Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2009. / Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 65-77).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 1987. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 134-144).

Thesis--Lund. / Extra t.p. with thesis statement inserted. Bibliography: p. 155-157.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Washington, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-135).

Thesis (M.Ed.)--York University, 2005. Graduate Programme in Education. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 120-126). Also available on the Internet. MODE OF ACCESS via web browser by entering the following URL: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url%5Fver=Z39.88-2004&res%5Fdat=xri:pqdiss &rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:dissertation&rft_dat=xri:pqdiss:MR11776

In this study, I introduce and analyze the role of complicity in discussions of social justice pedagogies to determine how teachers, who teach social justice oriented courses, navigate complicity. Through an in-depth review of social justice education literature, I show that teacher/scholars rely upon four context-dependent discourses of complicity: (1) responsibility, (2) consciousness-awareness, (3) relation to world, self and others, and (4) inevitability and implicature. In order to understand how these discourses impact pedagogies that seek to make connections between people and social systems, I selected teacher/scholars who are widely published, read, and assigned in social justice oriented fields. I used the method of elite interviewing and interviewed the following eight people: Kevin Kumashiro, Barbara Applebaum, William Ayers, Lynn Fels, Marcelo Diversi, Cris Mayo, Mark McPhail and Deanna Fassett. I applied the conceptual framework of the discourses of complicity to our interview transcripts and three further discourses emerged: (1) nonduality/nonbinary, (2) choice, and (3) imagination. I found that by discursively marking complicity within the context of social justice pedagogies, teachers and students have new tools of understanding at their disposal. Rather than relying upon discourses that keep us “stuck” in conceptualizing relationships as limited by the choice of being either/or complicit or not, pedagogies that center complicity enable teachers and students to recognize themselves as both/and implicated and resistant. A pedagogy of accomplice, one that centers complicity in any understanding of relationality, works towards justice as a means of highlighting what Gloria Anzaldúa called the “invisible threads” that connect us all. Once these threads are made visible, it is what teachers and students do with this understanding that matters. A pedagogy of accomplice provides the potential to open new spaces of resistance and action and bring the unimaginable into the imagination of the classroom community.

Background and objectives: Despite a large amount of theoretical literature, empirical research into the area of social justice in counselling psychology has been limited to date. Furthermore, no research has explored this topic from the perspective of UK based counselling psychologists. The overarching purpose of this study was therefore to explore the social justice interest and commitment of members of the UK counselling psychology profession. Method and analyses: A mixed methods design was employed. A preliminary quantitative survey phase was followed by the priority stage of the research, in which qualitative interviews were conducted with six members of the counselling psychology profession with at least a moderate interest in, and commitment to, social justice. Qualitative data were analysed using tools from the grounded theory approach. Connection of the two phases of research occurred at participant selection for the qualitative phase and in the interpretation phase. Findings: Quantitative findings were limited; however, comparative to previous studies using the same measure, members of the counselling psychology profession have lower levels of social justice interest and commitment. Qualitative findings highlighted two core categories within the data: ‘Counselling psychologists’ understanding of social justice in counselling psychology and their connection to it’ and ‘Counselling psychologists’ reflections on social justice action’. Conclusions: The qualitative findings extend our understanding of counselling psychologists’ social justice interest and commitment and aid interpretation of the initial quantitative findings. Participants defined social justice in a way which is largely consistent with the theoretical literature but reported some difficulties with this which may be due to training in the area. Results relating to social justice action indicate that whilst some UK-based counselling psychologists are acting on their social justice values, there are numerous issues which potentially limit this. Recommendations for theory, further research and practice are discussed.

Research on justice has produced two literatures, procedural justice and distributive justice. Procedural justice research has focused on the psychology of procedural preference, establishing reliable preferences for adjudication over other dispute resolution procedures. Procedural justice theories suggest these preferences are based on the concern of participants with decision and process control. Distributive justice theories have examined the justice rules that decision-makers use to determine the appropriate distribution of resources, emphasizing the interpersonal relationships among participants in determination of the “fair” rule for that dispute. Research distinguishing these two justice literatures has concluded that procedural justice concerns are the more robust: that procedural manipulations are more determinative of fairness perceptions than are the rules used for allocation outcomes. This research re-examines that conclusion, using M. J. Lerner’s justice motive theories (1977, 1981) as the bases of analysis for distributive justice while assessing the importance of interpersonal relationship characteristics on procedural justice phenomena. Three studies tested fairness perceptions of conflict scenarios constructed to describe the relational characteristics of Lerner’s theories. Study 1 examines procedural preferences among adjudication, negotiations and joint problem-solving under different interpersonal relationships outlined in Lerner’s original forms of justice (1977), and assesses the distribution rule preferences associated with those relationships. Study 2 tests the evaluations of fairness of those justice procedures and distribution rules across Lerner’s interpersonal relationship characteristics. Study 3 investigates the impact of Lerner’s revised forms of justice (1981) on fairness of distribution rules and on participant concern for process and decision control. Few consistent results for procedural justice emerged across the first 2 studies: Psychological relations of identity/unit/nonunit influenced procedural preference, with joint problem-solving most robust. Adjudication was not the preferred justice procedure. Distributive justice rule preference and fairness ratings in studies 1 and 2 offered only inconsistent and partial support for Lerner’s original forms of justice. Studies 1 and 2 suggested that people preferred a cooperative justice procedure (joint problem-solving) but a competitive distribution rule (justified self-interest). Results from Study 3 similarly presented only partial support for Lerner’s revised justice theory: Only two of six justice rules tested matched a relationship characteristic theorized as determinative of perceived fairness, those being utilitarian decisions and legal contest. Study 3 results showed process and decision control influenced by relationship characteristics: Nonunit relationships were associated with both third-party process control and third-party decision control. Results of the three studies are discussed in terms of their implications for Lerner’s theories and the interaction of distributive and procedural justice literatures. It is apparent that while interpersonal relationships influence both procedural fairness and distribution rule fairness, the power of procedural and distributive justice theories in predicting fairness is weak. / Graduate

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--State University of New York at Binghamton, Department of Sociology, 2005. / Includes bibliographical references.