Negotiating democratic relations in a doctoral project examining university conditions and pedagogical praxis

Abstract

This article is a critically reflexive account of how collaborative processes and democratic relations were negotiated in a doctoral research project which combined elements of institutional ethnography, self-study, and, significantly for this article, critical participatory action research. The critical participatory action research dimension of the project involved a group of academics working in the same university faculty, critically and collaboratively examining their own pedagogical practice and the conditions which constrain and enable critical pedagogical praxis in their setting. The article explores what possibilities for democratic participation were created and limited by the circumstances and conditions that constituted this critical participatory action research. I consider the kind of democratic participation that was possible, what enabled this kind of democratic participation, and challenges that emerged in attempts to realise democratic goals. The discussion highlights some of the complexities of fostering democratic participation in critical participatory action research within doctoral research.

Keywords:

• Democratic participation
• praxis
• ethical issues
• practice architectures
• critical participatory action research
• reflexivity
• doctoral research

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the generosity and contributions of the participants in the study and her doctoral supervisors. The author is also grateful to the Research Institute for Professional Practice, Learning and Education, Charles Sturt University, for funding attendance at the Collaborative Action Research Network (CARN) conference where an earlier version of this article was presented, conference audience members for their feedback, Stephen Kemmis, whose idea it was to generate a formal set of group protocols, and Heidi Smith and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful advice.

Notes

1. See Townsend (2013) for a discussion of how participation is treated in the action research literature.

2. The CPAR aspect of the research was a collaborative self-study. However, I use the term self-study in this article to refer specifically to the dimension of the project that involved me examining my own practices, experiences, and interpretations, over and above my participation in the group practices and activities.

3. Before I arrived at the university, group membership changed as people (male and female) moved to other universities. It remained stable during the research period.

4. A modified version of these protocols is presented in Kemmis, McTaggart, and Nixon (2014).

5. The analytical processes and the analytical framework will be the focus of future publications.

6. Pseudonyms used for all participants.