Critical theory appears unpopular probably due to its ideological biases, as argued by Pease, Form, and Rytina (1970). Liebert and Imershein (1977) similarly state that a common theoretical tendency in community research is a “political theme that tends to find the greatest effectiveness and power, and indeed the most universal power structure, to reside in a certain organized diversity, a pluralist state of subsystems within an integrated system of elites” (pp. 191-192). The primary purpose of critical theory, as James Bohman (2005) observes, is to counter oppression. This theory has not only been used to incorporate the best tools but, more importantly, to criticize what is happening in the research context. Since the community studied is Bautista, a resettlement area and which has an existing power structure, a critical analysis and decision-making approach was adapted using case study design to examine the locale. Critical theory questions structures and assumes that science is objective and “value-free”. Its goal is the emancipation of people from domination (Quebral, 1992 as cited in Drilon, 1998). Critical theorists such as Karl Marx and Jürgen Habermas are critical of unequal social conditions, especially groups that are excluded from power or free access to information. Therefore, critical theorists do more than observe, interpret, or describe; power structure, this theory has helped the researcher by asking who benefits from the unequal distribution of power and who is being taken advantage of by focusing on the issue of community, critical scholars have focused on the role of communication in society and the control of communication… center of paper… cal dimension” of his work (Dreyfus & Rabinow, 1982, p. 114). He argues that power and knowledge are not external to each other, but that they operate reciprocally generative, since "nothing can exist as an element of knowledge if [...] it does not possess coercive effects" and as "nothing can function as a mechanism of power if it is not deployed according to procedures, tools, means and objectives that can be validated in systems of more or less coherent knowledge” (Foucault, 1997, p. 52). Thus, instead of studying knowledge and power separately, it is “the knowledge power nexus” that must be described to understand the acceptability of the knowledge power system (p. 53). It is necessary to analyze the connections between power and knowledge to discover why a certain "regime of truth" has become acceptable in a given historical moment.