Sistema de Achique

The exploration of the paradigm and methodology of the research has led me to a reflect on the purpose of this enquiry. The participatory paradigm takes the following philosophical positions, 1. Reality is what our consciousness makes sense of through the processes of one’s mind 2. Knowledge can be found in one’s experience of the world

3. There is value in experience and participation in the enquiry about the world

These statements indicate an appreciation of the subjective-objective perspective of reality, knowledge, and truth. This, however, contradicted Myrdal’s (1970) stance on social research,

The ethos of social science is the search for “objective” truth. The faith of the student is his conviction that truth is wholesome and that illusions are damaging, especially opportunistic ones. He seeks “realism,” a term which in one of its meanings denotes an “objective” view of reality. (Myrdal 1970, p. 3)

Myrdal (1970) believed researchers should liberate themselves from the influences from his or her own personality that is moulded by the individual’s background.

This research on dialogic reflection, being in the participatory paradigm, was not about the search for an objective truth, but a subjective version of it. Hence in this vein, this research should not have expected my co-researchers or me to cast aside our individual “history, constitution, and inclinations” (Myrdal 1970, p. 4) for it would have rendered the experience a mere itinerary of actions we had taken in this research. Rather, all of us should make explicit our

64

backgrounds, prior preconceptions and knowledge and experiences and explore how they influence, contradict, and change each other through the enquiry. For dialogue to be democratic, the research should take prior experiences of all the co-researchers as relevant and they should be open minded to each other’s opinion and preconceptions of the topic (Gustavsen 2001).

Plato pointed out an interesting paradox of enquiry in his work, Meno.

Man cannot enquire either about that which he knows, or about that which he does not know; for if he knows, he has no need to enquire; and if not, he cannot; for he does not know the very subject about which he is to enquire (Plato 402 BC, 80e)

Enquiry is paradoxical in the sense that the thought that a problem exists presupposes some knowledge of the solution to it hence a method to solve the problem which is the enquiry process. Therefore, the problem does not exist in the first place since there is a method to a solution. Plato attributed this prior knowledge of a solution to the innate knowledge of the soul (Jowett 1949) while Polanyi (1966) presented a different answer to this paradox: tacit knowledge. He argued that

Meno shows conclusively that if all knowledge is explicit, i.e. capable of being clearly stated, then we cannot know a problem or look for its solution. And the Meno also shows, therefore, that if problems nevertheless exist, and discoveries can be made by solving them, we can know things, and important things, that we cannot tell. (Polanyi 1966, p. 22)

Polanyi (1966) argued that enquiry is ultimately driven by the tacit knowledge that is so implicit that the researcher regards it as a discovery rather than uncovering what is already known but not explicit to the researcher. Hence, this suggested that this enquiry into dialogic reflection was a process of making explicit this tacit knowledge possessed by all the co-researchers and me. As tacit knowledge is built on experience, all the co-researchers of this research, at some point in their lives prior to the research have experienced and already generated some tacit knowledge

65

about dialogic reflection. Hence this research method should be reflective so as to elicit this tacit knowledge.

The presence of preconceptions in the enquiry is appreciated widely even beyond social sciences, in fact, many would argue that preconceptions are the initial drive for scientific enquiry. Oppenheimer (1958) argued that scientific enquiry is the correction of preconception

Science starts with preconception, with the common culture, and with common sense. It moves on to observation, is marked by the discovery of paradox, and is then concerned with the correction of preconception. (Oppenheimer 1958, p. 67)

Preconceptions have an important place because of its role in the formulation a hypothesis (Ayala 2009). Popper (1987) furthered this argument by noting that objectivity is impossible for human beings.

Therefore, for this research, preconceptions, prior experiences and knowledge, explicit or implicit, were not anathema to the theory generation like Myrdal (1970) suggested. In fact, in consideration of the participatory paradigm, it should be embraced because it only adds to the richness of the theory generated. The methodology of this research should, therefore, allow these preconceptions to be shared and challenged and tacit knowledge to be made explicit. In other words, this research should encourage my co-researchers and me to be open and reflective. It was important that while I was a researcher, I was also a participant in this research and thus I had to be mindful of my own participation. In addition, I also had to share my own preconceptions, prior experiences, and knowledge with my other co-researchers to collaboratively develop our understanding of dialogic reflection.

4.4. Conclusion

This research was conducted to understand the suitability of dialogic reflection for occupational therapy students in their professional development. After considering the epistemology,

66

ontology and axiology of dialogic reflection, the participatory paradigm appeared to most suitable for this research. In appreciation of the nature of the participatory paradigm and my position in this research, it became apparent that the initial objectives as stated at the start of this chapter required some rewording, particularly the first objective. The objectives of the research should reflect the fact that, I was part of the process of experiencing dialogic reflection and creating an understanding about it, along with the occupational therapy students involved. The research question remained the same as before:

How suitable is collaborative (or dialogic) reflection for occupational therapy students in their professional development?

The objectives of the study were reworded as:

1. To understand the experience of engaging in collaborative (or dialogic) reflection from my perspective and that of student occupational therapists.

2. To explore the potential of its use in occupational therapy education for professional development.

3. To attempt to develop a model for the use of collaborative (or dialogic) reflection in occupational therapy education.

When conducting this research, I was acutely aware that while I was a researcher, I was also a participant. Shifting between these roles were at times a difficulty and this is elaborated upon in the later chapters as part of the findings of this research. Nonetheless, as the participatory paradigm and the purpose of this enquiry suggested, it was inherently crucial that I was a participant in this research, as much as I was a researcher. Conversely, the occupational therapy students in this research were also treated as co-researchers, as well as participants. The dual roles that all of us had played was a key argument in situating this research in the participatory paradigm.

67

As my co-researchers also had a say in how we went about researching dialogic reflection, the methodology shifted as they research progressed. Even though we had started off with a Co- operative Inquiry, the methodology quickly became more like an Action Inquiry. This was not a conscious decision because it was a result of responding to the progress of the research and deciding on what we all felt important and worth further discussion. This is further elaborated in the next chapter about the research process.

69