Sistema de agua dulce

The methodologies in the participatory paradigm should revolve around the democratic participation of all involved in the enquiry (Heron and Reason 1997). Therefore, in such a dialogic method of enquiry, participants are co-researchers and at the same time co-participants (Heron 1996). Knowledge is generated from the collaborative examination of themselves and their experience. Hence it indicated that in this research about dialogic reflection, the research question was answered through experiencing, studying, and reflecting on dialogic reflection. Learning about reflection is best done through experiencing it (Russell 2005; Wong et al. 2016), and the same should be applied to dialogic reflection.

Reason (1994) cited three main approaches to enquiry in the participatory paradigm: Co- operative Inquiry, Participatory Action Research and Action Inquiry. Co-operative Inquiry and

59

Action Inquiry stood out more than Participatory Action Research due to being strongly grounded in theory, practice, and their emphasis on different aspects of Participatory Inquiry. Participatory Action Research is about emancipating oppressed populations by developing knowledge for them, with them (Reason 1994). As this was not in line with the research question I sought to answer, I had not considered Participatory Action Research as a suitable methodology.

This research started with the Co-operative Inquiry methodology. However, as it developed, the methodology shifted towards an Action Inquiry and then towards something that was less structured and more dynamic. As co-researchers in a research in the participatory paradigm, we were part of the development of the research itself. As a result, the shifting methodologies of this research was heavily influenced by us who had co-operatively made decisions on how to best answer the research question and what was worth further exploration (Heron and Reason 2001). More details on the developing methodology of this research will be discussed in the next chapter.

4.2.1. Co-operative Inquiry

Co-operative Inquiry is the embodiment of Heron’s (1971) critique of traditional social science enquiry methods where subjects are removed from the thinking and decision process. In his opinion, they are treated as less than self-determining people and the exclusion of them in the enquiry also consequently alienates them from the knowledge generated. Therefore, inappropriate to be considered as the science of the people.

In Co-operative Inquiry, Heron and Reason (1997) proposed the following extended epistemology:

60

Figure 1. The extended epistemology (Heron 1996)

With reference to the figure above, propositional knowing is knowing through theories and ideas concerning the topic. In Co-operative Inquiry, co-researchers of the research define the questions that need to be explored and how they can do that. This method is then applied in practice and practical knowing - knowing how to do something - manifests in the form of skill and competence, where the group decides on how they would like to go about confirming their propositional knowledge. Carrying out what the participants have planned leads to new experiences which are experiential knowing. Participants then try to make sense of the experience and arrive at presentational knowing, which then feeds into the propositional understanding of the initial inquiry (Heron and Reason 1997; 2001). Co-researchers cycle through these four forms of knowing multiple times to enhance the coherence and congruity of their understanding (Heron and Reason 1997).

The two key principles of Co-operative Inquiry are epistemic participation and political participation. The former means that any knowledge that emerges from the research is grounded in the researcher’s experience, and the latter means that all those involved in the research have a part in the designing of the research as the information gathered is about themselves (Heron and Reason 1997). From the first principle, the researcher is also the subject of the research and from the second principle, the subjects are also the researchers.

61

The research is done by people with each other, not by researchers on other people or about them. (Heron and Reason 1997, p. 282)

Qualitative research about people is a half-way house between exclusive, controlling, quantitative positivist research on people and fully participatory, co-operative research with people. (Heron and Reason 1997, p. 283)

Williamson et al. (2012) insisted that the Co-operative Inquiry methodology fits in neither the qualitative nor the quantitative research tradition because it is about researching with rather than researching on participants (Heron and Reason 1997). The more fully the co-researchers participate in the enquiry, the more co-operative it is. This is in line with the paradigm in which dialogic reflection finds itself - the methodology of this enquiry to understand dialogic reflection should be should be collaborative and dialogic. This also meant that I was a participant in the research as much as I was a researcher, and the participants I recruited for the study were in equal parts researchers. My co-researchers and I were active agents in the research where we were all involved in the designing and management of the enquiry, experiencing and drawing conclusions from it (Heron and Reason 2001).

However, as with any human group, enquiry groups often have problems with inclusion, influence and intimacy. Co-researchers will take different roles in the dialogue and the contribution, in terms of quality and quantity will differ. Reason (1994) suggested that the member(s) that initiated the enquiry may act as the facilitator(s) of the process and how the group negotiates the power differentials will affect the quality of work produced. Even though unanimity is ideal, it is rarely feasible (Reason 1994). At the very least, all the co-researches should be given the opportunity to participate in every part of the enquiry process and be allowed to freely voice their thoughts about the process and the outcome.

4.2.2. Action Inquiry

Action Inquiry was a transitional methodology as the research developed from a Co-operative Inquiry to something less structured. Action Inquiry is based on the key thought that “knowledge

62

is always gained in action and for action” (Torbert 1981, p. 145). Central to Action Inquiry is that the theories that are used to guide action, if identified, can be used to predict behaviours. The focal point of this methodology is in the actions taken. Espoused theories, which are those that one claims to follow, can be incongruent to the theories actually evident in one’s action – theories-in-use (Argyris et al. 1985). This difference may not be a conscious decision.

Action Inquiry can be conducted in the first, second or third person types of research (Torbert 2001). First person Action Inquiry is about being mindful of one’s actions in life and identifying possible differences between what one believes in and how one behaves (Torbert 2001). In second person Action Inquiry, a group of researchers engage in this exploration together through collaborative enquiry and mutual influence (Torbert 2001). Third person Action Inquiry occurs at the organisational level, providing the right environment for first and second person Action Inquiry to occur in the organisation (Torbert 2001). Action Inquiry was a suitable methodological approach to this research because of its appreciation of the importance of reflection in the research process. The first person Action Inquiry is fundamentally a monological reflective process, while the second person Action Inquiry describes a form of research that features reflection amongst a group of researchers, essentially describing a dialogic reflection. Third person Action Inquiry thus describes an organisation that encourages reflection and dialogic reflection, such as a university. These three forms of Action Inquiry were in line with my intention to understanding dialogic reflection and its place in the curriculum.

Co-operation and reflection were the crux of the methodological consideration for this research. The two themes were well represented in Co-operative Inquiry and Action Inquiry. Co-operative Inquiry was chosen over Action Inquiry at the start because principles of political participation and epistemic participation echoed the epistemological, ontological, and axiological considerations described earlier in this chapter. Over the course of research however, it appeared that my co-researchers and I moved away from a research that would be considered

63

as a Co-operative Inquiry towards one that resembled an Action Inquiry. It was not a conscious decision to switch the methodology. This change was brought about by the change in the discourse generated as the research developed and a change in the way my co-researchers and I had decided to approach the topic of dialogic reflection. This will be further explained in the next chapter.