La narrativa como posibilidad de narrar y visibilizar el conflicto

By reviving the essence of the critical theory foundation of action research, perhaps the above shortcomings in the development of action research can be addressed, for action research is designed not only to explain and understand social reality, but is also an attempt to change it (Smith 1993b).

‘... the value of action research ... is determined by the extent to which the methods and findings make possible improvements in practice’ (Burns 1995:303).

As Lather (1991) and Smith (1993b) both contend, action research should be an attempt to translate critical thought into emancipatory action. To accomplish this, they suggest that action research needs to be deliberately interventionist, and not compromise this intervention by strictly adhering to a prescribed approach. Smith recognises these two alternative directions that critical educational theory may follow (1993b:84). The first direction encompasses the aim of empowerment through utilising research methods such as critical ethnography, policy analysis and text analysis as discussed previously (Smith 1993b:84). The second direction includes approaches that encompass the notions of participation, but also includes and makes explicit the commitment to action. Smith terms this “emancipatory action research” to differentiate itself from participatory action research (1993b:84). In other words, it can be seen that perhaps there are two strands of action research, the participatory and the emancipatory. It is this latter approach that is attempted in this research.

An objective of this research is therefore to enable the researcher and researched to work collaboratively in relation to the design, direction and conduct of the research (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988). However, it also needs to be interventionist in nature into the personal, social and political as Table two demonstrates (Smith 1993b). It encompasses deliberate and controlled action and is a practical call for change and participation (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988; Hartsock 1987).

The above discussion not only highlights the potential problems and challenges in utilising a critical research methodology, but also the fundamental differences the approach adopts as compared to traditional positivist research methodologies. A further difference is also in the way data is analysed. This is discussed in the next section.

2.8 Reflective analysis

‘As a research method, action research is cyclical, that is, it does not progress from an initial question to the formulation of data collection, analysis and conclusion … The process does not end, as with traditional notions of research, with richer understandings of education for others to implement; rather it aids in the ongoing process of identifying contradictions which, in turn, help to locate spaces for ethically defensible, politically strategic action’ (Noffke and Stevenson 1995:4-5).

In the cycle of “plan, act, observe and reflect” of action research, reflection is a key theoretical component. From an analytic perspective the methodology endorses a reflective analytical approach as illustrated below in comparison to other methodological analysis.

Table three: Methodology - data analysis32

Methodology Approach to data

analysis

Experimental Structural, linked to discovering and uncovering “truths” Interpretive Interpret,

Describe

Critical Reflective

Post modern Deconstruct “truths”

(From Noffke and Stevenson 1995; Smith 1993b; Reason 1990)

32

Gall, Borg and Gall (1996) note that the analysis of data within an action research or critical theoretical research approach is reflective, rather than structural or interpretive. They state that, “Reflective analysis is largely subjective and it is not possible to specify standard procedures for doing this type of data analysis” (1996:571). Furthermore critical researchers do not view data as something which contains facts that need to be “discovered” or “uncovered”, but rather “… data is constructed during research, and if reflected upon is somewhat self validating33 because it grasps and reflects reality” (Reid 1997:59).

“When inquiring into matters of concern … “ as Wadsworth states, “… the researcher embarks on collecting data, analysing it and reflecting upon conclusions to guide them towards change and improvement” (1993b:1). This is sometimes referred to as a sociological and reflective investigation into human agency (Peirce 1995). It is interested in how individuals make sense of, interpret and act upon their own experiences (Peirce 1995).

Reason describes a cycle or loop of reflective analysis as: “… moving to and fro between reflection and experience …” (1990:45). This he suggests can be individually based, where each person operates individually, on their own and reflects upon their individual experiences, with ideally a group reflection at the very beginning or very end. Alternatively, it can be collective, where the researcher and participants “… always reflect together; and they always experience together … interacting as a group … What is essential here is to ensure that each person has a say in the reflective phase; and is fully involved in the experience phase. This is to ensure that co-operation is based on comprehensive individual participation” (Reason 1990:45).

As well, reflective analysis can be interactive, whereas “… a balance is sought between some individual research cycling and some aspects of collective research cycling … [where] separate individual cycles of experience and reflection can be followed by

collective reflection” (Reason 1990:45). Reason (1990) suggests that action research, which is most valid, is one that can maximise both the individual and collective, thereby becoming interactive.

Reason offers an interesting framework to work by “My reflection needs to be both autonomous, and fully open to influence by my experience, your experience, your reflection on my experience, your reflection on your experience, your reflection on my reflection and visa versa …” (1990:46). This thoroughness, and realisation of the researcher’s subjectivity is vital, however even this can be problematic. As Humphries warns:

‘As researchers, commitment to self-reflexivity is fundamental, although this can deteriorate into self-indulgence which places the researcher as norm … A self-critical account that situates the researcher at the centre of the text can perpetuate the dominance our emancipatory intentions hope to fight. Our own frameworks need to be interrogated as we look for the tensions and contradictions in our research practice, paradoxically aware of our own complicity in what we critique’ (1997:8).

Reason suggests that the balance between reflection and experience be seen as critical in relation to validity. Too much experience will result in a “supersaturated inquiry” or too much reflection can result in “intellectual excess” (1990:48). “The only guideline I can think of … is that the inquirers monitor the ratio …” (Reason 1990:49).

After each experience phase, Reason (1990) suggests three lines of thought for reflection; the descriptive, the evaluative, and the practical. In the descriptive phase, the researcher describes “… what went on, framing lucid descriptions. When evaluating, they are judging how sound and well founded these descriptions are; that is, how well they cohere with the recollected, presented content of the experience phase” (Reason 1990:49). The practical phase entails - in light of the description and evaluation “… what sort of content to explore in the next experience phase …” (Reason 1990:50). The details of the planning and the operationalisation of the reflective analysis within this specific study are addressed throughout the method section of the thesis, Chapter four.

Discussion thus far in this Chapter has highlighted and alluded to the notion that empowerment is an important aspect and aim of critical/action research. This next section therefore addresses the term empowerment and as such assists in consolidating the methodological approach adopted for the study.

2.9 Empowerment

It is relevant to elucidate firstly, on three points in relation to the notion of empowerment within a critical research context

Firstly that empowerment is an implicit component of critical action research. As Smith states: “… critical educational research is empowering because of its emancipatory intent ... All descriptions of critical research share a common critical emancipatory language” (1993b:77). Empowerment is therefore conceived as a process (the research itself) of social action that promotes participation by individuals and groups in order to gain control over their social situation (Wallerstein and Bernstein 1988). As Smith states: “… empowerment itself can be constructed [and] ... is conceived ... from the discourse of critical social theory [as] being concerned with a political reading of the world and the unmasking of false consciousness” (1993b:77). Alternatively the process associated with “… disempowering individuals is often clouded and disguised by rhetoric and practical illusions that place blame on the disempowered themselves. At this level the power dynamics which institutionalise and limit real choices is unveiled” (White and Wyn 1998:26). For example, from a feminist perspective, Connell comments on how the traditional/patriarchal research ideologies undermine ideas of equality, emancipation and empowerment. “It is no accident that the patriarchal reaction against women’s liberation has focussed, not on feminist accounts of women’s experience, nor on the strategies of constructing women’s culture, but on ridiculing the generalisable claim to equality” (1983:240).

Often advocates of other paradigms will question the empowering aspects of critical theory. This is due to the positivist interpretation of “power”. If power issues are evident, and acknowledged by the positivist researcher, then it is a problem that needs to be addressed through the greater reliability of research instruments and application of ethical standards (Humphries 1997). Alternatively critical, action and feminist researchers recognise the complex dynamics of researcher-researched relationships (Humphries 1997). As Humphries suggests; “The uncovering of power as intrinsic for all social research demonstrates that instead of a scientific community which is autonomous and free from political interest, we now know that an intimate relationship exists between the projects of science and other intellectual and political interests in the cultures where science is practical” (1997:6).

Secondly, it is recommended within the literature that critical education research does not rely solely on statistical data to measure empowerment in an objective manner (Peirce 1995; Connell 1993; Popkewitz 1984). Often studies of this nature identify the process of action and empowerment by using methods such as document analysis, interviews, anecdotes and tape recordings to firstly record, then validate with the research participants any subjective indications of action such collaborative action, questioning assumptions, developing scepticism, recognising prejudices, authentic participation and planning activities to reflect upon during reflective analysis (Kemmis and McTaggart 1988; Carr and Kemmis 1990; Smith 1993b).

Thirdly, it needs to be acknowledged that the term has been compromised in some quarters in contemporary rhetoric. For example, a corporate executive may be empowered by his/her employer to retrench half the existing staff, to alleviate any ill feelings or sense of shame or guilt. Perhaps a salary bonus may empower the corporate “hit man” (sic) to perform better. In this sense, the term empowerment can also be used to exploit. In a review of the publication The New Work Order: Behind the Language of the new Capitalism (Gee, Hull and Lankshear 1996), reviewer Black identifies that: “Workers are led to believe they are newly “empowered” in a “liberated” workplace

involving “trust” and “collaboration”. But these … capitalists texts use language co- opted from critical pedagogy are deceiving” (1997:108). Lather states in relation to her use of the term empowerment:

‘My usage of empowerment opposes the reduction of the term as it is used in the current fashion of individual self-assertion, upward mobility and the psychological experience of feeling privileged … I use empowerment to mean analysing ideas about the causes of powerlessness, recognising systematic oppressive forces, and acting both individually and collectively to change the conditions of our lives’ (1991:3-4).34

From a medical perspective, Wallerstein and Bernstein give an example in relation to the notion of monitoring the process of empowerment within a research environment:

‘... empowering effort ... involves much more than improving self-esteem, health efficacy or other health behaviours that are independent of environmental change...empowerment embodies a broad process that encompasses community collectiveness, self development, improved quality of life and social justice’ (1988:380).

This quote also supports the earlier discussion on how unemployment historically has been researched in Chapter one. That is, the empirical researching of positivist causes and effects of unemployment are vast, further supporting the uptake of alternative approaches.

In the 1980s a number of programs, research and literature both in Australia and internationally, promoted the inclusion of a critical, educational approach into programs for the unemployed (Geers, Nielsen and Darling 1992, Watts and Knassel 1985; Hogan 1985; West 1987; Hartman 1985).35 Unfortunately most ceased for numerous reasons including higher unemployment rates and an increased emphasis on economic

34

Furthermore empowerment, in relation to critical theory, although closely aligned in principle, is in this research context, not one of ‘empowerment evaluation’ as discussed by Fetterman, Kaftarian and Wandersman as the empowerment evaluation movement in the publication

Empowerment Evaluation. Knowledge and Tools for Self-Assessment and Accountability

(1996). 35

rationalism to solve unemployment as discussed in Chapter one. However some recent researchers have specifically urged the exploration of critical theory and empowerment in courses for the unemployed (Creed, Hicks and Machin 1997; Moseley 1995), although such initiatives are currently rare, and presently non-existent in relation to unemployment, hence the need for this research.

Recent examples of critical research addressing other disadvantaged groups do however exist. For example, Wallerstein and Bernstein (1988) conducted what they termed “Empowerment Education” in an effort to reduce alcohol and substance abuse among youth. Sears (1992) utilised critical theory to explore the experience of homosexuality within a learning environment, and Jones conducted participatory action research for women’s empowerment in the South Pacific (1994a). Through reflective inquiry approaches, such as observation and unstructured interviews, it was established that the collaborative and participatory focus of these studies enabled research participants to reflect upon and analyse their own experiences thereby creating the impetus for action and change.

In order to further refine the notion of empowerment in relation to critical theory, Smith (1993b) provides a framework, or “spheres” of empowerment. This framework will be utilised in this research, and will be applied to the method and analysis. To verify its applicability two other noted theorists echo Smiths notion of empowerment occurring in stages, and in a linear manner. Sanguinetti (1992) describes five stages of a “journey and learning continuum” to “find a voice”, while Veno and Thomas (1992) describe three “developments”. It is relevant to note here that those levels closely correlate with the flow of overseas study circle discussion guides which are described in Chapter three (see also Appendix three). The Table below is presented to demonstrate how they all mesh together, as well as assisting in the following discussion.

Table four: Empowerment levels

Smiths’ (1993b) “Spheres”

Sanguinettis’ (1992) “Stages”

Veno and Thomas’ (1992) “Developments”

Silence

Received Knowledge

Self-growth Subjective and

procedural Knowledge Positive Self Concept Political Consciousness raising Constructed Knowledge Critical understanding of social and political

environment

Collective action / struggle

Skills and resources for social and political

action

Sanguinetti’s first two “stages” could perhaps be labelled pre-Smith; they are: ‘… silence … [that is] passive, subdued, subordinate, able to make little meaning of … experiences as the result of … isolation and demeaning circumstances … [and] Received knowledge; the assumption that all knowledge and authority originates outside the self with a focus on listening and black/white moral positions and solutions’ (1992:19).

From here, Smith, drawing on many other researchers and authors in the area of critical theory, asserts that there are three interrelated spheres of empowerment: self growth; political consciousness raising; and collective action/struggle (1993b).

Smith’s first sphere of empowerment as self-growth he explains as:

‘... based on a heightened self-awareness, the unblocking of repressed feelings, or growing recognition that personally constraining perceptions are socially constructed rather than personal pathologies. Empowerment at this personal psychological level increases an individual’s self-esteem and personal confidence while decreasing feelings of guilt, self-denial or inadequacy. The outcome is enhanced personal autonomy, self- determination, assertiveness, and a commitment to take greater responsibility for shaping one’s life.’ (Smith 1993b:78)

Sanguinetti’s equivalent stage arguably rests within here: “… subjective knowledge … truth shifts locale … [people] become their own authorities: the “inner expert” can negate answers that the outside world supplies” and, “Procedural knowledge … thinking within systems and using methods to learn, and questioning the premises of those systems and methods” (Sanguinetti 1992:19). Veno and Thomas describe this stage as “The development of a more positive self-concept, or sense of self competence.” (Veno and Thomas 1992:25)

Smith’s next sphere of empowerment, “political consciousness-raising”, is concerned with growth and participation in decision-making. The challenge at this level is to promote a more profound scepticism of routine common-sense understandings and practices and to confront the constructedness, interest-serving and oppressive realities of dominant cultural norms and practices (Smith 1993b). It is to challenge the bureaucratic rationality endemic in our system (Smith 1993b), and to ask “Why are we systematically excluded and marginalized?” (Hartsock 1987:190). It is to begin to consider the “… political nature of all cultural symbols and institutional practices we commonly take as non-political, and to see one’s situation in a new light” (Smith 1993b:80). The emphasis

at this level is on reinterpretation; the translation of commonsense understandings into a social and political framework (Smith 1993b).

Lather (1991) also recognises this sphere of empowerment as enlightenment or liberation from understandings constrained and refined through false consciousness. “Given the reciprocally confirming nature of hegemony, our common sense ways of looking at the world are permeated with meanings that sustain our disempowerment” (Smith 1993b:80). This level of empowerment also focuses on the fundamental contradictions which help dispossessed people see how poorly “ideologically frozen understandings” serve their interest (Lather 1991). Furthermore, Sanguinetti’s next stage reflects Smith’s second, as: “Constructed knowledge … an integration of previous stages; recognising that knowledge is constructed by the knower” (Sanguinetti 1992:19). Moreover “When we wake up to the reality of how powerlessness is drummed into us, everything begins to change.” (Shields 1991:14) Veno and Thomas describe this level as “The development of a more critical understanding of the surrounding social and political environment” (Veno and Thomas 1992:25).

Smith’s third sphere of empowerment, collective action/struggle, is a socio-political concept that goes beyond “participation” and “consciousness-raising” (Smith 1993b:81). Simply changing understandings, or the way we name reality, is not to actually change reality. Rather, Smith argues that this sphere encompasses:

‘... understanding how ideas, practices and institutions may be systematically distorted by the way in which power is socially organised. In effect, to change practices requires more than a change in beliefs; it requires a change in the structures, which have significantly conditioned and shaped those beliefs. False consciousness, therefore, cannot be overcome at the level of ideas. It can be overcome only through practical political action which is oriented towards changing the social matrix in which an individual’s subjective understanding is structured’ (Smith 1993b:81).

Veno and Thomas describe this stage as “… the development of skills and resources to achieve social and political action.” and “The development of a more critical

understanding of the surrounding social and political environment” (Veno and Thomas 1992:25)

Smith, Sanguinetti and Veno and Thomas however, all note that these phases are interrelated and overlap.

Sanguinetti (1992) also discusses a separate and important dimension - the notion of