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.
Comments
New comment
Hi Arwen
You might like to thing about how you could weave your project into what is already going on while still meeting the project criteria. I'm very keen on systemic action research and there are some researcher CoPs around with action research focus. But the downside is that an action research approach sometimes doesn't fit well with what Ray would call 'a projectified world' in that the needs and goals of some of the main stakeholders are long term and projects come and go and their benefits often fail to be carried forward.
I was at a workshop in Sweden last week where researchers were very keen on action research but struggling.....as it's not the academic norm.
One small example of process - a surprising number of researchers who use SSM in projects fail to take that last step in the Action Research cycle and engage with stakeholders about their results and hear what stakeholders make of them. In the (taught) Swedish Masters programme I visit from time-to-time (re water management) students do take this final step and it's been crucial in establishing a longer-term process that goes on long after the students themselves have moved on..
Another thought is about your own personal position in taking this approach. Why does it attract you personally to do it? Important to make this explicit so any of your assumptions can be challenged. I am thinking here of several practitioners I know who have started on PhD research in the hope of making a big difference in a problematic situation....only to get a bit disillusioned as their own ideas of improvement don't go down so well with others and the end result isn't always accepted in the world of academic research.
On this front I do like the focus in Ray's chapter 11 on 'changing your situation for the better' but also keep in mind a comment from Geoffrey Vickers along lines of 'you don't need to set out to change the world....but it can be very worthwhile to try and make a small improvement in your small part of it"
Chris
Random thoughts
Hi Arwen - have just had a quick look at some recent Blogs. Thoughts triggered, in no order:
1. What can you do in your research which frames, initiates and can 'hold' something longer term in which there are several emergent outcomes i.e. pass course; create a platform for ongoing research/activity; build stakeholding of at minimum a key group = co-researchers or reference group etc; possibly identify external funds or leverage?
2. I perceive there are a set of issues around how AWARD is structured and institutionalised? If my perception is valid - are there way of re-orienting, tipping the trajectory, designing a trojan horse etc?
3. I will email later about work I am just starting with an African focus as there are many overlaps I think
Cheers
Ray