From Consent to Mutual Inquiry

Abstract

Documentation component of LCW -lead by a research team from the Wagner School -during the initial implementation phases of the research. This component formed an inquiry group consisting of both academic researchers and social change practitioners to collaboratively explore and discover the ways in which communities doing social change engage in the work of leadership. We used group relations theory to understand a series of critical dilemmas and contradictions experienced by the coresearchers. This paper identifies four such paradoxes that center around issues of democracy and authority.

Conducting Peer Research: Learning From the Evaluation of a Parenting Support Intervention

“…This highlights the need for academically trained researchers to reflect on their views and positionality (Howard & Burns, 2021) and to acquire skills to engage parents as equal partners, for instance, in facilitation and the capacity to operate within different power structures (Israel et al, 1998; Shen et al, 2017). Addressing power differentials can entail negotiating authority, clarifying tasks and roles, and setting boundaries among the group members (Ospina et al, 2004). The role of the researcher can be of co-learner.…”

“…The coordinating researcher planned the tasks in which peer researchers were expected to participate when delineating the research project. However, the definition of tasks by the peer researchers could have contributed to promoting 'meaningful' participation and power balance among all involved (Ospina et al, 2004). Peer researchers having the opportunity to participate in more or all stages of research, as emphasised within CBPR, could have contributed to providing further context to the study.…”

“…Peer researchers could have been considered as having an insider perspective concerning their community. An insider–outsider dialogue can encompass conversations about power (Ospina et al, 2004) and can be framed in a continuum. By reflecting on positionality using an intersectional approach (coined by Crenshaw, 1989, 1991), power relations and bias in the research process can potentially be acknowledged and worked upon (Howard & Burns, 2021).…”

Action Research in Organizations

“…Among other things, they discussed whether dialogue should be understood as a special form of conversation (Buber; Bohm) or whether all conversations are dialogues (Bakhtin). Some of these theories were taken up in action research, which studied how dialogues work in practice in organizations (Ospina et al, 2004;Pedersen & Olesen, 2008;Phillips, 2011).…”

The co-conspiring methodology: An invitational approach to action research

“…Critiquing the idea of participation itself, Cooke and Kothari (2007) argue that this approach to research can be ritualistic, manipulative, and harmful, and therefore has ''tyrannical potential'' (p. 14). Even when pursued with the best of intentions, projects can fall into the ''paradox of participation'' (Ospina et al, 2004) where action researchers meaning to use participatory and democratic approaches instead ''unintentionally impose participatory methods upon partners who are either unwilling or unable to act as researchers'' (Arieli, Friedman, & Agbaria, 2009, p. 275). In these cases, power remains unbalanced (Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012;Mohan, 2007), complex communities are assumed to be homogenous and harmonious (Cleaver, 1999;Mohan, 2007), and participation is treated as universal without considerations made about culture and context (Wamba, 2016).…”