Using a virtual platform for an asynchronous co-operative inquiry

Abstract

A participatory action research (PAR) study using co-operative inquiry methods was employed to examine the topic ‘spirituality and childbirth’. Co-operative inquiry (CI) reclaims the right of co-researchers to create knowledge from their own lived experience, an approach that works ‘with’ rather than ‘on’ people, valuing individual contributions. Traditionally, CI has been organised synchronously in the same physical location. However, with current events and need for greater global collaboration for divergent/convergent perspectives, an ‘asynchronous’ CI is important to consider. To date, the authors are not aware of any published/unpublished asynchronous co-operative inquiry research projects. This article describes how our inquiry group worked across global regions and time zones meeting online, via emails and discussion boards, and gathered data in an online repository. The outcomes of this inquiry are published elsewhere, here we discuss the novel methods used to support emergence of a modified CI. We offer insight into how our cycles of reflection and action matured and were possible and enhanced through virtual inquiry methods. While technology posed limitations, working asynchronously across time and space enabled rich and complex conversations. An asynchronous modified CI method allows a depth of inquiry to be achieved whilst retaining the purpose of CI.

Experiencing Collaborative Inquiry Online: A Literature Review

“…These factors cultivated the democratic participation, one-and-many perception, and multiple ways of knowing determining a CIs trustworthiness. CI groups also highlighted the many challenges of asynchronous engagement, including the potential for unequal participation (Astle, 2001;Duenkel et al, 2014), feelings of isolation (Hanlin-Rowney et al, 2006), and loss of embodied emotional cues (Crowther et al, 2021). These decreased the interpersonal connections and reflective capacity of groups.…”

“…CI researchers experienced similar frustrations when attempting to conduct member checks or involve participants in asynchronous data analysis (Howell, 2020;Moreira-Ramirez, 2020). The analysis phase benefitted from moving to synchronous gatherings (Crowther et al, 2021). Whitaker et al (2022), however, reported success using Google Docs as a kind of less individually segmented discussion board to engage participants in a continuous dialogue in a single document between meetings and across CI phases.…”

“…Digital contexts, however, altered how certain online CI practices were undertaken and the relative importance placed (or not placed) on particular practices. Crowther et al's (2021) remark that "working both synchronously and asynchronously across time and space enabled a rich and complex conversation to unfold" (p. 3) indicates that tools for asynchronous and synchronous collaboration must be in place. A platform's specific features and the ability to communicate in multiple modes (audio, video, and text) also matter in cultivating online CI spaces that welcome diverse participants and multiple ways of knowing.…”

“…Only one CI refrained from using any form of asynchronous engagement for extending group reflections, relying only on recordings of synchronous online meetings (Moreira-Ramirez, 2020). Many groups reported email figuring heavily in how participants communicated privately with other participants (Howell, 2020) and initiating researchers (Crowther et al, 2021; Moreira-Ramirez, 2020). Unlike discussion forums, participants did not find that email created a collaborative group space (Astle, 2001).…”

“…Discussion boards were seen to enable vulnerable sharing (Crowther et al, 2021), facilitate organizing documents in centrally accessible locations (Duenkel et al, 2014; Hanlin-Rowney et al, 2006), provide individual and commons spaces for reflection (Feller et al, 2004), and accommodate diverse and flexible participation across time zones (Astle, 2001; Crowther et al, 2021; Dale, 2001; Howell, 2020; Moreira-Ramirez, 2020; Thorpe, 2008). Further, asynchronous forums enabled time for deeper reflection (Hanlin-Rowney et al, 2006) and for non-native English speakers to communicate more confidently (Crowther et al, 2021). These factors cultivated the democratic participation, one-and-many perception, and multiple ways of knowing determining a CIs trustworthiness.…”