This is a Research-in-Practice (RiP) project. RiP is conducted by practitioners about their own teaching situation. In their study of the state of and potential for Adult Literacy Research in Practice in Canada, Jenny Horsman and Helen Woodrow (2007) say: “Unlike other research processes RiP captures, from practitioner experience and knowledge, detailed evidence about what works and what does not in ways that can most effectively improve literacy practice ” (p. 6). In an earlier study, Horsman and Mary Norton (1999) say, “the value of research in practice must be recognized for its potential to improve literacy practice, supporting the field in developing and changing and exploring new directions and possibilities” (p. 20).
This approach to doing research seems particularly fitting for the topic of Harm Reduction. Both RiP and Harm Reduction challenge traditional ways of working and ways of knowing - and whose knowledge matters. Both are, fundamentally, about respecting people on the ground: valuing their expertise and validating knowledge that is learned through experience and practice. Harm Reduction challenges the “abstinence only” approach to working with participants — both in health and education — while RiP challenges notions that all the expertise is housed in universities. As Susan Lytle (1997: 2) observes, "When teachers systematically and intentionally inquire into their practice, often in concert with colleagues, they value and draw on their own ways of seeing and knowing”.
In Part One of the report, we describe the literature on Harm Reduction work with injection drug users and sex trade workers, also briefly touching on psychological and clinical literature on the roots of addiction and how long-term drug use or trauma affects certain neurological functions. We also discuss reports on literacy work with homeless people, women in conflict with the law and survivors of violence. This focus on the literature is in keeping with a view that Research in Practice is not just about practitioners doing research, but also reading research and applying it to practice (Horsman & Norton, 1999; Horsman & Woodrow, 2007). We use the literature to check for congruence between literacy and Harm Reduction practice and to see how we can improve our educational work using Harm Reduction principles. The literature helped us to “see things in a different way” (Horsman & Woodrow, 2007: 7).
Part Two of the report describes the research we conducted about our practice with street-involved people at WISH and the Lifeskills Centre.
We conclude the report with Part Three, a summary of the research and concluding comments about: