Meta-Methodology

Pluralism and Complementarity

Concerns regarding the potential for methodological complementarity have an extensive history of debate. Debate regarding research paradigms and methodological implications has ranged across many disciplinary traditions. All methodological perspectives come with fundamental underpinnings relating to the nature of inquiry and philosophical ideals. A focus on pluralism and meta-methodology seeks to develop conversations around frameworks on interpretation which reflect and respect multiple viewpoints on these underpinnings. Rather than putting up a trivial ‘straw man’ of an opposing position to be knocked down triumphantly, a meta-methodological view enables critical development of a preferred position while maintaining a respect and recognition of the strengths of other approaches for particular aspects of the situation of interest. A meta-methodological perspective can assist those seeking to overcome differences in methodology and underlying values and keep conversations going across ideological and disciplinary boundaries. Frameworks of interpretation are themselves highly contestable, and so the descriptions below draw upon frameworks associated with action research and systemic literature which have been debated robustly and applied broadly—interpretations that build upon critical systems and David Kolb's learning competencies. These are presented as examples of potential meta-methodological frameworks that can aid in critical comparison and exposition.

A useful beginning point is to start from a position common to many practitioners of action research. Action research is defined by its intention as a pluralist practice underpinned by a participative world view, seeking to co-construct the process of inquiry and the understanding generated. This is a strong epistemological position, that is, a perspective on the nature of inquiry, and aligns strongly with a constructivist epistemology. A constructivist perspective addresses subjective and intersubjective concerns through seeking authentic representation of participant's perspectives, through open and honest documentation and cycles of hermeneutic interpretation (i.e. a process of interpreting meaning and context). With an explicit aim of improvement, constructivist scholars such as Yvonna Lincoln identified the criteria of ‘trustworthiness' as the following: Has a heightened awareness of one's own constructions been achieved (ontological authenticity)? Has an increased awareness of other stakeholders' assumptions been achieved (educative authenticity)—or the capacity for prompt action (catalytic authenticity) or the ability to engage the political arena on behalf of stakeholders (empowerment criteria)—or of the extent to which external readers can infer relevance to their own situation (transferability criteria)? These criteria reinforce the importance of a strong epistemological position regarding the role of the researcher and his or her inquiry.

...