Onderzoekende participatie | Amsterdam University Press Journals Online
2004
Volume 28, Issue 3
  • ISSN: 1385-1535
  • E-ISSN: 1875-7324

Abstract

Abstract

Inquisitive participation involves a group of stakeholders looking for a solution of a shared problem through collective inquiry. Whereas this approach resembles participative research, in contradistinction it departs from a practical, public problem. Which criteria should inquisitive participation adhere to in order to achieve ideals of better research as well as participation? We subscribe to the idea of ‘workability’ as a pragmatic criterion, and we infer from this more specific criteria to design processes of inquisitive participation. These are: fitting the forum to the fuss, widening the range of perspectives and enriching narrative, giving shape to the public and fostering an inquisitive attitude. We illustrate these criteria with work carried out in the Amsterdam Red Light district (‘Wallen’), comprising a group of local inhabitants and entrepreneurs selected through lottery, who collaboratively developed proposals to improve quality of life locally. Halfway through the process this already resulted in improved shared understandings and improved relations. At the same time, through the collaborative approach we could validate our findings from the viewpoint of workability.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2023.3.003.MENS
2023-10-01
2024-02-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bartels, Koen (2017). The double bind of social innovation: Relational dynamics of change and resistance in neighbourhood governance. In: Urban Studies, 2017, 54(16), 3789–3805.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bartels, Koen; Turnbull, Nick (2019): Relational public administration: a synthesis and heuristic classification of relational approaches. In: Public Management Review, doi: 10.1080/14719037.2019.1632921
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Brenninkmeijer, Alex; Bonenkamp, Dick; Oyen, Karen van; Prein, Hugo (2017). Handboek Mediation.Sdu Uitgevers.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, J. (2010) The world Café. Shaping our futures through conversations that matter. Berrett Koehler.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Swallow Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Fischer, R., Ury, W. (2012). Getting to yes. Negotiating an argument without giving in. Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Flyvbjerg, Bent (2001). Making social science matter. Why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fossey, Ellie, CarolHarvey, FionaMcDermott, LarryDavidson (2002), Understanding and evaluating qualitative research. In: Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 717–732.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Glasl, F. (1982). The Process of Conflict Escalation and Roles of Third Parties. In: Bomers, G.B.J., Peterson, R.B. (eds) Conflict Management and Industrial Relations. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1132-6_6
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Golafshani, Nahid (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. In: The Qualitative Report. 8(4), 597-607.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Greenwood, Davydd J. (2007). Pragmatic Action Research. In: International Journal of Action Research, 3(1+2), 131-148.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Heikkinen, Hannu L. T.; Huttunen, Rauno & Syrjälä, Leena (2007) Action research as narrative: five principles for validation. In: Educational Action Research, 15(1), 5-19.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hisschemöller, M. & Hoppe, R. (1995). Coping with Intractable Controversies: The Case for Problem Structuring in Policy Design and Analysis. In: Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, Winter1995-96, 8(4), 40-60.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hope, Kevin W.; Waterman, Heather A. (2003). Praiseworthy pragmatism? Validity and action research. In: Journal of Advanced Nursing, 44(2), 120–127.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. James, William (1980 [1906]). What Pragmatism Means. In: Pragmatism, A new name for some old ways of thinking. Hackett Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Johansson, Anders W. & Lindhult, Erik (2008). Emancipation or workability? Critical versus pragmatic scientific orientation in action research. In: Action Research, 6(1), 95–115.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. KuitenbrouwerM (2018) Getting unstuck: the reconstruction clinic as pragmatic intervention in controversial policy disputes. In: Bartels, K and Wittmayer, J.Action Research in Policy Analysis (pp. 177–197). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. A. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Marres, N. (2005). No issue, no public: democratic deficits after the displacement of politics. University of Amsterdam.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Marres, N. (2007). The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy. In: Social Studies of Science, 37(5), 759–780.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Mensink, W., KuitenbrouwerM., Schie, N. van (2022). Voorwaarden voor succesvolle conflictbemiddeling. In: Dekker, P. (red) Politieke polarisatie in Nederland. Het Wereldvenster.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Rein, Martin & Schön, Donald (1996). Frame-Critical Policy Analysis and Frame-Reflective Policy Practice. In: Knowledge and Policy: The International Journal of Knowledge Transfer and Utilization, Spring1996, 9(1), 85-104.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. FrankE. A. Sander & Stephen B.Goldberg (1994), Fitting the Forum to the Fuss: A User-Friendly Guide to Selecting an ADR Procedure. In: Negotiation Journal, 10(1), 49-68.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Shields (2003). The community of Inquiry. Classical Pragmatism and Public Administration. In: Administration & Society, 35(5), 510-538.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Schon & Rein (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies. Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Stappers, P. J., Sanders, E. B. N. (2003). Generative tools for context mapping: tuning the tools. McDonagh et al. (eds.) Design and Emotion. The experience of everyday things. Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Whittemore, R.; Chase, S. K.; Mandle, Carol Lynn (2001). Validity in qualitative research. In: Qualitative Health Research, 11(4), 522-537.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2023.3.003.MENS
Loading
/content/journals/10.5117/KWA2023.3.003.MENS
Loading

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error