A brancura, o silencio e a sombra

PAR was the choice of approach for this research. Rather than undertaking research independent of the practical end user (i.e. council staff), which could lead to results that have no support or are not able to be implemented, the PAR approach involves

councils with the research (Cameron, 2007), promotes engagement and subsequent implementation and use of concepts provided, and benefits future risk reduction initiatives. The Councils acknowledged how well this approach worked for them, as they learned along the way. Since undertaking this research, two positive outcomes of this approach have surfaced: the approach outlined in Chapter 6 has been included in the Proposed Bay of Plenty RPS; and the Thames-Coromandel District Plan

Committee are considering this approach in their district plan review. Using the PAR approach gained support from the councils for this research, rather than the ‘traditional’ approach of research scientists undertaking research siloed from the people who could benefit from the research. Munford and Sanders (2003, p263), state that action

research stems from:

…the idea that research should do more than understand the world: it should help change it

… the goal of action research is to improve the situation.

This was the aim of this research – to improve risk reduction via land-use planning. According to (Greenwood & Levin, 2007, p3-4), action research is:

… social research carried out by a team that encompasses a professional action researcher and the members of an organisation, community, or network (“stakeholders”) who are seeking to improve the participants’ situation. AR [action research] promotes broad participation in the research process and supports action leading to a more just, sustainable, or satisfying situation for the stakeholders ... together, the professional researcher and the stakeholders define the problems to be examined, cogenerate relevant knowledge about them, learn and execute social research techniques, take actions, and interpret the results of actions based on what they have learned.

This was the philosophy used for this research. Cameron (2007) describes three types of PAR, as shown in Table 3.1. Of these PAR approaches, types II and III were utilised in this research, i.e. researching for and with councils.

Table 3.1 Three types of participatory action research (Cameron, 2007, p207)

Main Characteristics Main Challenges

PAR type I:

liberatory projects •

Research undertaken with oppressed groups and exploited groups

• Aims to transform people's day-to-

day lives

• Often based on opposing (or

exposing) the oppressive and exploitative practices of institutions

• How do researchers best

work with oppressed and exploited groups?

• How can findings be used to

change institutional practices?

PAR type II: researching for institutions

• Research undertaken on behalf of

institutions.

• Aims to produce insights and

recommendations for institutions to respond to.

• How do researchers retain

the liberatory potential of PAR?

• How do researchers ensure

that institutions act on findings?

PAR type III: researching with institutions

• Representatives from institutions

participate as co-researchers. • Aims to build institutional

commitment to act on findings

• How do researchers

negotiate institutional cultures?

• How do researchers ensure

that institutions act on findings?

Having members of institutions participate as co-researchers along with other

participant groups, has been one way to address the challenge of getting institutions to act on recommendations, and can generate transformations for those involved and for the institutions themselves (Cameron, 2007). It was the focus of this research so that 1) the research would have benefit for councils and would fill a gap in their knowledge; and 2) any findings and subsequent recommendations would have buy-in from councils to enable them to act. This research fits the criteria outlined by Munford and Sanders (2003), Greenwood and Levin (2007) and Cameron (2007), in that Chapter 6 outlines an innovative risk governance framework for improving the management of natural hazards through land-use planning. The risk-based approach was designed and developed using participatory action research with regional council and territorial authority planning and emergency management staff.

While there is no fixed formula for designing, practicing, and implementing PAR projects, nor one overriding theoretical framework that underpins PAR processes (McIntyre, 2008), there are ‘spirals’ of action which present a basic methodology. In

1988, Kemmis and McTaggart published their action research spiral; this has three main steps which repeat: to plan, act and observe, and reflect. These three steps are included and built on by McIntyre (2008), who presents PAR as a recursive process that involves a spiral of adaptable steps that include the following:

• Questioning a particular issue;

• Reflecting upon and investigating the issue;

• Developing an action plan; and

• Implementing and refining said plan.

While there is some variation in action research models, each involves the same core activities. Any action research project requires several practical steps (Hinchey, 2008, p52):

• Developing a question;

• Formulating a research plan;

• Systematically collecting data;

• Analysing the data;

• Developing and implementing an action plan; and

• Recording the project in writing

Many models additionally suggest sharing the study with others.

The research continued to change focus as it progressed. First, it looked at innovative land-use planning for natural hazard risk reduction. This then shifted towards

innovative risk governance, as it became apparent that effective risk reduction cannot become reality unless there is a supporting risk governance framework operating. This change of focus resulted in the research direction (aim, objectives) being redesigned to incorporate the risk governance framework that was developed.

This research is based on a combination of both the McIntyre (2008) and Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) spirals, and steps from Hinchey (2008). To reflect this integration, the steps taken for the research are summarised in Table 3.2 below:

Table 3.2 Summary of PAR steps employed in this research

STEP ACTION OUTCOME

Question Question, reflect How can the existing risk-based land-use

planning framework be improved to

encourage better decision making for natural hazard risk reduction?

Plan Develop a research

plan, investigate, reflect

Develop a research strategy – case study, interviews, workshops, selection of case study and participants.

Act and observe Implement plan,

observe, analyse

Undertake case study policy plan review and interviews; content analysis of results.

Reflect Reflect, review,

investigations, more questions …

Reflect on results of above, review thinking, investigate more supporting literature, questions raised on implications of findings on risk reduction

Plan Investigate, reflect,

develop a research plan

Develop strategy for developing risk-based framework. Investigate what existing guidance is available (nationally and internationally) on risk-based approach to natural hazard planning.

Act and observe Implement plan,

observe, analyse

Develop draft framework, workshop draft findings, analyse feedback from workshop.

Reflect Reflect, review,

investigations, more questions …

Reflect on workshop feedback, review draft framework incorporating feedback, further investigations required into approach.

Plan Investigate, reflect,

amend research plan

Second workshop to review draft framework. Reflect on workshop results, review

framework

Act and observe Implement plan,

observe, analyse

Continue to further develop framework, send final draft to Council staff for their feedback

Reflect Reflect, review, Reflect on feedback, review framework in

STEP ACTION OUTCOME

Record Record project This thesis; project report for EQC.

When developing a question for action research, Kemmis & McTaggart (1988) suggest the following format for the first round of questioning: ‘We intend to do X with a view of improving Y’. This format is recommended for three reasons:

1. It implies some shared understanding of what is happening already;

2. It assumes that improvement can be monitored in some way; and

3. It envisages an evolution of understanding in concert with the improvement of practice as collective action is implemented and refined in practice (Kemmis & McTaggart, 1988).

In light of this guidance, the following question was formulated for the PAR methodology: How can the existing risk-based land-use planning framework be improved to encourage better decision making for natural hazard risk reduction?

The purpose of this question was to ascertain if there was another way of incorporating risk management for natural hazards into land-use planning. The question

acknowledges there is an existing risk-based framework; it assumes this existing framework can be improved; and envisages an improvement in decision making

practice as the framework is implemented across New Zealand. It relates to the overall research question provided in Chapter 1 in that the results provide an innovative

framework for land-use planning which will enable risks from natural hazards to be reduced.

Critical to the completion of action research are relationships, and often the quality of the data gathered is a direct result trust and the quality of the relationships between researcher and participants (Munford & Sanders, 2003). The author was fortunate in this instance that relationships were already developed with staff at the selected councils through existing professional linkages. This existing relationship and trust between staff assisted in recommending other contacts (i.e. for interviews), and with the uptake and understanding of the concepts being developed. One potential issue with the PAR approach is that can be more time consuming for those involved (i.e. interview time, reviewing transcripts, reviewing draft findings) and expensive (i.e. cost

of travel for researcher for interviews and workshops, time cost). However, overall the PAR process built trust between researcher and participants, which has resulted in a positive and continuing relationship with many council staff involved.

2.1 Ethical procedures of approach

Institutional review boards are required to ensure ethical informed consent is gained for research with human participants (Berg, 2007). At Massey University, this requirement is met via the Massey University Human Ethics Committee. As such, the ethical procedures of Massey University were followed for this research. This included the completion of a low-risk assessment form, an information sheet on the research for participants, and a participant consent form. The information sheet and participant consent forms were completed in the Massey University ethical format (see Appendix 1).

Interviews and some workshops were recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were sent to participants for their confirmation of their being a true and correct record, and provided the opportunity to edit the transcript if required (often to make sentences flow). Some requests by participants were made to review the use of content. The transcriber also signed confidentiality agreement.

No conflicts of interest were identified in my roles of GNS employee and student researcher. However, as a staff member of GNS Science, GNS Science was accountable and liable for my research methodology, subsequent findings and any publications.

In document TítuloA obra poética de Miguel Anxo Fernán Vello (página 182-189)