CHAPTER 2: RESEARCH DESIGN AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
2.3 Conceptual framework
32
for research that prioritises social justice, ensuring respect for cultural norms, and bringing
participants into the research throughout the process. She concludes that the transformative paradigm is relevant in all cases where there is discrimination or oppression and in relation to power structures that propagate inequality. This is particularly apt in guiding research in a SA context which has been deeply divided by past apartheid injustices and inequality that continues into the present. In this sense, I believe that research in SA demands a transformative agenda as a guide to seeking and negotiating transformative outcomes and social justice. I am of the view that the contradictions that may unfold in following this type of approach can be alleviated or at the very least negotiated in terms of a narrative dialogical approach that takes all views into account and focuses on participatory and collaborative understandings. Following the ‘spirit’ of transformation is in keeping with a dialogical approach and what Gergen (2008) describes as being the most important aspect of what he terms the
‘constructionist message’: “the moment we begin to speak together, we have the potential to create new ways of being” (p. 29). The overall theoretical positioning is illustrated in Figure 2 below;
demonstrating the theoretical framing for the conceptual model (Critical Reflexive Model or CR Model) which is an integral part of the research and is detailed below in 2.3.
Figure 2: Theoretical positioning
Key: CCM: Critical Communicative Methodology; CST: Critical Social Theory; CR Model: Critical Reflexive Model
33
involved. This is highlighted in each of the following chapters. Working reflexively and dialogically involves taking into account and adapting to the needs of the particular research participants and the particular contexts at particular times. This does not, however, mean that ‘anything goes’ and this research has been firmly grounded in theory by adopting a conceptual model that is used both as a foundation for developing methodology to guide narrative deconstruction (interrogating the layers within stories); practice and participatory methodology (teacher – learner; researcher – participant);
and to critically analyse and evaluate the processes undertaken throughout the research. In conclusion, I also critically examine and evaluate the model itself for its efficacy as a tool for developing critical reflexivity.
The Critical Reflexive Model (CR Model) was first conceptualised and developed by Sliep and Gilbert (2006) and has since been refined and evaluated in a number of studies (Gilbert and Sliep 2009; Sliep 2016; Sliep & Norton 2016), including as part of this research. The development and application of the CR Model in an educational setting is detailed in Chapter 4 (Paper 2: ‘A Critical reflexive model: Working with life stories in Health Promotion Education’). Its application in the other phases of the research is also mentioned in papers in Chapter 3 (Story of self) and Chapter 5 (Story of Practice). For this reason, only an overview of the CR model and the processes involved is given in this section. This means there is some overlap in information, but this is required to give an understanding of the overall processes followed in the research from the outset.
The CR Model opens up the possibility of examining the pathways that lead to critical reflexivity, involving both self-appraisal and an appraisal of self as a participant of collective action (Gilbert &
Sliep, 2009). This process of appraisal is aided when viewed as a dynamic, iterative, and continuous process that takes place within a safe dialogical space and focuses on four aspects: power, values informing identity, agency linked to responsibility, and performance (Sliep, 2014; Sliep & Norton, 2016) (see Figure 3, CR Model). Following a narrative biographical methodology using experiential storytelling and participatory dialogue within this framework deepens the exploration of pathways to critical reflexivity (see Figure 4, Narrative paradigm in reflexivity framework).
34
Figure 3: Critical Reflexivity Model (Sliep and Gilbert 2009; Sliep 2016; Sliep and Norton 2016)
Figure 4: Narrative paradigm in reflexivity framework (Sliep 2016; Sliep and Norton 2016)
Moving through the ‘loops’ of the CR model involves exploring the mechanisms of power and deconstructing dominant discourses; an increased awareness of values and identity; interrogating responsibility and building agency; and moving to a position of social performativity. At the core of the reflexive process is a carefully facilitated dialogical space in which trust is built to enable the sharing and deconstruction of stories through dialogue and a number of carefully crafted experiential and analytical reflexive exercises. Each aspect of the model is explored throughout the research and practical examples of outcomes and participant experiences of the process are highlighted. For the purposes of this section these are summarised in Figure 5 to give an overview of the process, which is
35
discussed in detail in the coming chapters, and presented with examples from the participants involved.
Figure 5: Overview of CR process in terms of CR Model
The theoretical foundations for each loop have been carefully considered in the early stages of the development of the CR model, building on firm and long-standing theoretical approaches (Gilbert &
Sliep, 2009; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007). Pertinent examples are highlighted in the table below (see Table 2).
Dialogical Space
* Safey & trust
*Story sharing
* Reflection
* Context
* Collaborative exploration
* Connection
* Embodiment
* Critical conciousness
Power
*
Cognisance of internalised habits& beliefs
*Power over, to, with, within
* Levels: Personal (own lives), Structural (discourses), Political
(institutions, policies) AWARENESS OF USING & BEING
SUBJECTED TO POWER
Values & Identity
* Norms
* Beliefs
*Intentions
* Positioning in story NAVIGATING EXPRESSED
VALUES IN PRACTICE
Agency & Responsibility
*
Stength-based perspective*Self, proxy, collective agency
* Interupting discourses
*Building self-efficacy ABILITY TO RESPOND IS
SCAFFOLDED
Accountable Performance
* Self, Others, Context
* Disrupting discourses
* Social thinking &
action
PERFORMING FROM INTEGRATED ETHICAL
POSITION
36
Table 2: Theoretical underpinnings supporting CR Model development
CR MODEL THEORTICAL FOUNDATIONS
Dialogical Space Gergen (1999): Relational reflexive practice (Gilbert & Sliep, 2009; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007)
Gergen (1985): Knowledge as co-constructed; communal basis of knowledge (Sliep, 2010; Sliep & Norton, 2016)
Mikhail Bakhtin: Dialogue and non-finalizability (cited in Norton
& Sliep, see Chapter 3)
Paulo Friere (1970) Dialogue (above)
Jerome Bruner: Engaging in collective activities (cited in Sliep &
Gilbert, 2007)
Bohm (1996): Representations of reality and dialogue (Sliep &
Norton, 2016)
Narrative theory: Shared meaning (Sliep & Norton, 2016) Deconstructing Power Derrida (1978): Deconstruction of power – de-centering, taking
apart meaning to reveal how we come to understand things in a specific way; and deconstruction as transformation (cited in Gilbert
& Sliep, 2009; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007)
Foucault (1980; 1982): Power viewed in a Foucauldian sense in that it shapes the way we see ourselves in the world (cited in Gilbert & Sliep, 2009; Sliep, 2010; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007; Sliep &
Norton, 2016).
Critical Social Theory (above)
Intersectionality (Sliep, 2010)
Narrative theory: Understanding dominant story (Sliep & Norton, 2016)
Values & Identity (Previous: Determining moral agency)
Identity emerging in tertiary education practice (Sliep, 2010)
Gergen (1997): : Reflexivity as a relational process of social change, using Alisdair MacIntyres moral action as relations among persons (cited in Gilbert & Sliep, 2009; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007)
McAdams (2001): Identity as internalised life story (above)
Narrative theory: Using stories to understand ourselves and others;
subjectivity and values (Sliep & Norton, 2016) Agency &
Responsibility (Previous: Negotiating accountability and responsibility)
Paulo Freire (1970): Critical consciousness embedded in action (cited in Gilbert & Sliep, 2009; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007)
Bandura (2006): Social Cognitive Theory: Agency as interactive and emergent; individual, proxy and collective agency (cited in Sliep & Norton, 2016)
Narrative theory: Stories of strength, agency and voice (Sliep &
Norton, 2016) Accountable
Performance (Previous: Positive performativity)
Pratton (2008): Accountability linked to agency, personhood and power (cited in Gilbert & Sliep, 2009)
Butler (1990;1999): Performativity as a verb, positive and negative performativity (cited in Gilbert & Sliep, 2009; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007)
Jackson (2004): How dominant discourses constitute subjects and performativity (cited in Gilbert & Sliep, 2009; Sliep & Gilbert, 2007)
Narrative theory: Developing and living preferred stories (Sliep &
Norton, 2016)
37
In this research I am considering the CR Model in action as a process for developing critical reflexivity. The CR model acts in a number of ways to support this investigation and to develop critical reflexivity in participants (method); in the researcher / teacher / trainer (facilitation); and research methodology (analysis). See Table 3 for an overview.
Table 3: Overview of practical application of CR Model
CR MODEL METHOD FACILITATION ANALYSIS
DIALOGICAL SPACE
Social constructionist principles used to understand
construction of reality and open possibilities for acceptance of multiple viewpoints
Facilitating a safe space, building trust, and social support
Participative and dialogical analysis with all involved.
DECONSTRUCTING POWER
Critical examination of how power is used (personal, structural, political)
A critical examination of power in the room (educator-learner;
researcher – participant)
Awareness of positive and oppressive power practices. How is power talked about, questioned and challenged?
VALUES &
IDENTITY
Identifying values and building positive self and social identity.
Communal interaction for collective benefit and recognition of different views, collective negotiation for building social thinking and creating shared meaning.
Listening for
contextual influences and social
positioning. What is valued by the
individual and group?
RESPONSIBLE AGENCY
Breaking myths and discourses, finding stories of strength for new perspectives on identity and meaning
Focusing on strengths and skills; ensuring all voices are heard.
Looking at shifts in position – how is the participant talking about him or herself, and has this changed?
ACCOUNTABLE PERFORMANCE
Bringing culture and the person into play – disrupting dominant discourses and taking action in terms of values and professed ethical position
Participatory, responsibility and accountability is negotiated with everyone involved
Looking for the
“new” or preferred story. Has intention been transferred into action?