Las máscaras de Rosalía de Bringas

Participants are engaged in the transformational process of their social and work situations and practices by means of the continuous spiral consisting of planning, acting, reflecting and observing. Each of these moments has a specific function and follow on to one another and is repeated in subsequent cycles to ‘produce’ the continuous action research spiral – as depicted in Figure 2.³⁸

38 This conception of a spiral or cyclical process was around since the inception by Lewin (1946), but it was Stephen Kemmis who in 1985 introduced a ‘visual’ model of the cyclical nature of the typical action research process, depicting the four steps or moments of action research, namely reflecting (or critical reflection), planning, action (implementing plans) and (systematically) observation (cf.

Wadsworth, 1997:79; O’Brien, 2001:1; Robson, 2002:218).

ACTION

OBSERVE

PLAN

REFLECT

NEXT CYCLE

REVISED ACTION

OBSERVE II

REVISED PLAN

REFLECT II

NEXT CYCLE

Figure 2: Action Research Spiral

Hughes and Seymour-Rolls (2000:1–2) summarise the function of the moments of (social sciences) action research as follows: Reflection refers to the moment of connection between the different research partners – or the inversion of the outsiders in the reality of the insiders – and includes the pre-emptive discussion of all participants to identify, examine and reflect upon a shared concern, need or problem. Planning refers to the moment of the participatory investigation and the constructive seeking for a response.

Co-operative planning takes place during discussions among the participants and includes the critical examining of the data, experience and (previous) actions, as well as the determining of possible indicators for change to be use in evaluation. Action.

refers to the moment when the plan – the deliberate and strategic action or response to the situation identified in the first moment – is put into place and the hoped for improvement to the social situation occurs. Action always takes place within a real situation and not just as an experiment ‘to see if it works’. Observation refers to the moment of research analysis – utilising actual research tools or instruments (e.g.

questionnaires, structured interviews, participant observation and in situ observations) to observe, analyse and evaluate the changes or impact resulting from the implementation of the outlined plan – with special attention to the effects on the people and the context.

As illustrated in Figure 1 (Chapter 1, section 1.5), in the theological action research spiral these ‘moments’ diverge slightly from those in the social work action research cycle in terms of both occurrence and content. In the theological action research cycle

contact/insertion refers to fact-finding (e.g. storytelling, listening to the response of the people and participant observation) in order to describe what is going on. Context analysis refers to engaging with the community, involving the key actors and drawing connections between culture and historical aspects toward an understanding of the deeper reality of the situation – in order to know why is it going on. Theological reflection refers to the moment of critical confrontation (evaluation) and discernment in view of shared values, faith commitments, scriptures, norms, and wisdom of the ancestors – in order to understand the relationship between faith and life.

Response/action refers to the moment of effecting the desired change through steps of planning, acting and evaluating – in order to act responsively toward change/improvement of the identified issue (cf. Wijsen, et al., 2005:229–230;

Karecki, 2005:140–142; Wijsen, 2005:122–123; Cameron, et al., 2010:50–51;

Osmer & Shweitzer, 2003:2–3).

Concurring with the action research process, any of these moments may overlap, or, as in the case of the moments of action and observation, occur simultaneously. For instance, as participants engage in these moments of reflection on action, learning about action, and then, newly informed action, change happens – often ‘on the spot’

and unexpectedly. ‘Instant action’ occurs as participants absorb new ways of seeing or thinking in the light of their experience and implement new actions there and then.

These instant insights and changes are typical of action research and serve to change the shape and focus of the process over time (cf. Wadsworth, 1998:4).

Contrary to that in most research processes, there is no specific ‘point of entrance’

into the action research process – the cycle can be accessed at any moment and an action research study can begin with quite imprecise research questions. It could also be entered into by the researcher setting out to explicitly study ‘something’ – a need, problem or expectation, arising from an unsatisfactory situation that those who are most affected wish to alter for the better – in order to change and improve it (Wadsworth, 1998:3). Regardless of the point of entry, issues and understandings on the one hand, and the practices themselves, on the other, will develop and evolve, given that the action/reflection spiral is followed systematically. Even though it is likely that, as pointed out above, the initial questions may be imprecise, yielding imprecise answers, the inherent flexibility of the process allows for multiple opportunities of reflection and refinement of questions and methods. Each cycle can be a step in the direction of better action and better research – guiding the research-participants

along from “…imprecise beginnings while progressing towards appropriate endings”

(Dick, 2002:4).

There is a built-in rigour deriving from this process, contributing to the trustworthiness³⁹ of this research methodology. Obligatory to this progressive process is an array of tools or techniques, not necessarily unique to action research, but none the less vital in the successful execution of the action research process. Central to action research methodology is recording, utilising a variety of techniques, such as making audiotape records of verbal interactions, keeping a research journal or focused diaries (often done on individual and group level in order to build in a system of ‘counter checks’). Most of these recording techniques elicit information whilst simultaneously serving as recording of specific data, as do, for example, recordings of household interview charts, institutional diagrammes, problem or need priority sheets, time and trend lines, rapid report writing, seasonal calendars or, as in the case of this study,

‘workbooks’ compiled (by the researcher) after each session based on the actual content and input from the participants (Kemmis, 1985:39; O’Brien, 1998:15; IIED &

ODA, 1994:6; Pretty & Vodouhê, 1997:6).

Techniques for obtaining and the analysis of data may include questionnaire surveys (often in a ‘simplified’ format – a concise questionnaire with few items/questions focusing on a specific issue, such as the check list used for ‘vicarious trauma’ during the retreats),⁴⁰ document collection and analysis, structured and unstructured interviews, direct observation, key probes, mapping and modelling, transect walks (referred to as ‘village walks’ in this research study),⁴¹ visualisations and analysis of artefacts. Techniques used to generate and accumulate evidence about practices, and to analyse and interpret this evidence, include case studies, ethnographies, community forums, nominal groups, focus groups, workshops (specifically to refine newly designed practices), role-play or drama and storytelling (Kemmis, 1985:39; O’Brien, 1998:15; Strydom, 2002:430–431; cf. Chapter 3, sections 3.5.3 &

39 Trustworthiness of findings in action research has to be taken into account throughout the process.

Albeit flexible, there is a built-in rigour to the action research process, to be found in the “logical, empirical, and political coherence of interpretations in the reconstructive moments” of the ongoing and regular self-critical reflection and in the justifications of proposed action (Kemmis, 1985:40). This implies that as the research process progresses, multiple judgements with regards to the ‘correctness’ of information, underlying assumptions and the implementation of suggested changes will be made by the different parties involved – allowing for a degree of ‘cross checking’. This also infers the importance of the involvement of more multiple interested parties who provide information and critique (Dick, 2002:4). For a set of criteria to judge the trustworthiness of the findings cf. e.g. Pretty and Vodouhê (1997:9).

40 Cf. Chapter 3, section 3.4.6.3: Discussion on the vicarious trauma checklist; Appendix B, Exercise 5:

When I’m alone in the Night.

41 Cf. Chapter 3, sections 3.3.1 & section 3.4.3: Discussion on village walks.

3.5.4). The ability to utilise these (and other similar) techniques does imply a certain level of knowledge and competence in the researcher, especially facilitating and group work skills – as will be discussed in section 2.6.5.

As backdrop to the discussion of the field research in Chapter 3, the stages of the action research process is discussed next.