If the recent global demographic movements, including refugee movements from Syria and North Africa to Europe, illegal immigrants from Central America to the United States, and fleeing Rohingya Muslims from Burma to Bangladesh, have taught us anything, it is that we are still very much entrenched in “us” and “them” narratives. In fact, these demographic movements have brought to the fore what was probably already there—a deep mistrust of “them,” filtered through racism, hate speech, and damage-based understandings of the other. This is our country, our community, our neighborhood, and they better acknowledge that by behaving our way, following our traditions, and becoming Us (pending our decision that these efforts have been sufficient). It is an ugly narrative, one that has often given rise to violence. Both historically and currently, political leadership has, in many cases, actively contributed to the mayhem; certainly the contemporary narrative feeds off well-embedded resentments and ideological positions in civil society. The much-taunted grassroots, which were associated with progressive and forward-looking ideas not so long ago, turned out to also exist as reactionary, small-minded, and often racist social groups. We have written on this phenomenon in previous editorials; our intention here is to consider its manifestation in research on children and youth and most specifically on intervention research in child and youth services. Despite the best intentions, much of this research is damage-focused; it sets out to articulate the problems of specific groups of young people, families, or communities and to evaluate the professional interventions designed to mitigate such problems. In the process, we are building a body of knowledge and constructing a narrative about these groups as damaged. This observation has been made particularly eloquently by Eve Tuck (2009), who, positioned as an Indigenous person in the northeastern United States, wrote about damaged-centered research nearly 10 years ago in the Harvard Educational Review. Tuck asked us to “consider the long-term implications of thinking of ourselves as broken” (p. 409). In her powerful letter to the research community, she pointed out that research documenting damage and then highlighting interventions constitutes yet another form of surveillance; in the context of young people, such research asks the question, what are they up to and how can we fix them? Tuck’s argument is more than a call for strength-based perspectives to be integrated into research; it is a call for ensuring we don’t inadvertently construct damaged “others,” a narrative that turns out to be very difficult to escape. These days, we are finding quite a lot of research is unfolding with respect to young people focused on specific, often one-dimensional identity markers; there are research findings with respect to trans youth, racialized youth, queer youth, street-involved youth, gang-involved youth, and so on. Very often, such research seeks to highlight the damaged context of life that unfolds within these groups of young people. At the very least, research tends to start from this deficit orientation; queer young people are labeled as uniformly “at risk,” and then research moves forward to investigate how to mitigate this risk. We explore interventions, almost always designed and carried out by

中文翻译：

---

在“我们”和“他们”的世界中：反对以干预为重点的研究的案例

如果最近的全球人口流动，包括从叙利亚和北非到欧洲的难民流动，从中美洲到美国的非法移民，以及从缅甸逃往孟加拉的罗兴亚穆斯林，教会了我们什么，那就是我们仍然非常在“我们”和“他们”的叙述中根深蒂固。事实上，这些人口运动已经凸显了可能已经存在的东西——对“他们”的深深不信任，通过种族主义、仇恨言论和基于损害的对他人的理解过滤。这是我们的国家、我们的社区、我们的社区，他们通过按照我们的方式行事、遵循我们的传统并成为我们（等待我们决定这些努力是否足够）来更好地承认这一点。这是一种丑陋的叙述，经常引起暴力。无论是历史上还是现在，在许多情况下，政治领导层积极助长了混乱；当然，当代叙事以公民社会中根深蒂固的怨恨和意识形态立场为生。不久前还与进步和前瞻性思想联系在一起的备受嘲讽的草根，结果证明也存在反动、心胸狭窄、往往是种族主义的社会群体。我们在之前的社论中已经写过这种现象；我们在这里的目的是考虑它在儿童和青年研究中的表现，尤其是在儿童和青年服务的干预研究中。尽管有最好的意图，但大部分研究都是以损害为重点的。它着手阐明特定青年群体、家庭、或社区，并评估旨在缓解此类问题的专业干预措施。在这个过程中，我们正在建立一个知识体系，并构建关于这些受损群体的叙述。Eve Tuck（2009 年）特别雄辩地提出了这一观察，他定位为美国东北部的土著人，近 10 年前在《哈佛教育评论》上写到了以受损为中心的研究。塔克要求我们“考虑认为自己已经破碎的长期影响”（第 409 页）。在她给研究界的强有力的信中，她指出研究记录损害，然后强调干预措施构成了另一种形式的监督；在年轻人的背景下，这样的研究提出了一个问题，他们在做什么，我们该如何解决？塔克的论点不仅仅是呼吁将基于实力的观点纳入研究；它呼吁确保我们不会无意中构建受损的“其他人”，事实证明这是很难逃脱的叙述。这些天，我们发现很多关于年轻人的研究正在展开，这些研究专注于特定的，通常是一维的身份标记；有关于跨性别青年、种族青年、酷儿青年、街头青年、帮派青年等的研究结果。很多时候，这样的研究试图强调在这些年轻人群体中展开的受损的生活环境。至少，研究往往是从这种赤字取向开始的；酷儿年轻人被统一标记为“处于危险之中，”然后继续研究以调查如何减轻这种风险。我们探索几乎总是由以下人员设计和实施的干预措施