Social Inclusion
Social inclusion as a concept is a
broad and ambiguous one. It is a complex idea with different meanings to
different people. It is generally accepted in the literature as to be a process
rather than a condition, while it is seen as involving a sense of commitment,
and a desire or capacity to live together in harmony (Green et al. 2003).
CESI (Centre for Economic and Social
Inclusion) (2002:1) define social inclusion as the “the process by which efforts are made to ensure that everyone,
regardless of their experiences and circumstances, can achieve their potential
in life.” The European Social Fund offers a slightly different explanation,
viz. “the development of capacity and
opportunity to play a full role, not only in economic terms, but also in
social, psychological and political terms” (The European Social Fund, cited
in CESI 2002:2).
However,
there is no established consensus among theoreticians on what social inclusion
is, or what a society characterized by social inclusion would look like. It is
a relative concept, and its flexibility allows for definitions adaptable to
local conditions (CESI 2002).
Notwithstanding
its equivocal essence, the concept is by most understood as a positive
objective, denoting equal opportunities and rights for all human beings. Hence,
becoming more included implies improving life chances. To others, however,
increasing inclusion connotes unwanted imposition of conformity (Hewitt de Alcántara 1994).
Furthermore, in different contexts
its use may emphasize: shared norms and values; a sense of shared identity or
the need of belonging to a common community; a sense of continuity and
stability; and equitable distribution of rights, opportunities and wellbeing.
According to Green et al.
(2003), social
inclusion is achievable by reductions in poverty and inequality, and through
socializing agencies such as the labour market and schools.
Socialization often includes learning new
norms and values that are very different from those associated with the culture
in which the person was raised. But becoming socially included, they note, is
the responsibility of both the society to accept the formerly unaccepted, as
well as the individuals themselves to seek socialization (Green et al. 2003).
Furthermore, modern time has seen
the sharpening of strife based on social, political, religious and national
divisions around the world. Thus, the search for ways to create or reinforce
common identities which reduce likelihood of violence and provide groundwork
for co-operation is acute. This is true for both the international and national
level as well as within local societies, where many developments have weakened
relations of mutual support and respect, and encourage violent attitudes (Hewitt de Alcántara 1994).
The call for enhancing social
inclusion generally grows out of a feeling that basic institutions of society,
such as the family or the community, are improperly functioning. It also
concerns the perceived decline of civility and tolerance in everyday social
life. Thus, social inclusion is seen as promoting harmonic relations and
solidarity in society, and fundamental changes at multiple levels of society,
from public attitudes to policies to service delivery practices. When
emphasizing this dimension of the concept, it becomes the opposite of a process
of disintegration (Hewitt de Alcántara 1994).
However, it is important to identify
some potential pitfalls when an exclusive emphasis is on social inclusion as an
end in itself. First, when the goal of social inclusion is to
draw the formerly excluded into mainstream society, there is a tendency to
forget that the latter have their own forms of social inclusion. Non-mainstream
groups even those who are most deprived and apparently disorganized, are
included in other forms of social organization. Hence, one has to take into
account the real world of disadvantaged people (Hewitt de Alcántara
1994).
Second,
if emphasis is placed exclusively on improving certain indicators of
opportunity, like school enrolment, nutrition and so on, it may encourage some
improvement, however without exploring the social structures causing exclusion.
For social inclusion, in terms of attaining equal life chances, to endure it is
necessary to address why problems of polarization and ostracism have arisen and
persisted in the first place (Hewitt de Alcántara 1994).
Broadly speaking, social inclusion
is understood as a process away from exclusion. It is a process for dealing
with social exclusion and integrating individuals into wider society. We have
unravelled some aspects of the concepts, so to lay the framework for analysis
in chapter five (CESI 2002).
Methodological Framework The present chapter is devoted to
explaining the problems involved in the collection of data and the method used.
An effort is made to describe as far as possible the gamut of the fieldwork to
strengthen the credibility of the research and its findings.
Method of Study In the social sciences, writers and
practitioners of social research commonly distinguish between two types of
research strategy: the quantitative and, utilized in this fieldwork, the
qualitative research. The two differs in many ways but most obvious perhaps is
that the latter is concerned with text rather than numbers as in the former
(Johannessen et al. 2005).
Moreover, while
quantitative researchers seek to generalize their findings to the relevant
population, the qualitative researcher pursue an understanding of behaviour,
values, beliefs and so on in terms of the context in which the research is
conducted. In addition the qualitative research is highly unstructured and
characterized by a high degree of openness and flexibility which enables
interviews to be tailored for each individual and enhances the possibility of
getting at actors’ meanings (Johannessen et al. 2005).
However, qualitative
research is not without its critique. First, it is sometimes criticized of
being too subjective and of relying too much on the researcher’s views about
what is significant and important. Second, it is difficult to replicate a
qualitative study due to its unstructured approach, and thus there are rarely
any standard procedures to follow. In this sense it all the more important to
give a detailed description of the research process and methods used so as to
strengthen the reliability of the data (Johannessen et al. 2005, J. Klein,
lecture, 7th January 2008).
Third, findings of
qualitative investigations are often of a limited scope, and hence difficult to
generalize to other settings. Only one or two cases can hardly be
representative of all cases. However, that’s not the purpose either, as it is
rather to generalize to theory (Johannessen et al. 2005, J. Klein, lecture, 7th
January 2008).
In deciding which
research strategy to use, the researcher had to take some issues into
consideration. For one thing, choice of method had to be dovetailed with the
research question. Because the researcher was interested in the views of
members of a certain social group, rather than causes of a social phenomenon,
the qualitative approach was the more appropriate direction to choose (Hellevik
2002, Johannessen et al. 2005).
Another
dimension was the nature of the topic and people being investigated. Since this
study needed to engage with individuals previously involved in rather illicit
activities it was unlikely that a quantitative method such as a social survey
would have attained the necessary understanding of the subjects (Hellevik 2002,
J. Klein, lecture, 7th January 2008).
Approaching the Group
As already noted, the purpose with
qualitative investigation is to acquire in-depth knowledge of a certain
phenomenon. For this purpose, sampling in qualitative designs is carried out
strategically to collect the necessary data. Snowball sampling is a common
method employed in composing a strategic sample. With this approach the
researcher makes initial contact with people who are relevant to the research
topic and then use these to establish contact with others (Johannessen et al.
2005).
In order to enter the
Stuartpuram village, the school, and approach the target group, the researcher
was introduced to the Samskar project manager of Stuartpuram. He had been
employed as coordinator for the last seven years and knew the Yerukula
settlement very well. The project manager said he would extend all possible
help for settling down in the village. Thus, the study had to be presented to
the potential informants through the project manager.
Establishment of trust
with project manager was no problem, firstly due to the fact that he had an
interest in research of the project, and secondly, since the researcher quickly
developed a friendly relationship with him.
The project manager
introduced the researcher to some ex-criminals, teachers and children. In his
words “He is one of us, he will be
another teacher. He wants to know about you, you’re feelings, and your
activities. Tell him what all he wants. There will not be any danger if you
reveal the facts.” They consented to cooperate with some hesitation of
course. The project manager was from a neighbouring village, and married into
an ex-criminal family. As project manager he was working for the benefit of the
ex-criminals and their children, so he was shown some regard.
Entry into the Yerukula
community went smoother as good relations were established with the project
manager and his family, including his father in law, once known as the most
notorious criminal gang-leader of Stuartpuram. The doubts and suspicions raised
in the minds of the ex-criminal informants subsided to some extent with the
efforts of the project manager. Creating good relations with the pupils went
facilely, as the children found the presence of any foreigner exciting. Since
the target population was difficult for the researcher to access initially, the
snowball-method proved convenient, feasible and efficient in framing the
sample.
Shelter was arranged for
the researcher at the Joshua-Gora
School campus during the
fieldwork. The initial period were used for establishing informal contacts with
teachers, villagers and children.
Unanticipated Events and Problems of
Research The above material should
not give the impression that everything proceeded smoothly. What has been
described so far was the process of admission into the field environment under
investigation.
First, the ex-criminals’
hesitation towards sharing information about their criminal past posed a
difficulty. The ex-criminals are uncomfortable reminiscing about their dark
history. Furthermore, according to the project manager quite a few pressmen and
researchers have approached the ex-criminals but the gains have been
nonreciprocal. The formers have attained their stories and degrees but any
substantial benefits for the ex-criminal families are yet to be seen. Like one
informant said: “why should I give
interview, I get nothing back. It is not like it is going to change my life.”
In this situation the researcher said he understood his concern, but at the
same time explained the importance of research, and that his situation was
being documented. The informant appeared to be convinced, and agreed to do the
interview.
Second, the researcher
had a voice-recorder but the informants were suspicious of mechanical devices.
Some of them knew what a voice-recorder was, but many of them feared its use.
The researcher asked one ex-criminal whether he should use the voice-recorder.
He was advised not to. Moreover, it would be unethical to use the
voice-recorder without the respondents’ understanding what it did. Any misuse
would affect further research (Johannessen et al. 2005).
Reliability and Validity of the Information
Johannessen et al. (2005) distinguish
between reliability and validity in research. The concept of validity addresses
itself to the truth of the data and assertions that is made about something in
the empirical world. The concept of reliability, on the other hand,
concentrates on the degree of consistency in the data obtained from the devices
we employ such as interviews, documents, observations and informants. The
information a fieldworker obtains must be reliable and valid (Hellevik 2002,
Johannessen et al. 2005).
Participant
observation solved many of the problems of validity and reliability. The truth
of the statement made by informants could be easily seen by close contacts with
the informants and nonverbal behaviour. For example, the researcher asked an
informant “to what degree are the
ex-criminals socially interacting outside the Yerukula community?” The
informant answered: “a very small
percentage interact with the mainstream. They are socially accepted, but the
degree of interaction is low.” After staying with, and acquiring insight
into everyday life of some ex-criminal families, the researcher noted for
instance that the ex-criminals leave the immediate community only when they
have to run some errands, usually to the market. Even there interaction was at
a low level. Hence, the truth of the statement was strengthened.
The researcher always
checked and crosschecked all the statements. To check the reliability of a
document of personal profiles of the reformed criminals, the researcher checked
and compared with facts obtained from some of the concerned individuals. As
time went and trust towards the researcher was established, he got valid and
reliable information.
Sources of Data and Analysis of
Interviews Basically this study used
participant observation as a method of data collection, and qualitative
interviewing and focus group interviewing as a part of participant observation.
According to Johannessen et al. (2005), the purpose with the qualitative
interview is to attempt getting at actors’ meaning of the world.
The formal informant
interviews were based on a semi-structured interview-guide. Samskar chairman
Lavanam, an authority on the field of social reform, was consulted as was the
Stuartpuram project manager and two ex-criminals. A focus group interview with
some ten pupils from the ex-criminal families was also conducted. It consisted
of a mixture of boys and girls from fourth and fifth class, ranging between ten
to twelve years of age.
Except the focus-group
interview, it should be brought to attention that the informants were all
males. This was not a conscious strategy, but due to India traditionally being a
male-dominated society, largely, women will not come forward to voice their
views. Despite the praise of the snowball-method, this may act as slight critique
due to the risk of being introduced to a biased sample.
Participant observation
is explained by Johannessen et al. (2005:124, my translation) as a method in
which “the researcher [him or herself]
participates in the situations [he or she] is observing.” This may happen
either in the role of the researcher or in some disguised role. All the
information used in this report was elicited from the informants and was drawn
from factual evidence and observation.
The
researcher while using participant observation as a method was also cognizant
of its weaknesses. To avoid the risk of becoming a non-observing participant,
he often withdrew from the field. In this way the researcher evaded the danger
of becoming too preoccupied with mere participation, loosing focus on making
observations (Johannessen et al. 2005).
The researcher’s role
was, as Johannessen et al. (2005) states, “observer as participant”. This is the role of which the observer
“is part of the environment which is
studied, and participates in the ordinary interaction between the actors” (Johannessen
et al. 2005:126, my translation). At the same time the researcher’s status as
observer was made publicly known at the outset and intentionally not kept under
wraps. This was mainly because the fieldworker did not want to be pressed
guilty with feelings that he misrepresented himself to the informants.
Interaction
with the Yerukula settlers provided the most valuable data. The researcher
tried to ask questions which he felt useful for the subject. Sometimes, the
investigator would ask casual questions, for example, “do you play cricket or volleyball or do you go to movies,” which
were not useful for the subject, yet they provided some feeling that the
researcher was closer to them.
The researcher had to
take care of the problem of storing and retrieving the information obtained in
the field. Considering the problem of the voice-recorder, much information was
kept in the form of field notes. In the beginning, the researcher used to come
back to his room and write down what he had heard and remembered. But the stage
eventually came when even the informants advised him to keep a notebook with
him so that he would note down the points on the spot whenever the information
was obtained.
In the process of
analysing the informant interviews, the researcher would after each interview immediately
go to his room to transcribe and structure the material obtained. This was
succeeded by reducing the data to manageable proportions by highlighting the
relevant things and removing immaterial information. In order to analyse and
interpret the manifest meanings the researcher made use of what Johannessen et
al. (2005) calls “ad hoc meaning generation”. This is a common approach in
which we use different techniques for meaning generation. The analysis of the
interviews happened as a free interplay of different methodological
techniques.
An
Analysis of the Degree of Social Exclusion, and the Impacts of Education on
Social Inclusion As a tool for reducing social
exclusion, education has been promoted by Samskar. The Joshua-Gora School
was established in Stuartpuram for this purpose. In all 260 pupils comes from
Stuartpuram and its exterior areas to study together. The learning institution
serves as an instrument for smoother socialization. But as Ramakrishna and
Sundar (2007) stresses, social inclusion is a lasting process spanning at least
three generations.
The following analysis
is considered twofold. First, we examine the extent to which the ex-criminals
of Stuartpuram are denied social inclusion and some effects of their exclusion
on the larger societal level. Second, we seek to identify the impacts of
providing schooling to the children of ex-criminal families on social inclusion
and detaching the circle of crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment