De-romanticising dialogue in collaborative health care research: a critical, reflexive approach to tensions in an action research project's initial phase

Louise Phillips; Birgitte Ravn Olesen; Michael Scheffmann-Petersen; Helle Merete Nordentoft

doi:10.4081/qrmh.2018.7178

Authors

Louise Phillips
louisep@ruc.dk
Department of Communication and Arts, Roskilde University, Denmark. http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7493-9430
Birgitte Ravn Olesen Department of Communication and Arts, Roskilde University, Denmark.
Michael Scheffmann-Petersen Department of Communication and Arts, Roskilde University, Denmark.
Helle Merete Nordentoft Department of Education, Aarhus University, Denmark.

In the current socio-political conjuncture, collaborative, dialogic forms of knowledge production abound and are idealised as democratic and inclusive. The aim of the article is to contribute to the body of critical, reflexive analyses of collaborative research by analysing how complex dynamics of exclusion as well as inclusion create tensions in researchers’ attempts to establish collaborative relations in the initial phase of an action research project. The analysis applies a framework combining Bakhtinian dialogic communication theory and Foucauldian theory to explore inclusion and exclusion in the tensional interplay of multiple voices whereby certain voices dominate. Finally, the article offers a typology of ideal types of collaborative research relations that can be used in the initial research phase as a platform for reflexive discussion between researchers and potential collaborative partners about their respective understandings of collaboration and dialogue and corresponding expectations about the research process and results.

Arieli, D., Friedman, V., & Agbaria, K. (2009). The paradox of participation in action research. Action Research, 7(3), 263–290. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750309336718

Author A (2011a). Details withheld for peer review.

Author A (2011b). Details withheld for peer review.

Author A and others (Ed.) (2012). Details withheld for peer review.

Author A and others (2013). Details withheld for peer review.

Author A and others (2016). Details withheld for peer review.

Authors B and D (2013). Details withheld for peer review.

Author B (2014). Details withheld for peer review.

Bacchi, C. (2012). Why Study Problematizations? Making Politics Visible. Open Journal of Political Science, 2(1), 1–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojps.2012.21001

Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Ed. M. Holquist (Ed.). C. Emerson & M. Holquist (trans). Austin and London: University of Texas Press.

Bakhtin, M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Ed. and Trans. Carly Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1

Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Baxter, L. (2011). Voicing Relationships. A Dialogic Perspective. London: Sage.

Cook, T. (2012). Where Participatory Approaches Meet Pragmatism in Funded (Health) Research: The Challenge of Finding Meaningful Spaces [60 paragraphs]. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13(1), 1–22.

Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (Eds.). (2001). Participation: The New Tyranny? London: Zed Books. Cordeiro, L., Baldini Soares, C., & Rittenmeyer, L. (2017) Unscrambling method and methodology in action research traditions: theoretical conceptualisations of praxis and emancipation. Qualitative Research, 17(4), 395–407.

Craig, R. T. (1999). Communication theory as a field. Communication Theory, 9(2), 119–161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.1999.tb00355.x

Cunningham, W. S. (2008). Voices from the field: practitioner reactions to collaborative research initiatives. Action Research, 6(4), 373–390. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1476750308097025

Davies, S. (2013). The rules of engagement: Power and interaction in dialogue events. Public Understanding of Science, 22(1), 65–7. Deetz, S., & Simpson, J. (2004). Critical Organizational Dialogue: Open Formation and the Demand of ‘Otherness’. In R. Anderson, L. Baxter, & K. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogue: Theorizing Difference in Communication Studies (pp. 141–158).Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.

Delgado, A., Kjølberg, K., & Wickson, F. (2011). Public Engagement Coming of Age: From Theory to Practice in STS Encounters with Nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 826–845. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510363054

Denzin, N. (2003). Performative ethnography: critical pedagogy and the politics of culture. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985390

Denzin, N. (2008). Emancipatory discourses and the ethics and politics of interpretation. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials, (pp. 435-471). London: Sage.

Dutta, M., & Pal, M. (2010). Dialog theory in marginalized settings: a subaltern studies approach. Communication Theory, 20(4), 363–386. Edwards, R., & Brannelly, T. (2017). Approaches to democratising qualitative research methods. Qualitative Research, 17(3), 271–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01367.x

Edwards, R., & Brannelly, T. (Eds.). (2017). Special Issue: Approaches to democratising qualitative research methods. Qualitative Research, 17(3). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794117706869

Foucault, M. (1972). Archaeology of Knowledge. London: Routledge.

Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and Power. In C. Gordon (Ed.) Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and other Writings 1972-1977. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

Frank, A. (2005). What is dialogical research and why should we do it? Qualitative Health Research, 15(7), 964–974. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305279078

Freire, P. (Ed.). (1997). Mentoring the mentor: a critical dialogue with Paulo Freire. London: Peter Lang Publishing.

Gallagher, K. (Ed.) (2008). The Methodological Dilemma: Creative, critical and collaborative approaches to qualitative research. London: Routledge. Gayá Wicks, P., & Reason, P. (2009). Initiating action research: Challenges and paradoxes of opening communicative space. Action Research, 7(3), 243–262. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203927175

Gomez, A., Puigvert, L., & Flecha, R. (2011). Critical Communicative Methodology: Informing Real Social Transformation through Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 17(3), 235–245. Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. (2008). Controversies, Contradictions, Confluences. In N. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln (Eds.). The Landscape of Qualitative Research: Theories and Issues. Volume 1. 3rd Edition, London: Sage.

Hammond, S., Anderson, R., & Cissna, K. (2003). The problematics of dialogue and power. Communication Yearbook, 27, 125–157. London: Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15567419cy2701_5

Herr, K., & Anderson, G. (2005). The Action Research Dissertation: A Guide for Students and Faculty. London: Sage.

Hong, X., Falter, M., & Fecho, B. (2017). Embracing tension: using Bakhtinian theory as a means for data analysis. Qualitative Research, 17(1), 20–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794116653800

Irwin, K. (2006): Into the Dark Heart of Ethnography: The lived Ethics and Inequality of Intimate Field Relationships. Qualitative Sociology, 29,155–175. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-006-9011-3

Kerr A., Cunningham-Burley S., & Tutton R. (2007). Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science, 37(3), 385–411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312706068492

Kristiansen, M., & Bloch-Poulsen, J. (2013). In Author A and others. Details withheld for peer review.

Kumsa, M. K., Chambon, A., Yan, M. C., & Maiter, S. (2015). Catching the shimmers of the social: from the limits of reflexivity to methodological creativity. Qualitative Research, 15(4), 419–436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794114538897

Lather, P. (1986). Research as praxis. Harvard Educational Review, 56(3), 257–277. Lather, P. (1991). Getting smart: Feminist research and pedagogy with/in the postmodern. New York: Routledge. Letiche, H. (2010). Polyphony and its Other. Organization Studies, 31(3), 261–277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.56.3.bj2h231877069482

Ospina, S. , Dodge, J., Godsoe, B., Minieri, J., Reza, S., & Schall, E. (2004). From Consent to Mut-ual Inquiry: Balancing Democracy and Authority in Action Research. Action Research, 2(1), 47-69. Other & Author B (2008). Details withheld for peer review.

Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781848607934

Inquiry and Practice. London: SAGE.

Richardson, L. (1997). Fields of Play: Constructing an Academic Life. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Richardson, L., & St. Pierre, E. (2008). Writing: A Method of Inquiry. In N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln (Eds.). Collecting and Interpreting Qualitative Materials. London: Sage.

Roberts, N. (2002). Calls for dialogue. In N. Roberts (Ed.), The Transformative Power of Dialogue, (pp 3–24). Oxford: Elsevier Science Ltd.

Staunæs, D., & Søndergaard, D. M. (2008). Who is ready for the results? Reflections on the multi-voicedness of useful research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education 21(1), 3–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701768757

Stirling, A. (2008). “Opening up” and “closing down”: Power, participation and pluralism in the Social Appraisal of Technology. Science, Technology and Human Values, 33(2), 262–294. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243907311265

Strumińska-Kutra, M. (2016). Engaged scholarship: Steering between the risks of paternalism, opportunism, and paralysis. Organization, 23(6), 864– 883. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1350508416631163

Tsoukas, H. (2009). A Dialogical Approach to the Creation of New Knowledge in Organizations, Organization Science, 20(6), 941–957. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1090.0435

Phillips, Louise, Birgitte Ravn Olesen, Michael Scheffmann-Petersen, and Helle Merete Nordentoft. 2018. “De-Romanticising Dialogue in Collaborative Health Care Research: A Critical, Reflexive Approach to Tensions in an Action Research project’s Initial Phase”. Qualitative Research in Medicine and Healthcare 2 (1). https://doi.org/10.4081/qrmh.2018.7178.