CHAPTER SIX: APPLICATION OF EMPOWERMENT THEORY TO EDUCATION
6.3. EMPOWERMENT THEORY - CRITIQUE AND CONCLUSIONS
The above studies thus reveal the application of empowerment theory to a wide range of educational contexts including preschool (Campos and Keatinge, 1984 in Cummins, 1986) school (Gruber and Trickett, 1987) and university (Maton and Salem, 1995 and Taylor and Burgess, 1995) settings, as well as to community and alternative forms of education (Lazarus, 1985 and "Participatory Learning", 1995). The fmal area for discussion is thus to outline how empowerment theory has informed the current study, before critically evaluating the theory and its application to education.
The applications of empowerment theory to education discussed in this chapter provided a set of guiding principles to inform the current intervention design. In particular, aspects such as learning as a collaboration between teacher and students (Nyathi and Chikuhuhu, 1995), the value of nurturing group relations (Maton and Salem, 1995) and a teacher who mentors students (Cummins, 1986) were emphasised. The value of experiential forms of leaming that increase intrinsic enjoyment of the subject (Bandura, 1997) was also highlighted.
Finally empowerment theory provided the present study with the methodology of action research. With its focus on collaboration and self reflection this is considered particularly suited to the evaluation of an empowerment intervention (Lazarus, 1985).
6.3.2. Critique of empowerment theory:
Drawing together the material from the last two chapters, a number of critical comments about empowerment theory can be made. Perhaps the strongest of these relates to the definition of empowerment. It has been criticised as political, ideological rhetoric with little practical or theoretical relevance, and as a wooly, unfocussed concept that is hard to
operationalise: "Attempts to create theories of empowerment...are usually presented in global and vague terms that do not specify particular interventions or practical applications"
(Mulvey, 1988, p. 80) and: "This is a badly misused construct that has become heavily infused with promotional hype, naive grandiosity, and virtually every brand of political rhetoric" (Bandura, 1997, p. 477).
Lack of definitional clarity occurs because of three main factors. Firstly the contextual nature of empowerment and its varied forms in different settings mediates against the development of a single, universally applicable empowerment construct. Secondly empowerment is a dynamic process that changes over time, again making it difficult to develop a global definition. Lastly empowerment is a value-laden term, with political and ideological undertones, which have been perceived by some as contributing to its vagueness and far removed from the supposed neutrality and objectivity of psychological constructs (Bandura, 1997).
Zimmerman (1995) responds to these criticisms by arguing that all science is value-laden and that empowerment, by articulating the values on which it is based, achieves greater clarity of definition than is true for many other constructs. He advocates viewing empowerment as a nomological network of linked constructs, with some components consistent across contexts and others unique to a particular context. Each researcher should therefore provide a clearly operationalised definition of empowerment specific to the context under study.
At the same time, the fuzzy, unfocussed nature of much empowerment research is
acknowledged (Perkins and Zimmerman, 1995 and Zimmermanet al., 1992) with greater clarity of focus, less reliance on anecdotal evidence and more empirical testing needed.
Specific issues warranting greater research include the contextual factors that either promote or inhibit empowerment, mediators of empowerment, and the impact of empowerment in terms of individual, organisational and community-wide outcomes.
A second criticism relates to the individual focus of much empowerment research. Although Rappaport (1987) includes a sense of personal control and actual democratic participation, in his definition of empowerment, research often conflates the two aspects (Newborough, 1992b). Both Zimmerman (1995) and Kieffer (1984), for example, focus on the development of psychological empowerment with little reference to organisational and community-wide forms of empowerment. A review of community psychological research between 1984 and 1988 also found widespread focus on issues related to individual adjustment and personality factors, suggesting that: "after 25 years community psychology retains signs of an individual- based, adjustment orientation" (Speeret al., 1992, p. 208). Hence empowerment is
operationalised in terms of personality factors like self efficacy or sense of control, excluding broader socio-political aspects of empowerment: "In the context of empowerment, if the focus of inquiry becomes not actual power but rather the sense of empowerment then the political is made personal and, ironically, the status quo is maintained" (Riger, 1993, p.281).
Reasons for the individualist focus of empowerment theory include the mainstream, clinical training of most community psychologists which predisposes them to an individual orientation (Newborough, 1992b) and the location of most empowerment theorists within either
academic or mental health settings where individualist mental health models predominate and where frequent contact with communities is rare (Mulvey, 1988). In addition, empowerment theory originated and flourishes in America, dominated by a cultural ideology of individualism.
Hence relatively few attempts have been made to explore the broader socio-political context within which empowerment occurs, or shift attention from psychological to organisational and community-wide forms of empowerment. Notable exceptions include Maton and Salem's (1995) analysis of the organisational features of empowerment settings, Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, and Chavis's study (1990) of the physical and social contextual factors which predict participation in a neighbourhood block association and Cummins' (1986) analysis of minority and majority group power relations as impacting on minority pupils' sense of empowerment. Serrano-Garcia's study of a community development project in Puerto Rico is also representative of the Latin American school of social psychology, which, among other issues, focuses attention on the socio-political context of empowerment.
Much empowerment research has also been criticised for ignoring the relation between
empowerment and social power. Empowerment is usually measured purely in terms of increased participation and a greater sense of control, rather than actual political power to access
resources. Hence power is viewed apolitically and individualistically as referring to a sense of mastery with few writers debating whether an intervention that increases feelings of control without impacting on a community's access to resources really constitutes empowerment.
Exceptions are Cummins (1986), Gruber and Trickett (1987) and Serrano-Garcia (1984), all of whom refer to the "illusion of empowerment" whereby individuals feel more in control yet within a context of pre-existing power differences. They also advocate the need to directly challenge unequal power relations in society for true empowerment to occur.
This issue is particularly relevant to the South African context, where power differences between social groups are particularly pronounced, and to this thesis, as discussed in section 6.2.5. To be truly effective, the current intervention therefore needs to be linked to a wider process of transformation to which empowered students can make meaningful contributions.
Feminist and cross-cultural writers (Lee, 1991; Mulvey, 1988 and Riger, 1993) have criticised empowerment theory for adopting an ethnocentric approach to the concepts of mastery and control, both Western, masculine values, at the expense of feminine and non-Western values of relatedness and sense of community. Feminist writers (Bowen, Bahrick and Ens, 1991 and McWhirter, 1991) place more emphasis on the collective aspects of empowerment than on the empowerment of individuals. They encourage newly empowered individuals to advocate for the empowerment of others and nurture their development, as a central goal of empowerment.
The concept of "transformative power" is therefore used to refer to the use of power, not for selfish purposes, but rather to help in the empowerment of others. While the assumption that lack of power and control is psychologically damaging is a value-laden position, it should be remembered, however, that empowerment does not reject traditional values of commonality.
Instead it seeks to strengthen existing values, including a sense of connectedness, while at the same time boosting people's sense of control. In addition, a number of writers (Chavis and Newborough, 1986; HelIer, 1989; Maton and Rappaport, 1984 and Richard, 1995) have explicitly included a sense of community as central to their approach to empowerment.
The final criticism of empowerment theory I wish to discuss relates to its research designs and methods. According to two reviews (Lounsbury, Leader, Meares and Cook, 1980 and Novaco and Monahan, 1980) community psychological research published between 1970 and 1980 suffered from weak research designs and lack of methodological rigour. Small,
unrepresentative samples and non-equivalent comparison groups were used and a narrow
----~-~-----~ ----
--
~range of variables targeted. Research was often limited to the study of individual rather than community-wide processes, leading the authors to claim that community psychologists have sacrificed methodological rigour without sufficient gain in knowledge about social processes.
A more recent review (Speeret al., 1992), focussing on the period 1984 - 1988, reported an increase in the use of correlations, field studies and single observation methods and a decrease in the use of control groups and experimental studies. These factors were interpreted not as reflecting continued methodological weakness, however, but rather as a result of the recent rise in the credibility of qualitative research, as discussed in section 6.1.2. Hence a more pragmatic approach is adopted, whereby researchers select methods that are most appropriate
to the context and issue being studied, rather than those that are empirically most rigorous (Patton, 1986 in Speeret al., 1992). Community psychological research therefore needs to make use of multiple qualitative and quantitative methods, to suit the variables under study, ensuring that these allow for full community participation and at the same time meet the standards of rigour proposed by Hooking (1985), discussed above.
6.3.3. Recommendations for future empowerment research:
In response to the above criticisms, several authors (Hess, 1984; Perkins, 1995; Perkins and Zimmerman, 1995 and Zimmerman, 1995) have made recommendations regarding the direction future empowerment research and practice should take. Firstly it is argued that clearer definitions of empowerment should be adopted, focussing both on aspects applicable across multiple contexts and those unique to the particular context under study. Without such clarity of definition, empowerment is at risk of remaining a "warm and fuzzy, one-size-fits-all concept with no clear and consistent meaning" (Perkins and Zimmerman, 1995, p. 572).
Secondly empowerment research must explore the multiple levels at which empowerment occurs to bridge the gap between empowerment as a psychological and an organisational and community-wide variable. More attempts should be made, for example, to identify the empowering features of settings such as schools, churches and self help groups, focussing both on features common across settings and those unique to a particular context, as in the work of authors such as Maton and Rappaport (1984) and Maton and Salem (1995). More attempts should also be made to link empowerment to the concept of social power, focus sing on power relations between social groups as they impact on empowerment. This may require the integration of theories and methods from disciplines such as sociology and political science. European Social Psychology, with its focus on the impact ofthe social context and status hierarchy on identity, is of particular relevance here (Tajfel, 1981).
Thirdly, researchers should identify the qualitative and quantitative methods most ecologically sensitive to the study of empowerment in natural contexts, and most consistent with the value of community participation (Chaviset al., 1983). More qualitative research is required to best
reflect the full range and detail of participants' experiences of empowerment processes, as well as more causal studies to measure outcomes of empowerment processes. Longitudinal studies are also required to explore the dynamic nature of empowerment as it varies over time.
Fourthly, more attempts should be made to study the dialectic nature of empowerment (Rappaport, 1981). Studies of empowerment within religious contexts (Maton and Rappaport, 1984 and Maton and Salem, 1995) have suggested that empowerment leads to an interesting paradox whereby personal control is increased, but at the same time individuals give up personal forms of control to be guided by a higher power. Greater attention should therefore be paid to the relationship between personal and collective or spiritual control. Other dialectic aspects of empowerment warranting attention include the use of an egalitarian group structure as well as the need for order and leadership (Gruber and Trickett, 1987), the need for change as well as stability and also analysis of the costs and benefits of empowerment.
Lastly more attempts should be made to explore the negative effects of and limitations to empowerment. Several writers (Biegel, 1984; Couto, 1989; Hess, 1984 and Lazarus, 1985) allude to the fact that empowerment does not imply a limitless growth in power, but rather there are boundaries to empowerment. Attempts should therefore be made to identify these limitations and how they impact on an empowerment intervention.
Focussing specifically on the application of empowerment theory to the educational context, there are also several areas warranting further research. Firstly there appear to be few studies focussing on the empowerment of students in the tertiary sector, particularly within the South African context. Empowerment has much to offer as a valuable strategy to enable students to overcome the feelings of powerlessness and reliance on passive learning styles as discussed in chapter two, and yet has been ignored by local literature.
Secondly, many of the interventions mentioned in section 6.2 suffer from reliance on informal evaluation or no evaluation at all. Before the benefits of an empowering education will be widely accepted, rigorous evaluation of its impact is required. Evaluation should isolate the specific factors responsible for change and explore the link between empowering processes
and the outcomes thereof, especially in terms of academic performance. None of the studies mentioned above compare the effects of an empowering and a traditional education on academic performance.
Lastly I feel that the tentative work begun by Klecker and Loadman (1998), Short and Rinehart (1992) and Wilson (1993) in developing measures of empowerment, needs to be further developed. In order to allow for adequate comparison of the effects of empowering and traditional forms of education, reliable and valid measures of empowerment are needed.
6.3.4. The current study as an extension to the field of empowerment:
This thesis attempts to address some of the above recommendations and criticisms. Firstly the study is relevant to the local tertiary context, an area that has received little attention in the empowerment literature to date. An attempt was made to develop an empowerment-based tutorial intervention that would improve the academic performance of first year students in general, and black students in particular. This intervention adopted a holistic approach to students' difficulties, placing attention on some ofthe cognitive, emotional, interpersonal, campus ecological and socio-political adjustment difficulties discussed in chapter two. The intervention therefore sought to provide an alternative approach to the almost exclusively cognitive and linguistic approach to student development discussed in chapter three.
Secondly the study contributes to the work begun by Short and Rinehart (1992) and others in developing measures of educational empowerment. Drawing on studies of such linked constructs as locus of control, self esteem and learned helplessness, and measures in the area of teacher empowerment, a tentative measure of student empowerment will be developed.
Attempts will be made to explore the strength of the relationship between aspects of the empowerment construct as well as the causal relationship between empowerment and some of the variables on which it depends.
Thirdly the study seeks to address the criticism by feminist writers that empowerment over- emphasises control at the expense of a sense of community. Group discussion, peer study
groups and nurturing relations within the group will form the basis for the tutorial programme, in an attempt to develop a sense of personal as well as collective forms of control.
Fourthly attempts will be made to rigorously evaluate the effects of the intervention, rather than rely on the informal evaluation methods of academic empowerment of earlier studies (Cummins, 1986 and Richard, 1995). Multiple qualitative and quantitative methods will be used in order to fully capture all aspects of students' experiences. In addition, attempts will be made to causally link empowering processes with the outcome of improved academic performance through a quasi-experimental comparison of students who participate in the programme, those who attended a course revision tutorial programme, and those who receive no additional tutorial help.
Finally the study will employ multiple research methods including questionnaires, quasi- experimentation, evaluation techniques and in-depth focus group discussion, both in order to capture the full extent of students' responses and to prevent criticisms of bias and lack of objectivity often the result of single qualitative measures (Lazarus, 1985). The method of action research will be used in the study as it is felt that this will be most consistent with the values of empowerment and in particular will allow for collaboration by students in the design and evaluation of the course.