I have divided this paper on research and methodology into three sections:
Speaking of Numbers
Presearch
Excerpted Portions of Hawkins/Benard Discussion (w/ bibliography)
Excerpted Portions of a Hawkins/Benard Discussion
Note: Line numbers are based on printed text produced on my word processor.
Given your window size and font the numbers may not actually correspond
the numbered line as printed. To help you key lines presented here to those
referenced in other sections of this paper line numbers are shown periodically
in bold inside brackets, like so, [45].
[2]At the Eighth Annual National Prevention Network (NPN) Research Findings
Conference in 1995, the leading proponent of the risk-focused model debated
with the leading resiliency model proponent. It is meaningful to note that
the NPN itself has adopted the risk-focused model as its preferred model.
So that particular model began with a bit more of an advantage because it
was the "official model" of the debate sponsors.
[8] Bonnie Benard, the resiliency model proponent, spoke first. Benard
works as a prevention researcher at the Center for Drug-Free Schools and
Communities in San Francisco. David Hawkins, the risk-focused proponent,
is professor and director of the Social Development Research Group at the
University of Washington in Seattle. Each had about twenty minutes to speak,
and also fielded questions from the conference participants.
Benard began:
[15] Resiliency is all about relationship.
I will draw on research.
When we talk about strength-based and a spirituality-meaning-centered approach,
that is what resiliency is about.
[19] My belief, which I think started a lot of the debate, is that
resiliency really starts with our own-as adults who work with kids and families
and communities-our own attitudes and beliefs and the way we see other people
and the way we view them in our hearts. I came across this statement from
Ghandi, "You must be the change you wish to see."
We have to model and be what we want kids to be.
[25] It starts with ourselves.
Non-judgmental truthfulness allows us to maintain our authenticity.
It was hard to show up, I was really tempted not to be here. But we all
have to speak our truth.
[Shares a Taoist story with this tag line:] "The first thing you must
do is not improve him, but to improve yourself." And I think that is
the real challenge.
I want to keep this a forum for dialogue.
You are the ones working with kids. What you take away from tonight, you
will construct your own meaning of and do what you damn well please to do.
I applaud you for being here and caring for kids, which everybody here does.
[45] [Benard asked the participants to do an exercise.] Exercise
Question: What keeps you strong in times of stress? What keeps you going?
[Note: it was hard to bring group back to attention.] We never seem to have
enough time to do all the talking we want to.
[Some answers to the exercise from participants: Humor, kids, friends, chocolate,
prayer, perseverance, self-care, belief in what you're doing]
These are not only the things that keep us going, but we know from longitudinal
studies and ethnographic studies of how kids survived adversity and how
they survived trauma; these are exactly the kinds of things that keep kids
going. That fosters their resiliency.
Definition of resiliency (from Robert J. Lifton, The Protean Self: Human
Transformation in Times of Change): "Human resilience is our innate
capacity for transformation and change." This is programmed into all
of us.
Story: A college professor had students go into the Baltimore slums and
do case histories of 200 young boys. In every case students wrote: he hasn't
got a chance. Twenty-five years later, another professor came across the
first study and followed up. Except for twenty who had moved away or died,
176 of the remaining 180 had achieved more than ordinary success as lawyers,
doctors, and businessmen. The professor followed-up further by asking the
men (who had all stayed in the area) how do you account for your success?
In each case, the reply came with feeling, "There was a teacher."
[56] The teacher was still alive, so he sought her out and asked
the old but still alert lady what magic formula she had used to pulled these
boys out of the slums into successful achievement. The teacher's eyes sparkled
and her lips broke into a gentle smile, "It's really very simple,"
she said, "I love those boys."
I think resiliency is really about love, it may sound fluffy, but that's
what's there. That's our challenge. If we are going to evaluate it, we must
learn how to evaluate things like love and caring. That's what we got to
look for.
[63] I think that really illustrates what is in more scientific and
longitudinal studies. The power of caring relationships that convey a sense
of compassion. That convey to a kid that there is really unconditional acceptance.
That you can look beneath acting-out behavior; look beneath the problem,
and realize that there is a gem, and that every kid has a gift.
It is a relationship that conveys respect, high expectations, a belief that
this child, this family, this person, can be all they want to be and that
they can achieve their dream.
If you believe this, you give people a chance to be resources: to solve
the problem themselves. And you give them that opportunity to participate.
[73] Do we really believe this: "That in every child who is
born, under no matter what circumstance and no matter what parents, the
potentiality of the human race is born again." [a quote on her slides.]
That is what we have to look at, that deep, deep, belief.
Strong relationships and opportunities to participate really create belonging.
If I had to say one thing, prevention is really about building in that belonging.
When we do that, we help give kids-and help them get in touch with-a sense
of meaning. They feel like they have a place, their life has a sense of
coherence. They feel that sense of connectedness.
Spiritual connectedness is really what it's about.
[83] How do we make this perspective fit with risk-focused prevention?
My problem is that I think they are very different paradigms. Different
world views, grounded in different assumptions and that they ask different
questions, and essentially advocate different strategies.
In reading Communities That Care [Hawkins is a co-author] I find
this premise: quote: "It is based on a simple premise that in order
to prevent a problem we must find out what factors increase the chance of
that problem's occurrence and then find ways to reduce these risk factors."
[93] The [reasoning is] that if we come to the understanding of a
problem we will then know what to do about it, that if we understand that
poor family management problems lead to problem behaviors-it's all in the
correctional literature-then what does that tell us about what we need to
do? It doesn't tell us a solution to it.
[99] Versus the perspective of a resiliency-focused perspective grounded
in a developmental framework. It is based on human development and on meeting
basic human needs. 'Cause when you look at caring relationships, respect,
participation, we are really talking about basic human needs. Needs we all
have for love, for belonging, for respect, for power. So our question then
becomes, how do we meet the basic needs of kids who really aren't getting
their needs met.
[107] The risk-focused perspective says that resiliency is a genetic
trait of some people. I see it in a very different way: that it's all in
our innate capacity that we all have.
Where do we start from these perspectives? From a risk-focused, which is
more of a problem-focused or pathology paradigm, versus a human development
paradigm, where do we start, where does that tell us we should start in
our endeavors of working with people?
With risk-focused prevention the approach is to identify kids, families,
and communities so they will get extra services.
[119] With the resiliency paradigm-and I think this is a real key
difference-we start with strengths. We start with "what are our strengths
here as a group," whoever we are.
I have a real hard time believing that if we start with risks we are going
to get to the strengths. It's real hard not to label people and not get
into some stereotypes.
[127] If someone is a problem, how can they be a resource, too?
Risk-focused tends to focus more on content. Resiliency perspective is really
looking at the deep processes, the deep structures, that are going on no
matter where we are. Even some of the wonderful programs that risk- focused
prevention might do, some kind of family program or whatever, still for
that program to work you got to focus on the quality of the relationship
and the opportunities for power sharing.
[136] [A quote about changes in schools from Asa Hilliard:] "If
we really want to restructure our schools, we must first look deeply at
the goals that we set for our children and our beliefs that we have about
them. Once we are on the right track there, then we can turn our attention
to the delivery system. As we have begun to do. Untracking is right, mainstreaming
is right, decentralization is right, cooperative learning is right, technology
access for all is right, and multiculturalism is right. But none of these
approaches or strategies will mean anything if the fundamental belief
system does not fit the new structures that are being created."
[146] So, it's at that deeper level, it's not what we do but how
we do it.
Two issues: The issue of predictability. As we know from longitudinal
studies over and over we see a pattern. At least 50 percent, often closer
to 70 percent, of the kids coming from very serious high-risk environments
and trauma and adversity do become "confident, competent, caring adults,"
to use Emmy Warner's words. So that means focusing on what protective factors
bring is a far more predictable approach.
[155] Labeling. My real issue, too, also, is around the whole
issue of labeling. High-risk environments often become blamed communities,
blamed families, and blamed kids. I think what happens is that we end up
situating risk in people instead of in institutions. We don't look at our
schools so much as high risk. We don't look at our national policies, which
are doing far more greater damage by promoting poverty and racism, our two
greatest risk-factors. We are situating risks in people. And we are blaming
them as the cause of the problem that we need to fix.
[164] Basically, we deny people the opportunity to participate which
is a major protective factor.
Resiliency gives us a sense of hope. We can't be the change we want to see
if we don't have hope. Because the most we can give kids is a hope for a
bright future.
[171] [Stanton Peale quote from 1986]: "That the real mission
for those concerned with adolescent drug abuse is to create a cultural climate
that encourages children to value and to achieve independence, adventure,
intimacy, consciousness, activity, fun, self-reliance, health, problem-solving
capacities, and a commitment to the community. There is no better antidote
to drug abuse than an adolescent's belief that the world is a positive place.
That they can accomplish what they want and that they can gain satisfaction
from life."
[181] David Hawkins:
[183] There is so much with Bonnie's presentation with which I agree.
But yet I believe that it is important to use all that we know, and not
just some of what we know in moving forward if we're going to be effective
in preventing substance abuse.
The goal of prevention, in my understanding, is to stop substance abuse
before it starts. How can we best approach that task is our challenge.
[191] [Quoting Fred Garcia:] We must use all the knowledge currently
available to us to move prevention beyond being a movement to being a discipline.
There is and has been developed a discipline of prevention called prevention
science in the last few years in this country. And it has been written about
just in this decade. And that discipline of prevention science is based
on looking at, understanding, and using all the evidence that we can find
about what predicts health and behavior problems and what inhibits the development
of health and behavior problems.
[201] When we are talking about preventing problems before they happen,
we must find a way to intervene in a process that has not yet occurred.
And the best approach for doing that, according to prevention science, is
to identify the things that predict that problem statistically and to seek
to reduce those statistical predictors, and to seek to identify factors
that have been shown to inhibit the problem statistically, and to enhance
those protective factors.
[208] I believe it is incorrect that we cannot keep knowledge of
risk and protective factors in our minds at the same time. In fact, the
research on protective factors and resiliency was part of longitudinal studies
which identified both risk and protective factors and the interaction among
those factors in the etiology of health and behavior problems and in the
etiology of healthy development.
[215] Prevention science began first in cardio-vascular disease prevention.
We know that if you smoke you are at a greater risk for cardio-vascular
disease, and that if you exercise you are at a lower risk. Smoking is a
risk factor; exercising is a protective factor The combination of focusing
on reducing risks and enhancing protective factors has reduced cardio-vascular
disease in America by 42% in the last 30 years.
I would submit to you, that we must use the empirical basis, the knowledge
base that we have, if we are going to be effective in prevention.
[225] I'm not going to belabor you with this except to tell you that
we know from many studies that there are risk factors not only within individuals
but risk factors that exist within schools, within the larger community,
within the norms of the society, within families, within larger social institutions
,that in fact contribute to the probability of substance abuse problems
in our society.
We also know that there are protective factors that have been identified
that appear to inhibit the development of health and behavior problems even
in the presence of exposure to high levels of risk.
[235] There is a distinction between risk factors and risk groups.
Risk factors are simply factors present in the environment or in the individual
that contribute to or enhance that person's likelihood of developing a health
or behavior problem. That is different than risk groups-where we say "those
people" are at high risk. When we talk about high risk in the research
that we do, we are talking about people who by virtue of their experiences
in this society have been exposed to high levels of many risk factors. We
believe that that exposure increases their risk of developing substance
abuse problems and other health and behavior problems, geometrically.
[245] But there are also protective factors. And the protective factors,
as I read the research, have been divided into three types. First, factors
that for the most part have been shown to exist within individuals.
[249] And it is very interesting that when Bonnie and I speak about
resiliency how differently we talk about that word. Because resiliency,
as I read the research of Emmy Werner and Michael Ruther and Norm Gurnsey,
is in fact a characteristic of individuals. That it is a characteristic
of being able to bounce back from difficult situations. To, as Bonnie said
earlier, to be able to be flexible and responsive in situations; to adapt
to new situations. But this is, in the research as I understand it, a characteristic
of individuals.
[257] As is easy sociability, as is intelligence, as is gender. All
of which are individual characteristics. In the research of resiliency,
as I read it, that individual characteristic (1x), which some people have
very naturally, and other people have less of, does appear to inhibit the
development of health and behavior problems among those who have it.
There are also protective factors in the environment. One is this sense
of bonding, emotional closeness, being part of, a social group. Being cared
for by someone and caring about someone.
[267] Finally, healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior-which
exists within the groups that young people become bonded to within the larger
society- turn out to be very important protective factors.
And so, when I read the research, and when I hear about resiliency as the
silver bullet, the single protective factor that will solve our problems,
I become concerned, because I believe that there are multiple protective
factors that are important and that that individual characteristic of resiliency
is one important among them but not the only one.
[277] This is an issue of the norms and standards of society and
it has very little to do with the individual characteristic of resiliency.(2x)
There are young people who don't care about the norms and standards in our
society, there are young people growing up with no sense of commitment to
school. And they don't care if the school has a clear no drug use policy.
They don't feel bonded to school.
[285] Creating the conditions that promote bonding is the second
key essential thing we must do in prevention. We have identified three key
protective factors. This is very similar to what Bonnie is advocating when
she talks about a resiliency based approach. (1) Opportunities for active
involvement are the first protective characteristics that must be present
if we want people to become bonded to a group.
(2) The second characteristic that needs to be present is skills to be successful
in achieving and meeting the opportunities that are provided.
(3) [The third thing that needs to be present:] a consistent system for
recognition and reinforcement of skillful performance.
[296] I would suggest to you that these are particularly important
when youngsters don't come into the world with the special advantage of
a resilient temperament. (3x) When they don't come into the world
with the special advantage of high intelligence. It may be more difficult
for the child who doesn't have an easy sociability and high intelligence
to develop the skills and to recognize opportunities as opportunities and
therefore to become bonded in the classroom of a teacher who doesn't teach
well.
[303] And so I would again submit to you that it is essential that
we not focus simply on instilling characteristics within individuals (4x);
but that we ensure that the social groups that socialize young people in
this society-families, school classrooms, peer groups, groups in the community,
and ultimately our communities themselves-create the conditions that promote
bonding and both healthy beliefs and clear standards for behavior.
[309] I ask you not to simply take my word for this, I ask you to
look at the empirical results of research that my partner and I been doing
since 1981. Youngsters entering the classroom were assigned to the project
group; or served as controls, and received no intervention. [By the end
of the project, there were three conditions: (1) a group of children and
families who received a full six years of intervention; (2) a group only
intervened with during fifth and sixth grade of elementary school, and (3)
the control group which received no interventions. For the two experimental
groups half of the children were living below poverty levels.]
[318] Reducing risk by enhancing protection, it's only two things
to do at the same time. I don't think it is too hard for us to do.
We know poverty puts young people at risk, whether we want to say it or
not, it does!
[322] I want to show you what the results were for children who were
progressing normally-some were dropouts at that time, etc. There were three
conditions: a control group that go not services from the project other
than the regular Seattle School experience; a group that go the intervention
late in their school careers, that is, only in the fifth and sixth grade;
and the full intervention condition that got it for the entire six years
of elementary school. And what I can tell you today with confidence is that
prevention that seeks to reduce risk factors and enhance protective factors
was successful in reducing school problem behaviors of suspension and expulsion
from school, in increasing bonding to school, that is attachment and commitment
to education and increasing academic achievement for all students in that
project six years after the intervention had ended.
[334] In addition we found that although there were not significant
effects on health and behavior problems for children from high income families,
among that half of the sample that came from low income families, there
were significant reductions in the proportion of those who had ever been
delinquent in their lifetime: 76% of the control group vs. 54% of the fully
treated prevention panel. [There were also significant reductions in the
proportion of those who had ever been arrested (32% to 14%) and those who
had ever been in a juvenile facility (24% to 10%. Other findings: lower
sexual activity and lower rates of drug use in the last year)]
[343] These are outcome data; these are not ideas these are results.
Reducing risk and enhancing protective factors has been shown to be effective
in 39 prevention research studies reviewed by the Institute of Medicine
at the National Academy of Science, in the book called Reducing Risks For
Mental Disorders.
It works. Prevention works. Risk- and protective-focused prevention works.
[349] I fear that Bonnie, in advocating for a paradigm shift, is
asking us to throw out or ignore this progress in prevention. She asks us
to ignore all we know about the predictors of substance abuse. And much
about what we know about the protective factors or inhibitors of substance
abuse in order to focus on the single protective factor of resilience. (5x)
Why is that a mistake? First of all, as unpleasant as it is to confront
the fact that exposure to risk factors predicts increased probability of
substance abuse, we must recognize this. We can't allow ourselves to be
in denial simply because it is uncomfortable to confront the facts.
[358] It is like ignoring smoking when we are trying to reduce cardio-vascular
disease and congratulating people for adopting a low-fat diet. We must encourage
people to adopt a low-fat diet and exercise and we must also encourage people
to stop smoking and thereby reduce their risks.
Further, the current evidence we have from substance abuse indicates that
just building protection or resilience isn't enough. We must address and
reduce risks as well.
[365] Even having a large number of protective factors does not insulate
children from substance use if they are exposed to large numbers of risk
factors. We must do both. We must reduce risk and enhance protection if
we want to be effective.
Fred Garcia talked to us this morning about bubble gum packaged like tobacco.
In my judgment, bubble gum packaged like tobacco has very little to do with
resilience and it has a lot to do with the norms of our society, and it
is a risk factor and we have to minimize it or eliminate it.
[373] We know that easy access to guns among urban children is a
risk factor for substance abuse, it has very little to do with resilience.
What I am saying to you is that resilience is only one of several protective
factors that must be strengthened as we also attend to reducing known risk
factors. (6x) Promoting resilience alone is not enough to prevent
health and behavior problems. I would submit to you that for a child born
in poverty, in a neighborhood where using and selling drugs is the norm,
a resilient response is to become a drug dealer.
We must do more that promote resilient responses in individuals. (7x)
[382] I fear that focusing simply on resilience is like saying "Victim
heal thyself. Be resilient in the face of risks." We think we must
encourage resilience within individuals, but we also reduce risks in their
environments. We can't ignore the societal contributions to risks.
[386] The third reason I think it is misguided to only focus on enhancing
resiliency, is that if there are no risk factors, that if we are going to
be blind to risks, then all communities, then all individuals, should receive
an equal amount of preventive attention. Universal prevention is the only
thing to do. There's no reason to focus prevention, and no way to allocate
resources. Everyone should be resilient. We need to be able to provide resources
to those populations which have been exposed to multiple risk factors during
development. And insure that prevention resource are differentially available
and available in higher levels to those populations.
[395] Fourth, we do not have empirical evidence of the type that
I just showed you that shows us and proves to us that resilience can be
created in individuals. (8x) I want to believe that it can. I am
looking forward to the studies that we can, in fact, show that resilience
is a malleable characteristic and can be changed so that people can be made
more resilient. But today we do not have that evidence. We do have evidence
that risk factors can be reduced, that protective factors can be enhanced
and substance use and other health and behavior problems will be reduced
as a result.
[403] Finally, I am concerned that the new emphasis on a "paradigm
shift" is creating divisions where none need to be. The paradigm of
risk and protective factor prevention has encompassed resiliency from the
beginning. I think we should avoid the very kind of labeling that we criticize
in others. I think we should stop characterizing one approach as being negative,
and another approach, resiliency-focused, as being positive; and describe
accurately what goes on in risk and protective focused programs rather than
creating straw people against whom we can argue.
[411] We've got to come together as a fieldThey're laughing at us
up in Congress, because we are like the leftists in the sixties, arguing
among ourselves about small differences of opinion in wording and telling
each other that it requires a paradigm shift. In fact we have to be about
the business of using everything we know to do the best job we can and enhance
protection against substance abuse in our society.
[418] Comments from the floor:
[420] Woman #1: Risk seems to be the tool to evaluation, resiliency
is where we put our minds and our hearts to facilitate the process of change
and empowerment. The third 'R' is the outcome, which is reaching our vision.
Our personal vision and our community vision. And David, you did that with
your program.
[426] Man #1: I value both of you taking the risk to go head to head,
with sharing your views on what works and where the field should be going.
And I also believe that this is a very resilient group right here to hold
the tension of the two views and personally struggling with it and trying
to say what makes sense and what works. We shouldn't let our theories become
stagnant. I don't feel stagnant tonight at all. I believe that if we go
into this dialogue and discussion with an emphasis on what we can learn
from each other, that we're going to come out of this much stronger as a
field.
[435] Woman #2: My table was wondering if whether both of you have
the same independent variables, really. The difference is in your dependent
variables. Where, David, your dependent variable is a little bit death,
disease, and destruction. Just a little bit, though. And Bonnie's dependent
variables are peace and happiness.
[One difference would affect evaluation of programs-will evaluation look
at negative or positive outcomes?] The practitioners at my table felt it
was important to work from the positive dependent variable because if they
do the negative thing, it's the labeling problem, and so on.
[445] Hawkins: [in 1983 when I was funded by the office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention], we called it then "caused-focused"
prevention. We borrowed and moved to the public health language to describe
those "risk factors" because we thought it was more honest and
accurate to what the data said about those predictors that we were seeking
to reduce.
[451] Woman #3: One of the greatest dangers we have in the field
is to say this is the model, this is the paradigm shift I'm going to go
for. I don't think the differences are a conflict at all, it just gives
me more on the menu. I think they can co-exist.
[456] Man #2: I don't think a paradigm shift is needed at all because
the risk and protective factors are broad enough to encompass resiliency.
[459] Woman #4: From what Bonnie is talking about, too many services
for too many kids, while David is focusing on getting services to kids who
really need it. If I were a funder and I was listening to both presentation.
I would say David has the figures to back up what he's saying, but Bonnie
sounds lovely but I don't know what it's going to do. David, does it make
a difference who (in terms of race identity) provides the services?
[466] Hawkins: It absolutely makes a difference who is providing
the services. We know that to be effective, prevention programs and services
have to be acceptable to the population. Before they can be effective they
have to be acceptableI think that services provided by someone that people
can identify with, that people can bond to, that people can develop that
sense of commitment and attachment to. [interrupted from the floor, "does
cultural sensitivity make a difference"]. Cultural sensitivity and
cultural competence is fundamental.
[474] Benard: Sensitivity and listening works, may not matter as
much as racial identity. It was the qualities of relationship and opportunities
to participate which helped the young people get out of gangs, etc.
[478] Man #3: The risk and protective factor model has moved us in
my area out of labeling and blaming. Instead of looking at the individual
youth as being the problem we looked at what can we do in the environment
to make it better for them. Instead of blaming the student for a lack of
commitment to school, we asked ourselves what could we incorporate in the
school that would raise their level of commitment, which is give them more
authority over their own learning experience.
[486] Man #4: In my communities, David, you have done a nice job
of helping our communities break down denial. To allow that we do in fact
have problems, that they aren't just the big city problems. When you focus
on a risk factor strategy as you've done that has been really useful.
[491] Bonnie, people have been presented with the risk factors. People
were all inspired and went out to do something. But they stopped to think,
well, we know the risks, what do we do? That's where your piece has been
so valuable, as well as David's protective factors. When you talk about
caring and support, meaningful participation, high expectations/respect,
Bonnie, what you've done is to cause a variety of community groups to sit
down and say, "Oh gee whiz, we're the Boy Scouts. Are we providing
caring and support? Are we doing meaningful participation/high expectations
for our young people?" We looked at what you talk about related to
resiliency and we said, "Gee whiz, we may or may not be in fact a protective
factor." Just the fact that you work with youth is no guarantee that
you're a protective factor. What I think is so rich in the discussion around
resiliency and protective factors is in fact getting people to look and
say "What is it that we are doing with our young people? What is it
that we are doing in our communities? Is that in fact fostering what it
is that kids need?"
[507] David, in your definition of resiliency as an individual characteristic,
I would say from experience working with small children, that I believe
in fact there is research out there that would support that there are a
number of resiliency skills which you can in fact teach children. That if
we are just under the belief that you are born with it, that doesn't provide
a sense of hope in the future, if you're either born with it or you don't
have it. I believe that it can be taught.
THE END
Bibliography
Texts
American Research Foundation. (1985).Focus Groups: Issues and Approaches.
New York: American Research Foundation, Inc.
Anguinis, Herman. (1994). Action Research and Scientific Method: Presumed
Discrepancies and Actual Similarities. In Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 29(4):416-431.
Argyris, Chris, and Schön, Donald. (1978). Organizational Learning:
A Theory of Action Perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arendt, Hannah. (1977). Reflections: Thinking. In The New Yorker, Part I:
November 21, pp. 65-140; Part II: November 28, pp. 114-163, and Part III:
December 5, pp. 135-216.
Barrett, William. (1979). The Illusion of Technique: A Search for Meaning
in a Technological Civilization. Garden City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Benard, Bonnie. (1994). Applications of Resilience: Possibilities and Promise.
Unpublished paper prepared for the Conference on Resilience in Drug Abuse,
Alcohol Abuse and Mental Illness in Washington, DC. 38 pages.
Bower, Bruce. (1997). Alcoholics Synonymous: Heavy Drinkers of all Stripes
get Comparable Help from a Variety of Therapies. In Science News, 151(4,
1/25/97):62-63.
Brown, Joel H. Caston, Marianne D. (1995). On Becoming "At-Risk"
Through Drug Education: How Symbolic Policies and Their Practices Affect
Students. In Evaluation Review, 19(4):451-492.
Buber, Martin. (1988). The Knowledge of Man: Selected Essays. Atlantic Highlands,
NJ: Humanities Press International.
Caplan, Gerald. (1964). Principles of Preventive Psychiatry. New York: Basic
Books.
Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. (1993). Prevention Primer: An Encyclopedia
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug Prevention Terms. Rockville, MD: National
Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information.
Creswell, John W. (1994). Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Crocker, Olga L., Charney, Syril, and Chiu, Johnny Sik Leung. (1984). Quality
Circles: A Guide to Participation and Productivity. New York: New American
Library.
Dewey, John. (1969, originally 1927). The Search for the Great Community.
In Minar, David W., and Greer, Scott, editors. The Concept of Community.
Chicago: Aldine, pp. 333-338.
Fearnside, W. Ward, and Holther, William B. (1959). Fallacy: The Counterfeit
of Argument. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Fritschler, A. Lee. (1975). Smoking and Politics. Second edition. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Harrison, John F. C., editor. (1968) Utopianism and Education: Robert Owen
and the Owenites. Classics in Education No. 37. New York: Columbia University
Teachers College Press.
Haylett, H.T. Jr. (1968). Statistics Made Simple. Garden City, NY: Made
Simple Books (Doubleday).
Hult, Christine. (1986). Research and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach.
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.
Humphries, Beth, and Truman, Carole, editors. (1994). Re-Thinking social
Research: Anti-Discriminatory Approaches to Research Methodology. Brookfield,
VT: Avebury.
Janis, Irving L., and Mann, Leon. (1977). Decision Making. New York: Free
Press.
Juster, Norton. (1961). The Phantom Tollbooth. New York: Random House.
Kranzler, Gerald D. (1982). Statistics for the Terrified. Eugene, OR: by
the author.
Lakoff, George, and Johnson, Mark. (1980). Metaphors we Live By. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Langley, Russell. (1970).Practical Statistics: Simply Explained. New York:
Dover.
Lawler, E.E. (1985). Doing Research that is Useful in Theory and Practice.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Lewin, Kurt. (1947a). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concepts, Methods and
Reality in Social Science: Social Equilibrium and Social Change. Human Relations,
1(1):5-41.
Lewin, Kurt. (1947b). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Channels of Group Life:
Social Planning and Action Research. Human Relations, 1(2):143-153.
Lynch, Barbara S., and Bonnie, Richard J., editors. (1994). Growing Up Tobacco
Free: Preventing Nicotine Addiction in Children and Youth. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Martin, Marion. (1994). Developing A Feminist Participative Research Framework:
Evaluating the Process. In Humphries, Beth, and Truman, Carole, editors.
(1994). Re-Thinking social Research: Anti-Discriminatory Approaches to Research
Methodology. Brookfield, VT: Avebury, pp. 123-145.
Minar, David W., and Greer, Scott, editors. (1969). The Concepts of Community:
Readings with Interpretations. Chicago: Aldine.
Minnich, Elizabeth. (1990). Transforming Knowledge. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press.
Misler, Elliot G. (1986). Research Interviewing: Context and Narrative.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moynihan, Daniel Patrick. (1996). Miles to Go: A Personal History of Social
Policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moustakas, Clark. (1990). Heuristic Research: Design, Methodology, and Applications.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Moustakas, Clark. (1994). Phenomenological Research Methods. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
MY Health Project Illustrates Risk-Focused Prevention. (1996). In University
of Washington School of Social Work Forum, 17(3, Autumn): 2-5.
Neustadt, Richard E., and May, Ernest R. (1986). Thinking in Time: The Uses
of History for Decision-Makers. New York: The Free Press.
Parchment, Winsome, Weiss, Gerson, and Passannante, Marian R. (1996). Is
the Lack of Health Insurance the Major Barrier to Early Prenatal Care at
an Inner-City Hospital? Women's Health, 6(2):97-105.
Park, Peter, et al, editors. (1993). Voices of Change: Participatory Research
in The United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.
Patton, Michael Q. (1990). Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods.
Second Edition. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Pethia, Robert F. (1980). The Case for a Multi-Variate Treatment of Situational
Diversity, Complexity and Change and Relatedness in Studies of Organizational
Design. Austin, TX: Graduate School of Business:
Pettigrew, A.M. (1987). Context and Action in the Transformation of the
Firm. Journal of Management Studies, 24:6:649-70.
Popper, Karl. (1965). Conjectures and Refutation: The Growth of Scientific
Knowledge. New York: Harper and Row.
Reason, Peter, ed. (1995). Participation in Human Inquiry. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage Publications.
Risk, Protection-focused Prevention Programs Address Issues of Youth Violence.
In University of Washington School of Social Work Forum, 17(3, Autumn):
1-2.
Selener, Julio Daniel. (1992). Participatory Action Research and Social
Change: Approaches and Critique. Unpublished dissertation. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University.
Soros, George. (1997). The Capitalist Threat. In The Atlantic Monthly, February,
1997: 45-58.
Spector, Malcolm, and Kitsuse, John I, (1977). Constructing Social Problems.
Menlo Park, CA: Cummings Publishing Company. UWSWlib HN 29 S674
Stanfield, John H. II, and Dennis, Rutledge M., editors. (1993). Race and
Ethnicity in Research Methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. UWswLIB
GN 496 R33
Stewart, David W., and Shamdasani, Prem N. (1990). Focus Groups: Theory
and Practice. Applied Social Research Method Series, Volume 20. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Tobler, Nancy S., and Stratton, Howard. (1995). Effectiveness of School-Based
Drug Prevention Programs: A Meta-Analysis of the Research. Unpublished paper
presented at the Eighth Annual National Prevention Network Conference in
Stevenson, WA. 18 pages.
Washington State Department of Health. (1994). Appendix B: Guidelines for
Data Development in Key Public Health Problems. In Public Health Improvement
Plan. Olympia, WA: Washington State Department of Health.
Weaver, Warren. (1963). Lady Luck: The Theory of Probability. Garden City,
NY: Anchor Books.
Williams, Frederick. (1986). Reasoning with Statistics: How to Read Quantitative
Research. Third Edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wolcott, Harry F. (1990). Writing Up Qualitative Research. Qualitative Research
Methods Series, Volume 20. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Wolfe, Richard. (May 1994). Organizational Innovation: Review, Critique
and Suggested Research Directions. Journal of Management Studies, 31(3):405-431.
Yow, Valerie Raleigh. (1994). Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide
for Social Scientists. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. UWtacoma D 14
Y69
Zuñiga-Urrutia, Ximena. (1992).Views and Issues in Action Research.
Unpublished dissertation. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Video
Against All Odds: Inside Statistics. (1989). 26 segments, 30 minutes each.
Produced for Anneberg/CPB Collection. Santa Barbara, CA: Intellimation.
Tapes
Benard, Bonnie, and Hawkins, David. (1995). Resiliency vs. Risk-Protective
Factors. Debate at the 1995 National Prevention Network Conference. Stevenson,
WA.
Emshoff, James. (1995). The National Structured Evaluation of Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Prevention: Review of 633 Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drug Prevention
Modules. Presented at the 1995 National Prevention Network Conference. Stevenson,
WA.
Internet
Bernard, Bonnie. (1996). From Research to Practice. In Resiliency In Action,
Winter 1996 Premiere Issue. Available 1/7/97 at: http://www.resiliency.com.
Brown, Joel H., et al. (1995). Student and Educators Evaluate School-Based
Drug, Alcohol, and Tobacco, Education (DATE) Programs. Available 2/3/97
at: http://www.soros.org/lindesmith/tlcbrow.html.
McGillis, Daniel. (1996). Beacons of Hope: New York City's School-Based
Community Centers. Available 2/3/97 at: http://www.ncjrs.org-/txtfiles/beacons.txt.
Milgram, Stanley, (1974). The Perils of Obedience. Available 2/21/97 at:
http://jmcneil.sba.muohio.edu/Private/PerilsofObedience_Private.html.
Proceedings of the Life Education International Drug Prevention Symposium
(1994). Available 2/6/97 at: http://www.lec.org/Symposium/.
Soros, George (1995). A Failed Philosopher Tries Again. Speech text. Available
2/6/97 at: http://www.soros.org.mk/osi/soros/en/patocka.htm.
U.S. Government Office of Technology Assessment. (1994). Technologies for
Understanding and Preventing Substance Abuse and Addiction. Available 2/3/97
at: http://206.61.184.43/schaffer/LIBRARY/studies/ota/ch1.htm.
GOTO:
Speaking of Numbers
Presearch
Excerpted Portions of Hawkins/Benard Discussion (w/
bibliography)