Partnering With Oppressive Institutions for Social Change: Roles, Ethics, and a Framework for Practicing Accountability

Abstract

Community psychology is driven by the values of social justice, action, and accountability to oppressed groups, with a large body of literature devoted to understanding how to work in partnership with communities through participatory methodologies (e.g., community‐based participatory research, participatory action research). However, some community psychologists may work in partnership with oppressive institutions (e.g., the criminal justice system) in order to transform these institutions toward greater equity and justice. In this conceptual review, I explore the unique challenges and opportunities of partnering with oppressive institutions for social change. First, I define oppressive institutions as those that are hierarchy‐enhancing under social dominance theory and draw on theories of social change to explain when and why we might choose to partner with these institutions in research and action. I then review case studies of the ethical dilemmas community psychologists have faced in such partnerships. Finally, I propose a conceptual framework for practicing accountability when partnering with hierarchy‐enhancing institutions. This framework includes specific practices that research/evaluation teams might incorporate into their relationships with institutional partners and communities impacted by the institution.

Creating a University Strategic Plan to Address Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct (RVSM): An Application of Principles-Focused Evaluation at Michigan State University

“…This requires intentional reflection, deliberation, and willingness to learn from critique and criticism and carry that learning into action. There are inherent struggles between pragmatism and idealism, and between trying to identify, plan, and implement truly transformative changes versus ameliorative fixes (Javorka, 2020). At a minimum, we need universities to not hurt survivors-and as it turns out, that is harder to stop than one might expect, and, as such, our initiatives are shaped and perhaps limited by this reality.…”

“…We also knew that if we held back to protect our ability to make long-term changes, we ran the risk of collusion with an institution that continued to harm survivors, and in colluding, we risked harming survivors with our lack of action and advocacy. Javorka (2020) explored these challenges of collaborating with oppressive systems and recommended “developing an ongoing praxis of accountability [which] is essential if we want to transform [hierarchy-enhancing] institutions and address harms we are likely to unwittingly perpetrate through our involvement with them” (p. 10).…”

“…This external organizing created and maintained a sense of urgency, immediacy, and demand for change that created leverage points for those of us working inside the institution. Yet, working inside the system requires intentional reflection on what it means to work within hierarchical, oppressive structures and how that choice might inadvertently constrain our actions (Javorka, 2020). Our positionality gave us audience and power to push for changes that we and others at the university had been recommending for decades.…”

“…We have seen first-hand the harms that stem from defining the well-being of survivors as antithetical to the well-being of the institution. To those individuals and groups who work inside oppressive systems, we encourage intentional reflection about that role and to identify a praxis of accountability (Javorka, 2020). It will be important to have people with some degree of power and protected status in the group, and they must be willing to use the privilege that comes with those protections in the service of this work.…”

Reflecting and rejuvenating our work, together: One team's consideration of AJCP publications on gender‐based violence

“…Community psychologists often work with and in existing systems; such work is often rife with tensions (Javorka, 2020). Eight of the articles in this VSI invoke ecological and systems thinking to understand and target change efforts in institutional environments, including the criminal and civil legal systems (Allen et al, 2013; Shaw & Lee, 2019; Shaw et al, 2016); the health care system (Allen et al, 2013; Campbell et al, 2010); institutions of higher education (Edwards et al, 2016; Holland & Cortina, 2017); and the military (Holland et al, 2014).…”