youssra
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Chapter 2: Methodological Accountability and Co- authoring voices
Preface
Gergen (2002:13) notes that constructionist dialogues do far more than provoke critical reflection; that they also invite new forms of methodology, theory, and practice. Consequently experimentation will necessarily demonstrate that persons are caught within a deterministic world of cause and effect, ; trait measures will yield linear hierarchies of good and bad (for example high self- esteem versus low, high neuroticism versus. low). This resulting determinism is not because causal relations and hierarchies are simply there in the world, but because the choice of method is inevitably a choice of ontology (Gergen 2002:13). Further, all methodologies harbour political, moral, and ideological ramifications. “Most existing methods, for example, create the reality of a subject-object divide – the knowing scientist as opposed to the subject of study. In this way they foster an atomized picture of society in which each of us exists separately and independently of others” (Gergen 2002:13).
Consequently, due to constraints within existing methodologies, many constructionists have been moved to seek alternatives. “Such methods create different constructions of human activity and harbour different values. For example, many researchers have established means of working cooperatively with those they might otherwise study as ‘the other.’ Participatory action researchers attempt to work with various marginalized groups to establish the kinds of knowledge necessary to enhance their life conditions. Others use various narrative methodologies to give voice to otherwise silenced sectors of society. Polyvocal methodologists attempt to give expression to the multiple voices or selves possessed by both the researcher and the researched. Still other scholars search for more aesthetic means of representing their subject matter; performance, poetry,
, poetry, multimedia, music, and art are all added to the compendium of methodologies.Senior researcher at Actioma and professor extraordinaire, Andries Baart (2003) comments on a special research edition of Practical Theology in South-Africa 18(3). This edition has a specific narrative angle. Baart (2003:147) notes herein that most researchers do not thoroughly account for their data collection, the selection from the raw data, their interpretation, and analysis etcetera. For this reason this chapter is principally devoted to such concerns.Before I embark on a more elaborate journey I wish to provide the reader with cursory remarks on methodology and its implications. Here I refer principally to Müller and Schoeman (2004) writing about narrative methodology:Müller and Schoeman (2004:11) describe research as multi-facetted action. Consequently they assert that McClintock et al (2003:715-731) have moved into the right direction by creating several metaphors for research, which account for the rich variation in research styles. It is my hope that the reader might in this chapter see how there is accounted for the realisation of these metaphors in the research since, and I agree with Müller and Schoeman (2004:11), these metaphors reflect the basic values of good research to which this study also subscribe.
Consequently they allude to research as action, research as narrative, research as facilitating, and research as responsibility. While ontological and epistemological concerns inform the research from an academically accountable and philosophical based perspective these subsequent metaphors are the pillars that practically inform method59 and accountability 60 , which this chapter is all.
Research as action
Action in the context of this research signifies participation: The way in which the primary researcher is active is through being present in a participatory fashion; never passive and objective. This notion of participatory interaction involves all relevant parties; “both researcher and those being researched are drawn into the action” (Müller & Schoeman 2004:11).
Research as narrative
In this regard Müller and Schoeman 2004:11 cite McClintock et al 2003:721 in saying that research-as-narrative suggests that research works by describing, exploring and changing the metaphors used in a process of finding during research. In this process of finding fragments of narratives are always imminent, either directly related to the theme or related to some aspect of an individual’s life, either consciously asked for or presented, or incognisantly performed from the storying nature of our humanness.
Research as facilitating
Given that the topic or research question mostly originates from the interest of the researcher, s/he is the initiator and therefore facilitates the research (Müller & Schoeman 2004:11). It is emphasised that a facilitator is not suppose to be a manipulator. S/he performs the role as the conductor of an orchestra that performs meaning. It is not the conductor that writes the music score. The performance of music/ meaning is a joint venture.
60 It is my belief that a good research design is all about accountability; towards participants, the scientific community, personal standards and so forth. Therefore these concepts are wedded in this chapter.
Research as responsibility
It is argued that there are no means or methods by which a researcher can be objective. S/he is rather actively involved and therefore also has the responsibility to further the research. A responsible researcher is a self-reflective researcher in answer to unattainable objectivity. Thus responsibility replaces “objectivity.” This happens by creating space for metaphors and for the development of new stories. (Müller & Schoeman 2004:11).
List of contents
List of figures and tables
Multimedia disc and contents
How to survive the journey and technical data
Synopsis
Chapter 1, Positioning
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 An Introductory metaphor, An Ordinary world
1.1.2 Overview to the research study
1.1.3 Traces of an underlying worldview
1.2 Social construction
1.2.1 Polyphonic post’s
1.2.1.1 Polyphonics; heed the warning and embrace the differentiation
1.2.1.2 Points of agreement
1.2.1.2.1 Refutation of essence
1.2.1.2.2 Refutation of hidden structures
1.2.1.2.3 Interrogating definitions
1.2.1.3 Useful differentiation – social constructionism versus constructivism
1.2.1.4 Levels of social constructionism
1.2.1.5 Realism versus relativism; can they co-exist?
1.2.2 Appreciative, reflexive inquiry into a foundational basis
1.2.3 Research as acquiring a new language
1.2.3.1 What, language again?
1.2.3.2 Discourse
1.2.3 Social construction of ‘the good the bad and the ugly’
1.2.4 Deconstructing the ‘one truth’ assumption!
1.2.5 Possibility Theory
1.2.5.1 Raising questions about God
1.2.5.2 Background to academic pursuit
1.2.5.3 Broadening the conversation
1.2.5.4 Possibility theory employed from the arts
1.2.5.5 A PhD focus group interrogation
1.2.6 Interlude: How do you play the game?
1.3 Theological positioning
1.3.1 Theology or Practical Theology
1.3.1.1 Theology and Art: an already established link
1.3.1.2 Theology, arts and creation
1.3.1.2.1 Human uniqueness and the imago Dei
1.3.1.2.2 Arts and Creation
1.3.1.3 Theology, and the personal narrative
1.3.1.4 Theology informed by a reflexive community
1.3.2 Pastoral positioning
1.3.2.1 Researcher versus therapist-pastor
1.4 Surveying the research theme
1.4.1 Explorative
1.4.2 Interaction
1.4.3 Narrative practise
University of Pretoria etd – Pienaar, H E (2006)
1.5 The Delta area – discovering other narrative disciplines
1.5.1 Narrative practise
1.6 Methodological positioning
1.6.1 Positioning within the narrative
1.6.1.1 “Let there be stories,” God said
1.6.1.2 Metaphors and Narrative
1.6.1.2.1 Narrative and social construction as metaphor
1.6.1.2.2 Metaphor in comparison to symbols and signs
1.6.1.3 Differentiating between performing narratives and story-tools
1.6.1.4 Narrative in reaction to
1.7 Positioning within the arts
1.7.1 A definition of the arts?
Chapter 2: Methodological Accountability and Co-authoring voices
2.1 Preface
2.1.1 Research as action
2.1.2 Research as narrative
2.1.3 Research as facilitating
2.1.4 Research as responsibility
Section A
2.2 Introductory metaphor
2.3 A twofold research gap
2.4 Research procedure: A Birdseye view
2.5 Design
2.5.1 Phenomenological
2.5.2 Grounded theory
2.6 All Beavers Drink Coke a cola Euphorically
2.6.1 Introduction and method
2.6.1.1 Action
2.6.1.2 Background
2.6.1.3 Development
2.6.1.4 Climax
2.6.1.5 Ending
2.6.2 Usual criteria for good research design
2.6.3 Graphical representations to research design
2.6.3.1 Graphical representation 1
2.6.3.2 Graphical representation 2
2.6.3.3 Graphical Representation 3
2.7 Data sources?
2.7.1 Qualitative Interviews
2.7.1.1 Means of capturing information
2.7.1.2 Reasons for interviews as data
2.7.1.3 Skills required for qualitative interviewing
2.7.2 Means of deriving data
2.8 Co-authoring voices and criteria for involvement
2.8.1 Criteria, an environmental view
2.9 Ethics and accountability
2.9.1 Ethical considerations in interviewing
2.9.1.1 Informed consent University of Pretoria etd – Pienaar, H E (2006)
Section B
2.10 Once upon a time
2.11 Sojourners/ co-researchers
2.11.1 Jo Viljoen
2.11.2 Pastoral community
2.11.3 Berna
2.11.4 Marinus Loots
2.11.5 Bianca Pretorius
2.11.6 Talitha Broos
2.11.7 Hannetjie Straus
2.11.8 Suzette van Tonder
2.11.9 Fransien Schoeman
2.11.10 Moré Niehaus
2.11.11 Christo Möller
2.11.12 Professor Hagemann’s contributions
2.11.13 Congregational creative arts examples
2.11.14 Literary voices
2.11.15 Mercédès Pavlicevic
2.11.16 Henk du Plessis
2.11.17 CFN Facilitation
2.11.17 PhD Focus group
2.11.18 Voices from the interface between the arts and theology
2.11.19 Arts and Reconciliation conference
2.11.20 Cape Town conference
2.11.21 Leonard Sweet conference
Chapter 3, Artistic explorations
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Cape Town
3.3 EPIC
3.4 CAM Reflection/ interpretation – about a rainbow (congregational story)
3.5 Staying close to my theological home
3.6 On Bianca’s interaction with the arts
3.7 Christo’s crossroad with the arts</s
3.8 Moré’s interaction with the arts
3.9 Marinus and the Multimedia landscape
3.10 Professor Hagemann on the arts
3.11 Informed by Henk – A Learning experience
3.12 Narrative practice and organisational facilitation
3.13 Arts and Reconciliation conference, 14-20 March 2005 – a reflection
Chapter 4, we live and die in the stories of others
Section A
4.1 Introduction, narrative as art
4.2 Story in therapy versus Story as therapy
4.3 Questioning the vitality of narrative practise
4.4 Considering the use of arts in narrative practise
4.5 Enriching narrative practise.
4.6 The Writers Journey – Christopher Vogler
4.7 Relating Vogler to narrative practise
4.8 Vogler and the arts
4.9 Drama therapy and story
4.10 Other story structures
Chapter 5, Do what you want but tell me a story
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Preface to arts in/ as debate
5.3 Possible functions and considerations of the arts
Chapter 6, Personal reflection
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Personal remarks
6.3 Reflections on communities
6.4 Reflection on the process
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT
