Evidencias científicas que fortalecen el estudio

Reflective dialogues, counternarratives, and storytelling are key research tools and teaching- learning methods in most indigenous-youth-development programs. Using a conceptual framework of mediated action theory Duncan (1996) analyzes the discourses of six Black high-

school students that connect the concepts of “space,” “place,” and “race.” She states that reflective dialogue “is shown to contribute to the pool of conceptual and material tools that enable youth to mediate development” (p. 147). Farnsworth (2010) acknowledges the

importance of dialogue in teacher education for promoting culturally responsive teaching and community-based learning. Freire (1990) also emphasizes the centrality of dialogue in human experience and relates “utterance” to the social and material contexts within which it occurs. He states that “[authentic] dialogue creates a critical attitude (Jaspers). It is nourished by love, humility, hope, faith, and trust” (1973, p. 45). Apropos, he cites Jaspers:

Dialogue is the only way, not only in the vital questions of the political order, but in all the expressions of our being. Only by virtue of faith, however, does dialogue have power and meaning: by faith in man and his possibilities, by the faith that I can only become truly myself when other men also become themselves. (Karl Jaspers, as cited in Freire, 1973, p. 45)

Habermas’s concept of communicative action also provides a way of highlighting the importance of dialogue in attaining sustainable rural development (Sumner, 2005). Sumner (2005) claims that dialogue that is based on “communicative rationality” and aims to achieve sustainability can counter colonization of the life-world by creating opportunities for community members to participate in building their own well-being and sustainability.

Indigenous youth development/empowerment programs which use theoretical

frameworks such as critical pedagogy, critical race theory, or critical pedagogy of place employ counter-narratives and storytelling as a method of naming one’s reality. According to McKay (2010), storytelling and counter-narratives in critical race theory “provide a context by which to convey, understand and transform established oppressive belief systems” (p. 30). He further observes that:

[T]he learner’s voice (i.e., storytelling and counternarratives) is critical to any movement of resistance. The use of critical pedagogy and critical race theory

gives permission to embrace their counternarratives…. Furthermore, acknowledging the power of voice, counternarratives can deconstruct demoralizing learned curriculum and reconstruct a curriculum that gives utterance to silenced consciousness. (2010, p, 36)

Rubinstein-Avila (2006) acknowledges the importance of individual and community stories in a community-based education model; this model was developed for Native American students and tested in Pueblo communities of the southwest United States. She states that:

“Findings underscore that rather than creating opportunities for urban youths to “escape” from their communities, youth programs ought to encourage youths to “read their world” as Freire advocates – encourage youths to delve in critical exploration of their communities from the inside out. By supporting participating youths to inquire, reflect upon, write, and rewrite their communities’ past, present, and especially future, their stories and the stories of their communities are no longer individual stories; they become “connected . . . to larger patterns of domination and resistance in a multicultural, global society” (Gruenewald 2003:5)”. (2006, p. 269)

Cajete (1994) also expresses storytelling as one of the foundational characteristics of indigenous education. He states that “Story, expressed through experience, myths, parables, and various forms of metaphor is an essential vehicle of indigenous learning” (p. 30).

4

Research Methodology

This study examines the perceptions and experiences of twenty-one IDSP stakeholders pertinent to their learning in ADP courses and to their practices in the field. I aimed to understand the “change” or “transformation” of young community-development workers who belonged to marginalized traditional communities. Their critical views, notable confidence, and

emancipatory actions have challenged my existing perceptions about people of traditional communities. Accordingly, I wanted to understand the transformative learning process

experienced by ADP students as well as the consequences of their transformation in the forms of benefits and challenges they are facing by living in the slow-to-change traditional and closed society from which they sprang. For this purpose I chose to employ a grounded-theory research approach.

A review of the literature on Grounded Theory (GT) reveals that this methodology has been used in various ways. Furthermore, many versions of grounded theory exist; however, the approach pioneered by Glaser and Strauss (1967) is now called “classic” grounded theory. The approach I used in collecting and analyzing data is close to the Glaserian version of GT.

Both the first and current generation of grounded theorists reflect consensus that theories provided to students in the fields of social-work and sociology do not cover all dimensions of social life. In 1967 Glaser and Strauss argued that “some theories of our predecessors, because of their lack of grounding in data, do not fit, or do not work, or are not sufficiently

understandable to be used and are therefore useless in research, theoretical advance and practical application” (p. 11). In the same vein, Julianne S. Oktay’s (2012) recently published Grounded Theory argues persuasively that many of the theories used in social research and taught in social- work programs do not come from social-work practice and they “can be difficult to apply to

practice situations. Some are too abstract, while others are problematic because they are based on models of human behavior that differ from the social work focus on ‘person in environment’” (p. 4). Therefore, it is generally argued that GT methodology is used when existing theoretical frameworks are not available to substantively explain the phenomenon under study. In this study, my focus was on IDSP’s development practices which are firmly grounded in social-work

practice. To my knowledge, with a single exception (Paterson, 2008), no research has been undertaken to specifically explain the context, process, impact, and consequences of transformative learning experiences in ADP. Therefore, the use of grounded theory in this research helped to further my understanding of phenomena reported as occurring in IDSP’s ADP courses.

Glaser and Strauss (1967) explained their rationale for the use and importance of grounded theory:

The great theorists have indeed given us models and guidelines for generating theory, so that with recent advances in data collection, conceptual systemization and analytic procedures, many of us can follow in their paths: from social research we can generate theories for new areas, as well as better theories for areas where previous ones do not work. (p.11)

This rationale shaped my decision to start with the two theories discussed in Chapter 2 to further my understanding the IDSP and its developmental practices in Balochistan. In light of these two theoretical frameworks, I came to understand the philosophical foundations of IDSP, and its methodologies. I learned that IDSP is actually practicing certain critical theories at the grass-root level, notably theories such as Paulo Freire’s critical pedagogy, Edward Said’s

postcolonial theory, and Jack Mezirow’s transformative learning theories. These theories helped me understand the multiple groundings of the IDSP’s program.

The place of literature review in GT has been a controversial issue. From the beginning Glaser (1967, 1978, 2010) has advised his students and readers that it is better for Grounded Theorist to review literature after data analysis. However, in recently published books on grounded theory, writers have taken carefully considered positions in favour of literature review prior to data collection. For example, Oktay (2012) argued that “not doing a literature review could actually reduce theoretical sensitivity” (p. 47). For this and similar reasons, Urquhart (2013) advised “non-committal literature review” in research studies based on GT. As a novice in GT theory and methodology, I faced a problem in identifying relevant literature for my study. As a PhD candidate I was required to write and justify a literature review on my research area. This requirement led me directly to the problem involved in focusing on specific literature when identifying and writing the literature-review chapter of a grounded-theory study. Not

unexpectedly, after data coding and analysis I found some important influences and

considerations which were not part of my literature review; however, they must be discussed in the explanation of substantive theory. At this stage, I am able to understand Glaser’s emphasis on doing literature review after the data analysis, but, I cannot deny the importance and role of literature review prior to the data coding process. Throughout my data analysis, the literature review helped me in naming concepts, codes, and categories emerging from the field data during data collection and analysis process. Like other new grounded theorists, I agree with Dey (1993) that an “open mind” is not the same thing as an “empty mind.”

Also, the ultimate focus of my study was the perceptions of IDSP stakeholders, which begged the question “perceptions of what?” At the time of proposal writing I had already studied IDSP and its courses in some detail and formed a preliminary understanding of the key features and foci of the program. During field work I tried to get stakeholders’ perspectives on those

concepts that had emerged during initial analysis of IDSP documents, for example “their critique on notions of development and their views on revitalization of indigenous knowledge.” Further, in classical GT, researchers took six to eight months for data collection; as a PhD candidate it was impossible for me to spend such a long time in the field. Therefore, I focused on two core values of IDSP that, through my analysis of IDSP- and ADP-related documents, I found were enacted in the ADP courses. Preliminary analysis of documents and my own hunch regarding possible impacts of the course on stakeholders’ personal and professional lives helped in setting three interview guidelines for each group of IDSP stakeholders: administrators, teachers, and learners. The resulting themes of each interview guideline will be discussed in detail in the section on research procedure.