Where can buy A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design and Analysis 1st Edition Llewellyn J. Cornelius ebook with cheap price

Download the full version of the ebook at
https://ebookultra.com
A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design

and Analysis 1st Edition Llewellyn J.
Cornelius
https://ebookultra.com/download/a-social-justice-
approach-to-survey-design-and-analysis-1st-
edition-llewellyn-j-cornelius/
Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookultra.com

Recommended digital products (PDF, EPUB, MOBI) that
you can download immediately if you are interested.
World Criminal Justice Systems A Survey 7th Edition

Richard J. Terrill
https://ebookultra.com/download/world-criminal-justice-systems-a-
survey-7th-edition-richard-j-terrill/
ebookultra.com
Site Analysis A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land

Planning and Site Design 2nd Edition James A. Lagro
https://ebookultra.com/download/site-analysis-a-contextual-approach-
to-sustainable-land-planning-and-site-design-2nd-edition-james-a-
lagro/
ebookultra.com
Social Motivation Justice And The Moral Emotions An

Attributional Approach Bernard Weiner
https://ebookultra.com/download/social-motivation-justice-and-the-
moral-emotions-an-attributional-approach-bernard-weiner/
ebookultra.com
Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis A Unified

Approach 3rd Edition David J. Bartholomew
https://ebookultra.com/download/latent-variable-models-and-factor-
analysis-a-unified-approach-3rd-edition-david-j-bartholomew/
ebookultra.com
Power System Analysis and Design Fifth Edition J. Duncan
Glover
https://ebookultra.com/download/power-system-analysis-and-design-
fifth-edition-j-duncan-glover/
ebookultra.com
Mastering the Instructional Design Process A Systematic

Approach 5th Edition William J. Rothwell
https://ebookultra.com/download/mastering-the-instructional-design-
process-a-systematic-approach-5th-edition-william-j-rothwell/
ebookultra.com
Expressive Form A Conceptual Approach to Computational

Design 1st Edition Kostas Terzidis
https://ebookultra.com/download/expressive-form-a-conceptual-approach-
to-computational-design-1st-edition-kostas-terzidis/
ebookultra.com
Analysis of Survey Data Wiley Series in Survey Methodology

1st Edition R. L. Chambers
https://ebookultra.com/download/analysis-of-survey-data-wiley-series-
in-survey-methodology-1st-edition-r-l-chambers/
ebookultra.com
Counseling for Multiculturalism and Social Justice

Integration Theory and Application Fourth Edition Manivong
J. Ratts
https://ebookultra.com/download/counseling-for-multiculturalism-and-
social-justice-integration-theory-and-application-fourth-edition-
manivong-j-ratts/
ebookultra.com
A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design and Analysis
1st Edition Llewellyn J. Cornelius Digital Instant
Download
Author(s): Llewellyn J. Cornelius, Donna Harrington
ISBN(s): 9780199739301, 0199739307
Edition: 1
File Details: PDF, 1.28 MB
Year: 2014
Language: english
A Social Justice Approach to
Survey Design and Analysis
POCKET GUIDES TO
SOCIAL WORK RESEARCH METHODS
Series Editor
Tony Tripodi, DSW
Professor Emeritus, Ohio State University
Determining Sample Size: L. Momper

Balancing Power, Precision, and Practicality Secondary Data Analysis
Patrick Dattalo Thomas P. Vartanian
Preparing Research Articles Narrative Inquiry
Bruce A. Thyer Kathleen Wells
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Structural Equation Modeling
Julia H. Littell, Jacqueline Corcoran, and Natasha K. Bowen and Shenyang Guo
Vijayan Pillai Finding and Evaluating Evidence:
Historical Research Systematic Reviews and Evidence-Based
Elizabeth Ann Danto Practice
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Denise E. Bronson and Tamara S. Davis
Donna Harrington Policy Creation and Evaluation:
Randomized Controlled Trials: Understanding Welfare Reform in the
Design and Implementation for United States
Community-Based Psychosocial Interventions Richard Hoefer
Phyllis Solomon, Mary M. Cavanaugh, and Grounded Theory
Jeffrey Draine Julianne S. Oktay
Needs Assessment Systematic Synthesis of Qualitative Research
David Royse, Michele Staton-Tindall, Karen Michael Saini and Aron Shlonsky
Badger, and J. Matthew Webster Quasi-Experimental Research Designs
Multiple Regression with Discrete Dependent Bruce A. Thyer
Variables Conducting Research in Juvenile and Criminal
John G. Orme and Terri Combs-Orme Justice Settings
Developing Cross-Cultural Measurement Michael G. Vaughn, Carrie Pettus-Davis, and
Thanh V. Tran Jeffrey J. Shook
Intervention Research: Qualitative Methods for Practice Research
Developing Social Programs Jeffrey Longhofer, Jerry Floersch, and
Mark W. Fraser, Jack M. Richman, Maeda Janet Hoy
J. Galinsky, and Steven H. Day Analysis of Multiple Dependent Variables
Developing and Validating Rapid Assessment Patrick Dattalo
Instruments Culturally Competent Research:
Neil Abell, David W. Springer, and Using Ethnography as a Meta-Framework
Akihito Kamata Mo Yee Lee and Amy Zaharlick
Clinical Data-Mining: Using Complexity Theory for Research and
Integrating Practice and Research Program Evaluation
Irwin Epstein Michael Wolf-Branigin
Strategies to Approximate Random Sampling Basic Statistics in Multivariate Analysis
and Assignment Karen A. Randolph and Laura L. Myers
Patrick Dattalo Research with Diverse Groups:
Analyzing Single System Design Data Diversity and Research-Design and
William R. Nugent Measurement Equivalence
Survival Analysis Antoinette Y. Farmer and
Shenyang Guo G. Lawrence Farmer
The Dissertation: Conducting Substance Use Research
From Beginning to End Audrey L. Begun and Thomas K. Gregoire
Peter Lyons and Howard J. Doueck A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design
Cross-Cultural Research and Analysis
Jorge Delva, Paula Allen-Meares, and Sandra Llewellyn J. Cornelius and Donna Harrington
L L E WEL LY N J. CO R NE LIUS
DO N N A H A R R IN GTON
A Social Justice
Approach to Survey
Design and Analysis
1
1
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of
Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,
scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York

Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in
Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

in the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by

Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016
© Oxford University Press 2014
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior
permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law,
by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the
Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form

and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Cornelius, Llewellyn Joseph, 1959–
A social justice approach to survey design and analysis / Llewellyn J.
Cornelius and Donna Harrington.
pages cm. — (Pocket guides to social work research methods)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978–0–19–973930–1 (alk. paper)
1. Social surveys—Design. 2. Social service—Research—Methodology.
3. Social justice. I. Harrington, Donna. II. Title.
HN29.C67 2014
300.72′3—dc23
2013048714
1 3 5 7 9 8 6 4 2
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper
Contents
Preface vii
Acknowledgments ix
Introduction to Part I: Social Justice Research 1

1. Why Social Justice Research? Giving Voice to the Unheard 3
2. Preparing to Conduct Social Justice Survey Research 25
3. Developing a Foundation for the Study 53
4. Social Justice Survey Research Indicators 75
5. Using a Community-Inclusive Survey Process to Foster
Survey Participation 117
Introduction to Part II: Data Handling and Analysis 129

6. Inclusiveness and Representation in Telling the Story of Barriers
Encountered by Populations: Preparing Data for Analysis 131
7. Telling the Story, Part II: Examining Factors That Measure the
Reduction of Inequities and Disparities 163
v
vi Contents
8. Conclusions and Next Steps in Using Social Justice Research as a

Continuous Process of Engagement 181
Glossary 191
Notes 197
References 203
Index 225
Preface
OVERVIEW AND FOCUS OF THE BOOK

This book is presented as a practical tool that researchers with lim-
ited resources can use to design good surveys. This book is intended
to strengthen the preparedness of entry-level researchers in designing
high-quality surveys using a social justice approach. We expect most
readers may be graduate students or researchers expanding their skills.
However, we have tried to present the content in a way that may also be
accessible for community research partners. Although our focus is on
survey research design and analysis,1 many of the principles discussed
throughout the book could be applied to any type of research, and the
issues raised for data analysis are likely to be applicable to analysis of
data from any type of quantitative research. In addition to social justice
principles, this book draws heavily on the most recent methodological
research on survey design in general and the rich storehouse of insights
and implications provided by researchers on question and questionnaire
design in particular.
Guidelines for minimizing problems in the designing of surveys are
highlighted in each chapter. The first five chapters begin with a brief
vignette that will serve as the focus for the chapter topic. Each vignette
highlights a different population (e.g., women, people living with disabil-
ity, minorities, people living in poverty, etc.). For those who would like to
vii
viii Preface
explore any aspect of survey design discussed in the book in more depth,
an extensive set of references is provided, and selected resources most
relevant to the topics addressed in the respective chapters are highlighted
at the end of each chapter. Finally, we include a glossary of the major
terms used (terms included in the glossary will appear in bold italics the
first time they are used in the text).
Because it is helpful to anticipate issues at the beginning of a project,
we encourage you to read the whole book before planning your project.
Some of the issues discussed in the data cleaning and analysis chapters
are particularly important to address at the beginning of the project. For
example, we introduce keeping a lab notebook in Chapter 6 because it
is very relevant to data analysis, but ideally, the notebook should start at
the very beginning of your project so you have documentation of all your
decisions and methods. We also discuss levels of measurement, data han-
dling, and the types of data analysis you can use to answer your research
questions. Considering these issues at the beginning of the project can
increase the likelihood that you have the data you need to address your
goals and research questions later in the project.
Acknowledgments
W e are grateful to the students, colleagues, and partners who have

helped us develop our approaches to social justice research. The
feedback provided by two of our students, Marlene Matarese and Tina
Abrefa-Gyan, as well as that from an anonymous reviewer, was invaluable
as we wrote the final version of this book. Last, but not least, we thank
our families and friends for all their support as we worked on this book.
ix
A Social Justice Approach to
Survey Design and Analysis
Introduction to Part I:
Social Justice Research
The first five chapters of this book focus on the survey design. We begin
with defining social justice research, discussing its relevance to social
work, and preparing to conduct social justice research in Chapters 1
and 2. Chapter 3 focuses on using a social justice framework to design
surveys, and Chapter 4 discusses social justice survey research indica-
tors. Chapter 5 presents a community inclusive process to foster survey
participation.
1
1
Why Social Justice

Research? Giving Voice
to the Unheard
Why is there a need for a book about survey design and analysis using a
social justice approach? There are both historical and contemporary rea-
sons for conducting such research, including evidence of unreconciled
religious, racial, ethnic, gender, and economic exploitation and discrimi-
nation; violence; and medical experimentation on vulnerable populations
(Coleman & Bouësseau, 2006; Erinosho, 2008; Hastings Center, 1992;
Lurie & Wolfe, 1997; Marcia, 1997; Thomas et al., 2005; Whalen et al.,
1997). It also includes efforts to curb freedom of expression of vulnerable
groups (Fominaya, & Wood, 2011). All told, many studies suggest that
some groups or populations continue to be at risk for discrimination,
exploitation, and exclusion. In this book, we will make the argument that
social work’s governing principles lend themselves to the processes of
social justice advocacy, practice, and social action, as well as the use of
empirical methods for measuring the process and achievement of social
justice in society. Focusing on promoting equity and resolving inequities
for affected populations is a complex process because it involves seeing
3
4 Social Justice Research
these populations as both subjects of and agents in the social change pro-
cess. However, it is these processes that enable us to give voice to the
unheard. This book focuses on examining how one can conduct surveys
that profile inequities as well as document the barriers to participating in
society that populations encounter.
We will begin this chapter as we begin each chapter in the first part
of this book: with a vignette that illustrates examples of unheard voices
in social justice and how social justice research applies to them. The
case below is the first example of a still-unheard voice in social justice
research—in this case, women who do not receive equal wages for per-
forming equal work.
Vignette: The Battle for Equal Pay for Equal Work1

• Affected populations: Women; gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender
persons; and low wage workers
• Type of inequity/exclusion/discrimination: Wage discrimination, threats of
violence, reproductive rights inequalities
• Social justice research issues: Use of occupation and wage data to measure
gender inequity, and the use of multivariate analyses to measure relative
inequities by gender, controlling for other factors
• Case description: The first Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) was
introduced in the United States Congress by Alice Paul in 1923 and then
reintroduced in every session between 1923 and 1972, when it was passed
by Congress and sent to the states to be ratified. By the 1982 ratification
deadline, the ERA was defeated by a total of six votes in three states of the
38 states required for ratification. While part of the ERA focuses on equal
access to the labor market and equal pay, it also focuses on the ability to
use the legal system to protect women against threats of violence. The
more recent iteration of this legislation is called the Constitutional Equality
Amendment (CEA), which focuses on eliminating discrimination on the
basis of sex, race, sexual orientation, marital status, ethnicity, national
origin, color, or indigence. In addition to the equality of access to the labor
market, equal pay requirement, and protection against threats of violence,
the CEA also focuses on reproductive rights for women.
In tandem with the legislation for the ERA and the CEA was the
movement for the passage of the Equal Pay Act. Although large numbers of
woman were brought into the labor force during World War II, they were
hired under separate pay scales for identical jobs. Fifty years ago, in 1963,
the Equal Pay Act (Pub. L. 88-38) was passed (see http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/
(continued)
Why Social Justice Research? Giving Voice to the Unheard 5
statutes/epa.cfm), which made it illegal to pay women lower rates for the
same job strictly on the basis of sex. The same Act required the collection
of data regarding the wages, hours, and other conditions and practices of
employment to be used to evaluate the adherence to the Equal Pay Act
and to assist in the enforcement of the act. The most recent iteration of
this legislation is the 2009 Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which
allows victims of pay discrimination to file a complaint with the government
against their employer within 180 days of their last paycheck.
In 2010, as part of the process of monitoring the implementation of the
Equal Pay Act, Representatives Carolyn B. Maloney and Robert P. Casey,
Jr., requested that the U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) use data
from its Current Population Survey to analyze pay among women and
men, with a special emphasis on less-educated and low-wage workers. In
this report, the U.S. GAO (2011) conducted regression analyses to calculate
the pay differences between men and women, controlling for age, race,
ethnicity, state of residence, veteran status, high school degree, citizenship,
marital status, employment status, union membership, and number of
children in the household. An additional regression model was computed to
control for industry and occupation. Wage coefficients were computed for
the years 1980 through 2010. The report found that wage gaps still existed
after controlling for gender differences in labor market experiences and
the characteristics of jobs held by men and women. These gaps result in
long-term differences in lifetime earnings and Social Security benefits by
gender.
• Discussion: In relation to issues of social justice, the passage of the Equal
Pay Act, as well as the advocacy for the ERA and the CEA, focus on
treating women and men equally. As it stands now, the Equal Pay Act
can be repealed or diluted at any time, whereas if the CEA passes as an
amendment to the U.S. Constitution, further changes would require
another amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The CEA is different from
the ERA in that the legislation covers reproductive rights as well as rights
based on sexual orientation. This activity falls within the discussion of
theories that highlight the role of society in assuring a standard level
of resources for all, irrespective of gender and sexual orientation (see
the discussion of the social justice theories later in this chapter). This
vignette provides an example of how data from survey research such as
the Current Population Survey used in the U.S. GAO (2011) report can
be used to measure equity in wages by gender and therefore inform the
social justice discussion about this issue.
• Comments relating to the process of reducing inequities, discrimination,
etc.: This example reflects the need for continued research, monitoring,
and advocacy regarding the nation’s program on eliminating wage
discrimination.
As summarized above, this case reflects what seems to be a con-

tradiction. The United States presents itself as a champion of human
rights, civil rights, and freedom of speech, yet today we still pay women
less than men for performing the same work. Why is this the case, and
how does it lend itself to social justice research? In spite of more than
90 years of sustained interest in this issue, we have not passed legislation
that would systematically rectify this inequity, even though we now have
access to longitudinal data that can be used to measure and demonstrate
that inequity exists. In particular, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB, 2012) has conducted both descriptive and multivariate analyses
to compare wages by gender after defining the concept of “equal work”
(as defined in federal legislation)2 by sorting workers by job type, union
status, occupation, and industry. The descriptive analyses of wage equity
indicated that women were less advantaged than men, based on compar-
ing the median wages by gender within each job type. The multivariate
analyses indicated that these differences still existed after controlling for
family status (marital status, number of children, and transitions in and
out of the labor force) and human capital (education and training experi-
ence). The OMB (2012) reported that in 2012 “women earn only 77 cents
for every dollar men earn, with women of color at an even greater disad-
vantage with 64 cents on the dollar for African American women and 56
cents for Hispanic women” (p. 1). Advocates have used these and other
ongoing analyses to advocate for legislation to address this inequity. The
case presented here relies on principles of social justice research that we
will define and examine throughout the rest of this book, including issues
of equity, types of social justice research, and the types of data analyses
one can conduct in social justice research.
OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

We shall begin this process by defining operational concepts of social
justice research.
Social Justice Research Defined

The term social justice is frequently used, and many, if not most or all,
of us have at least a vague sense of what it is. We may even say we know
it when we see it, but how is it actually defined? The website Dictionary.
com defines it as “the distribution of advantages and disadvantages
within a society” (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/social+justice).
BusinessDictionary.com defines it as “the fair and proper administration
of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of
ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated
equally and without prejudice” (http://www. businessdictionary.com/
definition/social-justice.html). The National Association of Social
Workers (NASW) defines social justice as “the view that everyone
deserves equal economic, political and social rights and opportuni-
ties” (http://www.socialworkers.org/pressroom/features/issue/peace.
asp). Finally, the Center for Social Justice Research at the University of
Wyoming College of Education provides a longer definition:
Social justice grows out of the history of the civil rights movement and
draws on decades of work in anti-racist, black and ethnic studies, and
women’s studies (see also Adams, Bell, & Griffin, 1997). Social justice
utilizes a vocabulary and framework that considers the dominant or tar-
geted social group identities of participants within an analysis of social
hierarchies. Many social justice scholars bring a level of analysis includ-
ing (but not limited to) a) attention to understanding the social forces
and institutions that support inequity in social systems as well as the
interpersonal behaviors, individual attitudes, or beliefs that reflect and
also help to perpetuate unequal social relationships; b) acknowledge-
ment of the inter-relatedness of phenomena and thereby employ mul-
tiple lenses including historical, political, cultural, economic, legal, etc.;
and c) value and affirmation of multiple perspectives and points of view
including the use of counter-narratives. Social justice research attends
to problems of oppression and generates strategies for working toward
their resolution. Social justice research also requires scholars to attend to
modes of inquiry as well as their implementation. (See www.uwyo.edu/
sjrc/whatissocialjustice/index.html.)
Within this broad and interdisciplinary context, social justice

research is research that addresses issues of social justice in the broadest
sense of the definitions presented here. For the purposes of this book,
social justice research is research that contributes to (1) the examination
and (2) the reduction or elimination of obstacles to economic, emotional,
social, and physical well-being. Social justice theories, frameworks, and

conceptual models will be used in this book as platforms for designing
and analyzing surveys that focus on populations who have encountered
obstacles or barriers to their participation in society based on geography,
race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, socioeconomic status (SES), gender,
sexual orientation, age, mental health diagnosis, and level of cognitive,
sensory, or physical impairment. The purpose of the rest of this chapter
is to present the social justice theories, frameworks, and models that pro-
vide the foundation for designing social justice surveys.
Social Justice Theories

All societies have been influenced by discussions regarding the obli-
gation of society to its citizens. Social justice theories highlight these
obligations and focus on determining the boundaries of individuals’
rights as they relate to speech and mobility, the role that society plays in
facilitating participation in society, and the obligation of society toward
providing access to resources. Theories of social justice focus on three
principles: rights, deserts (or benefits), and needs. Both rights and des-
erts focus on what people believe society should provide them as part of
being a member in that society (i.e., entitlements). Deserts also focus on
how a society monitors who should receive those entitlements. Needs
are the bases or criteria that are used to distribute resources based on
entitlements.
A full discussion of all relevant social justice theories is beyond the
scope of this book, but we will provide a very brief overview of some
of the most relevant, and Table 1.1 presents a grid that summarizes the
range of social justice theories according to the rights and deserts that are
attributed to each theory.3 The range of social justice theories includes
three broad categories. The first category includes theories that suggest
that it is not the role of society either to ensure initial access to resources
or to redistribute resources (Hume, 1978; Nozick, 1974). As such, the
goal of society is to minimize the role of the state in people’s lives. The
second category includes social justice theories that are based on need
(Rawls, 1999) or merit (Dworkin, 1981; Galston, 1995), and suggest
that all members of society are entitled to receive a minimum level of
human services, but the type and amount of services they are entitled
to should be determined either by need (assessing what groups are the
Table 1.1 Selective Social Justice Theories
Author Rights Deserts/Benefits
David Hume’s Each individual possesses a set of material goods (wealth, land, Deserts or benefits are not applicable in this case, as
Treatise of possessions). Justice consists of respecting their right to Hume argues that no agreement can be reached
Human Nature possess these goods. regarding either a standard for distributing
(1740) resources or a method for distributing the
resources.
John Rawls’s We all have the basic right of freedom of thought and liberty, The focus of this approach is on the provision of
“Justice as freedom of movement, and free choice of occupation. No fair equality of opportunity, with the provision
Fairness” one can be considered deserving based on their natural of the greatest benefit to the least advantaged in
talent, social position, or personal effort. However, society.
consideration should be given for inequalities due to native
endowments, social class or origin, illness and accident,
involuntary unemployment, and regional economic failure.
Dworkin’s Everyone has a right to equal resources. No one person is any This approach assumes that, all things considered,
“Equality of more or less disadvantaged than another person. persons should be treated as equals; however, we
Resources” should compensate individuals in proportion to
their effort or sacrifice.
Nozick’s Each person has the same rights as the next person. Thus no Within this theory, the assessment of benefits starts
“Libertarianism” one has any more rights to liberty than anyone else. with each person. The benefits across society
are determined by summing up all the benefits
provided to each person in society.
Ackerman’s All individual rights are constructed through a social dialogue. Benefits are derived in this theory through creating
“Initial Participants do not enter into this dialogue with certain a fair start for redistributing resources by
Equality in natural rights that block out the challenges to legitimacy and compensating each person at the beginning for
Resources” rule out distributional schemes. inequalities in society.
(continued)
Table 1.1 (Continued)
Author Rights Deserts/Benefits
Galston’s Individuals make claims on each other based on membership In this theory, the greatest benefit is determined
“Liberal Justice” in a community and contributions to that community. These by individual contribution (as determined by
are all based on the voluntary distribution of resources in sacrifice, effort, productivity, and duration) to
that community. create opportunities for a good life.
Martha Society should be committed to the provision of a minimum In this theory, benefits are equally distributed
Nussbaum’s set of capacities in ten areas: (1) life; (2) bodily health; based achieving an acceptable level of the central
“Central (3) bodily integrity; (4) senses, imagination, and thought; human capabilities.
Human (5) emotions; (6) practical reason; (7) affiliation; (8) to be
Capabilities” able to have concern for animals, plants, and nature; (9) play
and an ability to enjoy recreational activities; and (10) to
have political and material control over one’s environment.
Sen’s “Human Differences in the capability to function can arise due to In this theory, benefits are equally distributed
Rights and differences in physical or mental health, societal cohesion, accounting for individual differences.
Capabilities” environmental diversities, varying threats from epidemic
diseases or crime, or social position. Capabilities and
opportunities have to be supplemented by considerations
of fair processes and the right of individuals to use these
fair processes. The goal of society is to balance out these
resources accounting for individual differences.
Powers and Social justice requires states (either through intermediary In this theory, each of these dimensions requires a
Faden’s social institutions or directly) to provide for a minimum, different minimum level of sufficiency that needs
“Moderate but sufficient, level of six basic dimensions of human to be attained.
Essentialism” well-being: health, personal security, reasoning, respect,
attainment, and self determination.
Sources: Ackerman, 1980; Dworkin, 1981; Power & Faden, 2006; Galston, 1995; Hume, 1740/1978; Nussbaum, 1995; Nussbaum, 2000; Nussbaum, 2003; Rawls,1999; Sen, 1999;
Sen, 2005.
most vulnerable or under-resourced) or by merit (determining who is

the most deserving). In this case, the role of the state focuses on prioritiz-
ing services to those groups that are determined to be eligible for services
based on need or merit. Finally, the third category includes social justice
theories that focus on the distribution of resources equitably across soci-
ety, ensuring that as many members as possible have access to services
(Ackerman, 1980; Nussbaum, 2000, 2003, 2005; Powers & Faden, 2006;
Sen, 1999, 2004, 2005). In this case, the role of the state is to monitor
inequities across society and intervene to distribute resources to balance
these inequities. This book focuses on the second and third categories of
social justice theories.
The case presented at the beginning of the chapter represents social
justice research operating on two levels: (1) the use of data to measure
inequities, and (2) the use of the findings to advocate for the resolution
of these inequities. The case highlights the battles that have occurred to
compel society to adhere to the basic right of women to receive equal
pay for equal work. In particular, the advocacy process has focused on
both the issues of rights and deserts or benefits that should occur for
women in the labor force. The case also highlights breakdowns in the
process of enforcing these rights, including the passage of the 2009 Lilly
Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, which only allows individuals to file
a complaint against the government regarding pay inequity. As such, the
policy does not provide for a systematic reconciliation of inequities based
either on the notions that society should reconcile the wage differences
based on similarity in job classification and function (merit), or on the
notion that society should redistribute wages to balance these inequities
(equality of outcomes).
USE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES IN THE WELFARE STATE

Since the nineteenth century, scholars have examined how principles
of social justice are applied to improving the health, mental health, and
well-being of members of society (Muntaner et al., 2011). This work
has typically focused on the role of the welfare state in the execution of
social programs to meet the needs of the population. In line with the
theories of social justice discussed above, scholars have argued that there
is a continuum of the degree to which the welfare state is involved in
meeting the needs of the population. Two typologies have emerged that
describe the continuum of involvement of the state in the welfare of its
citizens: (1) Esping-Andersen (1990) and (2) Navarro and Shia (2001).
In his book The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Esping-Andersen
(1990) classified 18 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) countries according to the level of involve-
ment of their central governments in administering social programs,
ranging from liberal/libertarian to conservative to social-democratic.
The welfare states he called “liberal/libertarian” were nations that used
means-tested programs with modest benefit that were targeted to a small
segment of the population based on need and merit (e.g., Temporary
Assistance to Needy Families [TANF] and Food Stamps in the United
States). He included the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada,
and Australia as welfare states that use this approach to develop social
programs. The welfare states he called “conservative” were nations that
provide access to services based on place of employment. As such, the
benefits were accrued at one’s place of employment and distributed by the
employer. He includes Germany and France as examples of welfare states
that used this approach to provide social programs. Finally, the welfare
states Esping-Andersen called “social democratic” were nations where
the central government distributed benefits as well as fostered policies
that focused on full employment and income protection. He included
Demark, Sweden, Finland, and Norway as examples of welfare states that
used this approach.
Like Esping-Andersen (1990), Navarro and Shia (2001) classi-
fied welfare states according to the degree of involvement of the state
in the provision of services for its citizens. In this case they classified
nations according to four types of governance: liberal Anglo-Saxon
(Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Ireland), Conservative
(Spain, Greece, Portugal), Christian democratic (Belgium, Netherlands,
Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, and Belgium), and social demo-
cratic (Sweden, Finland, Norway, Demark, and Austria). Similar to the
Esping-Andersen categories, the Navarro and Shia liberal or libertarian
welfare states include nations where the state has less direct involvement
in ensuing the achievement of equity in the receipt of services than social
democratic states. The gender pay equity case discussed at the begin-
ning of this chapter is consistent with the Esping-Andersen (1990) and
Navarro and Shia (2001) classification of the United States as a liberal/
libertarian state because the U.S. government does not primarily focus
on playing a central role guaranteeing equal pay for equal work across
society.
Both of the Esping-Andersen (1990) and the Navarro and Shia (2001)
frameworks have been used to describe the degree to which the welfare
state has fostered the improvement of its citizens’ health, mental health,
and well-being. This work has used the social democratic approach
as a benchmark to compare how societies have fared on health, men-
tal health, and well-being outcomes. In a systematic review, Muntaner
and colleagues (2011) reported that 73 studies were conducted between
1948 and 2010 that look at the role of the welfare state in developing pro-
grams to address the needs of citizens. Fifty-six of these articles focused
on examining outcomes on the “macro” (i.e., the state) level, and 31 of
these of these articles focused specifically on comparing the generosity
of welfare state programs and population-based health outcomes across
countries. A subset of 19 of these 31 articles found that states with a social
democratic welfare orientation fared better on health outcomes than
those with a liberal/libertarian welfare state orientation.
Bambra’s (2007) study of the one-year infant mortality rate (IMR;
deaths of babies under one year of age per 1000 live births) in 1980
and 1998 in 18 countries provides one example of this type of analysis.
Bambra (2007) computed an index of unemployment benefits, sick-
ness benefits, and pensions to represent the degree to which individuals
are dependent on the welfare state for benefits. She then classified the
18 countries as liberal/libertarian, conservative, or social democratic in
their welfare state approach based on this index. Finally, she compared
the IMR for each of the 18 countries. In this descriptive comparison, she
found a lower IMR in 1980 and 1998 for social democratic countries than
for liberal/libertarian countries.
In a second example of this type of analysis, Chung and Muntaner
(2007) conducted multivariate analyses to look at outcomes of health
and well-being in 21 countries over a 40-year period. Similar to Bambra
(2007), Chung and Muntaner classified the countries along the liberal–
social democratic welfare state continuum. They then computed several
multivariate models that examined both the one-year IMR and the per-
centage of children born with low birth weight (LBW) across these coun-
tries, controlling for the gross domestic product (GDP) of each country
as well as the time period (1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s). They found that,
controlling for time period and GDP, social democratic countries fared
better on IMR and LBW compared to other countries.
Although the liberal/libertarian–social democratic welfare state
typology has been used extensively to examine societywide outcomes,
it has also been extensively criticized over the years (Arts & Gelissen,
2002; Castles & Mitchell, 1993; Pierson, 1998). One of the main criti-
cisms of this classification has been its basis in the way that the countries
administer pension, sickness,4 and unemployment benefits, omitting
consideration of how nations deliver health care and other social ser-
vices. A second criticism of this approach is that analyses have focused
on outcomes in a subset of First World countries (e.g., the United States,
Canada, and Japan), while excluding the rest of Asia, Africa, Latin
America, and the Caribbean. A third criticism is that the approach does
not consider the role of gender, single parenthood, or immigration in the
delivery of welfare services (Bambra, 2007). In spite of these criticisms,
Bambra (2007, 2011) has noted that frameworks that examine the politi-
cal economy are still useful as an ideal approach to measure outcomes
based on examining the causes of inequities (e.g., the political system
and the labor market at the macro-level), examining differences due to
social structure or social class at the meso-level, or examining differences
due to the symptoms of inequities (e.g., stress or illness as a result of not
having access to services).
One attempt to address the shortcomings of the liberal/libertarian–
social democratic welfare state typology has led to the presentation of
a typology of social welfare policy based on what Aspalter (2006) and
Croissant (2004) call the Confucian Welfare state. They suggest that
Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore are governed by a set of val-
ues that place a strong emphasis on the family, thrift, diligence, and work,
with a minimal investment of the government in providing a safety net
(Aspalter, 2006; Croissant, 2004). This typology suggests that in applying
a social justice approach one needs to be aware of the limits of any typol-
ogy for examining outcomes.
Given what we have presented regarding the complexity of applying
social justice theories to the assessment of equity in a society, can we
distill all this into a conceptual framework for conducting social justice
research? We can, with some important caveats. We have to caution the
reader that this framework is an ideal depiction of the elements of social
justice research. We need to account for complexities such as gender,
political orientation, race, ethnicity, and immigration status, all of which

may have a bearing on which approach would be appropriate for a given
population. Table 1.2 summarizes the continuum of social justice research
theories and the ways they may be used to evaluate equity in society. It
is based on the labels used in the Esping-Andersen (1990) framework.
It depicts (from left to right in the table) principles that reflect a stron-
ger involvement of the state in providing a minimum floor of resources
for all members of the population. The principles on the far left of the
table—the “liberal/libertarian” category—represent a focus on the mini-
mum involvement of the government and the maximum freedom of the
individual (called libertarianism). The social justice theories of Hume
(1740/1978) and Nozick (1974) (described in Table 1.1) are reflective of
libertarianism. The principles on the far right of the table—the “social
democratic” category—represent a focus on the commitment of the gov-
ernment to facilitating the achievement of universal rights of access to
health, mental health, education, work, and welfare services (called social
democracy). The theories of Ackerman (1980), Nussbaum (2000, 2003,
2005), Powers and Faden (2006), and Sen (1999, 2004, 2005) are reflec-
tive of advocating for a social democratic society.
The governing principles of the National Association of Social Workers
(NASW) in the United States and the International Federation of Social
Workers (IFSW) indicate that social workers are charged with fostering
social change within vulnerable populations, as well as ensuring that clients
receive access to information and needed services. Social workers are also
charged with rectifying injustices due to poverty; unemployment; oppres-
sion; culture; diversity; and discrimination based on race, gender, sexual
orientation, and disability status; and culture, political opinions, or reli-
gious beliefs. As described in the NASW code of ethics,
Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf

of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social
workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty,
unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These
activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression
and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access
to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity;
and meaningful participation in decision making for all people. (NASW,
http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp)
Table 1.2 Continuum of Social Justice Theories and Welfare States
Liberal/ Conservative Social Democratic Welfare State
Libertarian
Social justice Individual Fairness/equity is determined by providing Equality of outcome and access to a minimum
theory needs and access to the greatest services to those with set benefits are rights that come with
principles rights are the greatest need citizenship
paramount
Welfare state None Indigent care programs ideally work in State-sponsored interventions and services
application of principle, except in application there are provided as a right for all
social justice conflicts regarding who is deserving and who
principles is not
Equity focus Not applicable Individual and meso-level analyses and Macro-level analyses and intervention
interventions
Social justice No standard Have to define “the greatest need,” whether it Have to measure citizenship status
research way to is a population, group, or something that is Have to measure “benefits/entitlements”
measurement measure correlated with well-being, health, mental Have to measure outcomes (e.g., well-being,
issues disparity/ health, quality of life outcomes health, mental health, quality of life) relative
equity as it is Have to determine how equity will be measured to meeting the core eligibility criteria (e.g.,
individually in terms of the outcome (e.g., descriptive descriptive profile, measurement of change
based profile, measurement of change over time), over time), controlling for factors that can
controlling for factors that can influence the influence the outcome
outcome
The ethical principles of the IFSW state that
Social workers have a responsibility to promote social justice, in rela-

tion to society generally, and in relation to the people with whom they
work. This means: 1. Challenging negative discrimination—Social
workers have a responsibility to challenge negative discrimination on
the basis of characteristics such as ability, age, culture, gender or sex,
marital status, socio-economic status, political opinions, skin colour,
racial or other physical characteristics, sexual orientation, or spiritual
beliefs. 2. Recognising diversity—Social workers should recognise and
respect the ethnic and cultural diversity of the societies in which they
practice, taking account of individual, family, group and community
differences. 3. Distributing resources equitably—Social workers should
ensure that resources at their disposal are distributed fairly, according to
need. 4. Challenging unjust policies and practices—Social workers have
a duty to bring to the attention of their employers, policy makers, politi-
cians and the general public situations where resources are inadequate
or where distribution of resources, policies and practices are oppressive,
unfair or harmful. 5. Working in solidarity—Social workers have an obli-
gation to challenge social conditions that contribute to social exclusion,
stigmatisation or subjugation, and to work towards an inclusive society.
(IFSW, http://ifsw.org/policies/statement-of-ethical-principles/)
Based on this, we contend that, at a minimum, social justice research

should focus on the measurement of equity or disparity based on base-
line measurement of needs and merits (the conservative welfare state
perspective). In addition, social justice research should also focus on the
degree to which society has succeeded in providing a minimum floor of
resources to all citizens (a social democratic welfare state perspective).
Both of these approaches lend themes to the two conceptual frameworks
(social determinants of health and equity of access to care) that are pre-
sented in the next section.
SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH TRENDS AND CONCEPTUAL MODELS

There are a number of conceptual frameworks or models that can be
used in social justice research, and although it is beyond the scope of this
book to discuss all of them, we briefly present two that are commonly
used: (1) the Commission on Social Determinants of Health Conceptual
Framework (CSDH, 2008; Solar & Irwin, 2007) and (2) Andersen’s
(1968, 1995) Behavioral Model of Access to Care. Both of these models
focus on health disparities and inequities and are therefore consistent
with the social justice principles presented above. We encourage read-
ers interested in other areas of research to look for other frameworks
or models in their content area that are consistent with social justice
principles.
The Commission on Social Determinants of Health Conceptual
Framework (CSDH, 2008; Solar & Irwin, 2007; see Figure 1.1) was based
on a series of ongoing efforts at the World Health Organization (WHO)
to develop an approach that local communities can use to reduce inequi-
ties. It is based on three principles:
1. Improve the conditions of daily life—the circumstances in which

people are born, grow, live, work, and age.
2. Tackle the inequitable distribution of power, money, and
resources—the structural drivers of those conditions of daily
life—globally, nationally, and locally.
3. Measure the problem, evaluate action, expand the knowledge
base, develop a workforce that is trained in the social
determinants of health, and raise public awareness about the
social determinants of health. (CSDH, 2008, p. 43)
The CSDH model includes a listing of variables that have been used to
measure inequities as well as the expected relationship between these
factors and well-being. The model also includes structural variables that
examine governance, policies, and cultural and societal norms. Factors
represent inequities (e.g., inequities due to social position, education,
occupation, income, gender, ethnicity, and race) as well as measures of
individual circumstances and the services that are provided by the sys-
tem to alleviate these inequities. The case example and the studies by
Bambra (2007) and Chung and Muntaner (2007) discussed earlier in
this chapter all used analyses that that are consistent with social justice
research approaches to examine inequities. For example, the case study
in the vignette at the beginning of the chapter used multivariate models
to examine the hourly wage rate, controlling for individual (e.g., gender),
Socioeconomic &
political context
Social
Material circumstances Distribution
position
Governance of health
Social cohesion and well-being
Education Psychosocial factors
Policy
(Macroeconomic, Occupation Behaviors
Social, Health) Income
Biological factors
Cultural and Gender
societal norms
Ethnicity/
and values
Race
Health Care System
SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH INEQUITIES
Figure 1.1 Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities.
industry, and occupational characteristics (U.S. Government Accounting

Office, 2011). We will discuss this and other data analysis approaches fur-
ther in Chapters 6 and 7.
A second model that has been widely used in social justice research
in health care and other domains (cited 2,863 times as of March 2012) is
the Andersen (1968, 1995) Behavioral Model of Access to Care (see
Figure 1.2). Like the CDSH model, the Behavioral Model assumes that
there are multiple factors that influence inequities, including individual,
family, and organizational factors. Since 1968, this model has under-
gone four phases of development to account for changes in the measure-
ment of inequities because this is an interactive process that requires the
examination of multiple influences on outcomes as well the possibility of
direct and indirect contributions to outcomes (Andersen, 1995). The core
concepts of the model are that equitable access to care represents the out-
come of the process and includes both the use of services and satisfaction
with services. Within this framework, ideal access to care is expected to
be determined by the person’s perceived or evaluated needs for services
and not because of either predisposing factors (e.g., demographics, social
structure, health beliefs) or enabling factors (e.g., the organization and
financing of care, personal and family factors, community). The 1995
Perceived Health
Status
Health Care System Personal Health
Predisposing Enabling Need Practices
Evaluated Health
Characteristics Resources Status
External Environment Use of Health Services
Consumer Satisfaction
Figure 1.2 Andersen (1995) Behavioral Model of Access to Care.
version of the model also includes the influence of the environment (the
health care system and the external environment) in reducing inequities
of access to care (Andersen, 1995).
The common theme in both of these models is the focus on the dis-
tribution of resources and the need to use research as a means to examine
the inequities, the contributions to inequities, and the ways in which the
inequalities can be reduced. Both the research trends and the analyti-
cal models presented in this section will be used as guides for locating
questions for surveys (to be covered in Chapter 4) as well as to guide the
analyses that are used for the data that come from these types of surveys
(to be covered in Chapters 6 and 7).
DISPARITIES RESEARCH AND SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH

Although researchers have focused on documenting differences in
health, mental health, and well-being outcomes for more than 80 years,
the publication of the Report of the Secretary’s Task Force on Black and
Minority Health in 1985 led to the infusion of a sustained interest in
what is now called disparities research. Earlier disparities research
activities focused on documenting the extent to which a population was
at risk of inequity on a known condition or factor, while more recent
research has focused on examining the factors that lead to reducing
disparities. This work covered two types of analysis: descriptive or mul-

tivariate analyses to examine whether overall disparities existed on an
outcome measure of health, mental health, or well-being (which we
call “Disparities/Equity Analysis 1.0”); and descriptive and multivariate
analyses that look within subpopulations (e.g., by race or sexual orienta-
tion) to determine whether disparities exist (which we call “Disparities/
Equity Analysis 2.0”). In a review of disparities analyses, Holmes and
colleagues (2008) have noted that earlier studies that examined health
disparities focused on differences by race or ethnicity and SES. This ear-
lier line of research was limited by the lack of data and/or analyses that
examined social determinants, environments, or other factors that may
assist in examining the causal process (Holmes et al., 2008). The current
generation of disparities research (“Disparities/Equity Analysis 3.0”)
focuses on using multivariate models to examine the role of personal,
family, and organizational/structural factors in health disparities. It also
includes the use of more sophisticated measures of the process of ser-
vice delivery and health outcomes (Agency for Healthcare Research and
Quality [AHRQ], 2004).
Disparities research is part of social justice research in that its pri-
mary focus is on documenting inequalities. However social justice
research is broader than disparities research in that it is “not only a mat-
ter of how individuals fare; it is also about how groups fare relative to one
another whenever systematic disadvantage is linked to group member-
ship” (Faden & Powers, 2008, p. 153). Disadvantages can occur due to
gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, disability status, or some other
group designation. Faden and Powers (2008) suggest that it is as a result
of this group membership that persons are disrespected, which in turn
leads to negative outcomes. Rogers and Kelly (2011) make a similar dis-
tinction between disparities research and social justice research by indi-
cating that, although disparities research focuses on the use of datasets
to determine the proximate causes of disparities (by demographics), it
does not capture the broader context of inequality and the persistence
of discrimination. As a result, without capturing the broader context,
researchers who use the analytical approaches that are germane to dis-
parities research will not generate strategies that in effect would actually
reduce those disparities. Thus, while this book will use some of the tech-
niques that are being used in disparities research to document barriers to
resources (e.g., AHRQ, 2004; Holmes et al., 2008; OMH, 2011), it will rely
on the broader principles of social justice research as a means of design-

ing surveys that will focus on whether inequalities and exploitation have
been reduced.
INITIAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE MEASUREMENT OF EQUITY

Researchers have used theories of social justice to examine how the
welfare state provides services to meet the health, mental health, and
well-being needs of its citizens. Decisions regarding how equity is mea-
sured are based on values regarding the extent to which persons believe
the state should be involved in guaranteeing benefits to its citizens. As
such, before measuring equity, it is critical to determine where one is on
the continuum presented in Table 1.2. Measuring equity should also con-
sider determining whether or not the focus of the analysis is on the macro
or individual level, as well as whether it involves conducting descriptive
or multivariate analyses. Finally, we have to be careful to ensure that our
definition of equity is grounded in the cultural and social values of the
target communities we are examining.
Based on these considerations, one can use many approaches to
design a survey using a social justice approach, and each is grounded
by what the researcher thinks is the overall purpose of social justice
research. The approach that is in line with the values and ethics of the
social work profession is an analytical approach that uses data to examine
the reduction of inequities, with a special eye toward populations that
have been treated unfairly. The roadmap presented below provides sug-
gested guidelines for how to go about designing social justice surveys as
well as analyzing primary or secondary data from such a survey:
1. Develop standards for measuring inequities: Determine the

conceptual standards of equity and the indicators that represent
the achievement of that right or benefit (an outcome of achieving
or protecting a particular right or benefit; see Table 1.1 above,
and Table 4.1 in Chapter 4).
2. Document the patterns and trends in disparities: Use individual or
interpersonal, group, neighborhood, community, or population
indices to determine who is most and least at risk on that
particular right (see Figure 1.1 above and Table 4.1 in Chapter 4);
compute measures that summarize the relative disadvantages of

persons, groups, communities, or populations on that indicator;
or conduct analyses to compare how two or more groups fare
relative to that desired outcome (see Chapter 7).
3. Examine the reduction or elimination of inequities: Use
multivariate analyses to examine factors that are related to these
outcomes for the groups under comparison (see Chapter 7).
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
We began the chapter by highlighting the fact that social justice research
for social work focuses on providing a voice for the unheard. This requires
a familiarity with the range of principles of social justice theories and
how these principles can be used to evaluate the provision of services
based on the needs of under-resourced populations or targeted groups
that have been stigmatized by society. It also requires sensitivity to exam-
ining a society’s commitment to providing for the welfare of its citizens
because the principles that drive these welfare approaches have their own
historical and cultural legacy. To this end, we introduced the reader to
both theories (Table 1.1) and frameworks (Table 1.2 and Figures 1.1 and
1.2) that can be used to map out a framework for conducting social jus-
tice research that reflects the differential needs of under-resourced pop-
ulations or populations that have been stigmatized by society. We also
noted that the approaches used in this book will focus on the theories
that examine equity or disparity relating to needs and merits, or based on
evaluating the provision of a minimal level (i.e., a floor) of resources for
all persons in society. Finally, we noted that the frameworks presented in
this chapter are ideal frameworks that may require adaptation to meet
the cultural and historical needs of the population being examined as one
moves forward conducting social justice research.
RESOURCES
Two resources you may wish to consider as you proceed in this area are
the work of the International Society for Justice Research (ISJR) and the
efforts at the University of Wyoming College of Education Social Justice
Research Center. The ISJR is an international and interdisciplinary group

focusing on developing social justice theory and research (see http://
isjr.jimdo.com/for more information). Social Justice Research is the offi-
cial journal of ISJR (see http://isjr.jimdo.com/journal/). The University
of Wyoming College of Education Social Justice Research Center is
a research center that focuses on scholarship related to social justice
research (see http://www.uwyo.edu/sjrc/).
2
Preparing to Conduct
Social Justice
Survey Research
Building on the theories and models presented in Chapter 1, this chapter

presents social justice research as a transactional process that requires
the continuous transformation of both engaging in social justice research
and becoming a social justice researcher. Social justice research places
a premium on the use of (wherever possible) approaches that foster the
intensive involvement of the community in the design and execution of
the study. We begin this chapter with a vignette, then develop the foun-
dation for engaging in social justice research and discuss the process of
becoming a social justice researcher. This chapter also addresses many
of the foundations for social justice research, including ethics, informed
consent, and sampling issues.
The vignette for this chapter emphasizes the importance of including
stakeholders throughout the process of designing and executing research.
This inclusiveness focuses on our transforming ourselves so that the work
we do is responsive, not just to the academic community, but also to our
community stakeholders. This vignette focuses on an ongoing partner-
ship between mental health administrators, mental health consumers, and
25
Vignette: Joint African American, Asian American, and Latino American consumer
and researcher engagement in the development of a consumer cultural competency
assessment tool1
• Affected populations: African Americans, Latinos, Vietnamese, persons in
recovery
• Type of inequity/exclusion/discrimination: Perceived discrimination,
governance, exploitation
• Social justice research issues: Survey design, questionnaire development,
question validation, data analysis, collaboration, transparency,
community partnership
• Case description: In 1997, Maryland implemented a new managed-care
mental health system. Consumer satisfaction, evaluation, and cultural
competency were considered high priorities for the new system. Although
standardized tools for measuring consumer satisfaction were readily
available, no validated, reliable, and standardized tool existed to measure
the perception of people from minority groups receiving mental health
services. The Mental Hygiene Administration/Maryland Health Partners
Cultural Competency Advisory Group (CCAG) formulated a partnership
that resulted in the design and dissemination of a consumer assessment
tool for cultural competency. The CCAG is an independent advisory
group of people in recovery, clinicians, and administrators who advise
the state regarding the delivery of public mental health services. In 1997,
they began a multi-year process of designing and validating a cultural
competency assessment tool. During this time, the CCAG revised the
instrument nine times based on concepts from the literature on cultural
awareness and consumer satisfaction with services, as well as based on
the methods of examining the wording of questions, the placement of
questions, and so on.
Following this extensive editing process, the instrument was reviewed

by the CCAG, along with several external mental health researchers,
to determine whether the wording made sense based on their cultural
experiences. This was done to determine the face validity of the instrument.
Once the group determined that the instrument was logical and coherent,
they proceeded with reciprocal translations of the instrument into Spanish
and Vietnamese to target Latino and Vietnamese immigrants. This was
followed by the training of survey administrators in the administration of
the survey tool and then the administration of the survey to a statewide
sample of 238 mental health consumers, with a focus on African American,
Afro-Caribbean, Latino, and Vietnamese consumers. This was followed
by the computation of a series of correlation matrices and an exploratory
factor analysis of the questionnaire to examine the concurrent validity of the
(continued)
Preparing to Conduct Social Justice Survey Research 27
instrument. This resulted in the generation of a report from the factor and
correlation analyses that noted that the questions in the cultural competency
questionnaire aligned (“loaded”) on six factors along with the finding
that the scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .92 (Cronbach’s alpha is used to
examine the internal-consistency reliability of an instrument). Following
the publication of the empirical work on the instrument, the CCAG
witnessed both acceptance within the consumer and mental health research
communities as well as criticism from other mental health researchers
who had not been involved in the instrument development process. This
led to development of a second study between 2004 and 2010 to document
the validity of the original study findings. The core findings of the original
assessment were affirmed in this second report.
• Discussion: This case highlights multiple issues that are central to the
process of becoming a social justice researcher. Critical to the success
of this initiative was the creation of a process where persons in recovery
carried the same and sometimes even more weight than the investigators
in the design and implementation of the project. That led to greater
investment by them in the process, as well as greater dissemination of the
results of the project across the community. There is also an implied issue
about the time required to conduct this type of process; it took eight years
for the project to reach its full level of maturation, the first four of which
occurred without the involvement of the researchers. This raises the need
to be aware of the possibility that social justice research may follow a
different timeline and path than the standard academic model.
• Comments relating to the process of reducing inequities/discrimination,
etc.: This example also provides an example of using Community Based
Participatory Research (CBPR) to foster processes that give voice to
experiences of felt stigma and discrimination.
researchers (called the Cultural Competency Advisory Group [CCAG],

which is an advisory group of the Maryland Department of Health and
Mental Hygiene, Mental Health Administration).2 The research part of the
CCAG collaboration focused on engaging in a protracted iterative pro-
cess of designing and validating a consumer-based Cultural Competency
Assessment tool. This multi-phase process required the researchers and the
administrators and consumers to engage in a co-educational process. For
the researchers, this educational process required that they increase their
understanding of consumers’ need to feel that their provider respected their
cultural background, and the need for consumers to feel that they played
a significant role in the clinical management of their behavioral health
needs. In order to achieve this goal, it was necessary for the researchers
to become immersed in the specific challenges encountered by the men-
tal health consumers as they entered the behavioral healthcare delivery
system. For the consumers and administrators, this educational process
required that they become immersed in principles of survey design, data
analysis, and report dissemination. Although the vignette is an example of
a successful researcher–stakeholder research collaboration, the important
takeaway message is that by expanding the team involved in the design of
a study, you increase the chances that the community becomes involved in
the research collaboration process, as well as increase the chances that the
findings will be disseminated to a broader audience.
DEVELOPING A FOUNDATION FOR ENGAGING IN SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH

In the last chapter, it was noted that it is important to examine needs
as part of an empirical assessment of social justice. More specifically,
this includes examining instrumental, functional, and intrinsic needs.
Although one can examine each of these types of needs independently,
part of what makes social justice research unique for social workers is
the person-in-environment focus. This conceptual approach is transac-
tional and assumes that activities are occurring on multiple levels at the
same time and therefore that the social change process needs to address
issues on these multiple levels. As it relates to social justice research,
determining the instrumental needs (i.e., unmet needs) involves not only
measuring the unmet needs; it also involves creating processes where
populations become active players in ensuring that their voices are heard.
Within the context of designing and conducting social justice survey
research, this transaction process requires attending to both our capac-
ity to hear these unheard voices as well as our capacity to create a trans-
parent communication and collaboration process. This in fact speaks to
the Emic (insider) perspective that is typically used in discussing cultural
anthropology. In this case, the Emic perspective focuses on engaging in a
process of immersion into the host culture in order to capture the nuances
of the host culture, thus reflecting their worldview. It focuses not just on
analyzing the information but also on examining the context in which the
information is presented. The Etic (objective outsider) perspective focuses
on examining a situation from the outside and attempting to generalize
the findings to other, similar situations (Morris, Leung, Ames, & Lickel,
1999). We are suggesting that, in order to move to developing and execut-
ing research using the Etic perspective, researchers must first engage in
a process wherein they are influenced and shaped by the contingencies
that create the need for such a study. Thus, before engaging in social jus-
tice research, we may want to develop and undergo our own social justice
clarification exercise. We will also want to go through a process that will
assist us in clarifying the theories, conceptual models, and frameworks
that we choose as the foundation for conducting social justice research.
WHERE DOES ONE START?

Self-Preparation for Becoming a Social Justice Researcher
A great example of an academic trailblazer who had to balance witness-
ing injustices with being a committed empiricist is Rachel Carson, a
marine biologist, conservationist, naturalist, and ecologist. Since World
War II, synthetic chemical pesticides had been used to control the spread
of insects that were damaging crops. In 1956, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture pressed forward with its plan to spray nearly a million acres
of land in New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania with DDT insecticide
as part of its plan to eradicate the gypsy moth, in spite of the effects of
DDT on fish and wildlife (Carson, 1962). This resulted in a group of Long
Island citizens suing the U.S. Department of Agriculture to prevent the
spraying of DDT. It also led to the launching of a study by Rachel Carson
that documented the extensive effects of synthetic pesticides on crops
and animals. As a committed naturalist, her combined love of nature and
animals, training in zoology, and reputation as a scientist made Carson
the ideal candidate for conducting a study that would fundamentally
transform our attitudes about the widespread use of synthetic chemi-
cal pesticides and contribute to launching the scientific discipline called
environmentalism (Doremus & Tarlock, 2005). In her work Silent Spring,
Carson (1962) summed up her view of the importance of the scientific
inquiry process by quoting Carl P. Swanson, who said:
Any science may be likened to a river. . . . It has its obscure and unpre-
tentious beginning; it quietly stretches along with its rapids; its periods
of drought as well as its fullness. It gathers momentum with the work of
many investigators as it is fed by other streams of thought; it is deepened

and broadened by the concepts and generalizations that are gradually
evolved. (Carson, 1962, p. 245)
In addition to documenting the effects of the use of pesticides on

nature, Rachel Carson documented the efforts of the federal government
to ignore the concerns of activists about the application of environmental
pesticide. Carson concluded her study regarding the harmful effects of
pesticides with the following warning:
The control of nature is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the

Neanderthal age of biology and philosophy, when it was supposed that
nature exists for the convenience of man. The concepts and practices of
applied entomology for the most part date from that Stone Age of sci-
ence. It is our alarming misfortune that so primitive a science has armed
itself with the most modern and terrible weapons and that in turn-
ing them against the insects it has also turned them against the earth.
(Carson, 1962, pp. 261–262)
Rachel Carson received the New York Times Best Seller book award,
the Albert Schweitzer award from Animal Welfare Institute, and the
American Academy of Arts and Letters award for her book Silent Spring.
It remained on the New York Times’s bestseller list for 31 weeks. Her find-
ings resulted in the publication of more than 50 newspaper editorials and
20 columns, as well as the introduction of more than 40 bills in state
legislatures governing the regulation of pesticide use (Litmans & Miller,
2004; Van Emden & Peakall, 1999). Along with praise for her work came
intense criticism. This criticism included verbal abuse, character assassi-
nation, and debates regarding whether science should be used for advo-
cacy. Nonetheless, 50 years later her work is still praised (Wharton, 2012).
Carson’s scholarship seems to fit the classic quote “No good deed goes
unpunished.” It serves as a reminder that sometimes the pursuit of social
justice research will bring more attention than a publication in a peer
review journal. Some may argue that researchers such as Rachel Carson
are an exception to the rule. However, in fact, this level of dedication
to social justice research may be more normative. For example, dispari-
ties research was conducted for decades before its elevation to a national
research priority. Likewise, as noted by the case vignette in Chapter 1, the
issue of pay equity for women is an old concept, yet we have not achieved
the goal of closing the gap. These examples remind us that the motivation
for engaging in social justice research is not fame or notoriety; rather, is
it commitment to the principles of social justice.
As noted by Rountree and Pomeroy (2010), we may have two roles to
perform as researchers: (1) as a front-line practitioner witness to injustices
experienced by the oppressed, and (2) as an empiricist who documents these
transgressions. These two roles may create a need to balance several issues at
once. First, it may require that we clarify what we personally and profession-
ally mean by “social justice.” Second, we need to emulate the social justice
principles that were presented in the last chapter (or that fit with one’s own
social justice principles). Third, we need to discover and understand our
intention for conducting research in general. Is it our intention to engage
in research because we are fascinated with the plight of the population we
are studying, or because we have easy access to that population? Are we
serving our own interests, or trying to serve those of the population we are
asking to participate in the research? Are we prepared to do the work of get-
ting to know how to form a transparent partnership with the community?
And, even more important, are we are ready to bear the brunt of criticism or
opposition from power brokers who are displeased with our research find-
ings, in spite of the quality of the work? Fourth, we need to conduct the
research. Fifth, we need to examine and analyze the data. Finally, we need to
report the findings in a socially responsible and just manner.
These issues suggest that becoming a social justice researcher may
require a process of self-reflection. It may also require a self-assessment
of where you are on a continuum between thinking about becoming such
a researcher and engaging in social justice research. A model one can
use to think about the process of moving from thinking about change
to engaging in a new endeavor is the concept of readiness for change
that is part of the Transtheoretical Model of Intentional Behavior Change
(DiClemente, Schlundt, & Gemmell, 2004). This model is based on the
idea that there are five stages of the change process. DiClemente and col-
leagues believe that being motivated or ready to perform a behavior is
critical to performance and outcome. The five stages of change are:
1. Precontemplation, where individuals are not motivated to change;

2. Contemplation, where individuals are examining their patterns of
behavior;
3. Preparation, where individuals make a commitment to change

and develop a plan and strategy for change;
4. Action, where the person implements the behavior change; and
5. Maintenance, where the changed behavior is sustained for an
extended period of time.
You may start your own process of becoming a social justice

researcher by thinking about where you are on the continuum of readi-
ness to change. Are you reading this book because someone told you to
(perhaps in the precontemplation stage), because you are examining your
own patterns of behavior in terms of research (perhaps in the contem-
plation stage), or because you are in the process of evaluating your own
research to strengthen your use of social justice principles (perhaps in the
preparation, action, or maintenance stage)?
Implied in the presentation of the DiClemente and colleagues (2004)
model is the notion that change is a developmental process. Therefore,
in order to become a social justice researcher, one should recognize
that there different stages of becoming a social justice researcher. This
self-development may come via reading content that gives us an aware-
ness regarding inequities. It may also come from exposure to the plight of
an effected population, and it may also occur via immersion in a commu-
nity that is affected by an issue. These are all forms of internal develop-
mental processes that may require some continued action and reflection
on our part in order to crystallize.
It is this reflective action process that Freire (2000) speaks of in his
classic work, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Pedagogy of the Oppressed was
originally designed to help teachers understand the power dynamics of
the learning process and how they may inadvertently reinforce oppres-
sive values in the name of calling themselves a vehicle for empowering
the students. It has been used since then as an approach to help change
agents undergo the transformational process required for creating
co-learning opportunities with others. Freire summarizes the dilemma
of oppression by saying that
the oppressor consciousness tends to transform everything surrounding

it into an object of its domination. The earth, property, production, the
creations of people, people themselves, time—everything is reduced to
Exploring the Variety of Random
Documents with Different Content
the whole Guenon system may be condemned as being utterly
fallacious. His book deserves careful attention from intelligent
farmers.”—Bucks County Intelligencer.
“In a majority of cases, the marks have been reliable, and this
should incite all dairy folks to know what is said about it.”—Meehan’s
Gardner’s Monthly.
“It embraces a sketch of Guenon, and the progress of his
discovery; extracts from his preface explaining his views; an
explanation of his system of escutcheon marks; descriptions of the
various escutcheons and their indications of value and quantity, and
directions how to apply them in practice, together with the report of
the commission of which the author served as secretary. Nearly one
hundred illustrations are given, those of the escutcheons being
photographed from the drawings in Guenon’s last revised edition.”—
Country Gentleman and Cultivator.
“Remarkable as was M. Guenon’s method, and although his
discoveries were duly made known in this country, this is the first
time that his methods have been compiled for practical use. By the
use of this little handbook, there can be no doubt, but that farmers
and stock raisers would save a vast amount of money. The
explanations are simple and easily followed, the numerous
illustrations serving to elucidate the text.”—Boston Evening Traveler.
“Beginning with a little sketch of the method of the birth of the
system in Guenon’s mind, the author goes on in a clear and concise
manner to explain by plain language and appropriate drawings, the
various so called ‘milk mirrors’ and their values, being properly
understood, as aids in selecting good dairy stock. The various
opinions of those adverse to the ‘theory’ are fairly discussed, and the
reports of various agricultural societies which have from time to time
investigated it are given, together with the report of the
Pennsylvania commission. Taken altogether, Mr. Hazard has
succeeded in making a very readable, interesting and valuable book,
and one which, whatever may or may not be the preconceived ideas
of its reader, cannot fail to interest and instruct him upon a subject
which should be far better understood amongst farmers generally,
than it at present is.”—New England Homestead.
“A very valuable pamphlet. Mr. Hazard has devoted great attention
and study to the subject, with a view of rendering the system
popular, and we happen to know that his work is largely appreciated,
especially by the farmers of New England, from the number of
orders received for the book. The discovery made by Mr. Guenon,
and the practical principles founded on it are invaluable, and the
saving to the country by its general knowledge will be very great.
The State of Pennsylvania, in 1878, appointed a commission to test
the system and report on it. Mr. Hazard was a member of the
commission, and has added the results of much study and research.
He has been invited to lecture and present the subject at the annual
meeting of the Massachusetts State Board of Agriculture, at
Greenfield, and has many invitations and engagements in other
places.”—Massachusetts Ploughman.
“This volume embraces all the essential matters in Guenon’s
treatise. It is really a valuable contribution to dairy literature.”—
Southern Cultivator.
“Every farmer should study Guenon.”—Farm Journal.
“Dairymen and stock raisers should send for a copy.”—Rural
Nebraska.
EXTRACTS FROM THE MUCH
LARGER NOTICES OF THE WORK.
How to Select Cows; or, the Guenon System Explained. By Willis P.
Hazard. In no way is the march of improvement in agriculture more
decided than in the new discoveries and new methods of developing
its resources. It is owing to these that America is now the granary of
the world, and, as years roll by, if the developments of the next
decade are as great in proportion as the last ones, no matter how
extensive the foreign demand, there will be an ample supply at still
lower prices than at the present. No branch of agricultural interests
has changed so much and received such an impetus, especially
within the last five years, as the dairy. Entire new modes of making
butter and cheese and of setting milk have largely taken place of the
old ones. Competition in making dairy products becomes keener
each year, and every process by which the labor can be lessened, or
the products be cheapened, meets with recompense.
The first step, however, is in the selection of good stock, for by it
the product of the herd is increased from twenty-five to thirty-three
per cent., and, therefore, the profits must be immensely greater. The
old plan of our forefathers of judging of the value of a cow by a
crumpled horn and a large bag is now set aside by recent
discoveries. The most important and most reliable one is that of
Mons. François Guenon, of Libourne, France. After a series of
experiments he was convinced there were outward marks in the hair
which were an indication of the yield and quality of all cows.
Patiently for many years he labored at forming his discoveries into a
system, with classes and orders of each variation. He was finally
rewarded by the approval of all the leading agricultural societies in
France, and by that government with a pension of three thousand
francs.
The work of Guenon was partially translated and published in this
country years ago, but it was his first crude effort, and it presented
the new science in so crude a form as rather to dismay the learner
than to invite him to master it. Last year the State of Pennsylvania
appointed a commission of three well-known agriculturists and
experts to test the system and report upon it. That report was
printed and published to the extent of twenty-five thousand copies,
which but partially supplied the demand. Messrs. Blight, Harvey, and
Hazard examined the escutcheons of two hundred cows, and
interpreted them as regards the quantity, quality, and time of the
yield of each animal. Alongside of their statements the knowledge of
the owner of each cow was printed, and it is truly wonderful how
accurately the character of each cow is given by these gentlemen
who had never seen the cattle before. The gist of their report was
that the system was invaluable and worthy of adoption by every
farmer, and such adoption would add millions of value to the
improved herds of the country.
Upon the publication of this report, discussions took place in the
leading agricultural journals, and thus has been created a demand
for more easily to be acquired knowledge upon the whole subject.
Willis P. Hazard, the secretary of the commission, has prepared a
complete treatise upon Guenon’s system, and it has been just issued
in a cheap form, for wide circulation.
Mr. Hazard in his book gives a sketch of the life of M. Guenon and
the progress of his system, and then fully explains it, so that in this
simplified form any one can quickly learn all the points so as to
readily apply it. The opinions of others, both pro and con, are
introduced, argued, and answered, so that in this volume one gets a
full history and account of the system, and its practical application is
made easy. There is a profusion of engravings, photographed from
Guenon’s designs, which thoroughly elucidate the text and render it
a valuable handbook which no farmer can afford to do without, and
which amateur agriculturists will find a most interesting development
of a wonderful discovery.—Philadelphia Inquirer.
“A gentleman well known among the dairymen, and who was
appointed by the Governor of Pennsylvania to investigate the value
and practicability of the Guenon system. He was induced to
undertake the explanation of the system, which he has very ably
performed in this volume. The low price at which it is offered should
induce every one even in the smallest manner engaged in breeding
or management of cows to procure a copy of it.”—American Farmer,
Baltimore.
“At the New York State fair, in September, 1879, Mr. Hazard
applied the Guenon system to a large number of cows of different
breeds on exhibition, and told the amount of milk each gave, as
indicated by the escutcheon theory. A committee, with Col. F. D.
Curtis as chairman, was appointed to accompany him, and they
state in their report that he was generally accurate, not varying in
any instance more than two quarts in stating the daily average yield,
and in most cases giving the amount exactly, and also the time the
cows would give milk. He made his estimate on the average daily
yield for the first three months after calving, on liberal feed. In one
or two instances he over rated the cows, but generally where there
was any difference he was under the amount stated by the owners.
Mr. Hazard takes into consideration in his estimates the size of the
cow and her whole contour, as well as the character of the skin. His
round of observation is first the shape of the escutcheon, then the
milk veins and quality of the skin. He offered to have the cows
blanketed and then tell their milking capacity, but this was not done.
It is fair to say that he judges mainly by the escutcheon. The tests
attracted a large circle of breeders, who were greatly interested on
account of the novelty and general accuracy.”—Col. Curtis in New
York Tribune.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HOW TO SELECT
COWS ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S.

copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in
these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it
in the United States without permission and without paying
copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of
Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything
for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is
very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as
creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research.
Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given
away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with
eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject
to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free

distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or
any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and

Redistributing Project Gutenberg™
electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree
to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be
bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund
from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in
paragraph 1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be

used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people
who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a
few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic
works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement.
See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with
Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law
in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated
with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this
agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached
full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge
with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the
terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears,
or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning
of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1
with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or
expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or
a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original
“Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must
include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in
paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you

derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works
calculated using the method you already use to calculate
your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to
donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments
must be paid within 60 days following each date on which
you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly
marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4,
“Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of
receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full
Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user
to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a
physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to
other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full

refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement
copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and
reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for

the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3,
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the
Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim
all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR
NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR
BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH
1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK
OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL
NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT,
CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF
YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving
it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or
entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide
a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation,

the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation,
anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with
the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the
following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or
any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission

of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.
Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.
The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many
small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to
maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.
Section 5. General Information About

Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Where can buy A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design and Analysis 1st Edition Llewellyn J. Cornelius ebook with cheap price

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where can buy A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design and Analysis 1st Edition Llewellyn J. Cornelius ebook with cheap price

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Where can buy A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design and Analysis 1st Edition Llewellyn J. Cornelius ebook with cheap price

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Download the full version of the ebook at

A Social Justice Approach to Survey Design

Explore and download more ebook at https://ebookultra.com

World Criminal Justice Systems A Survey 7th Edition

Site Analysis A Contextual Approach to Sustainable Land

Social Motivation Justice And The Moral Emotions An

Latent Variable Models and Factor Analysis A Unified

Mastering the Instructional Design Process A Systematic

Expressive Form A Conceptual Approach to Computational

Analysis of Survey Data Wiley Series in Survey Methodology

Counseling for Multiculturalism and Social Justice

Determining Sample Size: L. Momper

Oxford New York

Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press

Published in the United States of America by

© Oxford University Press 2014

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

You must not circulate this work in any other form

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Introduction to Part I: Social Justice Research 1

Introduction to Part II: Data Handling and Analysis 129

8. Conclusions and Next Steps in Using Social Justice Research as a

OVERVIEW AND FOCUS OF THE BOOK

W e are grateful to the students, colleagues, and partners who have

Why Social Justice

Vignette: The Battle for Equal Pay for Equal Work1

As summarized above, this case reflects what seems to be a con-

OPERATIONAL CONCEPTS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE

Social Justice Research Defined

Within this broad and interdisciplinary context, social justice

social, and physical well-being. Social justice theories, frameworks, and

Social Justice Theories

most vulnerable or under-resourced) or by merit (determining who is

USE OF SOCIAL JUSTICE PRINCIPLES IN THE WELFARE STATE

political orientation, race, ethnicity, and immigration status, all of which

Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf

The ethical principles of the IFSW state that

Social workers have a responsibility to promote social justice, in rela-

Based on this, we contend that, at a minimum, social justice research

SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH TRENDS AND CONCEPTUAL MODELS

1. Improve the conditions of daily life—the circumstances in which

SOCIAL DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH INEQUITIES

Figure 1.1 Social Determinants of Health and Health Inequities.

industry, and occupational characteristics (U.S. Government Accounting

Figure 1.2 Andersen (1995) Behavioral Model of Access to Care.

DISPARITIES RESEARCH AND SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH

disparities. This work covered two types of analysis: descriptive or mul-

on the broader principles of social justice research as a means of design-

INITIAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE MEASUREMENT OF EQUITY

1. Develop standards for measuring inequities: Determine the

compute measures that summarize the relative disadvantages of

Research Center. The ISJR is an international and interdisciplinary group

Building on the theories and models presented in Chapter 1, this chapter

Following this extensive editing process, the instrument was reviewed

researchers (called the Cultural Competency Advisory Group [CCAG],

DEVELOPING A FOUNDATION FOR ENGAGING IN SOCIAL JUSTICE RESEARCH

WHERE DOES ONE START?

many investigators as it is fed by other streams of thought; it is deepened

In addition to documenting the effects of the use of pesticides on

The control of nature is a phrase conceived in arrogance, born of the

8. Conclusions and Next Steps in Using Social Justice Research as a