Going critical: inquiry as a power-full process Stockholm seminar October 2004 Dian Marie Hosking...
-
Upload
shauna-anthony -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Going critical: inquiry as a power-full process Stockholm seminar October 2004 Dian Marie Hosking...
Going critical: inquiry as a power-full process
Stockholm seminar October 2004
Dian Marie Hosking
USBO, University of Utrecht
overview
• Received View of Science (RVS) &– Inquiry, Intervention, Evaluation
– Implicit view of:• processes & relations
• thought style
• Constructivism &– Evaluation (eg 4th generation)
• Constructionism &– Evaluation (eg responsive, appreciative)
Inquiry & the RVS
• Sc as detached observer
• producing ‘data’ &
• objective knowledge
• oriented towards theory
• 1 story dominates – the RVS
• key discourses– Representation & Control
Intervention/change work & the RVS
• separate from inquiry
• uses results from inquiry
• act of ‘change agent(s)’
• who is – more knowing, the expert– designs the intervention & decides what counts
as data
Evaluation & the RVS
• “product evaluation”
• feedback over ‘treatment’ effects
• pre & post ideal
• statistics, validity & reliability…objective knowledge– that is technical, politically neutral
• responsive to the voice of science
RVS: Implicit view of processes & relations
• sequential, linear with feedback
• input – process – outcome
• can be designed, & design reflects
• objective knowledge/expertise
• Sc has responsibility for quality &– reflexivity is an individual act of the Sc
• Subject-Object relations
Implicit ‘thought style’
• (realist or) critical realist
• independently existing entities
• knowable from an ‘outside’ standpoint– but only imperfectly– plausible hypotheses
• language: for representation
• root metaphor: mechanism
constructivism
• Emphasizes the constructive power of mind
• knowledge = imperfect representation
• individual entities:– cognitive processes (intra-indiv)– social processes (inter-indiv)
• thought style = as before
• focus: the sense making of others
Evaluation & constructivism
• eg “Fourth generation evaluation” of Guba & Lincoln
• multiple voices of multiple stakeholders
• discuss & negotiate differences
• correct these & produce a consensus view
• change agent’s job:– Scientist (RVS), facilitator & mediator
relational constructionism• reality:
– (re)constructed in inter-action processes – co-constructed
• neither subjective nor objective but relational
– multiple, local, historical realities – ontology given to processes
• language:– is action, is performative – a local-cultural practice or ‘form of life’
• scientific interests: – what & how of reality construction processes
Assuming relational processes
• de- centers – entities & relations between entities– processes within & between entities
• centers processes of relating – languages - words, pictures, actions, symbols...– to other languages- words, pictures, actions, symbols...
• relational processes make – Self-Other (persons & worlds) as relational unities
• ‘becoming realism’
Inquiry, intervention and evaluation as relational processes • the RVS & critical realism
is just one way of constructing relations
• self & other & relationship – can be (re)constructed in S-O relations – but do not have to be
• other possible ways of relating?
• other possible interests & power relations?
Not S-O relations but…
Processes that are:
• open to possibilities
• open to multiple local realities (as ontologies);
• Reflexive & developmental
• creating ‘power to’ (x power over)
Constructing ‘power to’
• open and appreciative of multiplicity
• performative – not ‘just talk’
• focuses on how we participate including
• multiloging– who gets to participate and how?– how is multiplicity appreciated?
Evaluation as an ongoing multi-voiced process
• evaluation – ‘design’emerges, is ongoing– evaluation activities create reality
• all voices – equal - all experts in local processes• reflexive dialogues about relations, power &
voice, accepting difference, ethics…• interests:
– not just instrumental but also learning & appreciation– how participants experienced the process (not in ‘how
things really are’)