A philosophical framework for good research: Action Research or Science

Transcription

1 A philsphical framewrk fr gd research: Actin Research r Science Dr Pam Swepsn BIOGRAPHY Dr Pam Swepsn is an rganisatinal psychlgist with 25 years f experience wrking with leaders in bth gvernment and crprate sectins as their leadership cach and t assist them t develp their teams and their rganisatins. Her PhD was n the philsphy and practice f actin research. Cntact at ABSTRACT T imprve my wn practice as an rganisatinal cnsultant and t help me implement my values f demcracy and participatin in the wrkplace, I undertk a study f Actin Research. I did this by cmparing the philsphies and practice f actin research with the philsphies and practice f applied science. T my surprise, I discvered mre similarities than differences. This led me t develp a philsphical framewrk fr gd research (Swepsn, 2003) that: prvided me with a basis fr cllabratin between actin researchers and scientists suggested 3 philsphical questins fr critiquing my wn methdlgy. prvided me with sme alternative ways fr imprving my wn practice/methdlgy. (Swepsn 2001) Yu might find my framewrk useful t. I. PART 1: MY STORY AND MY LEARNING A. What I did As a management cnsultant, dedicated t the values f demcracy and participatin in the wrkplace, I discvered actin research as a way t plan and evaluate my practice. Hwever, I did nt find the literature at the time very helpful n exactly HOW t d that. S, fr a PhD, I cnducted sme actin research n hw t d actin research by cmparing it with smething it was nt; ie scientific methd. My actin research methdlgy was a cyclic prcess f cmparing the literature f the philsphy f science, mstly the wrk f Sir Karl Ppper, (Magee 1975), with the practice f science (a grup f well regarded applied agricultural scientists) thugh cmparative case studies and cmparative grup discussins with the literature f actin research, mstly thrugh the philsphy f Critical Thery f Jurgen Habermas, (McCarthy 1978) and the practice f well regarded actin researchers thrugh cmparative case studies and cmparative grup discussins. B. What I learned: 1. Ding participatry research is nt easy and AR thery des nt help much! I unilaterally decided that my tw research grups actin researchers and scientists wuld be participatry because that was what the literature prescribed. While bth grups enjyed the prcess and gt a lt frm it each Page 1

2 grup rebelled against me but fr different reasns. The actin researchers said If this is participatry research, hw cme yu are making all the decisins? When I accepted that challenge and attempted t delegate decisin making AND respnsibility t the grup, n ne wanted t participate! The scientists said We have n interest in making any decisins. We just want t be part f yur methds and materials. The culture f these scientists is t help each ther, but nt take respnsibility fr thers research. Learning: The AR methdlgy I attempted t implement was nt inherently participatry; ie it gave me n rigrus way t engage with my participants in rder t decide wh makes what decisins abut what and when. T d s, I wuld have needed t bring in apprpriate engagement, participatin, cmmunicatin and facilitatin methds frm elsewhere. Which I nw d. 2. AR and applied science: mre similarities than differences. My cmparisn f the philsphy and practice f AR with the philsphy and practice f applied science threw up mre similarities than differences! Bth are data driven methdlgies - rather than being thery driven. Swepsn 1998) The ag scientist in my study were applied researchers trying t find scientific answers t prblems in the paddck/field rather than the lab. This means they have t deal with a lt f variables, bth scial and technical: t many t nly apply a straight frward experimental design. Or they are researching very cmplex systems like climate and the envirnment - again with t many variables fr experimental design. Cnsequently, their research is data, rather than thery driven and their methdlgy emerges t address the data. This is very similar t actin researchers trying t find answers/slutins t real wrld scial prblems; ie ask a reasnable questin, cllect data, re-define the questin and research methd in the light f the data yu cllect, etc. Bth AR and applied science are data-driven methds f enquiry designed t fit the functin (Dewey 1966) r slve the prblem. Bth actin researchers and applied science wh search fr useful results can cme int cnflict with peers wh search fr truth. Data driven methdlgies are at dds with prescriptive theries f research f either science r actin research. Cnsequently applied scientists and actin researchers can bth be criticised by their thery-driven clleagues fr ding slppy research rather than sticking t a prescriped methd. T understand these differences between thery driven research and data driven research, I critiqued the philsphies f science and the Critical Thery philsphy f actin research. It seemed t me that in bth cases, the philsphies were seeking methds that wuld secure true and certain knwledge ; hence they prescribe imperatives fr achieving that; ie bjectivity is prescribed in science and participatin is prescribed in AR. Hwever, the philsphies themselves d nt prvide methds fr ding s. The philsphical sceptics and pragmatists (Dewey 1966) n the ther hand argue persuasively that truth is prbably unattainable, but useful knwledge is achievable and prbably preferable. Science can be participatry t. It seems t me that all research: science r actin research: happens within a scial system. Mstly actin researchers wrk n scial prblems and scientists wrk n mre technical prblems r mre likely, scitechnical prblems. Key stakehlders in all instances can include funders, cllabratrs, publishers and end users. Scientists are bth bliged t and intuitively use methds f participatin t increase the supprt and reduce the resistance f all stakehlders. Ag scientists are likely t be reasnably systematic in their participatin methds if they have experience r access t agricultural extensin skills whse methds fr participatin can be mre sphisticated than sme ther actin Page 2

3 researchers. 3. Cllabrative research: AR and science. With mre similarities than difference between actin research and applied science, I develped sme criteria f gd research that wuld frm the basis f hw I evaluated my wn research practice (see belw) AND prvide the basis f cllabratin and learning between applied scientists and actin researchers. Fr example, in 1998, an entmlgist clleague and I cnducted a piece f Participatry ag science n behalf f the Queensland Fruit and Vegetable Grwers Assciatin int the likely impact and management f a lming insect pest. Our c-researchers were abut 12 relevant scientists and 12 fruit and vegetable grwers. Our final reprt was technically sund, scially practical and supprted by bth scientists and grwers, wh all cmmented n the effectiveness f ur participatry research methdlgy. (White 1998) What we learned frm each ther: I learned the value f the literature. My clleague made much mre extensive use f it than I wuld have at that time. He learned that a carefully designed and implemented participatin prcess enhanced the technical quality f the wrk and the likely implementatin. We prduced a better piece f wrk fr ur client than either f us culd have dne alne. II. This framewrk has: PART 2: A PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK FOR GOOD RESEARCH prvided me with a basis fr cllabratin between actin researchers and scientists prvided me with 3 philsphical questins fr critiquing my wn methdlgy. Scrates said that it is the respnsibility f philsphy t questin answers rather than answer questins. prvided me with sme alternative ways fr imprving my practice. William James said: Philsphic study means the habit f always seeing an alternative. My framewrk helps me t find alternative ways t imprve my practice. Yu might find my framewrk useful t. My assumptins abut gd research All gd research aims t imprve the human cnditin and add t the bdy f knwledge. All research happens within a scial system. All gd research aims t answer 3 main philsphical questins: (Axilgy) What is gd? There are 3 main ways f answering this questin: (Hner 1992) Relative mstly peple in my grup think s Utilitarian it wrks in practice Abslute it is a law r truth. Epistemlgy: Hw d we knw what we knw? There are 2 main ways f answering that questin: Empirically We create knwledge inductively, by accumulating and cllating infrmatin frm what we bserve Ratinally We create knwledge deductively by testing ideas/theries that we can cnceive in ur minds in the real wrld. Ontlgy: What is real? There are 2 main ways f answering that questin: The material wrld that we access thrugh ur 5 senses. Page 3

4 The immaterial wrld f thughts and feelings. T my mind, rigrus research is that which implements respnses t the 3 philsphical questins with sund methds; ie it fits the functin (Dewey 1966). Hw yu might use the framewrk See what yu can learn abut gd research that is relevant t actin research frm scientific methd r vice versa. It is nt a matter f ticking all the bxes but f nting which nes yu tick and which nes yu dn t and asking yurself WHY r WHY NOT? Hw scientific methd attempts t address thse questins: Research aims/ planning chices Methdlgical chices Evaluatin chices Axilgy What is Gd? Relativism, Utilitarianism, Abslutism T imprve the human cnditin and add t the bdy f knwledge On a cntinuum frm basic t applied research add t the bdy f knwledge and adpted in practice. Relative gd supprts cmmnly held theries Utilitarian gd - make a difference in the wrld can predict/explain is adpted Abslute gd generalised r true knwledge Relative Supprts currently thery Cnduct preliminary lit review Utilitarian Use participatry methds t increase relevance adptin/acceptance and decrease resistance. Which stakehlders?: funders, end-users, cllabratrs/clleagues Hw? As data prviders and/r interpreters, planners and decisins makers and/r implementers? What engagement, participatin, cmmunicatin, facilitatin, evaluatin methds? When? Abslute experimental design t find new facts, create new thery Peer reviewed publicatins - clleagues Prject presentatins and Milestne reviews - (funders) Adptin by End users Epistemlgy Hw d we knw what we knw? Empiricism (data driven) r ratinalism (thery driven)? Either : Prblem r key variables f it can be islated and cmpared with each ther. Or Prblem t cmplex t identify key variables and n current thery fits all the variables. (Climate, envirnment) Ratinalism: Thery driven research - usually experimentatin t deduce statistical prbability r relatinship f variables. Empiricism: Data driven ask fuzzy questin using fuzzy methds inductive reasning (cllectin f bservatinal data, cmpare with thery/literature, mre precise data cllectin etc), leads t sharper questin and sharper methds and an emergent thery. Separatin f research frm implementatin t ensure validity f research data. Lng cycle evaluatin the next experiment. Ratinalism Null hypthesis is statistically discnfirmed Empiricism - Thery which best fits the data -survives critical tests t discnfirm. Ontlgy What is real? Ie data surces Materialism (includes uncnscius human actins) Nnmaterialism thughts and feelings Materialism - Evidence f the 5 senses f the material reality Nn-materialism: Needs (thughts and feelings) f stakehlders: funders, endusers, cllabratrs and the researcher. Evidence f the 5 senses - bservatins Evidence f thughts and feelings cnsultatins, interviews, surveys (prblem identify and feedback) etc Researcher aims t maintain independence frm the data/prblem Validity f material and immaterial data triangulatin r multiple data surces Reliability f thery hw transparent and/r multiple analysis/interpretatin prcesses. Might trade-ff sme validity fr reliability (generalisablity) Page 4

5 Hw actin research attempts t address thse questins: Research aims/planning chices Methdlgical chices Evaluatin chices Axilgy What is Gd? Relativism, Utilitarianism, Abslutism Imprves the human cnditin and adds t the bdy f knwledge Relative gd satisfies lcal cmmunity needs Utilitarian gd imprves a lcal situatin Abslute gd adds t actin research r ther thery/bdy f knwledge Relative gd lcal prblem definitin prcess Utilitarian Use participatry methds t increase relevance, adptin/acceptance and decrease resistance. Which stakehlders?: funders, end-users, cllabratrs/clleagues Hw? As data prviders and/r interpreters, planners and decisins makers and/r implementers? What engagement, participatin, cmmunicatin, facilitatin, evaluatin methds? When? Abslute gd Create new theries f actin research thrugh cntinuus critical reflectin n cntent and methd and assumptins Measures/indicatrs f cmmunity satisfactin Measures/indictrs f imprvement t the situatin. Publicatin f research utcmes/theries n actin research r ther philsphies/methdlgies. Epistemlgy Hw d we knw what we knw? Empiricism (data driven) r ratinalism (thery driven)? Mstly: Prblem t cmplex t identify key variables and n current thery fits all the variables eg scial justice Thery driven actin research: implementing a prescribed methd f actin research leads t prblems. Empiricism: Data driven ask fuzzy questin using fuzzy methds inductive reasning (cllectin f bservatinal r interview/survey data, cmpare with thery/literature, mre precise data cllectin, grunded thery fr analysis etc) - leads t sharper questin and sharper methds and an emergent thery. Shrt-cycles/spirals alternating between actin, critical reflectin and research t test the validity f the data and t refine the research questin and methd. Empiricism - Thery which best fits the data survives critical methds t discnfirm Ontlgy What is real? Ie data surces Materialism (includes uncnscius human actins) Nnmaterialism thughts and feelings. Materialism - Evidence f the 5 senses f the material reality Idealism - Needs (thughts and feelings) f stakehlders: funders, end-users, cllabratrs and the researcher. Evidence f the 5 senses - bservatins Evidence f thughts and feelings cnsultatins, interviews, surveys (prblem identify and feedback) etc Self disclsure f the researcher. Validity f material and immaterial data triangulatin r multiple data surces Might trade-ff sme reliability (generalisability) fr validity. Hw I try t imprve my actin research practice: 1. Include explicit methds fr participatin; eg stakehlder selectin and engagement, rle clarificatin, cmmunicatin and jint decisin making. 2. Include explicit methds fr critical reflectin and data analysis fr emergent thery generatin; eg grunded thery. Page 5

6 3. Prduce publicatins/cntributins t the thery, philsphy and methdlgies f actin research; ie this paper. 4. Make greater use f the actin research literature as an alternative data surce. Hw might yu imprve yur actin research? REFERENCES Dewey, J (1966) Lgic: The Thery f Inquiry New Yrk Henry Hlt and C Hner, S.M, Hunt, T.C, Okhlm, D.L. (1992) Invitatin t Philsphy: Issues and Optins 6th editin Wadswrth Publishing Cmpany Califrnia USA. Magee, B (1975) Ppper Fntana/Cllins McCarthy, T. (1978) The Critical Thery f Jurgen Habermas Plity Press Cambridge, UK. Rrty, R (1987) Pragmatism and Philsphy in Philsphy: End r Transfrmatin? Ed by Baynes, K, Bhman, McCarthy, T. The MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, USA. Swepsn, P.J.(2003) Sme cmmn grund that can prvide a basis fr cllabratin between actin researchers and scientists: a philsphical case that wrks in practice. Systemic Practice and Actin Research, Vl 16, N 2, April P. Swepsn (2001) Actin Research as Systematic Inquiry in Effective Change Management Using Actin Learning and Actin Research: Cncepts, Framewrks, Prcesses, Applicatins. S.Sankaran, B.Dick, R. Passfield, P.Swepsn (eds) Suthern Crss University Press. Swepsn, P.J. (1998) Separating the ideals f research frm the methdlgy f research, either actin research r science, can lead t better research. In Actin Research Internatinal, Paper 1 Available at White, G.G. Swepsn, P.J. and Tyas, J.A. (1998) Silverleaf whitefly research and management strategy fr Queensland hrticulture. Cperative Research Centre fr Trpical Pest Management, Brisbane. Page 6