Deliberative research
Regarding the Australian Citizens' Parliament our research team is establishing, a friend of mine wrote:
I made a very conscious decision to pursue naturalistic (ie. phenomenological) rather than experimental research because that's what the big names in education and poli-sci/comms are calling for. We need to understand what is actually happening according to participants, not what can be explained by laboratory analogy or filtered through the lens of theory. It is certainly easier to devise a lab exercise, especially in getting funding and setting it up. And you are right, that would be less risky too if I was in complete control of it.
But I haven't put my PhD in the hands of others. Sure, much of what occurs through the deliberative process is not in my direct control. But my research data collection is being planned very carefully and is specific to my research questions. It is not the events that provide the data, but the responses of individuals and groups to my specific inquiry, whether it be through structured observation, semi-structured interview or questionnaire. It is that research "structure" that is crucial, as I will be looking at very particular things in the context of the entire proceedings.
As part of the planning group, I have no doubt that we can provide an environment at regional meetings, online and finally at Old Parliament House in Canberra that is conducive to deliberation. In fact, I'd say that there is less risk there than at a municipal Citizens Jury!
So I don't think I'm being especially brave (or silly?) to undertake this research with others. What does take courage is to promote my research agenda within a project that is dominated by logistical concerns and the established agendas of the others. The collaborative (aka deliberative) demands of this project on us will probably serve me as much or more in my future prospects as the findings of my research.
I am learning to be a deliberative researcher.
It's brave of you to put your PhD in the hands of others to rely on their events providing your data.In part, I responded thus:
I made a very conscious decision to pursue naturalistic (ie. phenomenological) rather than experimental research because that's what the big names in education and poli-sci/comms are calling for. We need to understand what is actually happening according to participants, not what can be explained by laboratory analogy or filtered through the lens of theory. It is certainly easier to devise a lab exercise, especially in getting funding and setting it up. And you are right, that would be less risky too if I was in complete control of it.
But I haven't put my PhD in the hands of others. Sure, much of what occurs through the deliberative process is not in my direct control. But my research data collection is being planned very carefully and is specific to my research questions. It is not the events that provide the data, but the responses of individuals and groups to my specific inquiry, whether it be through structured observation, semi-structured interview or questionnaire. It is that research "structure" that is crucial, as I will be looking at very particular things in the context of the entire proceedings.
As part of the planning group, I have no doubt that we can provide an environment at regional meetings, online and finally at Old Parliament House in Canberra that is conducive to deliberation. In fact, I'd say that there is less risk there than at a municipal Citizens Jury!
So I don't think I'm being especially brave (or silly?) to undertake this research with others. What does take courage is to promote my research agenda within a project that is dominated by logistical concerns and the established agendas of the others. The collaborative (aka deliberative) demands of this project on us will probably serve me as much or more in my future prospects as the findings of my research.
I am learning to be a deliberative researcher.
Post a Comment