Rigor and relevance are very much top of my mind today. Having just come out of two days of M&E workshop for AWARD where we looked at the M&E data for implementation and outcomes so far in order to adaptively manage and to inform the development of Phase 2 AWARD. Most of the data is qualitative perceptions data, and there has been a lot of discussion about to what extent we can "correct for bias".
At the same time, Helen Wilding suggested that a possible approach for my research could be to develop a systemic inquiry and so - finally - i have started looking at research paradigms.
In the event I think Systemic Inquiry is not the best way for me to go, as it implies to me working together with actors to develop improvements through actions arising from conversations. In the context of identifying high potential design principles for an alumnae thing, I don't think this can work as they potential users are the 250 fellows plus 164 mentors, plus 150+ junior mentees, etc etc.
On the other hand, looking at Systemic Inquiry pulled me back into the publication Systems Practice: How to act in a climate change world (Ison, 2010) and got me reading the chapter on Systemic Action Research. And this is really resonating with what i feel I need or would like to do. Why?
1. That it should be (like the Ulrich paper below) aimed at changing situations for the better (improvement)
2. it is a socially embedded practice (Law and Urry)
3. a claim (Law and Urry again) that there is a need for 'messy methods' that deal more effectively with "the fleeting, distributed, multiple, non-causal, chaotic, complex, sensory, emotional and kinaesthetic". Not all of these apply to my research context, but some do.
4. (Law and Urry) that complexity theory is a great source of "productive metaphors and theories for 21st century realities". Well that is definitely the case, like my post below about dissipative structures and dynamic conservatism
5. the way i am built, I cannot even contemplate talking to the African scientists that I will need to connect with except as equals with a shared purpose of continuing their career trajectories. it is outside my epistemology if you like. If we think in Ulrich's terms of CSH and stakeholders, they are the experts on their needs and context and I can interact with some small expertise on CoPs, networks and systems.
6. the 'problem' or 'opportunity' as I prefer to frame it, are embedded in people and their perspectives and interactions. So the system of interest is brought forth through their articulation of needs and wants, mixed with mine.
7. The description of 2nd order R&D (pp272-3) resonates with me:
- praxis grounded in an invitation to another to join in mutually satisfying action p272
- reality brought forth includes me. As i said above the 'opportunity' SOI is brought forth through my eyes
- all participants share the responsibiility associated with every outcome ... not sure whether that will be possible, but hold loosely in head
- stydy of relationships rather than objects
- it is science and grounded in what is observed without an imperative character
8. we will uncover the need as we converse but there is a purpose. (Note to self: see Helen's blog and Scott's comment about purpose and emergence)
9. "a conversation between stakeholders that is shared by [...] the desire to honour the other's world-of-experience as 'other'" characterized by:
- continuity and repetitiveness
- cooperative nature
- after effect - individually satisfying to all
10. what makes it systemic: relevance, co-construction, drawing on: "in-depth inquiry, multi-stakeholder analysis, experimental action and experiential learning" (p274). Hmmm not sure.
11. For my ethos it is fundamentally important that the process is designed to enable their own activities not having my outcomes imposed on them.