TIPIFICACIÓN DE LAS RESPUESTAS DE MANERA COLECTIVA

Given the limited time period of this thesis, the following evaluation of the theoretical and analytical frameworks should be viewed as preliminary rather than conclusive. None-the- less, analysis of the IWRAM case study provides insight into the utility of the frameworks in revealing convergences and divergences in framing, and in promoting critical,

collaborative learning. Complementing the case study narrative, the following discussion reflects my interpretations based on the totality of my observations of and interaction with the IWRAM case study.

Firstly, the IWRAM case study suggested that the discursive interrogation of biases was useful in highlighting tensions of framing, allowing negotiation over the degree to which different framings should shape or manifest within the DSS. During the interviews with Thai researchers, it emerged that perceived divergences in perspective tended not to be discussed openly amongst participants. However, many interviewees treated the interview as an indirect conduit to expose and air these divergences more widely. The analytical framework thus provided an opportunity to reveal tensions, and a focus for constructive debate over reconciling alternate framings.

Analysis of the analytical framework dialogues in the context of the critical history of development of the IWRAM DSS highlighted some inconsistency between researchers’ espoused theories and theories-in-practice. For example, DSS-for-research advocates tended to advocate participatory ideology, while their practice routinely undermined broad participation by failing to support adequate resourcing and by moving forward in the research plan without waiting for participatory inputs. Probing within the dialogues was useful in pointing to the systemic commitments which pressured and promoted enactment of the theory-in-use rather than the espoused theory. This reinforces the value in ensuring

that the conceptual underpinnings of the analytical framework remain at the forefront, rather than the form, and that the methodology of using the framework is flexible. Thus, the framework questions should not be regarded as either rigid or sufficient, since further probing may be necessary to encourage dialogue and challenge assumptions.

The critical history of the IWRAM project illustrated that apparent broad convergence may obscure subtle differences in framing. In particular, within the Australian trial, the

presumption of close convergence at the beginning of Part A of the analytical framework was increasingly challenged as the interrogation of biases proceeded. For example, while both the Australian project leader and Australian DSS leader framed the DSS as a

computer-based tool integrating models and GIS, the DSS leader construed DSS as necessarily supporting particular decision-making processes, while the project leader cast the DSS as a more generic technical and transferable system. The case study also

illustrated that convergence at an initial stage may develop into divergence through changes in framing over time. As O’Neill (1998) suggests “In social settings where descriptions of concepts change over time, the participants may not realise that their meanings are no longer cohesive”. Thus, while the Australian researchers all framed DSS as a computer-based tool at the beginning of Part A, by the conclusion of Part B, an alternate framing of DSS as process had emerged. This finding reinforces the value of iterative use of the analytical framework to interrogate emerging incompatibilities in framing, and manage emerging biases.

The theoretical and analytical frameworks had variable success in promoting long-term critical learning within the project. Those participants most responsive to using the frameworks to catalyse critical reflection on individual and group biases were those who tended towards a DSS-for-practice stance, including the majority of the Thai team. Some Thai studies literature suggests that hierarchical tradition in Thailand would discourage critical thinking (Hirsch 1990, Gohlert 1991). However, with only a few exceptions, both government and academics challenged their own ignorance and invoked stories of political conflict to articulate alternate constructions of problems and problem-solving. Within the Australian team, most participants gained an increased conceptual awareness of potential biases, and some actively carried critical reflection of bias into their research practice. However, it appeared that other participants were tolerating rather than actively engaging in critical discussion of biases.

Some participants seemed to encounter difficulties in accepting the notion that being inwardly critical could be a legitimate intellectual activity. They perceived critical thinking and dialogue to be negative and non-constructive, and an impediment to

efficiency. They also had difficulties in reconciling my role as a non-directive catalyst and facilitator, and often expressed a preference that I advise them of how I thought they should modify practice to recognise potential biases that I had identified. These

participants’ negative sentiments about engaging in critical, reflexive dialogue appeared to deepen when systemic constraints, particularly pressures to work at a rapid pace to produce frequent tangible outputs, were heightened. A short-term efficiency instead of long-term effectiveness orientation has been recognised by Zuber-Skerritt (1996) as one of the main barriers to action research. Supporting the IWRAM experience, Zuber-Skerritt (1996:91) suggests that the desire to want to ‘get on with the job’ to achieve short-term results in minimum time discourages spending time on reflection, team building and discussion. Zuber-Skerritt (1996:91) also notes that emphasis on operational rather than strategic organisational issues presents a further barrier to action research, as it may lead to

resentment at exploring philosophical assumptions and strategic directions. An operational focus may partially account for some IWRAM participants’ disinterest in critical reflection and dialogue on bias. As recognised in Chapter 4, the potential of the framework to

catalyse learning is inevitably constrained by the extent to which a participant is open to learning occurring. However, at a minimum, the framework requires participants to

explicitly confront certain questions and articulate positions which would otherwise remain unvoiced.

The IWRAM case study suggests another barrier to collaborative critical learning may stem from perceptions of professional vulnerability if ignorance is admitted to in the presence of fellow researchers. For example, some participants would be open about spheres of personal ignorance during discussions with me, a student, but would refrain from raising these potential biases during the group dialogues, and further, would sometimes portray themselves as completely knowledgable about these spheres.

Action learning was further constrained since research tasks tended not to conform to a model of habitual, repeated practice. Instead, development of the DSS entailed a linear sequence of one-off tasks, directed towards achievement of project goals. Consequently, unless researchers were involved in parallel DSS development projects, they would be unlikely to engage in some development tasks until the group had moved onto their next DSS development project. Furthermore, monitoring and reflecting on the effects of DSS development actions, in order to adapt practice, is not a short term exercise. These timing issues illustrate that some tensions arise when an action leaming-by-doing approach is used in future-oriented, anticipatory practice.

Where learning did occur, in terms of greater awareness of and responses to bias

throughout the IWRAM project, situated learning theory prompted an expectation that this learning would reconstitute IWRAM DSS development practice, and that beyond my interaction with the project, learning would flow through to newcomers through peripheral participation in the IWRAM community of practice. However, this expectation did not materialise. Firstly, the new Australian appointees did not act as much like apprentices as presumed by peripheral participation theory (Lave and Wenger 1991). Rather than gradually internalising the norms and negotiated approach of the existing IWRAM team, the new staff were keen to establish their academic independence and credibility. They viewed the project proposal, and the three years of negotiations which had led to the formation of that proposal, as past history. They construed the DSS as a technical,

software-based product and were reluctant to integrate a process-oriented framing. As the new staffs contracts were bound to the funded project timeframe, they faced magnified pressures to deliver a product at the end of three years, and to dismiss perceived non-core activities such as critical reflection on biases and other practice-related issues. They were also engaged full-time on the DSS development, unlike the existing researchers for whom the IWRAM project was one amongst a number of academic responsibilities.

Consequently, they assumed greater independent ownership over DSS development, and were initially less interested in accommodating the outcomes of the original researchers’ discursive interrogation of biases, than anticipated according to peripheral participation theory. However, over time, some of the new staff did express an interest in reading the critical history of the IWRAM project (Chapter 6) to inform continuing conflicts within the whole team regarding DSS-as-software vs DSS-as-product. This illustrates the potential of a textual record of even a single, non-iterative interrogation of bias to facilitate post-facto evaluation and inform backward learning.

It should be reiterated that the new staff commenced their work with the IWRAM project towards the conclusion of my case study, and thus did not participate in bias dialogues. One of the original researchers, who maintained a personal interest in iteratively reflecting on bias, suggested that the withdrawal from the project of not only myself but also a number of the original researchers who were responsive to the use of the frameworks, as well as the part-time status of others who had participated in the interrogation of biases, impeded the potential for learning to flow through to the newcomers. This suggests that long-term learning via iterative use of the frameworks requires a champion to enthuse and catalyse others to participate.

The process of using the analytical framework with the IWRAM project suggested several modifications to the original framework to improve its format, practicality and relevance for that specific case. Firstly, to facilitate comparison of participants’ modes of framing, a section was inserted to locate, firstly, the role of participants within DSS development and, secondly, their initial framing of the DSS. Secondly, where developers joined the IWRAM team at a later stage, and thus were not involved in the original conceptual development, it was more useful in terms of building a picture of that participants’ construing to inquire about the perceived purpose of the DSS, rather than how it was initiated. However, during the group dialogues, it remained useful to revisit earlier responses regarding the initiation of the DSS both to apprise newcomers of this dimension of the critical history and to inform negotiation of the shared group vision for the DSS. A number of semantic

modifications arose as more appropriate language emerged to phrase certain questions. For example, the term ‘decision problem’, adopted from the DSS literature, was replaced by ‘the decision’, as many participants not from a DSS background argued that they did not necessarily construe decisions as problems. Other modifications were made to improve the logical flow of questioning. For example, while uncertainties and assumptions relate to embedded assumptions, it proved more useful to interrogate these issues within the context of communication (access) biases. This highlights the interconnections between different questions, and the value in viewing the framework as a flexible heuristic tool rather than as a rigid methodology. Different elements of the framework complemented and reinforced each other in the gradual revelation of the narrative of decision support and bias for the IWRAM project. Table 7.4 presents the adapted framework.