Brown & Tandon, 1983; "Developments", 1981; "Focus", 1988; Park, 1993; Park, Brydon–Miller, Hall & Jackson, 1993; Participatory Research, 1982; "Special", 1975). This framework has grown out of work in the critical education of Third World peoples and, in particular, from the approach of Paulo Freire, (1970). The Participatory research approach has been applied to various and diverse situations of disadvantage, throughout the world, (ex. Gajanayake, 1988; Gaventa, 1988; Horton, 1993; Kassam & Mustapha, 1982; Maguire, 1987; McDonald, 1985; Orefice, 1988; Park et al. 1993; Pascall, 1988).

In its capacity as a framework, P.R. often lacks a definitive methodology and structure (Alary, Beausoleil, Guédon, Larivière & Mayer, 1990, pp. 201-205; Lapati, 1988). As Alary et al (1990) has even stated “the participatory research process itself has rarely been described”(p. 201). Yet, the techniques which have been applied under the rubric of "Participatory Research" share three common elements:

1) Collective investigation of problems and issues with the active participation of the constituency in the entire process.

2) Collective analysis, in which the constituency develops a better understanding not only of the problems at hand but also of the underlying structural causes (socio–economic, political, cultural) of the problem.

3) Collective action by the constituency aimed at long–term as well as short–term solutions to these problems.

Hall (1981) has more precisely described the essential elements of participatory research, what he terms as "...an integrated activity that combines social investigation, educational work, and action..." (p.7):

• The ultimate goal... is fundamental structural transformation and the improvement of the lives of those involved...

• ...the workplace or the community [is involved] in the control of the entire process...

• ...the awareness in people of their own abilities and resources [is strengthened] and mobilizing [is supported].

• The term "researcher" can refer to both the community or work–place persons involved as well as those with specialized training.

• [Outside researchers] are committed participants and learners in a process that leads to militancy rather than detachment. (Hall, 1981, pp. 7–8)

One of the central tenets of Participatory Research is the active collaboration of the disempowered in the development, structuring and implementation of the research project, from the initial formulation of major questions, to the compilation and interpretation of conclusions, (Park, 1993, p. 10; Participatory Research, 1982, pp. 2–3). Another important component is the emphasis which is placed upon group action, that is designed to reverse or ameliorate the conditions of disadvantage, (Brown & Tandon, 1983, pp. 281–282; Hall, 1981, pp. 7–8; Participatory Research, 1982, pp. 37–38).

Thus, Participatory Research is a process whereby a group of people facing a situation of disadvantage collectively – and with the aid of a facilitator/resource person who has been trained both in the process of critical problem–posing and in the range of available formal research tools – act to unravel the underlying causes of their situation and to formulate workable solutions. The research group decides as a collective: a) How to formulate the problem; b) What information is to be sought; c) What methods are to be utilized; d) What concrete procedures are to be taken; e) How the data should be analyzed; f) What to do with the findings; and g) What action should be taken to act on the findings (Park, 1993, p. 10).

In this process, Participatory Research utilizes techniques of collective problem–posing, discussions and analysis to deal with the issue of concern to the research group. The collective first begins from the concrete experiences of its members and moves to include both theoretical analysis and action aimed at change, (Participatory Research: An introduction, 1982, p. 2). Once having initiated the process, the group may call upon any one of a range of methods to further the process. These may include group discussions, public meetings, research teams (composed of local members and/or outside consultants and technical experts), surveys, community seminars, fact finding tours, production of audio–visual materials, popular theatre, educational camps, interviews, data analysis, etc. (Participatory Research: An introduction, 1982). The formally-trained researcher, who assists the group, initiates the problem–posing, facilitates the process, serves as a resource person, explains the different methodological research options available to the collective and, if necessary, trains participants in their uses.

Throughout this process, the component of action designed to ameliorate the immediate situation of the oppressed group is a central and essential goal of Participatory Research, (Brown & Tandon, 1983, pp. 281–282; Hall, 1981, pp. 7–8; Maguire, 1987, p. 29; Park, 1993, p. 10; Participatory Research, 1982, pp. 2, 37–38). This method of inquiry assumes that, since all research is effected in order to bring about change, movement against the situation of disadvantage is a necessary element of all true research, (Brown & Tandon, 1983, p. 282). Freire's (1970) notion of the "praxis" between reflection and action, (pp. 75–76) has greatly contributed to this idea. For Freire, knowledge without action is ultimately meaningless: "...denunciation is impossible without a commitment to transform, and there is no transformation without action." (Freire, 1970, p. 76)

Another important goal of Participatory Research is the empowerment of group members and of the disadvantaged community, (Comstock and Fox, 1993; Gaventa, 1993; Tandon, 1988). As Comstock and Fox (1993) have stated,

A further element of the critical criterion is the capacity for participatory research to generate a self–sustaining dialectic of reflection and action – a spiral–like process of self–criticism and theoretically guided political struggle. This makes the researcher increasingly redundant and unnecessary as members of the community gain knowledge and confidence in their ability to carry on the process themselves. Thus the object of participatory research is not only to generate liberating knowledge and practice but also to initiate a permanent process of action and reflection which leads communities to undertake further analyses and struggles on new issues, (Comstock & Fox, 1993, p. 112)

...participatory research attempts to break down the distinction between the researchers and the researched, the subjects and objects of knowledge production, by the participation of the people–for–themselves in the process of gaining and creating knowledge. In the process, research is seen not only as a process of creating knowledge, but simultaneously as education and development of consciousness, and of mobilization for action. (Gaventa, 1992, p. 34)

A central principle underlying participatory research is the belief that there are fundamentally differing and conflicting interests between social groups, which are involved in situations of inequality, (Brown & Tandon, 1983, p. 282–283). The implications of the existence of these differences in interest are that true action can neither be taken by others for the dominated group, nor on their behalf; since members of the dominant group will neither see problems in the same light as the dominated, nor will they readily accept definitions that threaten their position, (Hall, 1981, p. 7). Therefore, action must be taken by oppressed groups, for themselves. This belief effectively rules out problem–solving collaboration with dominant groups, and is a major difference between participatory research and its close cousin, action research, (Brown & Tandon, 1983, p. 285–287).

This frame of thought also underlies the belief that knowledge is a commodity which, throughout time, has been wittingly and unwittingly utilized by "experts" from the dominant groups to maintain the status–quo, (Hall, 1979; Gaventa, 1993; Maguire, 1987; Park, 1993). In order to solve the immediate situation of disadvantage, this knowledge must ultimately be reappropriated by the people or community in crisis.

Thus, the role of knowledge in Participatory Research is different from that in most other research methods. Participatory researchers give weight to "useful knowledge", experiential knowledge and "felt" knowledge over the abstractions of traditional social science, (Brown & Tandon, 1983, p. 281; Gaventa, 1993; Park, 1993, p. 5–8). In this fashion, knowledge is seen to spring from action and action from knowledge, ex. see Freire's (1970) notion of conscientização, (p. 19–21), (Park, 1993, p. 8).

A related tenet of Participatory Research is the belief that members of an oppressed group will thus be in a better position to understand the essential elements of their own disadvantaged situation than the more technically–versed professional researchers who represent the dominant social collective, (Tandon, 1988). This is, despite the fact that the "oppressed" often have difficulty in voicing their experienced knowledge in ways which allow them to overcome these situations, (Freire, 1970).

The role of the formally-trained researcher in a participatory research group is one which changes over the time of the study. In the beginning of the project, the formally-trained researcher either brings the group together, or joins an existing group where he/she can assist with technical knowledge, regarding the different research methods that are available. This researcher often activates interest amongst the participants in examining the problem in a more structured fashion and promotes critical discussion, (Park, 1993, p. 10). As the study progresses, the researcher, who might have formed the group in the first place, takes on the role of resource person, aiding members of the group in identifying and selecting appropriate methodologies to help research the questions which the group has targeted and helping to develop the practical and critical skills of group members, (Park, 1993, p. 10). Throughout the project, the following components must be adopted by the initial researcher, (summarized from Participatory research: An introduction, 1982, p. 39):

• A willingness to deepen one's knowledge of the local situation, through observation, listening, questioning, etc.

• An ability to ask critical, hard questions while leaving the final decisions up to the constituency.

• A commitment to transferring appropriate skills to members of the constituency.

• A commitment to making the interests of the constituency a priority over one's personal interests.

Unlike with other research methods, participatory research does not concern itself with replicability as a means of validating the "truthfulness" of findings. Rather a number of factors related to process and outcomes have been identified by Comstock and Fox, (1993) as contributing to the validation of the results of participatory research. These include pragmatic criterion, (did the process solve the problem?), the position of historical materialism, (that the research project is part of a process, which, if relevant to a particular group or class and applicable to their situation, is thus valid), and the critical criterion of validity, (has the exercise created a self–perpetuating process of dialectical reflection and action?), (Comstock & Fox, 1993, p. 111).

The paradigm of participatory research makes no pretence to the objectivity of the initiating researcher and, instead, places an emphasis on that researcher to ally him/herself squarely on the side of the dominated group, (Brown & Tandon, 1983). In fact, the roles demanded of the initiating researcher clearly include commitments to a strong degree of activism on behalf of the disadvantaged collective, (Participatory Research: An introduction, 1982, p. 39–40). The only negative bias of which the researcher is warned is that of placing ones' personal interests ahead of those of the group with which one is working.

[1] For a comprehensive listing of these reports, as well as of other material such as newspaper articles, unpublished manuscripts, etc. please see Teixeira, & Lavigne (1992, in press).