EXPLOTACIÓN DEL HOTEL

The use of pseudonyms in the communication of the research is a common way to ensure confidentiality (Silverman 2010). However, when writing this thesis, this was something that troubled me. I experienced a certain discomfort and reticence in sharing quotes that were very

92

heartfelt, reflective, and sometimes emotional. Due to this, I was initially reluctant to use pseudonyms and used “co-researcher from group one” or “co-researcher from group two” because it gave me some distance from them in my writing. Upon some reflection later, I saw the hypocrisy in my actions. If I were to argue that dialogic reflectors are individual knowers and enquirers, then I should not have treated their contributions as part of a collective, i.e. group one or group two. I should have respected their individuality. More importantly, if I were to maintain that we were reflective, then I will have to convey this in my writing. By showing our reflections, I cannot merely treat my co-researcher’s contributions as a quote from a “co- researcher from group one”. I am compelled to humanise my co-researchers by giving them pseudonyms and through sharing their reflections, convey the deep thinking and emotional exploration that had occurred. As an action researcher working within the participatory paradigm, I ought to embrace these reflections and not step away from them. This is especially crucial since my interest is in dialogic reflection. Hence, I eventually decided to use pseudonyms to share these reflections that I had captured during the research.

5.6. Conclusion

This chapter documents the process of research as I had conducted it. I first started with a literature review where I initially aimed to develop an initial theory about dialogic reflection through a structured literature review method. However, after realising that did not work for this research, my literature review became guided by on own reflections on what I had read and what I did not yet know about dialogic reflection. More information about the literature method can be found in Appendix A.

I then further developed my understanding of dialogic reflection by conducting an action research with two groups of occupational therapy students. Even though we had some initial success with theorising dialogic reflection, we ran into some issues with trying to develop ways of implementing it in the curriculum. After reflecting on our earlier theory of dialogic reflection,

93

we had decided to stay true to our theory that we had developed and thus, we were able to move past that block.

We started the research with Co-operative Inquiry as the methodology which then transitioned to an Action Inquiry and finally a dialogic reflection. Dialogic reflection as an approach to enquiry is further discussed in the findings later.

This research was co-operative in a few ways:

• I was a participant in this research as much as I was a researcher

• My co-researchers were also involved in methodological considerations of this research • We were all involved in analysis of our own experiences and discussions in the action

research, adding to the reflexivity of this research This research was trustworthy in the following ways:

• Transcripts and analyses of the data were confirmed by my co-researchers

• My co-researchers and I analysed our own data and provided interpretations that are more accurate

• Findings in this thesis are supported by direct quotes from my co-researchers and I • I gave pseudonyms to my co-researchers, but not myself, hence it is clear where each of

our contributions to the theory lie.

However, in writing this thesis, I admit that it was unco-operative of me to not have included my co-researchers. I agree with Lincoln (1997) that true collaboration would involve all co- researchers at every stage of the research. Getting my co-researchers to write this thesis was neither practical nor appropriate. I expand on this in Appendix J. Nonetheless, I maintain that this research was as co-operative as where it was feasible, and I present the result of our collaboration in the next part of the thesis. I further expand my reflections on reflexivity of this

94

research in a manuscript that I am currently working on, about the need for researchers to embrace reflexivity holistically in Co-operative Inquiry.

95

Part Three: Dialogic Reflection as An

Epistemology

This part of the thesis contains the main discussion about dialogic reflection as an epistemology. It is a synthesis of the literature about reflection and dialogue combined with the findings of the research to present the four core arguments in support of dialogic reflection as an epistemology by its own right.

Chapter Six shows an overview of the findings of this research. It also introduces the key

principles of dialogic reflections, which will be further developed in the chapters to come.

Chapter Seven further elaborates, and supports with research findings, the issues relating to the

confusion about reflection and its use in the academic and professional settings.

Chapter Eight argues for dialogic reflection as a way of knowing by discussing it as an approach

to enquiry. It describes dialogic reflection as a collaborative enquiry into oneself through natural, yet highly analytical dialogue.

Chapter Nine features dialogic reflectors - participants of a dialogic reflection - as a community

of knowers. It adds further weight to the discussion on dialogic reflection as a way of knowing by focusing on the social and dialogic aspects of it.

Chapter Ten argues that dialogic reflection is more than an intellectual analysis of experience

and that it is also emotional and value-driven. In other words, dialogic reflection is an artistic way of knowing.

Chapter Eleven summarises the four lines of argument as presented in chapters four to seven

and discusses dialogic reflection as an epistemology by presenting the taxonomy of dialogic reflection.

97

Chapter 6. Overview of Themes and