Transformative paradigm (Donna M. Mertens and

Transformative paradigm (Donna M. Mertens and

many others): This approach, previously referred to as the

transformative–emancipatory paradigm, applies

critical social theory and social constructionism to mixed-

methods and evaluation research. One of the underlying

assumptions is the existence of multiple versions of

reality.

“I outlined the assumptions associated with the

transformative paradigm and its implications for a mixed

methods approach to evaluation …, to wit:

• “Axiological: The guiding principles for ethical

practice in evaluation concern the ability of the

evaluation to address issues of human rights and

social justice.…

• Ontological: The nature of reality is such that

different versions of reality are held by people in

different societal positions. The evaluator has a

responsibility to reveal the different versions of

reality and to support stakeholders in their critical

interrogation of those versions of reality in order to

identify which have the greatest potential to further

human rights and social justice.

• “Epistemological: The evaluators need to identify the

cultural norms and beliefs of relevance in the context

and be respectfully responsive to those norms and

beliefs.

• “Methodological: The methodology associated with

the transformative paradigm begins with critical

dialogue (hermeneutical explorations) and is

designed in a cyclical manner to be responsive to the

information needs at particular points in the project,

with specific attention to culturally appropriate

methods.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Program Evaluation without a

Client: The Case of the Disappearing Intended Users.”

The Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation. Volume

25, number 3, 2012. Pages 47-57.]

“The transformative paradigm is one philosophical

framework that helps organize thinking about how

evaluators ‘can serve the interests of social justice through

the production of credible evidence that is responsive to

the needs of marginalized communities. It provides a

meta-physical umbrella to guide evaluators who work in

communities that experience discrimination and

oppression on whatever basis—gender, disability,

immigrant status, race/ethnicity, sexual identification, or a

multitude of other characteristics associated with less

access to societal privileges’ …. Evaluators often work in

contexts in which a variety of possible solutions are

possible for a problem, however, in the context of wicked

problems, evaluators and stakeholders need to work

together to determine which of the solutions are culturally

responsive and have the potential to increase social

justice.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Assumptions at the philosophical

and programmatic levels in evaluation.” Evaluation and

Program Planning. In Press edition. June, 2016. Pages 1-

7.]

“The transformative ontological assumption recognizes

the multi-faceted nature of reality. Human beings often

believe that they know what is real, but each concept of

what is real is influenced by the positionality of the

person. A person who is in a position of unearned

privilege by virtue of skin color, gender, or lack of a

disability might hold one version of reality. However, a

person who is not in that privileged position may hold

quite a different version of reality.…

“Epistemologically, knowledge is not viewed as

absolute nor relative; it is created within a context of

power and privilege. Evaluators need to develop

respectful and collaborative relationships that are

culturally responsive to the needs of the various

stakeholder groups in order to establish conditions

conducive to revealing knowledge from different

positions.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Philosophical Assumptions and

Program Evaluation.” SpazioFilosofico. Number 13,

February 2015. Pages 75-85.]

“My theoretical orientation derives from the work of

feminists, ethnic/racial minorities, and people with

disabilities and their advocates regarding ways to

approach research and evaluation in a way that more

validly represents the views of those with the least

power.”

[Donna M. Mertens in Katherine Ryan, “Advantages and

Challenges of Using Inclusive Evaluation Approaches in

Evaluation Practice.” American Journal of Evaluation.

Volume 19, number 1, 1998. Pages 101-122.]

“I used the underlying philosophical assumptions

associated with the Transformative Paradigm to posit its

suitability to underpin evaluation work in culturally

complex contexts. I explained that philosophical

assumptions are really guides to action in evaluation and

that it is important to critically explore the assumptions

that underlie our work. Working within the transformative

paradigm is not about following a defined step-by-step

method, as much as it involves thinking critically about

how realities are shaped, and how the evaluator can work

with stakeholders to accurately capture their realities and

link them to social action.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Transformative Research and

Evaluation and Dimensions of Diversity.” Presented at

Social Science Methodology in the New Millennium: Sixth

International Conference on Logic and Methodology.

Amsterdam, the Netherlands. August 17th–20th, 2004.

Pages 1-10. Retrieved on December 24th, 2015.]

“The transformative paradigm offers a metaphysical

umbrella that brings together commensurate philosophical

strands. It is applicable to people who experience

discrimination and oppression on whatever basis,

including (but not limited to) race/ethnicity, disability,

immigrant status, political conflicts, sexual orientation,

poverty, gender, age, or the multitude of other

characteristics that are associated with less access to

social justice.”

[Kelly M. Munger and Donna M. Mertens, “Conducting

Research with the Disability Community: A Rights-Based

Approach.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing

Education. Number 132, winter 2011. Pages 23-33.]

“The transformative paradigm is one philosophical

framework that helps to organize thinking about how

evaluation can serve the interests of social justice through

the production of credible evidence that is responsive to

the needs of marginalized communities. It provides a

metaphysical umbrella to guide evaluators who work in

communities that experience discrimination and

oppression on whatever basis—gender, disability,

immigrant status, race/ethnicity, sexual identification, or a

multitude of other characteristics associated with less

access to societal privileges.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “What Does a Transformative Lens

Bring to Credible Evidence in Mixed Methods

Evaluations?” Mixed Methods and Credibility of Evidence

in Evaluation. Donna M. Mertens and Sharlene Hesse-

Biber, editors. San Francisco, California: The Jossey-Bass

Education Series imprint of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

2013. Page 28.]

“Transformative scholars assume that knowledge is not

neutral, but is influenced by human interests, that all

knowledge reflects the power and social relationships

within society, and that an important purpose of

knowledge construction is to help people improve

society ….”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Inclusive Evaluation: Implications

of Transformative Theory for Evaluation.” American

Journal of Evaluation. Volume 20, number 1, 1999. Pages

1-14.]

“The transformative paradigm of research and

evaluation provides an overarching theoretical framework

to guide evaluators who wish to address issues of cultural

complexity …. The transformative paradigm serves as a

useful theoretical umbrella to explore philosophical

assumptions and guide methodological choices. Although

most evaluation approaches could benefit from an

increased understanding of cultural complexity and

competency, evaluation approaches such as those labeled

inclusive …, human rights-based …, democratic …, or

culturally responsive … are most commensurate with this

paradigm.…

“Ontologically, this paradigm explicitly interrogates the

social and cultural forces that determine what is deemed

to be real, how power and privilege play into the accepted

definitions of reality, and the consequences of accepting

one reality over another. Epistemologically, the

transformative paradigm calls for a respectful and

knowledgeable link between the evaluator and the

stakeholders, with explicit recognition of the influence of

power and privilege in human relations and trust building.

Methodologically, decisions are guided by a deep

understanding of the cultural norms and values in the

program context and usually are associated with dialogue

among the stakeholders, the use of mixed methods of data

collection, and shared power in the use of the findings.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Stakeholder Representation in

Culturally Complex Communities: Insights from the

Transformative Paradigm.“ Fundamental Issues in

Evaluation. Nick L. Smith and Paul R. Brandon, editors.

New York: The Guilford Press. 2008. Pages 41-60.]

“Quite briefly, the transformative paradigm is a

framework of belief systems that directly engages

members of culturally diverse groups with a focus on

increased social justice …. The axiological belief is of

primary importance in the transformative paradigm and

drives the formulation of the three other belief systems

(ontology, epistemology, and methodology). The

fundamental principles of the transformative axiological

assumption are enhancement of social justice, furtherance

of human rights, and respect for cultural norms. These are

not unproblematic ethical principles for researchers.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Transformative Mixed Methods

Research.” Qualitative Inquiry. Volume 16, number 6,

2010. Pages 469-474.]

“The Inclusive/Transformative Model of evaluation will

focus on the dimensions of the interactive link between

the evaluator and the members of the community that the

program is designed to serve. It will reflect a shift in

emphasis to inclusivity and transformation in terms of a

more integrated view of evaluation with program

personnel, participants, and the communities in which

they are located. Much intellectual energy will need to be

brought to bear to develop this model, but even more

importantly, and perhaps more difficult, will be the

change in the channeling of emotional energy on the parts

of all involved to this end.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Inclusivity and Transformation:

Evaluation in 2010.” American Journal of Evaluation.


“The transformative paradigm … provides a framework

of belief systems that directly engages members of

culturally diverse groups with a focus on increased social

justice. Being firmly rooted in a human rights agenda,

ethical implications for evaluation are derived from the

conscious inclusion of a broad range of people who are

generally excluded from the mainstream in society. It

strives to extend the meaning of traditional ethical

concepts to more directly reflect ethical considerations in

culturally complex communities. Power issues in terms of

determining the evaluation focus, planning,

implementation, and use will also be examined from a

transformative ethical stance based on axiological

assumptions related to respect for communities that have

been pushed to the margins and recognition of the

resilience that rests within their members.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Transformative Considerations:

Inclusion and Social Justice.” American Journal of

Evaluation. Volume 28, number 1, March 2007. Pages

86-90.]

“The transformative paradigm emerged in response to

individuals who have been pushed to the societal margins

throughout history and who are finding a means to bring

their voices into the world of research. Their voices,

shared with scholars who work as their partners to support

the increase of social justice and human rights, are

reflected in the emergence of the transformative paradigm

to guide researchers.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Philosophy in mixed methods

teaching: The transformative paradigm as illustration.”

International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches.

Volume 4, number 1, April 2010. Pages 9-18.]

“The transformative paradigm’s central tenet is that

power is an issue that must be addressed at each stage of

the research process. The development of the research

focus represents a crucial decision point early in the

research process. Typically, researchers turn to scholarly

literature to identify a research problem. However, in

transformative mixed methods research, a researcher

might make use of a variety of quantitative and qualitative

methods to determine the focus of research, with a

specific concern for power issues. Important ways of

gathering insights under the transformative paradigm

include methods of involving community members in the

initial discussions of the research focus. This can be done

in many ways, such as focus groups, interviews, surveys,

and threaded discussions.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Transformative Paradigm: Mixed

Methods and Social Justice.” Journal of Mixed Methods

Research. Volume 1, number 3, July 2007. Pages 212-

225.]

“The transformative paradigm provides an umbrella for

researchers who view their roles as agents to further

social justice. The axiological assumption provides a

conceptual framework from which the other assumptions

of the paradigm logically flow. Researchers who

recognize the importance of being culturally responsive

are inclined to learn the norms of behavior in

communities, as well as to explore different

understandings of ethical research approaches.”

[Donna M. Mertens, “Transformative Mixed Methods:

Addressing Inequities.” American Behavioral Scientist.


“… although we embrace the transformative-

emancipatory stance paradigm as a lens through which

social justice issues can be addressed—and we have used

this lens ourselves in some of our work …, we believe

that there are at least some occasions when using this

paradigm does not go far enough in terms of giving voice

to people who have been traditionally excluded, namely,

those who represent disenfranchised and the least

advantaged groups in society and who have the least

power. Specifically, although adopting a transformative-

emancipatory stance is extremely useful for giving voice

to the powerless, transformative researchers—as do all

other types of researchers—still exercise control over the

research decisions made at all four stages of the research

process ….”

[Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie and Rebecca K. Frels, “Toward

a new research philosophy for addressing social justice

issues: Critical dialectical pluralism.“ International

Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. Volume 7,

number 1, April 2013. Pages 9-26.]

“The research philosophical stance for our study was …

a critical dialectical pluralistic stance, which operates

under the assumption that, at the macro level, social

injustices are ingrained in every society. According to this

stance, rather than the researcher presenting the

findings …, the researcher assumes a research-facilitator

role that empowers the participant(s) to assume the role of

participant-researcher(s), who, in turn, either

present/perform the findings themselves or co/present/co-

perform the findings with the research-facilitator(s).”

[Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, Roslinda Rosli, Jacqueline M.

Ingram, and Rebecca K. Frels, “A Critical Dialectical

Pluralistic Examination of the Lived Experience of Select

Women Doctoral Students.” The Qualitative Report.

Volume 19, article 5, 2014. Pages 1-35.]

“A fully mixed concurrent dominant status design

involves conducting a study that mixes qualitative and

quantitative research within one or more of, or across the

aforementioned three components in a single research

study. In this design, the quantitative and qualitative

phases are mixed concurrently at one or more stages or

across the stages.”

[Nancy L. Leech and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “A

typology of mixed methods research designs.” Quality

and Quantity. Volume 43, 2009. Pages 265-275.]

“… in the present study, the following two

epistemological perspectives were combined:

pragmatism-of-the-middle and constructivism.”

[Hesborn O. Wao and Anthony J. Onwuegbuzie, “A

Mixed Research Investigation of Factors Related to Time

to the Doctorate in Education.” International Journal of

Doctoral Studies. Volume 6, 2011. Pages 115-134.]

“The transformative-emancipatory perspective

specifically addresses social inequities in order to enact

positive social change related to oppression, power, and

privilege. In working with marginalized groups, voice and

power are particularly important considerations that

should be addressed in all stages of the mixed methods

design. Theoretical frameworks, methods, and the

researcher all must have strong relationships to the

communities involved. Emphasizing values, this

perspective offers mixed methods inquiry specific value-

based goals to be incorporated at all stages.”

[Peggy Shannon-Baker, “Making Paradigms Meaningful

in Mixed Methods Research.” Journal of Mixed Methods

Research. Volume 10, number 4, October 2016. Pages

319-334.]

“We use this concept [Thomas Kuhn’s ‘scientific

anomalies’] to investigate the ‘transformative paradigm,’

a research approach specifically purposed with addressing

and redressing social injustice …. In particular, we

examine its association with pragmatist mixed methods

scholarship to explain the attractiveness of its particular

emphasis on foregrounding axiological concerns. We do

this not as a critique of the transformative paradigm, but

rather as a means of exploring what we find to be the

uneasy logical relationship within the transformative

paradigm between axiology and methodology, and, by

extension, the underspecified axiological positioning of

pragmatist mixed methods approaches more generally.”

[Catharine Biddle and Kai A. Schafft, “Axiology and

Anomaly in the Practice of Mixed Methods Work:

Pragmatism, Valuation, and the Transformative

Paradigm.” Journal of Mixed Methods Research. Volume

9, number 4, 2015. Pages 320-334.]

Article

Reclaiming the Potential of TransformativeScholarship to Enable Social Justice

Lisette Farias1, Debbie Laliberte Rudman1, Lilian Magalhaes2, andDenise Gastaldo3

AbstractScholars within critical qualitative inquiry and health sciences are becoming increasingly interested in transformative scholarship asa means to pursue greater justice in society. However, transformative scholarship has been taken up within frameworks that givena lack of consistent alignment with the critical paradigm seem to fall short in this intention. This article aims to reclaim trans-formative scholarship as an epistemological and methodological space that transforms and challenges the social order, situatingsocial justice at the forefront of inquiry. The article begins by addressing the call for work toward social justice within criticalqualitative inquiry. Subsequently, Creswell and Mertens’ frameworks are analyzed as examples of transformative scholarship thathas distanced itself from its critical roots. Based on this analysis, we raise three problematics to illustrate the dangers of thisdistancing. We conclude by proposing to reframe transformative scholarship within the critical paradigm to (re)connect it topolitical stances and values.

Keywordscritical qualitative inquiry, critical social paradigm, transformative scholarship, Creswell, Mertens

What is already known?

Increasing calls from scholars for reorienting inquiry to focus

on addressing social inequities have emerged within critical

qualitative inquiry and health sciences. In response, transfor-

mative scholarship has been taken up within contemporary

frameworks to express a commitment to social justice. A crit-

ical analysis of guiding frameworks for transformative scholar-

ship is essential in order to move away from approaches

characterized by implicit or explicit positivist/postpositivist

assumptions that often fail to question and thereby transform

the status quo.

What this paper adds?

This article analyzes an epistemological tension inherent in the

frameworks proposed by Creswell and Mertens. By unpacking

this epistemological tension, we aim to heighten awareness of

potential dangers associated with a reliance on positivist/post-

positivist assumptions in frameworks aiming to make a differ-

ence in people’s lives by promoting social transformation

toward justice. It also contributes to scholarly movements

within the fields of qualitative inquiry and health sciences that

attempt to push away from the historical boundaries of

positivism/postpositivism in order to engage with critical-

informed and participatory forms of inquiry that can develop

contextually situated understandings of injustices.

Introduction

The idea of this article came about in response to a current

tension within the disciplinary home of the first three authors,

specifically occupational science. This tension is arising as

scholars increasingly attempt to take up the discipline’s moral

and ethical commitment to social justice while at the same time

being located within health sciences (Frank, 2012;Whiteford &

Hocking, 2012)—a field largely grounded in positivist/postpo-

sitivist conceptualizations of the scientific method (Gibson,

2016). Thus, in an attempt to move beyond the historical

1 Western University, Ontario, Canada2 Federal University of Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil3 University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Lisette Farias, Western University, 1201 Western Rd., Elborn College, London,

Ontario, Canada N6G 1H1.

Email: [email protected]

International Journal of Qualitative MethodsVolume 16: 1–10ª The Author(s) 2017Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1609406917714161journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq

Creative Commons CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without furtherpermission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).

mailto:[email protected]

https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/journals-permissions

https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917714161

http://journals.sagepub.com/home/ijq

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F1609406917714161&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2017-06-08

predominance of individualistic and positivist/postpositivist

frames, this article responds to the increasing desire for taking

up occupational science’s early calls to attend to the transfor-

mative potential of occupation to address social inequities

(Townsend, 1997; Watson & Swartz, 2004). By aiming to

understand and address this tension, we explore literature

addressing other health disciplines’ similar expressions of

struggle. From this standpoint, the intent of this article is to

build on the efforts of occupational science and other disci-

plines such as nursing (Peter, 2011; Reimer-Kirkham &

Browne, 2006), the disciplinary home of the fourth author, to

mobilize social transformative efforts capable of capturing the

systemic and complex root causes of social and health

inequities.

For this purpose, we turn to the broader context of critical

qualitative inquiry, a multidisciplinary movement that similar

to occupational science is attempting to take up methodological

approaches to draw attention to issues of power and position-

ality in order to increase possibilities for social justice (Can-

nella, Perez, & Pasque, 2015). The expansion of critical

qualitative inquiry over the past two decades has been stimu-

lated by several sociopolitical and economic factors, such as

the global rise in neoliberalism; a political economic theory

that promotes postpositivist assumptions of “objective” science

and values, such as self-sufficiency, autonomy, and individu-

alism, shifting the responsibility for well-being and prosperity

onto individuals away from the community or government

(Gibson, 2016; Ilcan, 2009; Njelesani, Gibson, Nixon,

Cameron, & Polatajko, 2013). In response, many scholars have

reoriented inquiry to move beyond the individual experiences

of those marginalized/excluded and to focus on the sociopoli-

tical conditions that shape their possibilities for changing

oppressive structures (Cannella et al., 2015; Denzin & Giar-

dina, 2009; Hsiung, 2016; Meyer & Paraıso, 2012). As such,

the term transformation has been used within critical qualita-

tive inquiry in relation to the constraining impact of neoliber-

alism on collective opportunities for responding to issues of

injustice and exposing the power relations and conditions that

contribute to maintaining disparities (Kirkham & Browne,

2006).

This increasing integration of critical perspectives to

address social injustices reflects scholars’ need to (re)engage

with the foundations of qualitative inquiry as a reformist move-

ment that started in the early 1970s in academia, involving

diverse paradigmatic formulations and ethical criticism of tra-

ditional/positivist science (Schwandt, 2000). Although some-

what existing at the margins, critical qualitative inquiry has

created a multidisciplinary space focused on how qualitative

inquiry can be used for transformative intents which empha-

sizes the necessity of engagement with critical social theory

(Cannella et al., 2015; Johnson & Parry, 2015). As such, trans-

formative scholarship underpinned by a critical stance

embraces assumptions of inquiry that are far from being value

free or universally true, requiring researchers to take an explicit

political or moral stance while interrogating their positionality

in relation to the phenomenon under study (Fine, Weis,

Wesson,& Wong, 2003; Lather, 2004). For instance, the term

transformative is often associated with scholarship addressing

the hidden structures of power that maintain unequal power

relations in society that simultaneously create privilege and

disadvantage (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005). Thus, at its core,

transformative scholarship embodies a commitment to reveal-

ing unequal relations or conditions that cause injustices and

altering such relations or conditions by promoting new view-

points and possibilities for resistance and justice (Cannella

et al., 2015; Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005).

Broadly, the interest for employing critical perspectives in

qualitative research for transformative purposes has been

articulated by various scholars, such as Denzin, Lincoln, Giar-

dina, Tuhiwai Smith, and Hsiung, among others, in recent years

(see Cannella et al., 2015; Denzin & Giardina, 2009; Hsiung,

2016; Johnson & Parry, 2015; Meyer & Paraıso, 2012). Yet, as

Cannella and Lincoln (2009) point out, the utilization of critical

perspectives to orient research does not ensure social transfor-

mation. For example, perhaps the most common problem seen

in the health sciences is that there is a partial adoption of

critical lenses, particularly in terms of an espoused critical

intent to readdress injustices, with a persistent reliance upon

dominant positivist/postpositivist assumptions that promote

singular truths and predetermined ways of thinking that do not

question the status quo (Farias, Laliberte Rudman, & Magal-

haes, 2016). As articulated by Cannella and Lincoln (2009),

“Although many contemporary researchers claim to use critical

qualitative research methods (and we are among those), these

inquiry practices often do not transform, or even appear to

challenge, the dominant mainstream constructions” (p. 53).

Thus, to ensure that critical qualitative work maintains con-

sistency with its critical roots and social transformation pur-

poses, scholars continue to push away from the boundaries of

positivism/postpositivism in order to develop contextual under-

standings of the sociopolitical roots of injustices (Johnson &

Parry, 2015).

Drawing on the work of scholars who make the distinction

between research paradigms such as positivist/postpositivism

and critical (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005), we view paradigms as

dynamic commitments to philosophical assumptions and val-

ues that permeate and connect all dimensions of inquiry. As

such, conscious or unconscious of these connections, a

researcher’s approach to inquiry is inextricably linked to phi-

losophical assumptions, perpetuating dominant research para-

digms or seeking to disrupt them (Pasque, Carducci, Kuntz,&

Gildersleeve, 2012). Thus, a disconnection or unrecognition of

researchers’ standpoints often manifests as dangers to social

transformation and justice, especially when such an uncon-

scious paradigm is built from contradictory philosophical

assumptions (Pasque at al., 2012). In the next section, we turn

to two scholars who have offered up contemporary frameworks

for transformative scholarship to illustrate the limits of engage-

ment with social transformation stemming from epistemologi-

cal tensions. Building on concerns regarding critical qualitative

inquiry raised by scholars such as Cannella and Lincoln (2009),

we argue that the epistemological foundations and values that

2 International Journal of Qualitative Methods

guide transformative scholarship are integral to addressing

social, health, and other forms of inequities. We also argue for

combining critical and participatory traditions, and other forms

of critical qualitative research, as means to more fully embrace

the intent of transformative scholarship, particularly in relation

to the need for countering the individualizing tendencies of

neoliberalism.

Deconstruction Frameworks forTransformative Scholarship

In this section, we focus on two contemporary examples that

self-identify as transformative. One is a social justice/transfor-

mative design launched by Creswell (2015) and the other is a

transformative paradigm described by Mertens (2009). Our

intent is not to articulate the details of each of these framework,

but rather this deconstruction focuses on an epistemological

tension between their stated intentions and the ways in which

they frame transformative scholarship. It also demonstrates

how this tension ultimately means that these frameworks do

not align with critical qualitative inquiry.

According to Mertens, the emergence of a transformative

paradigm has been partly stimulated by an increasing aware-

ness of the need for other paradigmatic options in research

evaluation and education psychology, fields largely dominated

by positivist/postpositivist thinking (Mertens, 2009). This

increasing awareness has pushed scholars as herself “to provide

a different avenue of approach to solving intransigent

problems” such as discrimination, marginalization, and oppres-

sion (Mertens, 2009, p. 3). Accordingly, to “solve” ongoing

global inequities, Mertens’ transformative paradigm emerged

as an overarching metaphysical framework that can support

marginalized groups through research and evaluation that

attempts to use results to enhance social justice (Mertens,

2009). Similarly, Creswell launched a social justice mixed

methods design (also called transformative, emancipatory) as

an alternative approach for studies that focus on “improving the

lives of individuals in our society today” (2015, p. 7) and seek

to call for specific changes by “taking a theoretical stance in

favor of underrepresented or marginalized groups” (Creswell &

Plano Clark, 2011, p. 49).

Our aim in this section is to go beyond the stated critical

intent of these transformative frameworks to remediate social

issues and ally with those experiencing marginalization and to

examine Creswell and Mertens’ work as examples of contem-

porary attempts to frame and prescribe how to do transforma-

tive scholarship. This critical analysis focuses on three

problematics that we connect to the failure to embrace and

enact a critical epistemological and axiological frame. First,

we raise concerns regarding how these frameworks appear to

take up a key aspect of positivist/postpositivist epistemology

by naturalizing reality or accepting how an issue has come to be

dominantly framed as essentially true. Second, we articulate

the dangers inherent in promoting an individualistic perspec-

tive in interpretations of injustices. Third, we describe the risks

of disconnecting researchers’ moral values and political stance

from their work.

The Problem of Naturalizing Reality and Adopting anObjectivist Stance

The analysis of Creswell and Mertens’ frameworks allows us to

observe how social transformation efforts can be carried along

with common positivist/postpositivist tendencies that risk

neglecting complex processes and structures that accept or

maintain oppressive practices. One of these tendencies relates

to the naturalization of reality, as it presents itself as “real” or

“true,” which is characteristic of positivist/postpositivist epis-

temological assumptions that conceive reality as “given”

(Chamberlain, 2000; Eakin, 2016). This location tends to pro-

mote notions of objective reality, that is, reality as preexisting

or already there, static and detached from its social construction

and the researcher, and therefore possible to control and mea-

sure by the researcher (Alvesson & Skoldberg, 2009). For

example, this positivist/postpositivist tendency is reflected in

how “the problem” is examined. More specifically, Creswell’s

design seems to study predetermined problems given to the

researcher/evaluator without questioning “who/what is

helped/privileged/legitimated and who/what is harmed/

opposed/disqualified” by framing a problem in a particular way

(Cannella & Lincoln, 2009, p. 54). Such lack of questioning of

the problem, as it is given or predefined, positions the phenom-

enon under study as being independent of the observer, which

in turn limits researchers’ abilities to draw on critical lenses to

question how the problem has come to be constructed and by

whom and how it might otherwise be seen.

This positivist/postpositivist tendency can also be seen in

the way qualitative inquiry is positioned within Creswell and

Mertens’ frameworks for transformative scholarship. In both

cases, qualitative research is outlined as a “toolbox” or

“cafeteria,” where scholars can pick and choose methods sepa-

rated from their philosophical stances (Eakin, 2016; Holstein &

Gubrium, 2012; Pasque & Perez, 2015). As such, this framing

influences how qualitative data are collected and analyzed, that

is, through an objectivist lens that naturalizes and reduces real-

ity to “what is seen” using specific technical means, which in

turn can be unproblematically combined with what works

(Chamberlain, 2000; Eakin, 2016). As result of this disconnec-

tion of inquiry from philosophy and theory, qualitative research

becomes positioned in a service role that can “humanize sta-

tistics, enhance buy-in from researcher subjects or end-users,

and explain conflicting or unexpected results” (Eakin, 2016,

p.116) and critical qualitative inquiry is not achieved.

Furthermore, such objectification of reality can be inferred

from Mertens’ framework which promotes descriptive

approaches that capture “snapshots” in time that can be used

to assess community needs (see Mertens, 2009, chap. 5). This

naturalization of reality as static and as waiting to be captured

tends to promote description as the primary objective of

research at the expense of interpretation or deconstruction, that

is, thinking about (i.e., interpreting, conceptualizing) the

Farias et al. 3

phenomenon under study through a theoretical lens and ques-

tioning how it has come to be understood (Chamberlain, 2000;

Cheek, 2008). A positivist/postpositivist focus on description

can promote stopping at “what” questions (e.g., what are the

needs of a community, what are the probable solutions to those

needs) instead of moving into “how” and “why” questions

necessary within critical qualitative inquiry to examine the

conditions that maintain oppression or disadvantage and that

can be altered to promote justice (Santos, 2014; Sayer, 2009).

As such, the danger of overemphasizing description is that

issues of social (in)justice can be perceived as out there, wait-

ing to be solved through a list of prescriptive strategies or steps

that risk disconnecting injustices from social processes and

power relations.

From a critical standpoint, social transformation has become

a major rationale for rejecting naturalization and objectification

tendencies, promoting a process of denaturalization or decon-

struction of what appears to be true, including what is assumed

to be problematic, in order to transform it (Sayer, 2009). This

position assumes that naturalizing and objectifying reality as

static positions the knower as an external and passive individ-

ual in relationship with his or her context (Motta, 2013). As

articulated by Freire “a person is [assumed to be] merely in the

world, not with the world or with others; the individual is

spectator, not re-creator” (2006, p.75, original italics). As such,

this passivity is opposed to processes of transformation in

which individuals are conceived as actors of their own eman-

cipation. Thus, we propose a denaturalization rationale as fun-

damental for processes of social transformation, since it

promotes moving beyond identifying injustices to reinforce

people’s capacities to challenge and disrupt the root causes

of oppression (Sayer, 2009).

The Problem of Individualization

A second tendency that seems to underlie Mertens and Cres-

well’s frameworks relates to the process of individualization

where “individuals are disembedded from existing social rela-

tions and traditional sources of social identity, such as social

class” (Bolam, Murphy, & Gleeson, 2004, p.1356). Although

the transformative paradigm and social justice design promote

engagement with communities to enhance researchers’ cultural

sensitivity and competence, these attempts seem to be used as a

means to achieve higher validity (see Mertens, 2009, chap. 3).

As such, Mertens and Creswell’s efforts for considering peo-

ple’s views seem to focus on obtaining a more accurate descrip-

tion of reality rather than enabling critical, in-depth

understandings of injustices, which aligns with a positivism/

postpositivist preference for generating a valid report.

This tendency to focus on achieving a valid reading of real-

ity, that is, decontextualized from sociohistorical factors and

power relations, runs the risk of obscuring the wider structures,

practices, and discourses that generate privilege and disadvan-

tage (Bolam et al., 2004). This failure to place individuals

within context in complex ways may means that Mertens and

Creswell’s frameworks can inadvertently (re)produce

injustices by reducing them to individual and private experi-

ences. The resulting individualization can perpetuate injustices

by placing blame, shame, and responsibility on the individual

(Bhaskar, 1989/2011; Wright, 2010). Since the complex socio-

economic and historical roots of structural inequities are

neglected, the promotion of individualization within social

transformative frameworks runs the risk of (re)orienting trans-

formative efforts toward fixing the individual instead of

addressing the social structural issues that shape peoples’ lives

(Farias et al., 2016). At the same time, individualistic interpre-

tations of injustices seem contradictory to the term “social” in

social transformation from which it is possible to infer a social

or collective orientation which implies that human emancipa-

tion depends on the transformation of the social world and not

just on the individual inner self (Bhaskar, 1989/2011; Wright,

2010).

What is more, this tendency toward individualization is pro-

moted within contemporary contexts influenced by neoliberal-

ism that privilege values such as self-sufficiency and autonomy

(Gibson, 2016; Ilcan, 2009). This tendency is often operatio-

nalized by discourses that conceptualize issues of injustice as a

matter of individual choice/responsibility and/or self-

determination (Bolam et al., 2004, p. 1359). As such, research

that fails to question individualization risks obscuring the

inequities produced through neoliberally informed discourses

and the practices they shape.

From a critical standpoint, the focus on validly capturing an

objective reality is problematized based on the assumption that

reality is contextually situated and complex and therefore can-

not be captured as a single and static form. A fundamental

assumption that underlies critical qualitative inquiry is its

opposition to the separation of individuals from contexts

(Wilson-Thomas, 1995). On these grounds, social transforma-

tive efforts that attempt to achieve an objective and neutral

representation of reality are seen as insufficient when dealing

with social matters that demand taking into account the wider

social macro-processes (i.e., historical, socioeconomic, and

structural factors) that open up and limit people’s access to and

possibilities for participating in society (Alvesson & Skold-

berg, 2009; Laliberte Rudman, 2014). For example, issues of

oppression have a strong interrelation with the history of the

land or territory in which individuals reside such that many

groups experience oppression due to a history of colonization

within their land which perpetuates the status of those in power

(Arredondo, 2008). Hence, while Mertens and Creswell’s fra-

meworks attempt to support the transformative efforts of indi-

viduals and groups that experience systematic disadvantages,

their epistemological location risks reducing social matters to

individualized and decontextualized experiences.

The Problem of Disconnecting Researchers’ Values

A third tendency that is possible to infer as underlying Mertens

and Creswell’s framework is the emphasis on disconnecting

researchers’ moral values and political stance from their proj-

ects. Allied with the objectivist epistemology of positivism/


postpositivism, this axiological position assumes that research-

ers can study a phenomenon without influencing or being influ-

enced by it (Lincoln, Lynham, & Guba, 2011). In other words,

who the researcher is—that is, his or her disciplinary position,

social characteristics, and political stance—does not and

should not matter for the process or outcomes of research.

For instance, Creswell’s social justice design encourages

researchers to select the “best” worldview (Creswell & Plano

Clark, 2011), such as Mertens’ socially transformative para-

digm, for their attempts to improve social justice, thereby

implying that a worldview can be chosen for pragmatic reasons

as something separate from the researcher. Although Mertens

proposes integrating a process of self-reflection into research,

there is little or no acknowledgement of researcher’s values and

political stance regarding social justice in the description of

Creswell and Mertens’ frameworks. In fact, the emphasis on

including a social justice lens throughout the study to ensure its

social justice nature (e.g., including groups experiencing mar-

ginalization) seems to serve as a catch-all umbrella to deal with

the issue of values in research.

Within critical forms of qualitative inquiry, it has increas-

ingly been recognized that researchers consciously and/or

unconsciously bring assumptions and perspectives to their

research (Bochner, 2000). Within transformative work, such

assumptions and perspectives need to be continuously interro-

gated given that they may at times be at odds with the social

justice goals and lens selected for a specific study. For exam-

ple, researchers’ belief systems regarding what is right/healthy/

good/just can vary substantially across the globe, which can

become problematic when conducting social justice/transfor-

mative research that attempts to be objective and value-free.

Researchers may fail to perceive different stances and misun-

derstand silences, producing what Santos (2014) calls a

“sociology of absence” (p. 164) which is structured through

the researcher’s values (e.g., what is desirable for a margin-

alized group). As a result of these variations among value

systems, researchers may risk imposing their own worldview

onto others and/or causing injustice in one area when trying to

promote justice in another because of a lack of critical reflex-

ivity on the value systems they bring into their research (Bail-

liard, 2016). For example, Creswell and Plano Clark suggest

that researchers may “decide how best to refer to and interact

with participants” (2011, p. 195) in order to avoid stereotypical

labels for participants. To illustrate their point, they provide an

example of a mixed methods study of individuals with disabil-

ities (Boland, Daly, & Staines, 2008). In presenting this exam-

ple, they highlight that interviewers in the qualitative phase

used inappropriate language and etiquette related to disability

and therefore were given “specific training on the social model

of disability, etiquette, and language when interviewing clients

with disability” (cited in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p.

195). In doing so, this stance implies that researchers are capa-

ble of separating their assumptions from the research process

through engaging in training, neglecting the multilayered influ-

ences of researchers’ values on how they relate to participants

and how these values shape the process of interpretation of

individuals with disabilities experiences. This also implies that

beyond employing correct techniques (e.g., avoiding stereoty-

pical labeling of participants), there is little concern regarding

researchers’ identities, locations, values, and ways of thinking

about the population or issue under study which is problematic

since it can perpetuate researchers’ uncontested practices. Fur-

ther, suggesting “specific” training for researchers runs the risk

of objectivizing and categorizing the population under study,

overlooking the pluralistic ways of being and thinking among

participants experiencing similar conditions.

Moreover, from a critical qualitative stance, disconnecting

researchers’ values, moral, and political stance from social

justice projects can be seen as a disadvantage. For instance,

Creswell’s theoretically based stance does not take into con-

sideration the positionality of the researcher to embrace social

transformation or the process of research as a means to increase

awareness and change. Rather, it focuses on “recommending

specific changes as a result of the research to improve social

justice” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2011, p. 96) which are

assumed to be taken up unproblematically by the population

under study. Thus, a focus on outcomes or recommendations

rather than considering how populations might interpret and

apply these plans for action limit researchers’ abilities to

engage in value-added forms of analysis that seek to understand

their own posture toward the phenomenon under study as well

as the position of people affected by it (Cheek, 2008; Eakin,

2016).

From a critical standpoint, it is assumed that the type of

knowledge being sought is far from being value-free or uni-

versally true, and therefore, it is essential to conduct ongoing

interrogation of researchers’ moral or political stance and posi-

tionality with relation to the research purpose and population

under study (e.g., whose side is the researcher on?) (Fine et al.,

2003). Thus, we argue that critical reflexivity as an “act of

interrogating one’s situatedness in society, history, culture, and

how this may shape one’s values, morals, and judgments at

both individual and social levels” (Phelan, 2011, p.165) can

help researchers to question how they themselves are influ-

enced by dominant discourses that perpetuate marginalization

and oppression (Sayer, 2009). In parallel, the concept of social

transformation has increasingly been used within critical qua-

litative inquiry to call for an emancipatory agenda that

embraces social justice as both a political and an ethical com-

mitment (Denzin & Giardina, 2009; Kincheloe & McLaren,

2005). As such, it is essential to engage in processes of dialogue

with those who experience oppression/injustice to avoid impos-

ing our appraisals of what is “just” or “unjust,” and collabora-

tively construct a more socially responsive and justice-oriented

research.

Discussion: Reclaiming the Potential of theTransformative Paradigm

Based on the analysis and three problematics presented earlier,

we propose to promote transformative scholarship by returning

to its critical roots as a means to more clearly differentiate

Farias et al. 5

transformative scholarship from frameworks that seem to be

aligned with positivist/postpositivist assumptions. In particular,

we understand critical theory as a paradigm that encompasses a

range of diverse theories (e.g., feminist, poststructural, decolo-

nizing, Marxist, queer theory) and positionalities connected

through key shared aspects (Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005).

Some scholars (Lincoln et al., 2011) consider all participatory

approaches as being part of a distinct paradigm (i.e., participa-

tory), but we are working with participatory perspectives as

part of the critical paradigm.

Although we have highlighted that a key aspect of work

embedded within the critical paradigm includes “its commit-

ment to questioning the hidden assumptions and purposes of

competing theories and existing forms of practice and respond-

ing to situations of oppression and injustice by giving rise to

new possibilities” (Farias & Laliberte Rudman, 2016, p. 3),

work embedded within this umbrella has been criticized for

failing to translate its motivation to actions that enhance social

justice (Denzin & Giardina, 2009; Sayer, 2009). Thus, in this

section, we provide a brief overview of the limitations and

strengths of the participatory and critical traditions when used

separately drawing on literature from critical social science,

international development, and community-based practice.

By introducing these limitations and strengths, we advocate,

aligned with advancements in critical participatory action

research (e.g., Stoudt, Fox, & Fine, 2012; Torre, Fine, Stoudt,

& Fox, 2012), for creatively combining critical and participa-

tory traditions and other forms of critical qualitative research as

ways to move transformative scholarship into more critically

informed, action-oriented, and social justice directions.

An Overview of Participatory and Critical Traditions

Participatory. The roots of participatory research can be traced to

northern and southern traditions (Wallerstein & Duran, 2008).

In the global north, the need for participatory inquiry was

prompted by events in the 1950s and 1960s related to the civil

rights and antiwar student movements in the United States. As

such, this northern tradition can also be linked to Lewin’s work

on action research and experiential learning (1951), Fals-Bor-

da’s participatory action research (1979), and Skolimowski’s

participatory mind (1994). On the other hand, the southern

tradition of participatory ways of creating knowledge can be

traced to the emergence of pressing social and economic issues

in the global south such as the military dictatorships that

emerged between 1973 and 1989 in Chile, Argentina, Bolivia,

Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay. This tradition developed in the

south is rooted in Freire’s work on adult literacy for cultural

action (1988), Marxist critics, liberation theology, and a recog-

nition of the colonizing role of research and education within

marginalized communities. While it is beyond the scope of this

article to expand on each stream, we recognize their influence

on participatory research and how this tradition is continuously

evolving and changing into diverse research forms such as

Black participatory action research and critical participatory

action research from the Public Science Project (Lykes,

2001; Stoudt et al., 2012; Torre, & Ayala, 2009; Torre et al.,

2012).

In this section, we draw particular attention to Heron and

Reason’s articulation of participatory because of its great influ-

ence on what today is known as participatory inquiry.

Heron and Reason formalized these ideas in 1997, coining

the term “participatory” as the ground for inquiry that involves

people’s experiential knowledge. In particular, Heron and Rea-

son’s vision for a participatory approach started developing

during their work on cooperative inquiry, a model designed

by Heron in 1968–1969 to emphasize a reciprocal relation

between people involved in a study. Their vision focused on

the process of two or more individuals researching a topic

together using a series of cycles in which people explore the

world “from within,” moving between their experiential

knowledge and the process of reflecting together on it (Heron,

1996; Heron & Reason, 1997). Thus, in terms of strengths,

Heron and Reason’s participatory framework introduces the

possibility of doing research with people, instead of about

them. It also presents self-reflection as part of the research

process in order for the participants to reach self-awareness

as a way to reach human flourishing (Heron, 1996; Heron &

Reason, 1997).

Heron and Reason’s participatory vision and contemporary

participatory research forms have been widely promoted and

discussed from the mid-1980s onward (Neef, 2003).

However, after a boom period throughout the 1990s, in

recent years, increasing criticism of how participatory inquiry,

specifically participatory action research (PAR), has been

taken up has materialized (e.g., Cooke & Kothari, 2001;

Hickey & Mohan, 2004; Masschelein & Quaghebeur, 2006).

For instance, similar to concerns raised in our critique of Mer-

tens and Creswell’s frameworks, one forefronted concern is for

the use of PAR as a toolbox disconnected from philosophy and

theory. This issue has been related to its increasing reduction to

the diagnostic stage of problems and priorities, which in turn

has perpetuated an instrumental character and a myth of instant

analysis of local knowledge (Cooke & Kothari, 2001). For

instance, Cleaver (1999) argues that this instrumentalization

of PAR and focus on “getting the techniques right” to ensure

the success of such projects, risks the disengagement of partic-

ipation from its original political motivation (p. 36).

Another issue present in the literature is that most partici-

patory research forms pay insufficient attention to the hetero-

geneity within the groups with whom they work (e.g., gender,

age, and social position) and to conflicting interests among

them (Lavigne Delville, Sellamna, & Mathieu, 2000). In line

with this issue, participatory research forms have been criti-

cized for becoming too focused on the local, failing to connect

local issues to broader systems of power relations through

which people are disempowered (Hickey & Mohan, 2004;

Mohan & Stokke, 2000). Akin to our earlier forefronting of

the problematic of individualization, this implies that wider

issues related to social conditions (e.g., history of colonialism,

institutionalism) that create and maintain marginalization and

inequity often are left out in participatory projects. As


articulated by Cooke and Kothari (2001), “an emphasis on

micro-level of intervention can obscure, and indeed sustain,

broader macro-level inequalities and injustices” (p. 14).

Critical. Critical work encompasses multiple critical theories

that are always evolving, creating a dynamic theoretical space

(Kincheloe & McLaren, 2005). These multiple theories are

held together ontologically by a view of reality based on power

relations that are socially and historically mediated. This strug-

gle for power leads to interactions of privilege and oppression

that can be based on, for example, race or ethnicity, socioeco-

nomics, class, gender, mental or physical abilities, religious

affiliation, or sexual orientation. Thus, in terms of strengths,

critical work facilitates the introduction of issues related to

oppression and power to inquiry, and the examination of the

root causes of these issues (Cannella & Lincoln, 2009).

Overall, critical work has been largely promoted because of

its commitment to questioning and exposing oppressive struc-

tures which gives it a potential emancipatory character (Sayer,

1997). However, scholars have pointed out that although crit-

ical work is underpinned by an emancipatory motivation, its

inconclusive nature can limit its intent to identify inequities and

injustices without acting against them (Cannella & Lincoln,

2009; Sayer, 2009). As such, critical work has been criticized

for overemphasizing the questioning of reality, risking turning

its work into a sort of swamp of interminable criticism and

deconstructions (Finlay, 2002; Sayer, 2009).

Furthermore, Bhaskar (1986) and others have argued that

since the main problem many times is not finding the cause of

oppression but finding alternatives that are less problematic,

questioning reality and enabling people to reveal the source of

their suffering conditions are not sufficient for generating

emancipation. Thus, for many scholars, claims regarding the

potential of critical work for social transformation need to be

moderated by recognizing that this work often is disconnected

from generating feasible alternatives of action (Freire, 2006;

ISSC, IDS, & UNESCO, 2016). This issue of applicability cuts

to the heart of critical scholars who have been criticized for

constructing a society so oppressive that the scope of possible

actions tends to shrink into a vanishing point, leaving the issue

of social transformation at an ideological rather than practical

level (Stirk, 2005).

(Re)engaging transformative scholarship with the critical paradigm.Based on the criticism of the critical and participatory tradi-

tions presented earlier, scholars have started combining these

traditions to provide a more fruitful space for advancing trans-

formative scholarship and bringing back an explicit commit-

ment to social justice and political engagement. As such,

scholars are drawing on critical theorists such as Freire among

others to integrate a critical analysis of structures of oppression

within participatory forms of research to value knowledge that

has been historically marginalized and challenge broader rela-

tions of power (e.g., Fine & Torre, 2004; Torre et al., 2012;

Stoudt et al., 2012). This movement brings examples of critical

PAR as one way to reinvigorate transformative scholarship

rooted in notions of democracy and social justice by engaging

with people’s experiences to generate a deeper understanding

of how locally situated issues are shaped by broader processes

without staying only at an ideological level. Other examples of

this work are Fox and Fine (2015) who combine participatory

action research and relational approaches to illustrate how the

collective production of knowledge through research builds

youth leadership capacity. Similarly, the first author of this

article is exploring the potential of a critical dialogical

approach as a space to enact critical reflexivity and social

transformation (forthcoming).

As such, transformative scholarship provides a space for

combining participatory processes in which community part-

ners reflect on their diverse experiences of injustices, and crit-

ical examination of the broader social, economic, and political

forces that shape these experiences. Further, transformative

processes can combine critical examination of local issues in

relation to broader social processes to not only point out “what

is not right” but also express a commitment to people’s signif-

icant knowledge and capacities to (re)negotiate their position

within power relations, and design actions that are suitable for

their particular context (Cooke & Kothari, 2001; Hickey &

Mohan, 2004; Torre et al., 2012). Thus, creative combinations

of critical and participatory traditions and other forms of crit-

ical qualitative research in conjunction with social transforma-

tive goals have the potential to enact research as a social

process of gathering people’s knowledge to generate actions

designed to challenge the status quo. From this combination,

transformative scholarship could be (re)configured as an epis-

temological and methodological space that considers and

addresses individual, collective, and local as well as institu-

tional and structural dimensions.

Conclusion

In this article, we have examined two models of transformative

scholarship. We concluded that while a commitment toward

social justice indicates a desire to promote change, relying on

positivist/postpositivist assumptions often risks accepting

problems as they are dominantly defined, perpetuating indivi-

dualistic interpretations of injustices and neglecting the socio-

political construction of injustices. As an alternative, we

propose to reframe transformative scholarship within the crit-

ical paradigm by embracing epistemological values and meth-

odologies that promote a more complex understanding of

people’s experiences and the conditions that (re)produce

injustices.

Although we acknowledge that enacting transformative

scholarship is a difficult and complex challenge, particularly

in contemporary sociopolitical contexts that often emphasize

methodological “prescription” (Chamberlain, 2000), this arti-

cle does not aim to suggest predefined ways to do transforma-

tive scholarship. Rather, we emphasize how important it is to

“think about” how social justice goals could shape the ways

research is conducted (e.g., partnerships, collaboration, knowl-

edge generation, design of action (Cheek, 2008) and recognize

Farias et al. 7

that the implications of transformative scholarship for research

and practice entail diverse possibilities. From this perspective,

researchers’ values, assumptions, and interpretations should

become explicit in order to facilitate a deeper understanding

and engagement with the value system being put forward in the

context they are situated (Fine et al., 2003). Along these lines, it

seems essential to (re)connect transformative scholarship to

political stances, epistemological standpoints, and social jus-

tice goals by taking up inquiry in innovative ways to enact

relevant and adaptable projects for specific social settings.

In line with this, embracing transformative scholarship can

facilitate recognition of researchers’ moral responsibility and

commitment to the very persons and communities with whom

they engage. This potential for seeking to work with commu-

nities in democratic, inclusive, and respectful ways builds on

the two traditions presented in this article, critical and partici-

patory, and aligns with calls to work toward greater equity in

society. Further, such a transformative stance may help those

disciplines and researchers embracing a critical intent to seek

support for people’s resistance, strengths, and rights to have a

say in actions which affect them and claim to generate knowl-

edge about them, thereby disputing conservative perspectives

of representation and moving away from an “expert” position

(Denzin & Giardina, 2009; Santos, 2014). Thus, considering

the potential of transformative scholarship, we advocate for

shifting away from dominant models of scientific, value-free,

and positivist inquiry to promote creative ways of bringing

together people’s aspirations, political or moral stances, and

possibilities for transformation.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflict of interest with respect to

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for

the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The pri-

mary author received a doctoral fellowship from the Ontario Trillium

Foundation to support this research.

References

Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2009). (Post-) positivism, social con-

structionism, critical realism: Three reference points in the philo-

sophy of science. In M. Alvesson & K. Skoldberg (Eds.), Reflexive

methodology: New vistas for qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.

15–51). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Arredondo, P. (2008). Counseling individuals from marginalized and

underserved groups. In G. C. Gamst, A. Der-Karabetian, & R. H.

Dana (Eds.), CBMCS Multicultural reader (pp. 331–348). Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Bailliard, A. (2016). Justice, difference, and the capability to function.

Journal of Occupational Science, 23, 3–16. doi:10.1080/

14427591.2014.957886

Bhaskar, R. (1986). Scientific realism and human emancipation. Lon-

don, England: Verso.

Bhaskar, R. (1989/2011). Reclaiming reality: A critical introduction

to contemporary philosophy. London, England: Routledge.

Bochner, A. P. (2000). Criteria against ourselves. Qualitative Inquiry,

6, 266–272. doi:10.1177/107780040000600209

Bolam, B., Murphy, S., & Gleeson, K. (2004). Individualisation and

inequalities in health: A qualitative study of class identity and

health. Social Science and Medicine, 59, 1355–1365. doi:10.

1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.018

Boland, M., Daly, L., & Staines, A. (2008). Methodological issues in

inclusive intellectual disability research: A health promotion needs

assessment of people attending Irish disability services. Journal of

Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21, 199–209. doi:10.

1111/j.1468-3148.2007.00404.x

Cannella, G. S., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2009). Deploying qualitative meth-

ods for critical social purposes. In N. K. Denzin & M. D. Giardina

(Eds.), Qualitative inquiry and social justice: Towards a politics of

hope (pp. 53–72). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Cannella, G. S., Perez, M. S., & Pasque, P. A. (Eds.). (2015). Critical

qualitative inquiry: Foundations and futures. Walnut Creek, CA:

Left Coast Press.

Chamberlain, K. (2000). Methodolatry and qualitative health research.

Journal of Health Psychology, 5, 285–296. doi:10.1177/

135910530000500306

Cheek, J. (2008). Beyond the “how to”: The importance of thinking

about, not simply doing, qualitative research. In K. Nielsen, S.

Brinkmann, C. Elmholdt, L. Tanggaard, P. Museaus, & G. Kraft

(Eds.), A qualitative stance (pp. 203–214). Aarhus, Denmark: Aar-

hus University Press.

Cleaver, F. (1999). Paradoxes of participation: Questioning participa-

tory approaches to development. Journal of International Devel-

opment, 11, 597–612.

Cooke, B., & Kothari, U. (2001). The case for participation as tyranny.

In B. Cooke & U. Kothari (Eds.), Participation: The new tyranny?

(pp. 1–15). London, England: Zed Books.

Creswell, J. W. (2015). A concise introduction to mixed methods

research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conduct-

ing mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Denzin, N. K., & Giardina, M. D. (Eds.). (2009). Qualitative inquiry

and social justice: Toward a politics of hope. Walnut Creek, CA:

Left Coast Press.

Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE handbook of

qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Eakin, J. M. (2016). Educating critical qualitative health researchers in

the land of the randomized controlled trial. Qualitative Inquiry, 22,

107–118. doi:10.1177/1077800415617207

Fals-Borda, O. (1979). Investigating the reality in order to transform it:

The Coloumbian experience. Dialectical Anthropology, 4, 33–55.

Farias, L., & Laliberte Rudman, D. (2016). A critical interpretive

synthesis of the uptake of critical perspectives in occupational

science. Journal of Occupational Science, 23, 33–50. doi:10.

1080/14427591.2014.989893

Farias, L., Rudman, D. L., & Magalhaes, L. (2016). Illustrating the

importance of critical epistemology to realize the promise of occu-

pational justice. OTJR: Occupation, Participation and Health, 36,

234–243. doi:10.1177/1539449216665561


Fine, M., & Torre, M. E. (2004). Re-membering exclusions: Partici-

patory action research in public institutions. Qualitative Research

in Psychology, 1, 15–37.

Fine, M., Weis, L., Wesson, S., & Wong, L. (2003). For whom?

Qualitative research, representations, and social responsibilities.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The landscape of quali-

tative research (pp. 167–207). Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage.

Finlay, L. (2002). Negotiating the swamp: The opportunity and chal-

lenge of reflexivity in research practice. Qualitative Research, 2,

209–230. doi:10.1177/146879410200200205

Frank, G. (2012). The 2010 Ruth Zemke lecture in occupational

science occupational therapy/occupational science/occupational

justice: Moral commitments and global assemblages. Journal of

Occupational Science, 19, 25–35. doi:10.1080/14427591.2011.

607792

Freire, P. (1988). The adult literacy process as cultural action for

freedom and education and conscientizacao. In E. Kintgen, B.

Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy (pp.

398–409). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

Freire, P. (2006). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary ed.).

New York, NY: Continuum.

Fox, M., & Fine, M. (2015). Leadership in solidarity: Notions of

leadership through critical participatory action research with young

people and adults. New Directions in Student Leadership, 2015,

45–58. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.20152.

Gibson, B. E. (2016). Rehabilitation: A post-critical approach. Boca

Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.

Heron, J. (1996). Cooperative inquiry: Research into the human con-

dition. London, England: Sage.

Heron, J., & Reason, P. (1997). A participatory inquiry paradigm. Qua-

litative Inquiry, 3, 274–294. doi:10.1177/107780049700300302

Hickey, S., & Mohan, G. (2004). Towards participation as transforma-

tion: Critical themes and challenges. In S. Hickey & G. Mohan

(Eds.), Participation from tyranny to transformation: Exploring

new approaches to participation in development (pp. 2–24). New

York, NY: Zed Books.

Holstein, J., & Gubrium, J. F. (2012). Introduction: Establishing a

balance. In J. Holstein & J. F. Gubrium (Eds.), Varieties of nar-

rative analysis (pp. 1–10). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

Hsiung, P. C. (2016). Teaching qualitative research as transgressive

practices: Introduction to the special issue. Qualitative Inquiry, 22,

59–71. doi:10.1177/1077800415617204

Ilcan, S. (2009). Privatizing responsibility: Public sector reform under

neoliberal government. Canadian Review of Sociology/Revue

canadienne de sociologie, 46, 207–234. doi:10.1111/j.1755-

618X.2009.01212.x

ISSC, IDS, & UNESCO. (2016). World social science report 2016,

challenging inequalities: Pathways to a just world. Paris, France:

UNESCO Publishing.

Johnson, C. W., & Parry, D. C. (2015). Fostering social justice

through qualitative inquiry: A methodological guide. Walnut

Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.

Kincheloe, J. L., & McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical theory and

qualitative research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),

Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 303–342) (3rd ed). Thou-

sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Laliberte Rudman, D. (2014). Embracing and enacting an

“occupational imagination”: Occupational science as transforma-

tive. Journal of Occupational Science, 21, 373–388. doi:10.1080/

14427591.2014.888970

Lather, P. (2004). Scientific research in education: A critical perspec-

tive. British Educational Research Journal, 30, 759–772. doi:10.

1080/0141192042000279486

Lavigne Delville, P., Sellamna, N.-P., & Mathieu, M. (2000). Les

enquetes participatives en debat: Ambition, pratiques et enjeux.

Paris, France: Karthala.

Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York, NY:

Harper & Row.

Lincoln, Y. S., Lynham, S. A., & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic

controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited.

In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of

qualitative research (4th ed., pp. 97–128). London, England: Sage.

Lykes, M. B. (2001). Activist participatory research and the arts with

rural Maya women: Interculturality and situated meaning making.

In D. L. Tolman & M. Brydon-Miller (Eds.), From subjects to

subjectivities: A handbook of interpretive and participatory meth-

ods (pp.183–199). New York, NY: NYU Press.

Masschelein, J., & Quaghebeur, K. (2006). Participation making a

difference? Critical analysis of the participatory claims of change,

reversal, and empowerment. Interchange, 37, 309–331. doi:10.

1007/s10780-006-9006-8

Mertens, D. M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation.

New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Meyer, D. E., & Paraıso, M. A. (2012). Metodologias de Pesquisas

Pos-Crıticas em Educacao [Post-critical research methodologies in

education]. Belo Horizonte, Brazil: Mazza Edicoes.

Mohan, G., & Stokke, K. (2000). Participatory development and

empowerment: The dangers of localism. Third World Quarterly,

21, 247–268.

Motta, S. C. (2013). Teaching global and social justice as transgres-

sive spaces of possibility. Antipode, 45, 80–100. doi:10.1111/j.

1467-8330.2012.00995.x

Neef, A. (2003). Participatory approaches under scrutiny: Will they have a

future? Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 42, 489–497.

Njelesani, J., Gibson, B. E., Nixon, S., Cameron, D., & Polatajko, H.

(2013). Toward a critical occupational approach to research. Inter-

national Journal of Qualitative Methods, 12, 207–220.

Pasque, P. A., Carducci, R., Kuntz, A. M., & Gildersleeve, R. E.

(2012). Qualitative inquiry for equity in higher education: Meth-

odological innovations, implications, and interventions. San Fran-

cisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Pasque, P. A., & Perez, M. S. (2015). Centering critical inquiry:

Methodologies that facilitate critical qualitative research. In G.

S. Cannella, M. S. Perez, & P. A. Pasque (Eds.), Critical quali-

tative inquiry: Foundations and futures (pp. 139–170). Walnut

Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.

Peter, E. (2011). Fostering social justice: The possibility of a socially

connected model of moral agency. Canadian Journal of Nursing

Research, 43, 11–17.

Phelan, S. K. (2011). Constructions of disability: A call for critical

reflexivity in occupational therapy. Canadian Journal of Occupa-

tional Therapy, 78, 164–172. doi:10.2182/cjot.2011.78.3.4

Farias et al. 9

http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/yd.20152

Reimer-Kirkham, S., & Browne, A. J. (2006). Toward a critical the-

oretical interpretation of social justice discourses in nursing.

Advances in Nursing Science, 29, 324–339.

Santos, B. d. S. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice against

epistemicide. Boulder, England: Paradigm Publishers.

Sayer, A. (1997). Critical realism and the limits to critical social

science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27,

473–488. doi:10.1111/1468-5914.00052

Sayer, A. (2009). Who’s afraid of critical social science? Current

Sociology, 57, 767–786. doi:10.1177/0011392109342205

Schwandt, T. A. (2000). Three epistemological stances for qualitative

inquiry: Interpretivism, hermeneutics and social constructivism. In

N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative

research (2nd ed., pp. 189–214). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Skolimowski, H. (1994). The participatory mind. London, England:

Arkana.

Stirk, P. M. R. (2005). Critical theory: Politics and society (2nd ed.).

London, England: Pinter.

Stoudt, B. G., Fox, M., & Fine, M. (2012). Contesting privilege with

critical participatory action research. Journal of Social Issues, 68,

178–193. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01743.x

Torre, M., & Ayala, J. (2009). Envisioning participatory action

research entremundos.Feminism & Psychology, 19, 387–393.

doi:10.1177/0959353509105630

Torre, M. E., Fine, M., Stoudt, B. G., & Fox, M. (2012). Critical

participatory action research as public science. In H. Cooper, P.

M. Camic, D. L. Long, A. T. Panter, D. Rindskopf, & K. J. Sher

(Eds.), APA handbook of research methods in psychology, Vol 2:

Research designs: Quantitative, qualitative, neuropsychological,

and biological (pp. 171–184). Washington, DC: American Psycho-

logical Association.

Townsend, E. (1997). Occupation: Potential for personal and social

transformation. Journal of Occupational Science, 4, 18–26. doi:10.

1080/14427591.1997.9686417

Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2008). The theoretical, historical, and

practice roots of CBPR. In M. Minkler & N. Wallerstein (Eds.),

Community-based participatory research for health: From process

to outcome (2nd ed., pp. 25–46). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Watson, R., & Swartz, L. (2004). Transformation through occupation.

London, England: Whurr.

Whiteford, G. E., & Hocking, C. (2012). Occupational science: Soci-

ety, inclusion and participation. West Sussex, England: Wiley-

Blackwell.

Wilson-Thomas, L. (1995). Applying critical social theory in nursing

education to bridge the gap between theory, research and practice.

Journal of Advanced Nursing, 21, 568–575. doi:10.1111/j.1365-

2648.1995.tb02742.x

Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. London, England: Verso.


IJTR 2017; 4(1): 18-24

Research Article

Donna M. Mertens

Transformative research: personal and societalhttps://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2017-0001received 6 September, 2017; accepted 12 October, 2017

Abstract: Transformative researchers have the potential to contribute to both personal and societal transforma-tion. In this article, I argue that the two are intertwined and that personal transformation is a necessary compo-nent of research that is designed to support change at the societal level in the form of furthering human rights and social justice. I describe a transformative framework that examines assumptions related to ethics, the nature of reality, epistemology, and methodology that can guide researchers who choose to address both the personal and societal levels of transformation. Ethically, researchers need to examine who they are and who they are in rela-tion to the community in which they are working. This process goes beyond self-examination to a critical analy-sis of the cultural blinders that might obscure our ability to contribute to positive impacts. I put forth the hypoth-esis that if we design our research so that it explicitly addresses issues of discrimination and oppression that the probability of personal and social transformation increases.

Keywords: Transformation; Ethics; Indigenous; Deafness; Discrimination

1 Transformative researchIn this article, I argue that framing this as an either/or question will not lead to the desired goal of transforma-tion. Rather, the question would be more helpfully framed as a both/and question. To wit: What is the nature of research that has a transformative goal for the participant, researcher, and society? And, if we accept that the trans-formative goal is multi-leveled, then what are the impli-

cations for the methodologies that we use to conduct this research?

Two of my personal experiences stand out for me when I contemplate the idea that transformation neces-sitates the intertwining of the personal and the societal. First, my family moved from Washington State to Ken-tucky in the early 1960’s when I was just entering seventh grade. When I lived in Washington State, I never saw any Black people, but their presence was immediately appar-ent to me upon arriving in Kentucky. What I noticed was that the Black people did not live in my neighborhood or go to my school or swimming pool. The highest concen-tration of Black people that I saw lived in the inner city without air conditioning in the sweltering humidity found in Kentucky. I asked my teacher why Black people did not go to my school. She patted me on the head and said “Honey, they just prefer to be with their own kind.” I did not know the word cognitive dissonance at that time, but that is what I felt. That was a transformative moment for me as I sensed that there was something wrong with this picture. Without being fully consciously aware, it was at that moment that I decided that my life course would be to find out what was wrong with this picture and what could be done to eliminate discrimination that limited the life chances of Black people and members of other margin-alized communities. This was a personal transformation that led to a commitment to societal change.

The second personal experience occurred many years later at a conference in Amsterdam. I finished a presenta-tion about transformative research that focused on soci-etal transformation; it was followed by a question and answer period. Dr. Bagele Chilisa, then an Associate Pro-fessor at the University of Botswana, asked me if I had con-sidered the transformation of the researcher themselves. Her question took me by surprise; we agreed to meet to talk about it over dinner that evening. At that time, I was in the process of writing Transformative Research and Evaluation (Mertens, 2009) and our conversation led me to reconsider the book outline. I realized that I needed to add a chapter between the introduction and philosophi-cal framing for transformative research and the chapter on the development of the focus of the research study. This added chapter is titled: Self, Partnerships, and Relation-ships and it focuses on how the researcher can come to *Corresponding author: Donna M. Mertens, Gallaudet University,

USA; E-mail: [email protected]

Open Access. © 2017 Donna M. Mertens, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCom-mercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. Unauthenticated

Download Date | 3/21/18 1:42 AM

Transformative research: personal and societal 19

understand themselves in the research context in a way that facilitates building trusting relationships with the members of the community in which the research occurs. Thus, the intertwining of personal transformation with the goal of societal transformation was a critical element to further understanding of how to conduct research that addresses discrimination and oppression.

I present these two experiences in part as a response to Walton’s (2014) discussion of the transformative para-digm in which she describes my work and those of other transformative methodologists as follows: “These writers are seeing transformative research as a means of achieving change at a community and institutional level. However, transformation can also take place on a personal level; and indeed the argument can be made that transformation at any level has to begin with transformation of the indi-vidual (p. 30).” We see an emphasis on transformation of the individual in studies such as those conducted by Pratt and Peat (2014) that focuses on the transformation of a student and thesis supervisor or by Farren, Crotty and Kilboy (2015) in which they studied the transformation of teachers through the use of information and communica-tions technology in a second language classroom.

This emphasis on the transformation at an individ-ual level is appropriate and necessary. However, it does not necessarily engage with issues that are integral to transformation at a societal level. This is an issue raised by Walton who suggests a linkage between engagement in research that can lead to personal transformation and wider political, social, and cultural transformations.

Walton and I may share more common ground than is evident in the quotation I provided from her 2014 article. We both call for a change in the understanding of how to frame and conduct research that leads to a more just world. We both recognize that traditional approaches to research have not

produced a sustainable world or a stable and fair global economy where everyone is fed, cared for and educated…So, while the achievements that are a consequence of the pro-gress of science can be commended by those living in material comfort, it is important to remain aware that the suffering of countless numbers of people continues, and the problems of mental health, exploitation, drug addiction and poverty exist in wealthy countries. There is an urgent need to radically evalu-ate the research methods we use, and to create new and trans-formed research methods which will address, at an individual and collective level, the urgent social, ecological and econo-mic crises that threaten our human existence (Walton, 2014, p. 40-41).

My work on the transformative paradigm as a philosophi-cal framing for research is based on the premise that if we

are to contribute to transformative change, then we must conscientiously design our research to incorporate that goal into the research. I hypothesize that the probability of transformative change increases when we explicitly acknowledge that this is our goal and we include mech-anisms in the research to support that change. Therefore, I offer the transformative paradigm as a framework for designing research that is inclusive of both personal and societal transformation.

2 Personal research experiences that led to the development of the transformative paradigmEarly in my research career, I coordinated research efforts for the College of Medicine at the University of Kentucky. In that position, I published a paper that questioned the use of high science scores as the main criteria for admit-ting students to the program. I suggested that other criteria might be considered such as ability to relate to people and representation of diverse racial/ethnic groups and gender. I moved from that position to coordinating the evaluation of a project that focused on areas of high poverty in the United States. I struggled to accurately represent the con-cerns of the people in those areas and sought methods to insure that their interests were heard and acted upon. From there I went to the Ohio State University to support policy decisions related to vocational education. I was able to conduct research studies on the experiences of people with disabilities, high school drop outs, students in isolated rural areas and inner city areas, women in the workforce, and people in prison. Throughout all of these experiences, I had a deep feeling of discomfort because most of my research was conducted at a distance using extant data bases or survey instruments. I knew that I needed to find a position that would allow me to work with marginalized populations, rather than “on” them.

To this end, I accepted a teaching position at Gal-laudet University, the only university in the world with a mission to serve the Deaf community. I began my work there with the idea that I wanted to figure out how to enter this marginalized community in a respectful way and how to conduct research with this community. Of course, I had to learn American Sign Language and Deaf culture. What I did not anticipate, and what I am very grateful for, is the learning that occurred in me about how to respectfully conduct research with Deaf people. Those experiences led me to develop the transformative paradigm as a way

UnauthenticatedDownload Date | 3/21/18 1:42 AM

20 Donna M. Mertens

to incorporate the cultural aspects, as well as to address issues of discrimination and oppression in ways that led to personal and societal transformation.

As I immersed myself in the scant literature availa-ble at that time (the early 1980’s), I came to realize that there is a uniqueness to the experiences of Deaf people, but they also shared characteristics with other margin-alized communities. Not only that, the Deaf community itself was heterogeneous and represented a microcosm of the world in terms of privilege based on a variety of dimensions of diversity. In other words, Deaf people come from different countries, racial/ethnic groups, genders, sexual identities, and economic backgrounds. Therefore, I sought a way of understanding how to frame research that would be responsive to the full range of characteris-tics that are used as a basis of discrimination and oppres-sion across the globe. Thus, the transformative paradigm arose because of concerns raised by members of margin-alized communities and their advocates that research was not accurately representing their experiences, nor was it adequately contributing to the improvement of their living conditions (Mertens, 2015b; Mertens & Tarsilla, 2015; Mertens & Wilson, 2012). The impetus came from marginalized communities who saw a great deal of evalu-ation being done “on” them, yet they noted that “little has changed in the quality of the lives of people who are poor and/or discriminated against based on race/ethnicity, dis-ability, deafness, gender, Indigeneity and other relevant dimensions of diversity” (Cram & Mertens, 2015, p. 94) (cited in Mertens, 2018, p. 21)

The Transformative Paradigm’s Philosophical Assumptions and Methodological Implications

The transformative paradigm offers a meta-physi-cal umbrella that brings together philosophical strands associated with feminism, critical theory, Indigenous and post-colonial theories, as well as disability and deafness rights theories. “It is applicable to people who experi-ence discrimination and oppression on whatever basis, including (but not limited to) race/ethnicity, disability, immigrant status, political conflicts, sexual orientation, poverty, gender, age, or the multitude of other character-istics that are associated with less access to social justice. In addition, the transformative paradigm is applicable to the study of the power structures that perpetuate social inequities (Mertens, 2009, p. 4).”

Four philosophical assumptions constitute the essen-tial elements of the transformative paradigm:

– Axiology or the nature of ethics and values – Ontology or the nature of reality

– Epistemology or the nature of knowledge and the rela-tionship between the researchers and those who par-ticipate in or are affected by the research

– Methodology or the nature of systematic inquiryThese four elements were identified by Guba and

Lincoln (2005) as the core assumptions that guide researchers in their inquiry process. The following section highlights the meaning of these assumptions in a trans-formative paradigm and integrates the personal and social levels of transformation that are relevant for each assumption.

3 Transformative axiological assumptionThe transformative axiological assumption holds that ethical research needs to be designed so that it promotes social justice and furthers human rights. The starting point for ethical research is to understand the meaning of being culturally respectful in the communities in which we work, consciously addressing inequities, recognizing a community’s strengths and resilience, and providing for reciprocity to the community members.

The concept of cultural respect provides a platform for examining the intertwining of the personal and soci-etal aspects of transformation. Researchers occupy a position of privilege because their “roles typically confer social powers to define reality and make impactful judg-ments about others…Researchers have an ethical respon-sibility to proactively assess and address the ways in which our personal repertoire of perceptual and interpre-tive resources may ignore, obscure, or distort more than illuminate” (Symonette, 2009, p. 280). Privilege is a soci-etally determined position, thus the researcher needs to be cognizant of the dimensions of diversity that are used as a basis of both privilege and marginalization. In order to engage in culturally respectful research, researchers also need to critically examine their own values, beliefs, and assumptions to get beyond the cultural lens that they bring with them into the research context. Self-awareness is necessary but not sufficient; researchers must also make efforts to find out how they are viewed by the study partic-ipants. Symonette asks the critical question: “Who do the persons that you seek to communicate with and engage perceive you as being? (p. 289).” The participants’ percep-tions of the researcher is a crucial piece of the puzzle and will determine the quality of relationships that are devel-oped, as well as the data that will be collected.



Walton (2014) supports the importance of researchers moving beyond the cultural lens of scientific material-ism that has dominated in the West in order to be open to meanings of ethics that come from spiritual, religious, and Indigenous traditions. The intertwining of the con-cepts of cultural respect and spirituality became evident to me when I was working with two Indigenous research-ers on identifying the pathways that Indigenous research-ers negotiate to become professionals in their fields. The challenges they encountered did not arise from a lack of desire for research, but rather from a frustration that their cultural beliefs were not recognized or accepted as valid by many external researchers, as is captured in this quote:

The ways of Indigenous research are as old as the hills and the valleys, the mountains and the seas, and the deserts and the lakes that Indigenous people bind themselves to as their places of belonging. It is not that Indigenous peoples are anti-research…the ”bad name” that research has within Indigenous communities is not about the notion of research itself; rather it is about how that research has been practiced, by whom, and for what purpose that has created ill-feelings (Cram, Chilisa, & Mertens, 2013, p. 11).

One example of a spiritual values from the African Indig-enous community is described by Chilisa (2012). Ubuntu calls upon researchers to conduct their studies with an awareness of the effects of the research on all living and nonliving things – those that come before us, those who are with us now, and those who will come in the future. With this as a guiding ethical principle, how would researchers change the way they design and conduct their research? What does this ethical imperative imply for our research methods if we want to insure that we not only addresses personal transformation, but also contribute to action for transformative purposes at the societal level?

4 Transformative ontological assumptionThe transformative ontological assumption holds that there are multiple versions of what is believed to be real and that these beliefs are generated based on multiple factors. The versions of reality come from different soci-etal positionalities associated with more or less privilege, such as gender, sexual identity, race, ethnicity, religion, economic status, disability, and deafness (Mertens, 2015). There are consequences associated with accepting one version of reality over another. The vignette that I used to open this chapter gives an example of a version of reality

that was determined by White people with middle income status. They explained segregation as a matter of prefer-ence on the part of Black people to stay with “people of their own kind”. When Black people and advocates for racial equity are asked about the reasons for segregation, they describe a society that discriminates on the basis of a person’s skin color and country of origin. The conse-quence of accepting one of these versions of reality over the other should be clear to the reader. In order to support societal transformation, researchers also need to engage in personal transformation in their understandings of the origins of different versions of reality and consequences of accepting one version of reality over another.

In the early days of social scientific research, reality was defined in terms of what could be observed and meas-ured, thus distancing the notion of personal qualities from the collection of data. Walton (2014) calls upon us to be more open to possibilities about the nature of reality in the form of considering the reality that comes from rec-ognizing inner feelings, intentions, feelings of meaning-fulness and spirituality. She proposes that social science researchers pay attention to the work of quantum physics and their conceptualization of an underlying unity to reality. “An implication is that reality exists ultimately as a unity in which everything is intrinsically interconnected; and our sensual perception of ‘separateness’ in the exter-nal world is an illusion” (Walton, 2014, p. 34) This depic-tion of reality aligns with the African concept of Ubuntu described earlier in this article and holds implications for the connection between personal and societal levels of understandings.

This exploration of the meaning of reality and their sources leads us to consider the meaning of transforma-tion itself. What is accepted as the reality of transforma-tion? This question has different answers depending on who you ask. In the context of transformational learn-ing, Smith (2016) described transformation in the class-room by describing the way lecturers transformed their approach to teaching through creative uses of technology. Jones (2015) described transformation in the lives of dis-enfranchised youth so they can transform their lives from being victims of neglect and abuse, to one where they are able to flourish as a trusting young person with a positive sense of identity and self-esteem. And, Hammond (2016) described transformation of teachers through engagement in blogging that emphasized critical reflexivity. These transformations focus on the individual level while at the same time having wider social implications.

When Indigenous people are asked about transforma-tion, they describe the need for decolonization in terms of research methods, as well as in the form of the return of


22 Donna M. Mertens

their land, resources, and freedoms that were taken from them (Cram & Mertens, 2015). This is a transformation that is clearly focused at the societal level, but Indigenous people emphasize that such a transformation needs to come through building relationships amongst themselves and with non-Indigenous people. When people with intellectual disabilities were asked about their priorities for transformation, they replied that they wanted to live in a world where they can live “ordinary” lives (National Health Committee, 2003). This definition of transforma-tion has societal and personal level implications. Societal attitudes and barriers that limit life chances for people with disabilities must be part of the transformation, along with personal transformation of those in power and those with disabilities.

5 Transformative epistemological assumptionThe transformative epistemological assumption centers on the meaning of knowledge as it is seen through multi-ple cultural lenses and the importance of power inequities in the recognition of what is considered to be legitimate knowledge (Mertens, 2015). This means that researchers need to be cognizant of their own power and cultural lenses and how they influence their relationships with research participants. As Indigenous researchers and members of other marginalized communities have taught me, it is all about the relationship. At a personal level, researchers need to experience a transformation in the way they enter communities respectfully in order to build relationships that recognize the knowledge that community members bring to the context. For example, as a non-Deaf person conducting research with the Deaf community for over 30 years, I needed to shift my self-perception as the expert in research contexts to recognize that in matters of deafness, I am not the expert. People who have lived experience of deafness are the experts in that regard and this knowledge has to be acknowledged and valued. The researcher has a responsibility to design strategies that allow those with traditional power and those who have been excluded from power to be engaged in respectful ways. This calls upon researchers to transform their roles to support the exper-tise that exists in the communities in which they work in meaningful ways.

This transformation might also involve a growing awareness of and appreciation for the types of transper-sonal knowledge that Anderson and Ball (2011) associ-ate with transformative outcomes, but are not typically

included in social science research. These include (1) intuitive knowledge that we have without waiting for the rational mind to come into consciousness; and (2) inte-gral knowledge that integrates discipline-based knowl-edge with tacit, intuitive, body-based, and feeling-based knowledge to support psycho-spiritual growth. This is in keeping with the transformative paradigm’s assumption about knowledge in that these are types of knowledge that are valued by different cultural groups. For example, Indigenous researchers value knowledge that is rooted in a spirituality manifest by connectedness with all that has come before, all that is here now, and all that will be. Such knowledge may come to community members in many forms, even in the form of dreams (Cram, Chilisa, & Mertens, 2013).

6 Transformative methodological assumptionThe transformative methodological assumption does not dictate any specific methodological approach. Rather, it aligns with the previously discussed transformative assumptions in that the voices of those marginalized in society need to be brought into the research planning and implementation in meaningful ways. This means that an analysis of power relations needs to be conducted as part of the process of bringing focus to the research, as well as throughout the entire research process. Very importantly, a conscious part of the design is to incorporate pathways to action for personal and societal transformation. This is not left to chance.

To this end, transformative researchers often adopt a cyclical mixed methods approach, using the earliest stages of the research study to identify who needs to be included and how they can be included (Mertens, 2018). This also entails a transformative process at the individual level that supports the development of trusting relationships and working with members of marginalized and powerful communities to understand the cultural complexities and their implications for transformation. The relationship building phase can be followed by a phase for contextual analysis during which existing data and literature can be reviewed. It might also include group process strategies to bring to light the types of tacit and integral knowledge that form the basis for transformation. The information collected from these phases are used to develop an inter-vention that has potential for transforming individuals and society. This intervention is usually pilot tested with a small group so that it can be adjusted as necessary. The



research on implementation can use a variety of designs from case study to participatory action research to rand-omized controlled trials. These have to be conducted with a full sense of the meaning of ethics within the research context. While the implementation phase is occurring, data are collected about processes and outcomes of the intervention. When the final data are collected about the effects of the intervention, these are brought back to the community using a variety of strategies for interpretation and use of the findings. The use might be for transforma-tive changes within a particular school or classroom or for a change in policy that could affect a wider constituency.

The transformative methodological assumption aligns with Walton’s (2014) recommendation to collect data from diverse sources in diverse ways that honor the intuitive and integral knowledge needed for transforma-tion. Walton suggests the value of transpersonal methods to train researchers and participants in recognizing intu-itive knowledge. This can include engaging in imaginal dialogue when developing the research topic, using an expansive literature review strategy that allows for chal-lenges to personal values and assumptions, combining intuitive research methods with conventional quantita-tive, qualitative, and mixed methods, and integrating the results of all the data collection with the literature and sharing it in meaningful ways with diverse audiences. “Intuitive perception can help achieve richer forms of understanding when used to complement processes such as analytic reasoning and information gained from the conventional five senses (p. 37).”

7 ConclusionsThe transformative paradigm provides a philosophical framework for designing research that has the potential for changes at the individual and societal level. For me, this framing prompts me to engage differently with study participants, ask different kinds of research questions, and design studies that are focused on supporting changes that challenge an oppressive status quo. The inclusion of knowledge that is based on intuition and dreams does not eliminate the importance of knowledge that comes from more traditional methods of data collection. It provides an opportunity to be responsive to differences in cultural understandings of what knowledge is and provides an opportunity to come to richer understandings about the meaning of experiences and changes.

I agree with Walton (2014) and Anderson and Braud (2011) about the need for a different conceptualization

of research methodology in order to be responsive to cul-tural diversity and different ways of knowing. I add to their thinking the need to design studies that explicitly address issues of discrimination and oppression. Individ-ual change is a desirable goal; however, individuals who experience systemic discrimination find that their life chances are limited by an oppressive system. Thus, there is a need to address both the individual and societal in transformative research.

I also agree with Walton (2014) and Anderson and Braud (2011) that the proposed use of inclusive transform-ative strategies in research does not negate the impor-tance of what is known about good research practice. Transformative strategies can complement and enhance traditional research approaches. Transformative research-ers support the use of multiple methods for the conduct of studies, as well as the development of interdisciplinary approaches to solve difficult problems. I believe that incorporating the concepts of both personal and societal change will serve the world well. I end with this quote from Walton (2014, p. 36) that captures the essence of this argument: “There is a continuing emphasis on the need for methodological pluralism, where researchers from a range of disciplines including the social sciences, natural sciences, humanities and arts, can engage in individual and collaborative approaches to generating knowledge that will address issues of global concern.”

References[1] Anderson, R., & Braud, W. (2011). Transforming Self and

Others through Research: Transpersonal Research Methods and Skills for the Human Sciences and Humanities. New York, USA: SUNY Press

[2] Chilisa, B. (2012). Indigenous methodologies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

[3] Cram, F., Chilisa, B., & Mertens, D.M. (2013). The journey begins. In Mertens, D.M., Cram, F., & Chilisa, B. (Eds.), Indigenous pathways into social research, pp. 11-40. Walnut Hills, CA: Left Coast Press

[4] Cram, F. & Mertens, D.M. (2015). Transformative and Indigenous frameworks for multimethod and mixed methods research. In S. Hesse-Biber & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethods and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 91–110). New York, NY: Oxford University Press

[5] Farren, M., Crotty, Y., & Kilboy, L. (2015). Transformative potential of action research and ICT in the second language (L2) classroom. International Journal of Transformative Research, 2(2), 49-59

[6] Jones, J. (2015). Professional engagement in child protection: promoting reflective practice and deeper connection with the lived reality for children. International Journal of Transformative Research, 2(2), 30-38


24 Donna M. Mertens

[7] Hammond, M. (2016). How ideas of transformative learning can influence academic blogging. International Journal of Transformative Research, 3(1), 33-40

[8] Mertens, D.M. (2018). Mixed methods design in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

[9] Mertens, D.M. (2015). Research methods in education and psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

[10] Mertens, D.M. & Tarsilla, M. (2015). Mixed methods evaluation. In S. Hesse- Biber & B. Johnson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of multimethod and mixed methods research inquiry (pp. 426–446). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press

[11] Mertens, D. M., & Wilson, A. T. (2012). Program evaluation theory and practice: A comprehensive guide. New York, NY: Guilford Press

[12] National Health Committee. (2003). To have an “ordinary” life, Kia whai oranga “noa.” Wellington, New Zealand: National Health Committee

[13] Pratt, D., Peat, B. (2014). Vanishing point – or meeting in the middle? Student/supervisor transformation in a self-study thesis. International Journal of Transformative Research, 1(1), 1-24

[14] Smith, D. (2016). An intuitive approach to learning delivery in higher education. International Journal of Transformative Research, 3 (2), 8-14

[15] Symonette, H. (2009). Cultivating self as responsive instrument. In D.M. Mertens & P. Ginsberg (Eds.), Handbook of Social Research Ethics, pp. 279-294. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

[16] Walton, J. (2014). What can the ‘transpersonal’ contribute to transformative research? International Journal of Transformative Research, 1(1), p. 25-44


IJTR 2019; 6(1): 27-35

Open Access. © 2019 Ida Widianingsih, Donna M Mertens, published by Sciendo. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attri-bution alone 4.0 License.

Research Article

Ida Widianingsih*, Donna M Mertens

Transformative research and the sustainable development goals: challenges and a vision from Bandung, West Javahttps://doi.org/10.1515/ijtr-2019-0005received 21 March, 2019; accepted 2 August, 2019

Abstract: The transformative research lens incorporates ideas such as consciously addressing power differences with strategies that allow for the inclusion of the voices of the full range of stakeholders, including those who are most marginalized. The goal of transformative research is to support the development of culturally responsive inter-ventions that foster increased respect for human rights and achievement of social, economic, and environmental justice. In this article, we use a case study from Universi-tas Padjadjaran in Indonesia to illustrate the application of a transformative approach to research in a complex setting in which the rights of those living in poverty are not respected and economic development occurs at the expense of environmental degradation. We discuss a transformative framing for research associated with the development of interventions designed to support West Java, Indonesia in moving forward toward achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the goals estab-lished by the United Nations to address inequities. The road to transformation is not simple or smooth, but the combination of a transformative approach to research with the development of transformative interventions provides a hopeful pathway.

Keywords: transformation; sustainable development goals; economic development; social justice; envirnomen-tal justice

The transformative research lens incorporates ideas such as conducting a contextual analysis to fully understand the challenges in the research context, and consciously addressing power differences with strategies that allow for the inclusion of the voices of the full range of stake-holders, including those who are most marginalized. The goal of transformative research is to support the devel-opment of culturally responsive interventions that foster increased respect for human rights and achievement of social, economic, and environmental justice (Mertens, 2020; 2018; Mertens & Wilson, 2019). The transforma-tive paradigm is defined in terms of four assumptions, building on the early work of Guba and Lincoln (1989) who identified these assumptions that represent different paradigms in educational and social research: the axio-logical assumption about the nature of values and ethics, ontological assumption about the nature of reality, the epistemological assumption about the nature of knowl-edge and the relationship between the researcher and the stakeholders, and the methodological assumption about the nature of systematic inquiry.

In this article, we provide an explanation of these assumptions as they are reflected in the transformative paradigm and illustrate their application to a research study in West Java, Indonesia as it attempts to achieve the SDGs that were developed by the United Nations to “end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all” (United Nations, 2018). Leaders who support the attain-ment of the SDGs have recognized the need for transform-ative action in order to address the societal barriers that have limited progress for those most marginalized on this planet (Waddell and Oliver, 2018). Given this recognition by the international community of the need for trans-formative action, we see the transformative approach to research in alignment with the need for transformative action. Thus, the purpose of this article is twofold: first, to explore the meaning of the transformative approach to research, and second, to illustrate its application in the complex and challenging context of West Java. *Corresponding author: Ida Widianingsih, Padjadjaran University,

West Java, Indonesia, Email: [email protected] M. Mertens, Gallaudet University, Washington DC 20002, USA

Unauthentifiziert | Heruntergeladen 17.12.19 14:02 UTC

28 Ida Widianingsih, Donna M Mertens

1 Transformative Axiological AssumptionThe transformative axiological assumption provides insights into the nature of ethical research that furthers human rights and social, economic and environmental justice. The salient values that constitute this assumption include: cultural respect; explicitly addressing inequities; inclusion of reciprocity (i.e., giving back to the commu-nity); recognition of community resilience and the inter-connectedness of all things (living and nonliving); and building relationships. The implication of this assump-tion for researchers is the need to structure the study to be inclusive of all voices and use strategies that lead to the development of interventions that are respectful and that support positive transformative change in the form of increased social, economic, and environmental justice.

2 Transformative Ontological AssumptionThe transformative ontological assumption holds that reality is multi-faceted and that there are many different opinions about what is real. Versions of reality emanate from different social positionalities and thus are accorded greater privilege depending on whose version of reality is accepted. Following from the transformative axiologi-cal assumption, researchers who work within this para-digm recognize that some versions of reality sustain an oppressive status quo and others provide a pathway for enhanced justice and human rights. For example, differ-ent versions of reality exist about how to address food scarcity arise in West Java based on the contrast between government officials’ and rural farmers’ version of what is best for their economic development and protection of the environment. The government of Indonesia has a version of reality regarding food production that puts value on increased use of pesticides. The farmers and those who are dependent on water from the river into which the pes-ticides flow have a different version of reality about food production. The consequences of accepting one version of reality over another has significant consequences in terms of the health of the farmers, the surrounding communi-ties, and the river.

3 Transformative Epistemological AssumptionThe transformative epistemological assumption addresses the nature of knowledge and the relationship between the researchers and the community members. The nature of knowledge is considered with regard to the histori-cal location of knowledge, i.e., what is considered to be valid knowledge. How do historical factors influence whose knowledge is accorded value? Following from the transformative ontological assumption, what are the consequences of privilege in terms of the value placed on knowledge that comes from different constituencies and positionalities? A second aspect of the epistemological assumption is the relationship between researchers and communities. In keeping with the transformative axio-logical assumption of cultural respect, the transformative epistemological assumption emphasizes the importance of establishing culturally responsive relationships with the full range of stakeholders in the study. Issues of power need to be explicitly addressed and strategies need to be developed that allow for respect for knowledge that comes from the full range of stakeholders. In order to capitalize on the power from the people who are not in formal posi-tions of power, it may be necessary to support the develop-ment of coalitions from the grassroots. We examine how this is being addressed in West Java later in this article.

4 Transformative Methodological AssumptionThe transformative methodological assumption pro-vides a lens for critically examining the assumptions that researchers use as a basis for making methodological decisions. The transformative methodological assumption aligns with the previous assumptions in that the design needs to incorporate culturally responsive strategies that support positive change to increase social, economic, and environmental justice. The use of a transformative lens combined with the mixed methods (both quantitative and qualitative integrated into the design) provides oppor-tunities to be responsive to multiple stakeholder groups and to capture the complexity of the processes needed for transformative change. The design also needs to incorpo-rate the building of relationships and use of the findings throughout the study to critically examine and inform practices and policies.


Transformative research and the sustainable development goals ... 29

5 Transformative Mixed Methods DesignA transformative mixed methods design (Mertens, 2018) typically begins with a phase of relationship building. This includes the identification of the relevant stakehold-ers and development of strategies for working together that are culturally respectful and provide a safe space for sharing ideas. Power differences need to be considered so that members of marginalized communities’ voices are not lost. This phase is followed by a contextual analysis that involves collection of quantitative and qualitative data to get a better picture of the economic, historical, political, and demographic variables that are relevant in that context. The third phase of the transformative mixed methods design uses the data from the first two phases to inform decision makers, developers, and communities about potential interventions that can be pilot tested. At this phase, data can be collected about the strengths and weaknesses of the potential interventions.

If the situation is very complex, many types of inter-ventions might be needed and the cycle of testing and refining might extend over a long period of time. If an intervention or set of interventions is found to be effec-tive at the pilot level, then they might be scaled up and implemented in a wider population. While these phases of transformative mixed methods are presented here in a linear manner, in the complexity of the world, there may be a re-visiting of the various phases throughout the course of the study. The critical feature of transformative research is that the findings are used throughout the study to support culturally responsive, transformative change.

6 Application of the Transformative Approach to Research in West JavaIn this section, we illustrate the transformative approach with a project conducted by researchers at the Universi-tas Padjadjaran (hereafter referred to as Unpad) in West Java, Indonesia that addresses the intersection of social, economic and environmental justice. The transformative methodological assumption calls for the use of a trans-formative lens, mixed methods, cyclical designs (using data throughout the course of the project to understand the context, the nature of the problem, identify potential culturally responsive interventions, determining the effect of the interventions). In this case study, data are collected

on an on-going basis to inform decisions throughout the research cycle (DRPMI, 2017).The project is in its early stages and thus provides insights into framing a study that is geared toward supporting the transformative change that is needed to achieve the SDGs in this part of the world. Conditions of high poverty and unemployment with environmental degradation in West Java, Indonesia provide an opportunity to understand the cultural and contextual complexities that present challenges. It supports the development of strategies to address those challenges in order to make progress toward the transformative change needed to achieve the SDGs.

6.1 Phase 1 of Transformative Mixed Methods Study: Building Relationships

The first author is the principal investigator for the study reported herein. She is part of The Center for Decentrali-zation and Participatory Development Research (CDPD)/(Pusat Studi Desentralisasi dan Pembangunan Partisipatif) (hereafter referred to as The Center) under the Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, Unpad. The Center includes staff who are focused on understanding the contextual factors that support or inhibit transformative change. In addition, they conduct research to develop and test a mul-titude of possible interventions that are needed to address issues of youth disenfranchisement, lack of environmen-tally just employment opportunities, provision of capac-ity building and technology access, food scarcity, access to clean water, increased human trafficking, sustainable farming practices, and enhanced participatory govern-ance (Widianingsih, Gunawan, & Rusyidi, 2019).

The transformative epistemological assumption’s focus on building relationships, i.e., addressing issues of power; building capacity; and developing action-oriented, community-based coalitions, is evident in the approach the university is taking in West Java. The research pro-cesses, ideally, should involve all development stakehold-ers, including local government institutions, business sector, academics, NGOs, and local communities (Widian-ingsih & Morrell, 2007; Widianingsih, McLaren, & McIn-tyre-Mills 2017). Two research centers at Unpad partnered to conduct the research reported in this article: The Center for Decentralization and Participatory Development Research (CDPD) and the SDGs Center, a research center that was established to support the Indonesian govern-ment in achieving the SDGs agenda. The university has also formed a partnership with government to improve the use of data for policy decisions.



At the university level, the Center engages with the faculty of the department of social and political science to involve students in the generation of ideas about what needs to be done. These relationships are formalized in a service course that has been developed; this is discussed further in the pilot phase of the research study.

At the community level, the CDPD researchers have developed relationships with farmers, the farmer’s wives, and youth who live in the rural areas. The strategies for involvement with these stakeholders include travel to the rural areas to host opportunities for sharing concerns and ideas for improvement. The university and commu-nity members use a mixed process for planning from the grassroots; people in the community have a discussion about what they think is important in development; like a wish list. Then they bring it to the village level, then dis-trict level, then provincial, and on to the national level. Even with this participatory model, government does not necessarily give the people what they want.

Many aspects of a transformative approach are evident in the work that is being done in West Java. However, challenges continue. Based on interviews that Ida con-ducted with 24 planners at the district level, many aspects of development in Bandung seem to have improved but development in terms of environmental health and issues for women and youth have not progressed. Youth con-cerns are not included in planning documents; there is no mention of disability. Gender is mentioned but it is not supportive of women to be engaged in meaningful ways that will benefit them economically. The Center is working to improve strategies for engagement with youth, women, and people with disabilities (Widianingsih & Paskarina, 2018; Widianingsih & Paskarina, 2019).

6.2 Phase 2 of Transformative Mixed Methods Study: Contextual Analysis

The transformative axiological assumption leads to analysis of the elements of cultural respect, reciprocity, relationships, recognition of the resilience in the com-munities, and consciously addressing inequities and promoting social, economic and environmental justice that are relevant in the West Java context. A complicated picture emerges from the data in West Java. Data collected thus far indicate that economic development has occurred at the expense of social and environmental justice.

The contextual analysis, with the transition to SDGs starting in 2015 under President Jokowi’s leadership, included documents that addressed Indonesia’s com-mitment to the SDGs agenda. This process revealed that

Presidential decree No. 59/2017 strengthens Indonesia’s commitment to achieving the SDGs through develop-ing national policy frameworks such as the Roadmap to 2030, National Action Plan, and Local Government Action Plan (all documents that were reviewed as part of the contextual analysis). For this, the National Develop-ment Planning Board (BAPPENAS) adjusted Indonesian development planning framework and policy towards the SDGs agenda (Post MDGs). The Indonesian government integrated 94 out of 169 SDGs agendas into Medium Term National Development Plan (2015-2019) through four main development pillars (social, economy, law and govern-ance) (Yusuf, Komarulzaman, Alisjahbana, Anna, Ghina, & Megananda, 2018 ; Bappenas, 2017).

Ida and her staff interviewed six provisional govern-ment officials in the West Java province who are members of the West Java Development Planning Board. These respondents are responsible for the implementation of SDGs agenda. They consider Indonesia’s agenda to be a very ambitious plan due to development problem com-plexities related to poverty, unemployment, and ine-quality. In terms of the SDGs agendas, West Java provin-cial government has an obligation to design a five-year Local Action Plan for Sustainable Development (Rencana Aksi Daerah Tujuan Pembangunan Berkelanjutan, RAD-TPB). This is reflected from the achievement of West Java Medium Term Development Indicators (2013-2018) that only 15 out of 41 indicators could be reached as the initial targets. For example, access to education remains low and unequal economic development persists (Bappeda Jabar, 2018).

Researchers at the SDGs Center at Unpad used doc-ument analysis and focus groups with all the planners and programmers at the provincial and district levels to examine West Java’s achievement of SDGs agenda (Pemer-intah Provinsi Jawa Barat, 2019; Yusuf et.al., 2018). They reported that West Java’s low SDGs achievement is most probably caused by lack of innovative development pro-grams and policies. The business as usual policy and approaches failed to address economic inequality and sus-tainability. In West Java, social justice is an issue because youth cannot find employment in their villages. They move to the cities where they take low paying and some-times illegal jobs; this also results in an increase in human trafficking. For example, the document review revealed that there is a growth in prostitution networks; this is evident in analyzing the advertisement for jobs such as a masseuse or house cleaner, but really it is for prostitution. The lack of jobs is an economic issue. Textile factories have stepped in to create jobs, but they are also respon-sible for high levels of air and water pollution, dumping



20,000 tons of waste and 340,000 tons of wastewater into the Citarum River every day (Tarahita & Rakhmat, 2018).

The Citarum River, the third largest river in Java, is extremely polluted, not only with industrial chemicals, but also with plastic rubbish, trash, waste, and dead animals. Its levels of lead are 1,000 times worse than the U.S. stand-ard for drinking water. Yet, 25 million people depend on it for drinking water, irrigation of crops, and energy produc-tion. The result is that many people who use this heavily polluted water and breath the contaminated air now suffer from health problems such as scabies, infections, and respiratory distress. The transformative axiological assumption calls for researchers to include these aspects of social, economic, and environmental justice into their designs in order to support constructive pathways towards transformation (Tarahita & Rakhmat, 2018)

Unpad has made a commitment to support Citarum river restoration that is embodied in the establishment of Unpad Citarum Research Center that aims to integrate pre-vious and future research of Unpad academics related to Citarum River (Pusat Riset Citarum Unpad 2019).

An important issue that was identified in the con-textual analysis is that access to clean water is differ-ent dependent upon the citizen’s economic status. In Bandung, a large city in the West Java province, access to clean water is limited to certain groups of communities. Bandung’s population is 2,497,938 people (2017); 103,980 people (4.17 %) are considered poor. The water comes from the river and ground water but there is a water crisis due to lack of rain. Local government is not able to provide enough provide clean water for Bandung inhabitants, the Government Local Government Water Company (Peru-sahaan Daerah Air Minum, PDAM) could only serve 74% (1.789.836 people) of its community (PDAM Tirtawening 2013; Irawati, et.al 2013). Our research found that in the Bandung context, rich people have better access to water and better quality at a lower price. Since the service capac-ity of the Tirtawening PDAM is limited, urban poor do not necessarily have access to water pipelines, so they pay a great deal more to buy water. Based on Unpad’s Customer Satisfaction Survey conducted with 1011 customers in 2012, the cost of water provided by the PDAM as IDR 2.00 per liter, whilst water from street vendors would cost IDR 75.00 per liter (Irawati, et.al., 2013).

6.3 Phase 3 of Transformative Mixed Methods Research: Pilot Testing Interventions

Interventions have been developed and are being tested at many levels, reflecting the complexity of the context and the multiple stakeholder groups who are involved. Some of these interventions are shared below along with reports of the methods used to study their effectiveness and pre-liminary reports of the results.

Government Participatory Intervention: The govern-ment instituted an E-participatory planning process in Bandung; the mechanism is to use IT to allow the local government to communicate about their needs. With support of students and research assistants, the Center conducted surveys with 72 respondents who had experi-ences in the E-planning process of Bandung Municipality (Widianingsih et.al., 2018).

The results reveal there are still many challenges. For example, the IT mechanism that the government set up is not easy for many local people, even though they can use their mobile phones for the IT access. A skill gap exists particularly for older people who are not familiar with IT. It does not mean that the quality of planning is more participatory. It depends on who has access to the IT and is able to input the information. It is still driven by government officials who think they know more than the poor. A revision is needed to make it more participatory and accessible for poor and older people. The new plan-ning mechanism is only efficient for the government who controls the resources, but it does not help the poor or the disabled to be included in the planning process.

Participatory planning gave people an opportunity to say what they want; observation of the planning pro-cesses reveals that the data is not used as decisions are made up the line (Widianingsih, 2018; Widianingsih & Paskarina 2018; Widianingsih & Paskarina 2019). The Unpad team conducted 16 interviews with programmers in Bandung at the district, sub-district, and village levels. The results revealed that the participatory process as implemented does not mean that the quality of the plan-ning is better. The team also conducted observations at three different meetings for planning at these levels, with follow-up informal interviews with people at the meet-ings. The respondents reported that one problem is that government supports changes that are easily seen, i.e., progress that can be measured. But empowering people is invisible because it is not a product that can be seen. The problem is still there. They say they are using partici-patory planning but the situation is not changed. There is



no connection between what the government offers and what people need.

The interviews with local government officials revealed that they are encouraged to be more profes-sional; they developed performance indicators to measure what the government offices accomplish. In the past, gov-ernment workers did not have to do much work to get paid; however, this has changed. After the reform era, they introduced a system based on a performance index to measure the work in each department. For example, the department of trade and industry set up goals and then their salaries are based on achievement of the goals. This has backfired because if they set up a high goal, they may not make it and then they would not get paid. So, they set very low goals that are achievable.

Education for Government Officials: The university is trying to increase the capacity of local government to use evidence-based strategies for policy decision making in Bandung. Local government agreed to send some stu-dents to the university to study the real problems in their region and how they can use evidence to support policy decisions. Local government has experience with the communities and if they can add their ability to use data, they can jointly develop an agenda for SDGs in West Java (BP2D & Flinders University 2017).

The local government officials who come to attend the university program offer hope for change in the future. This is a new program and so its impact is not known yet (Unpad 2018). Document reviews and interviews of the participants at the beginning of the program revealed a lack of understanding of inclusive planning – they talk about gender and think that means their plans are inclu-sive. Programmers from 20 different departments were interviewed; the participants said they did not want to look bad. There is a need to have an intervention to understand what it means to do inclusive planning. In local government, most of the money is used for salaries and administration; very little is used to support actual development programs. There is very little cross depart-ment communication, so they are not aware of what is being done by other departments or at different levels. Some of the programs, like transportation or water cannot be handled by one department; it takes work at several departments and at different levels to solve the problems (Widianingsih & Paskarina 2018; Widianingsih & Paska-rina 2019).

Service Courses for Students to Engage with Commu-nities. Unpad has also made changes in their curriculum and requirements for students to conduct research based on an increased connection with people living in the local villages. The students work in local villages so that the

university is not isolated; they work with people from the rural areas. As a part of their program of study, students go to the village and talk with the people. Every Friday for one semester, they go to the field and have direct discus-sions with community leaders using participatory strate-gies. This has been going on for 4 years in order to build a bridge between youth and community members. Addi-tional curriculum changes include a focus on transforma-tional leadership. The students learn to map development problems; stimulate economic growth, address the needs of poor people, and give hope for those who suffer from persistent problems (DRPMI, 2017).

The first author (Ida) conducted interviews with 6 local leaders from one village, 3 in another village, and a group of 12 women in another village to gather informa-tion about their perspectives of the importance of being inclusive in development and how to do that. The leaders say they have a desire to learn more about how to influ-ence the head of the planning board and his staff. Ida’s interviews and survey were used to ascertain their under-standing of inclusive development. The leaders say they want to see more visibility of inclusive development in their planning documents. Ida will do focus groups with the development planning board to gather more insights into their understandings of inclusive development. For example, the documents mention the importance of including women in the process as leaders (Widianing-sih & Paskarina 2018; Widianingsih, Tunawan & Rusyidi, 2019).

Advancement of Women in Public Sector Leadership: With regards to women’s leadership in the public sector, the first author conducted a collaborative project with Dr. Helen McLaren and Dr. Cassandra Star from Flinders University in Australia. The competitive grant, funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Australia, aims to build collaborations between the two countries and support the advancement of women in public sector leadership in Indonesia (IAA-DFAT 2019). As part of the collaborative project, the university plans to establish a Women’s Leadership Forum to support collaborative work and to change things. Fifty women came to West Java for leadership training and they will continue contact after they return to their homes. The intent is to encourage more women in leadership in the public sector. The uni-versity hopes to invite 50 women from different districts to discuss issues of culture; religion; gender roles; expec-tations for the role of the wife and husband; and lack of support amongst women for each other. At this stage, the research team with Unpad students are conducting face-to-face surveys with women officials in West Java Provin-cial, Bandung Municipality, and Bandung District gov-



ernments. To date, 174 questionnaires have been returned and analyzed (unpad.ac.id 2019). This survey is still in process and more responses are expected.

Interventions for Economic Development: The trans-formative ontological assumption holds that different ver-sions of reality exist and that these versions of reality come from the different social positions of the stakeholders. Some versions of reality continue to support an oppressive status quo and other versions of reality have the poten-tial to lead to increased justice and human rights. Focus groups with farmers, the farmer’s wives, young people, and local government officials that included 45 people, along with observations of farmers working were con-ducted over a full semester, meaning that the observers were present 24 times during one year. This provided an example in West Java that revealed that powerful eco-nomic interests view the needs of people in West Java differently than do those from different levels of govern-ment, and different from the villagers and farmers. The example of the different versions of reality regarding eco-nomic development and textile factories has already been presented. Another example that extends the example given previously related to feeding the large population of people in West Java. The government wants farmers to increase rice production and to increase production by using more pesticides and fertilizers. Farmers say that rice production requires more water than raising other crops and, as we have seen, clean water is difficult for farmers to get. The increased use of water leads to land degradation and further reduces the level of water available for other things. The farmers believe that growing more vegetables using the organic farming methods of the past is the best way to produce food. There is also a growing number of farmers who are raising cows for milk, but not in a sus-tainable way. The animals are kept in cages which is not healthy for the animals and the cows create air pollution. The government tried a biogas project but it did not work well. In addition, the waste from the cow cages goes into the river, polluting it even more (Widianingsih, 2018).

Based on the same data collected with farmers, their wives, young people, and local leaders, one solution that is being explored in a partnership between the university and the farmers is supporting the development of their skills to increase their abilities to market their coffee. The farmers also want to increase their connection with local government in order to get access to the resources they need to plant more coffee so that they can support themselves while they are waiting for the coffee to be har-vested and sold. The farmers say that they know how to grow good coffee but they do not get a good price for their coffee. Local leaders have identified a need to develop

markets for their coffee. The establishment of small coffee shops in the area could provide more jobs for the youth. The farmers also want to develop an online market for their coffee. This requires building the capacity of youth in terms of the use of technology for this purpose (Widi-aningsih, 2018a).

Intervention for Reducing Environmental Pollution: Students at the university studied waste water and solid waste in Bandung by means of reviewing documents from the water companies and the government, and observing the treatment of water and solid waste in their communi-ties. Their results revealed that local governments started a water treatment facility in the area; local governments had to work together to turn waste water into clean water. The disposal of solid waste is another problem that has surfaced because there is no room in Bandung to treat the solid waste, therefore; there is no recycling (Waskitawati, Widianingsih & Gunawan 2019). For many years, rubbish was dumped in one area, however, this resulted in a rubbish landslide in 2005 that killed almost 150 people. That area was closed, but where can they put the rubbish? Provincial government has introduced a recycling center but it has not started to work yet because they need more money. They want to do public private partnership. They introduced the bio-digest system but it has not worked well.

6.4 Phase 4 and 5: Scaling up interventions and implementation of utilization plan

The case study in West Java is still in flux. It is not a fin-ished project. In fact, an insight that the authors reached was that it might not be possible to have “an intervention that is scaled up” because of the need to be responsive to the complexity of the context. As understandings of the nature of the problems and the limitations of interven-tions become clearer, the teams need to be responsive to these changes.

While use of the findings from this case study has been made throughout the course of the study, it is prema-ture to think of a final phase for utilization of their find-ings. This represents another insight from the case study: In complex contexts, utilization needs to be planned throughout the study and then plans need to be adjusted as the study progresses. This is the strategy that is being implemented in the West Java case study; results of each data collection effort are used to inform the next steps.

One solution for the utilization phases might entail dissemination of findings in creative ways to stimulate action. For example, a video was made by French stu-



dents about the Citarum River; it became an interna-tional issue. Now the government is supporting a 7-year project to address the issues of pollution in the river. The government has also asked farmers to plant coffee in the region, however there is still tension regarding the need to increase planting of vegetables in the area.

7 ConclusionsThe conditions in West Java provide a real-life example of a context in serious need of transformative change. The researchers who are working in this area are using a trans-formative approach that is multi-pronged. They incorpo-rate the viewpoints of stakeholders from different parts of society and bring to visibility the voices of those who are marginalized, including people from rural areas, women, youth and people with disabilities. They use data gathered from a wide range of stakeholders to provide a contrast between the versions of reality held by some in power with those who are not in formal positions of power.

As we saw in West Java, the researchers organized coalitions of farmers and youth to develop solutions that seem to have potential for addressing issues of social, eco-nomic, and environmental justice. The university is also in a partnership with the government and with youth and rural people to improve solutions through the use of evi-dence-based planning. The issues of power that control economic decisions are not simple, nor are they all solved by the use of a transformative approach to research and program development. However, such an approach has been able to contribute to redressing power imbalances and to the development of culturally responsive interven-tions.

The transformative approach allows for data col-lection that documents the complexity of societal level change; it also makes visible the power relationships that are supportive or inhibiting that change. The implications of the case study reported in this article are broad because multi-lateral organizations such as the United Nations and International Development Evaluation Association (IDEA) are working with countries around the globe to support the transformation needed to achieve the SDGs. IDEAS (2019) has chosen Evaluation for Transformative Change as the theme for their 2019 Global Assembly. IDEAS did this based on the rationale that:

“transformational change is needed for our societies, economies and our relationship with the environment to become sustaina-ble. On many fronts the world needs transformational change to be able to reach the aspirations expressed in the SDGs and the

Paris Agreement: a world free of poverty; leaving no one behind; and ensuring a prosperous and equitable future in diverse and inclusive societies, with economies that increase wealth but not while undermining our food, clean air and living circumstan-ces, with a climate and biodiversity that safeguards the future of humankind. A transformational change is one that reshapes models, policies, structures, practices, culture and manage-ment.”

As the leaders and citizens of the world strive to achieve the SDGs, researchers need to adopt a transformative lens to support development of interventions that align with these goals. The case study presented here provides one illustration of the complexity and challenges of adopting a transformative stance in research designed to support the achievement of SDGs. This can serve as an example of innovative approaches to research that are needed for transformational change on a global level.

References[1] AII-DFAT (2019). Women’s public sector leadership:

Learning from what works. https://dfat.gov.au/people-to-people/foundations-councils-institutes/australia-indonesia-institute/grants/grantees/Pages/womens-public-sector-leadership-learning-from-what-works.aspx (Accessed 7 June 2019).

[2] BP2D & Flinders University. (2017). Policy Capacity for Evidence-based Policy Making in West Java Provincial Government, Flinders, Australia. Flinders Australia: Flinders University and Universitas Padjadjaran.

[3] Guba, E. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

[4] International Development Evaluation Association. (2019). Evaluation for Transformative Change. https://ideas-global.org/award/ (accessed 3 August 2019).

[5] Irawati, I., Widianingsih, I, Hermawati, R., Runiawati, N., & Kudus, I. (2013). Survey Kepuasan Pelanggan Perusahaan Daerah Air Minum (PDAM) Tirtawening Kota Bandung Tahun 2012, Bandung: Laporan Penelitian Kerjasama Fisip Unpad & PDAM Tirtawening.

[6] Mertens, D.M. (2009). Transformative research and evaluation. NY, NY: Guilford.

[7] Mertens, D.M. (2018). Mixed methods design in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[8] Mertens, D.M. (2020). Research and evaluation in education and psychology. (5th ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

[9] Mertens, D.M. & Wilson, A.T. (2019). Program evaluation theory and practice. (2nd ed.). NY, NY: Guilford.

[10] Tarahita, D. & Rakhmat, M.Z. (2018). Indonesia’s Citarum: The world’s most polluted river. The Diplomat, April 28, 2018. https://thediplomat.com/2018/04/indonesias-citar-um-the-worlds-most-polluted-river/ (accessed 21 August 2019).



[11] Pemerintah Provinsi Jawa Barat. (2019). Rancangan Akhir Rencana Pembangunan Jangka Menengah Provinsi Jawa Barat, unpublished document. Bandung: Unpad Press.

[12] Pusat Riset Citarum Unpad. (2019). A research program for a restored Citarum River, Internal document. Bandung: Unpad Press.

[13] United Nations. (2018). Sustainable Development Goals – 17 goals to transform our world. Retrieved May 28 2019. https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-develop-ment-goals-retired-link/

[14] Unpad. (2018). Program Pascasarjana Transdisiplin Kebijakan dan Pembangunan Transformatif (PPTKPT), Kerjasama Unpad dengan Kabupaten Bandung, power point presentation. Bandung: Unpad.

[15] Unpad. (2019). Lakukan Riset Penguatan Peran Perempuan di Pemerintahan, Raih hibah kompetitif di Australia. http://www.unpad.ac.id/profil/lakukan-riset-penguatan-peran-per-empuan-di-pemerintahan-ida-widianingsih-m-a-phd-raih-hi-bah-kompetitif-di-australia/ (accessed 10 March 2019).

[16] Waddell, S. & Oliver R. (2017). Creating a global SDG framework. http://futureearth.org/sites/default/files/forum_description_-_short_17-05-23.pdf (Accessed 28 May 2019).

[17] Waskitawati, D., Widianingsih, I., & Gunawan, B. (2019). The effectiveness of metropolitan infrastructure development for waste-water service in Indonesia: Case of Bandung Municipality. Journal Tataloka, 21(2), 20-27. DOI: 10.14710

[18] Widianingsih, I. & Morrell, E. (2007). Participatory Planning in Indonesia: Seeking a New Path to Democracy. Journal of Policy Studies, 28(1), 1-15.

[19] Widianingsih, I. (2018). Catatan Lapangan Kajian Kebijakan dan Tatakelola Pembangunan Berkelanjutan di DAS Citarum Hulu, bagian riset ALG Prof Oekan Sustainability Science in The Context of Rural Urban Linkage: Case Study on The Impact of Ecological Change in the Upper Citarum Watershed to the Food Security and Food Sovereignty in West Java-In-donesia. Bandung: Unpad Press.

[20] Widianingsih, I., Gunawan, B., & Rusyidi, B. (2019). Peningkatan Kepedulian Stakeholder Pembangunan dalam Mencegah Stunting di Desa Cangkuang Wetan Kecamatan Dayeuh Kolot Kabupaten Bandung, BANDUNG Kumawula: Jurnal Pengabdian Kepada Masyarakat, 1(2), 120-130.

[21] Widianingsih, I, McLaren, H., & McTyre-Mills, J. (2017). Decentralization, participatory planning and the Anthropocene in Indonesia, with a case example of the Berugak Dese, Lombok, Indonesia. In J. McIntyre-Mills & Y. C. Nantes (Eds.), Contemporary System Thinking: Balancing Individualism & Collectivism to Support Social and Environmental Justice. (pp. 230-278). London: Springer.

[22] Widianingsih, I., & Paskarina (2018). Perencanaan Pembangunan Inklusif di Kabupaten Bandung, Laporan Penelitian Kerjasama Bappelitbangda Kabupaten Bandung dengan Pusat Studi Desentralisasi dan Pembangunan Partisipatif, Fisip Unpad. Bandung: Unpad Press.

[23] Widianingsih, I., & Paskarina. (2019). Defining Inclusiveness in Development: Perspective from Local Government’s Apparatus, Bina Praja Journal, 11(2), 23-36.

[24] Yusuf, A.A., Komarulzaman, A., Alisjahbana, A.S., Anna, Z., Ghina, A.A., & Megananda, A.S. (2018). Seri Menyongsong SDGs: Kesiapan Kabupaten/Kota di Provinsi Jawa Barat, Bandung: Unpad Press.


• AROSE DURING THE YEARS (1980-1990)

SOCIOLOGICAL AND PSICOLOGICAL

THEORIES.

• SOCIAL JUSTICE AND MARGINALISED

PEOPLE.

Paradigm Methods (primarily)Data collection tools

(examples)

Transformative

Diverse range of tools -

particular need to avoid

discrimination. Eg:

sexism, racism, and

homophobia.

Qualitative methods with

quantitative and mixed

methods. Contextual and

historical factors

described, especially as they

relate to oppression(Mertens, 2005, p. 9)

E.g. ACTION RESEARCH

Taken from: http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

Critical theory

Neo-marxist

Feminist

Critical Race Theory

Freirean

Participatory

Emancipatory

Advocacy

Grand Narrative

Empowerment

issue oriented

Change-oriented

Interventionist

Queer theory

Race specific

Political

Adapted from Mertens (2005) and Creswell (2003)

Taken from: http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

ORIGINAL PAPER

Reviewing the Transformative Paradigm: A CriticalSystemic and Relational (Indigenous) Lens

Norma R. A. Romm

Published online: 8 March 2015� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract In this article I re-examine the tenets of the transformative paradigm as ex-

plained by Mertens in various publications. Mertens suggests that the transformative

paradigm (as she names it) encapsulates the positions of researchers who question

positivist/postpositivist- and interpretivist/constructivist-oriented approaches, which to

date have been ascendant in the field of social research. She argues (following critical

theorists) that researchers embracing a transformative paradigm as an alternative explicitly

bear social justice issues in mind so that their inquiries become intertwined with a political

agenda and are action-oriented towards generating increased fairness in the social fabric. In

the article I consider her arguments and I add additional angles to them with reference to a

number of authors (including myself) advocating critical systemic thinking-and-practice

and advocating Indigenous systemic approaches. I consider some implications of the re-

vised understanding of the transformative paradigm (and its relationship to ‘‘other’’

paradigms) for operating as a researcher.

Keywords Transformative paradigm � Systemic research practice � PostcolonialIndigenous paradigm � Action-oriented research � Active research

Introduction

This article begins with a discussion of Mertens’ argument regarding research paradigms,

and in particular the transformative paradigm, which she has named and elucidated in

various publications. She suggests that at present ‘‘no unified body of literature is repre-

sentative of the transformative paradigm’’, but there are various characteristics ‘‘which are

common to the diverse perspectives represented within it and serve to distinguish it from

N. R. A. Romm (&)Department of Adult Education and Youth Development, University of South Africa,P.O. Box 392, Pretoria 0003, South Africae-mail: [email protected]

123

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:411–427DOI 10.1007/s11213-015-9344-5

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11213-015-9344-5&domain=pdf

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11213-015-9344-5&domain=pdf

the postpositivist and constructivist paradigms’’ (2010a, p. 21). She sets out to explicate

and to further spell out/develop) these characteristics. In this article I discuss her expli-

cation of the transformative paradigm with reference to her views on ontology, episte-

mology, methodology and axiology and the links between them within this paradigm. I

indicate that in different writings she offers somewhat different emphases, but her overall

purpose is to explore what ‘‘transformative’’ might mean in the context of research.

Mertens defines the transformative paradigm by drawing on and adapting various authors’

typologies, such as those supplied by Lather (1992) and Lincoln and Guba (2003), where

distinctions are made between emancipatory approaches (which she re-names as trans-

formative) and positivist/postpositivist-oriented, and interpretive/constructivist-oriented

approaches. (She also singles out a transformative versus pragmatic use of ‘‘mixed

methods’’, adding pragmatism to Lincoln and Guba’s typology.)

In the course of the article I introduce arguments offered by a number of critical

systemic thinkers, whose theory-and-practice is also (like hers) inspired by the critical

theoretical tradition. I deliberately hyphernate theory-and-practice here to point to what

Ivanov calls the ‘‘systemic idea of the relationship between theory and praxis in which the

two are inseparable’’ (2011, p. 498). I show how this way of understanding critical sys-

temic research means that knowing processes are not seen as separable from the con-

tinuing unfolding of social and ecological life (where everything is seen as fundamentally

connected). I relate these arguments to those of certain authors proposing the need to

feature Indigenous views on systems and on research more strongly as a way of de-

colonizing research practice and effecting transformation accordingly. I then consider how

all of these approaches offer views on how one can engage in research by being more

cognisant of its ‘‘active’’ component. I indicate that action-oriented research need not

necessarily mean following the traditional action research cycle. I conclude with some

considerations around including additional paradigms into typologies of what are under-

stood to be the ‘‘major’’ paradigms (as Mackenzie and Knipe put it), as set out in Table 1.

Mertens’ Explication of the Transformative Paradigm

Mertens indicates that she understands ‘‘transformative theory’’ as an umbrella term that

encompasses paradigmatic perspectives that are meant to be emancipatory, participatory,

and inclusive (1999, p. 4). She states that ‘‘the transformative paradigm is characterized as

placing central importance on the lives and experiences of marginalized groups, such as

women, ethnic/racial minorities, people with disabilities, and those who are poor’’. When

embracing this paradigm, efforts are made by inquirers to ‘‘link the results of social inquiry

to action, and [to] link the results of the inquiry to wider questions of social inequity and

social justice’’ (1999, p. 4).1

In order to spell out further the qualities of the transformative paradigm, she refers to its

underlying ontological, epistemological and methodological orientations. She elucidates

that ‘‘the transformative paradigm is based on ontological, epistemological and method-

ological assumptions that are different from those underlying the postpositivist and in-

terpretive/constructivist world views’’ (1999, p. 4). (She prefers to speak of postpositivist

views as these are more sophisticated arguments which have developed, and which do not

1 Mertens is here placing her discussion in the context of doing research toward program evaluation—buther statements can be seen as applying to all forms of research as she questions the distinction between‘‘evaluation’’ and ‘‘research’’ (1999, p. 5).

412 Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:411–427

123

presuppose that any statements about reality can become verified—rather it is recognized

that knowledge is always provisional.2) She outlines the differences between these para-

digms as follows.

She states (1999) that within a transformative paradigm the ontological question, ‘‘What

is the nature of reality and by extension, truth?’’ is not answered (as in postpositivism) by

assuming that we have some access to it via processes of science; nor is it answered (as in

constructivism) by asserting that there are multiple realities that are constructed in pro-

cesses of living and knowing. Rather, the ontological question is answered by ‘‘placing

various viewpoints within a political, cultural, and economic value system to understand

the basis for the differences’’—so as to understand how certain perspectives on reality

become privileged over others (1999, p. 5). How specific constructions of reality come to

be given more weight in society and how researchers can serve to undercut undue

privileging of views, are the (ontological) concerns of the transformative researcher.

As far as epistemology goes, she argues that the question of what ‘‘knowing’’ amounts to

is not answered by claiming (as in postpositivism) that the quest for objectivity (observing

from a somewhat distant and dispassionate standpoint) can lead to increased knowledge,

nor by simply asserting that the interaction between researchers and participants generates

the constructions that are developed in the research process (as in forms of interpre-

tivism/constructivism). In the transformative paradigm the manner in which researchers

relate with participants such that a fair understanding of key viewpoints is created and

such that the power of the researcher to frame questions does not overpower the ‘‘results’’

is considered as crucial (1999, p. 5).

Methodologically, Mertens states that the postpositivist paradigm is characterized as

‘‘using primarily quantitative methods that are decontextualized’’ (as the dominant

Table 1 Paradigms: language commonly associated with major research paradigms

Positivist/postpositivist Interpretivist/constructivist Transformative Pragmatic

ExperimentalQuasi-experimentalCorrelationalReductionismTheory verificationCausal comparativeDetermination

NaturalisticPhenomenologicalHermeneuticInterpretivistEthnographicMultiple participantmeanings

Social and historicalconstruction

Theory generationSymbolic interaction

Critical theoryNeo-marxistFeministCritical Race TheoryFreireanParticipatoryEmancipatoryAdvocacyGrand NarrativeEmpowerment issueoriented

Change-orientedInterventionistQueer theoryRace specificPolitical

Consequences ofactions

Problem-centredPluralisticReal-world practiceoriented

Mixed models

Mackenzie and Knipe had an additional term ‘‘Normative’’ in the first column, but I have removed it as Iregard it as somewhat out of place—given that positivism/postpositivism holds that scientists should strivefor value-freedom (objectivity) in the research process

Source: McKenzie and Knipe, 2006, p. 195 (http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html) (Adapted fromCreswell, 2003, and Mertens, 2005)

2 She states that this can otherwise be called the ‘‘scientific method paradigm’’ (1999, p. 4).

Syst Pract Action Res (2015) 28:411–427 413

123

http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

methods to which it accords most status). The interpretive/constructivist paradigm is

‘‘characterized as using primarily qualitative methods in a hermeneutical … manner (to aid

the interpretation of meanings as expressed by participants). These are its principal

methods, which are given more status in the research endeavor to add depth to the in-

vestigation. Mertens suggests that what is specific about the transformative paradigm is

that it might involve quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods3—but the community that

is most impacted by the research needs to be ‘‘involved to some degree in the method-

ological decisions’’. She therefore argues that what is important methodologically is that

when conducting research underpinned by a transformative paradigm, researchers confer

with key participants in defining which method(s) to use (and how). She cites, for instance,

a project where researchers used a strategy that ‘‘involved surveying disabled people

before conducting a survey to determine the effectiveness of the Americans with Dis-

abilities Act’’. She indicates that:

We used their responses in constructing both the design and the survey instruments,

recognizing—based on what we had learned from them—the need to ask probing

questions of business owners and operators not just about observable barriers, but

also about invisible ones, such as whether a blind person with a guide dog might be

refused entry to a cafe or restaurant. (1999, p. 10)

She cites another example, of how, in a court access project where she was one of the

researchers:

We designed the data collection forms with an eye towards facilitating transfor-

mative change. As part of the training programs for judges and other court personnel,

we invited deaf and hard of hearing people and their advocates to attend the training

workshops with representatives of the court systems in their state [with a focus on

creating action plans]. (1999, p. 11)

The research thus proceeded from initial data collection via forms which were designed

with key participants (from the deaf and hard of hearing communities), to the holding of

action-oriented workshops, which were co-designed with court personnel and representa-

tives of the deaf and hard of hearing) so as to make ‘‘plans for future actions’’ (1999, p. 11):

with the (initiating) researchers not shying from setting up participative change-oriented

inquiry processes where consideration/exploration of future options were seen as part of

the inquiry process.

In later writings (e.g. 2007a, b, 2010a, b, 2012) Mertens elaborates on her understanding

of ontological epistemological and methodological assumptions of the transformative

paradigm and on the link between these various assumptions. She also adds, following

Lincoln and Guba (2003, p. 265) the axiological question (alongside ontology, episte-

mology and methodology). Lincoln and Guba point out that they added axiology into their

layout of paradigms in order to ‘‘make values (the branch of philosophy dealing with

ethics, aesthetics and religion) a part of the basic foundational philosophical dimension of

paradigm proposal’’ (p. 265). This, they propose, enables us to better identify critical

theorists’ concern with ‘‘liberation from oppression and freeing of the human spirit, [which

are] both profoundly spiritual concerns’’ (p. 265). That is, by adding into the discussion of

paradigms researchers’ views on ways in which values enter (if at all) into processes of

3 Mertens qualifies this by stating that ‘‘mixed methods designs that use both quantitative and qualitativemethods can be used in any paradigm; however, the underlying assumptions [that researchers are bringing tobear] determine which paradigm is operationalized’’ (1999, p. 5).


123

social inquiry, we are better equipped to understand various researchers’ positions on this

score. Now Mertens argues that as far as ethical issues are concerned, the transformative

paradigm exhorts researchers to make ‘‘an explicit connection … between the process and

outcomes of research and furtherance of a social justice agenda’’ (2007a, p. 216). This, for

her, is not a matter of showing a commitment to University Institutional Review Board

requirements, where the focus is on matters such as ensuring informed consent of par-

ticipants, ensuring that they are aware of their right to withdraw, ensuring that concerns

with not harming them will be taken into account, etc. (2009, pp. 222–223). It goes much

further than this and requires that active quests to further social justice are accommodated

within the research agenda.

With this understanding of ethical accountability, she argues indeed (2010b, p. 470) that

‘‘the axiological belief is of primary importance in the transformative paradigm and drives

the formulation of the three other belief systems (ontology, epistemology and method-

ology)’’. Or, otherwise put, ‘‘the axiological assumption provides a conceptual framework

from which the other assumptions of the paradigm logically flow’’ (2012, p. 811). She also

makes the point that although some authors associate mixed-method research with a

‘‘pragmatic paradigm’’ and use ‘‘pragmatism’’ to philosophically justify their use of more

than one method, she herself prefers to use a transformative paradigm as philosophical

basis for mixed-method use. This then requires researchers to consider how the use of

mixed methods might serve the ends of social justice (2010a, p. 8). (Flood and Romm

similarly observe that often in practice with pragmatism as an approach, options may be

united eclectically on the grounds that it ‘‘seems to work’’ to unite them, but ‘‘theoretical

reasoning around the claim that ‘this works’ is limited’’—see 1996a, p. 589. Mertens’

suggestion is that an axiological basis where an ethic of justice prevails would provide the

grounding for deciding—with participants—choices of method and how to use the dif-

ferent methods.)

When discussing ontology in her article on the transformative paradigm (2007a),

Mertens expands on her earlier (1999) account and suggests that ‘‘transformative re-

searchers need to be aware of societal values and privileges in determining the reality that

holds potential for social transformation and increased social justice’’ (2007a, p. 216). She

suggests that what counts as ‘‘reality’’ for transformative researchers is therefore what

definitions (constructions) can be said to have most leverage in effecting change towards

increased justice. She elaborates that

the ontological assumption of the transformative paradigm holds that reality is so-

cially constructed, but it does so with a conscious awareness that certain individuals

occupy a position of greater power and that individuals with other characteristics

may be associated with a higher likelihood of exclusion from decisions about the

definition of the research focus, questions, and other methodological aspects of the

inquiry. (2007a, p. 216)

Put differently, she suggests that those embracing a transformative paradigm concede

(with constructivists) that reality is socially constructed, but try to ensure that ‘‘exclusions’’

of the less powerful in construing ways of defining issues are not unduly perpetuated via

the research process. Interestingly, in further explicating the ontological tenet of the

transformative paradigm (2010b), she offers a somewhat different approach, in order to

distinguish her argument from constructivism. Here she suggests that:

The transformative ontological assumption recognizes that there are many versions

of what is considered to be real and is cognizant of the constructivists’ discussion of


123

the social construction of multiple realities. Yet it diverges from this belief in that it

holds that there is one reality about which there are multiple opinions. (2010b,

p. 470, my italics)

She asserts that one can and should still posit a reality—even though we have no access

to it but only to multiple opinions about it. I will return later (critically) to this account of

hers—when discussing the suggestion put forward by various critical systemic thinkers that

in a systemic worldview (ontology) there is no attempt to uphold an ontological dualism

between ‘‘observer’’ and ‘‘observed’’ (so-called external realities).

In discussing implications for epistemology in her article on the transformative para-

digm (2007a), she elucidates her position as follows:

To know realities, it is necessary to have an interactive link between the researcher

and the participants in a study. Knowledge is socially and historically located within

a complex cultural context. (2007a, p. 216)

Here she uses the term ‘‘know’’ implying that some kind of ‘‘knowledge’’ can be

attained as long as one enters into a dialogical relationship with participants—but she also

points out that ‘‘knowledge is socially located’’—implying that it is a constructed product.

Again, I return to this later in the article (when discussing certain Indigenous authors’

arguments concerning the social construction of reality during knowing processes).

As far as methodology is concerned, she expands on her earlier works as follows:

A researcher can choose quantitative or qualitative or mixed methods, but there

should be an interactive link between the researcher and the participants in the

definition of the problem, methods should be adjusted to accommodate cultural

complexity, power issues should be explicitly addressed, and issues of discrimination

and oppression should be recognized. (2007a, p. 216)

She underscores that transformative researchers take care to work together with research

participants when choosing appropriate methods—but she emphasizes more strongly (than

in her earlier works) that the prime participants to which researchers should feel allegiance

are those who are dealing with the brunt of ‘‘issues of discrimination and oppression’’

(2007a, p. 216). This concurs with her account in her article on transformative consid-

erations (2007b), where she notes that the axiological assumption in the transformative

paradigm ‘‘leads to an awareness of the need to redress inequalities by giving precedence,

or at least equal weight, to the voice of the least advantaged groups in society’’ (2007b,

p. 86, my italics). She expands further on this (with what can be said to be a different

emphasis again) when noting (2010b) that:

The transformative belief systems discussed thus far [axiology, ontology and epis-

temology] lead to methodological beliefs about appropriate ways to gather data about

the reality of a concept in such a way that we have confidence that we have indeed

captured the reality in an ethical manner and that has potential to lead to the

enhancement of social justice. (2010b, p. 472, my italics)

She refers to ‘‘capturing the reality in an ethical manner’’—arguing that such a ‘‘cap-

turing’’ can be defined by its potential to enhance social justice. Her use of the word

capture is somewhat ambiguous, though. If one concedes that understandings of ‘‘reality’’

are not neutral (and are imbued with ethical concerns), then the word capture here can

(better) be interpreted as meaning that one is not presuming to grasp some posited reality,

but is working towards generating what one understands—with others—as a defined


123

increase in justice. This is the point made by critical systemic thinkers (as well as others

reflecting on the nature of research and its impact in society) to which I turn later.

Returning to Mertens’ argument, she notes that axiological assumptions in the con-

structivist paradigm also are giving rise to more ‘‘leaders in the field’’ citing the ‘‘need to

situate their work in social justice’’ (2010a, p. 21). She refers to self-named constructivists

who refer to the doing of research in ‘‘ways that are both respectful of the human relations

between researchers and participants … [and aimed at] enhancing the furthering of social

justice from the research’’ (2010a, p. 18). Mertens sees this ‘‘shift in constructivist

scholarship’’ as ‘‘as indicator of the permeability of paradigmatic boundaries’’ (2010a,

p. 21). But what Mertens does not highlight is the constructivist argument that social

realities can be said to be formed (and not just ‘‘found/captured’’) via the process of

research (at the moment of doing research) as explained, for example, in Romm (1996,

2001a, b, 2002, 2010). In the next section I turn to this issue through the lens of the

writings of certain critical systemic thinkers/researchers, who focus on the way in which

worlds are ‘‘brought forth’’ via the languaging between humans (Bawden, 2011, p. 4).

Bawden summarizes this (critical systemic) argument thus:

If we are to bring forth … different worlds as a function of a quest to transform the

way we live our collective lives … we will need to modify the epistemes [ways of

knowing and living] that come to dominate the modernist culture. If our intercon-

nectivities and inter-relationships with those in other [less modernist-oriented] cul-

tures as well as with the rest of nature are to be developed in a manner that is

sustainable, defensible, responsible and inclusive, we will need to establish epis-

temes that are appropriate to the task. (2011, pp. 4–5)

Bawden highlights that ‘‘appropriate’’ knowing is a matter of recognizing how our

languaging constructs and creates worlds which are in processes of becoming, and on the

basis of this recognition, taking some responsibility for the way in which we bring forth

worlds (with others). That is, just because knowing necessarily creates an intervention

(albeit that this may be more or less recognized by people and within cultures), it is

incumbent upon us to consider carefully the values that are being brought to bear when

bringing forth different worlds. This, I would argue, is the crux of critical systemic thinking

and practice as explained below.

Critical Systemic Thinking and Practice

As mentioned earlier, Ivanov indicates that in a critical systemic approach—with the

emphasis on systemic rather than on systems—‘‘the systemic idea of the relationship

between theory and practice’’ is borne in mind by those practicing such an approach

(2011, p. 498). He cites Midgley as making it clear that in some sense it is the critical

systemic researchers’ ideology and ethical stance that determines the choosing of

methodologies (with chosen participants) and the choosing of goals with participants (such

as improvements towards social justice). Before explaining this argument, I will first

briefly explain Midgley’s (1996) summary of the commitments of Critical Systems

Thinking (CST) as developed by those naming and developing it as a distinct systems

approach, namely Flood and Jackson (1991). Midgley summarizes that according to Flood

and Jackson those practicing CST can be seen to embrace the following three

commitments:


123

• Critical awareness—examining and reexamining taken-for-granted assumptions, along

with the conditions that gave rise to them;

• Emancipation—ensuring that research is focused on ‘‘improvement’’, defined tem-

porarily and locally, taking issues of power (which may affect the definition) into

account;

• Methodological pluralism—using a variety of research methods in a theoretically

coherent manner, becoming aware of their strengths and weaknesses, to address a

corresponding variety of issues. (Midgley, 1996, p. 11)

We can see from this summary that these commitments bear similarity to Mertens’

discussion of the orientation of what she calls ‘‘transformative scholars’’ (1999, p. 1) to:

• re-examine assumptions (and re-examine the privileging of certain views and

approaches that have become entrenched in society);

• orient research to creating improvements towards more social justice; and

• use mixed method research not merely in a pragmatic manner but in a manner

consistent with a critical theoretical transformative approach.

Midgley notes, though, that apart from the commitments which supposedly define CST,

there is no consensually accepted definition of the nature of the commitments, which are

spelled out differently by different authors who self-label themselves as CST proponents

(1996, p, 12). He suggests also that further to the original writings of Flood and Jackson

(1991), they can be said to have each shifted their positions—for example, he sees the book

by Flood and Romm (1996b) as one instance of such a shift (Midgley, 1996, p. 12). He also

argues that new/alternative ways of conceptualizing CST were already germinating in, for

example, Midgley (1990), Flood (1990), and Gregory (1992). What I would like to focus

on here is the ‘‘shift’’ towards recognizing the impact of ways of knowing (and framing of

issues/problems) on the unfolding of ‘‘systems’’. Midgley notes that from his experience,

when relating with participants as a systemic researcher, ‘‘many people welcome the

chance to look at how the problem they have identified interfaces with others, and ap-

preciate systemic logic’’ (1996, p. 21).

Reviewing the Transformative Paradigm: Emphasizing our Impact (as Knowers) on

Emergent ‘‘Realities’’

What seems to me is not sufficiently highlighted in Mertens’ explication of the trans-

formative paradigm is the requirement for us to appreciate that ‘‘knowing’’ itself exerts an

impact on the ‘‘realities’’ to be ‘‘known’’—that is, on their manner of unfolding. When

Mertens states (2010b) that the transformative paradigm asserts that there is one reality

(even though we may not be able to access it) I would suggest that she does not sufficiently

accentuate how the process of knowing already can be said to have impacts at the moment

of ‘‘doing research’’ (cf. Romm, 1995, 1996). Hence researchers working within this

perspective are called upon to recognize that ‘‘knowing’’ generates an intervention in

defining the direction that social (and ecological) systems might develop (with knowing

being part of these systems, as noted also by Bawdens, 2011).4 It is for this reason that it is

incumbent on us to try to consciously intervene in a justifiable and responsible way. This

idea is also expressed by Eser when he refers to what he calls justified intervention (which

4 It is worth mentioning here that I have added the word ecological systems because Midgley (1996, p. 21)is concerned that the term human emancipation as often used within CST and other critical theoretical textsmight deprioritize our thinking around ecological well-being—or what McIntyre-Mills terms social andecological justice (2008, 2014). It is not clear to what extent Mertens too takes ecological considerations intoaccount when speaking about social justice.


123

is dialogically based, and which involves considering with others how our languaging

affects the ‘‘outcomes’’ that arise through the way we speak and act—2014, p. 379). Or as

Ali summarizes this concern:

If we are to have confidence in our research we need the to be constantly aware of

how this research impacts on others …. Concerns about impact are less obvious

when researching with objects [non-humans] although of course this need not be the

case. (2010, p. 246)

Bishop and Shepherd (2011) add a caveat to this, though, when they note that it is not

necessarily clear, either in advance or in hindsight, what kinds of effects our research

endeavors might have. As they state in relation to research in the social arena, ‘‘we cannot

know or articulate the effect we have on others (which changes depending on the person)’’.

Even though we do know that self-biographies and concerns that researchers introduce

when doing research will make some difference to the ‘‘outcomes’’ we cannot know in

exactly what way this will be the case—but nor can we ‘‘evade [our] influence’’ (2011,

p. 1290).

In his book on Systemic Intervention (2000), Midgley indicates why this argument can

be considered as systemic at root (in contrast to a dualist perspective):

The term ‘‘subject/object dualism’’ refers to the separation of the observer (sub-

ject/knower) and the observed object (or that which is being researched). In a dualist

perspective the observer is somehow independent of the observed, standing outside

of it, so she does not influence it in any way. (2000, p, 42)

He states that a dualism that sees a separation of observer and observed is regarded as

problematic by systems thinkers (and certainly, by systemic thinkers). He argues that in a

systemic (anti-reductionist) perspective, ‘‘everything can be seen as interacting with ev-

erything else (and boundaries are constructs allowing the inclusion and exclusion of ele-

ments in analysis, rather than being real markers of systemic closure)’’ (2000, p. 42, my

italics). This means that the observer will always be connected with the observed (as they

are all part of a system where parts can never be separated). He argues that quantum theory

in the natural sciences also ‘‘challenges the conventional separation between the observer

and observed by demonstrating that the former cannot help but influence the latter’’ (2000,

p. 43). In this respect see Davis (1997) and Romm’s discussion hereof (2002).5 Bausch and

Flanagan (2013, p. 420), citing De Zeeuw (1996), spell out further the (constructivist as

well as transformative) implications of seeing ‘‘observations’’ as ‘‘observer dependent’’.

They indicate that for De Zeeuw, the aim of knowers then is to explicitly develop con-

structed objects ‘‘which will be useful’’ for furthering action (in this case action for both

social and ecological improvement).6

5 In relation to natural scientific inquiry, Davis argues (following Wheeler, 1982) that we can be said to beliving in an ‘‘observer participatory universe’’, in which ‘‘we are the ones who … first establish the ironposts of observation and then weave the brilliant tapestry of reality between them’’ (Davis, 1997, p. 277).Drawing on a range of examples, he shows how the world can manifest itself in alternative ways, dependingon how we weave the tapestry.6 They argue that it is with this understanding of the relationship between observer and observed thatChristakis and Warfield (also influenced by authors such as Ozbekhan and Churchman) developed a‘‘systems approach for influencing the stream of world events’’ (2013, p. 425). See also Christakis’s (2004),Christakis and Bausch’s (2006), and Bausch and Flanagan and Christakis’s (2010) discussions of structureddialogical processes for furthering this aim.


123

Midgley argues that the ‘‘problem is that subject/object dualism is so ingrained in

Western thought that it is very difficult to even identify in some instances, let alone

challenge it’’ (2000, p. 44). This is indeed the argument too of authors wishing to revitalize

Indigenous research methodologies (and ways of knowing) by focusing on Indigenous

views of systems (cf. Chilisa, 2012; Dillard, 2006; Goduka, 2012; Harris and Wasilewski,

2004; Murove, 2005; Kovach, 2009; Smith, 1999). I would suggest that Mertens’ axio-

logical tenet of the transformative paradigm could be strengthened by suggesting that just

because we always have an impact on the realities that we ‘‘observe’’ (even though we

cannot specify exactly what this is) it is required of researchers (those involved in in-

quiries) to engage with others in considering potential impacts, with the hope of generating

justifiable impacts. Our responsibilities arise because research makes, rather than finds

realities.

In other words, that there is no purpose in positing that ‘‘there is one reality’’ (as

Mertens, 2010b posits). Rather, one should lay the emphasis on Mertens’ proposal in her

article (2007a) where she suggests that reality statements that arguably hold (most) po-

tential for generating action toward increased justice should be the focus of the trans-

formative researcher. This way of looking at reality statements (or visions of reality)

invokes what Kvale sees as an extended pragmatic epistemology. Kvale spells out the

principles of such an approach to ‘‘truth’’: A pragmatic approach implies that truth (ways

of bringing forth worlds) ‘‘is whatever assists us to take actions that produce the desired

results. Deciding what are the desired results involves value and ethics’’ (2002, p. 302).

When research is directed by the quest to arouse transformative action, then one would

prioritize the criterion of catalytic validity as a way of justifying the research endeavor (as

indeed also referred to by Mertens when she speaks about catalytic authenticity, 2004,

p. 109).7 Chilisa also speaks about catalytic and tactical authenticities as strategic orien-

tations that might be adopted by researchers, where research is designed so as to maximize

possibilities for prompting/inspiring action (2012, p. 172). In terms of this (epistemological

and axiological) orientation, research is not directed towards trying to prove visions (ap-

proximately) ‘‘true’’ or ‘‘false’’, but more towards defining, with others, potential for social

and environmental justice. As noted above, Mertens focuses more on social justice while

other authors—especially Indigenous-oriented and inspired authors—stress in addition

ecological justice as of prime concern. Indigenous authors also focus more clearly on the

(systemic) idea that we all participate in ‘‘the whole’’, and that ‘‘all is connected’’ in the

web of life.

Some Indigenous Understandings of Connectivity

In this section I attempt to offer some Indigenous understandings of connectedness/rela-

tionality, while recognizing that to speak of Indigeneity is not to suggest that the

Indigenous ideas referred to are either uniform (for Indigenous people across the globe) or

static. In this regard I follow Smith who, writing from a Maori standpoint, argues that

Indigenous people can be said to be in a process of ‘‘writing or engaging with theories and

7 Lather (1986) is well-known for using the term catalytic validity as one way of defining how researchprocesses can attain validity other than through the search for ‘‘truth’’ as representation of some positedrealities). She argues that research can never be a ‘‘pure’’ description/explanation, purified of researchers’concerns (1986:64). Furthermore, it is never neutral in its social consequences. She points to the importanceof recognizing ‘‘the reality-altering impact’’ of the research process (1986, p. 67).


123

accounts of what it means to be Indigenous’’ (1999, p. 154). While acknowledging the

diversity within meanings of Indigeneity, Smith points out that a ‘‘common’’ thread that

Indigenous authors stress, is the ‘‘importance of making connections and affirming con-

nectedness …. Connectedness positions individuals in sets of relationships with other

people and with the environment’’ (1999, p. 148). Smith indicates some implications

hereof for practising ‘‘decolonizing methodologies’’.

Following up on this, in her book on Indigenous research methodologies Chilisa (2012)

explains the qualities of relationality in respect to ontology, epistemology and axiology.

Like Smith, she indicates that ‘‘postcolonial Indigenous research paradigms’’ offer a way

of conceptualizing the web of relations in which we can be said to be enmeshed.. Chilisa

explains that a relational ontology (worldview) focuses on ‘‘the web of connections of

people with each other and with living and non-living things’’ (p. 109). She notes that in

the African context the philosophy of Ubuntu (summed up in the African Adage ‘‘I am

because we are; we are because I am’’) expresses a world view of ‘‘existence in relation

and being for self-and-others’’ (p. 109). (She argues that similar adages can also be found,

for example, in Maori expressions.) In terms of research relationships with (human) par-

ticipants, she argues that this implies that ‘‘the researcher becomes part of circles of

relations that are connected to one another and to which the researcher is accountable’’ (p.

113). She also sees that we should be preserving/developing harmonious rather than ex-

ploitative relationships with non-living things (e.g. via ecologically sensitive thinking and

practice). She sums up this systemic worldview: ‘‘people … are embedded in a web of

relations and interconnectedness that extends to nonliving things. Understanding this type

of reality requires a back and forth movement that connects to this web of relations’’ (2012,

p. 186). The ‘‘reality’’ that Chilisa posits is thus a worldview where all things including

knowers/people as part of the web, are seen as inextricably connected.

Along with her elaboration of a relational ontology, Chilisa points to the implications of

upholding a relational epistemology (understanding of knowing). She cites Thayer-Ba-

con’s criticism of Euro-Western theories of knowledge, which are for the most part focused

on how individuals come to ‘‘know’’ (2003, p. 9, my italics). She notes that more important

within Indigenous knowledge systems is the recognition that ‘‘knowing is something that is

socially constructed by people who have relationships and connections with each other, the

living and the nonliving and the environment’’ (p. 116, my italics).8 She here takes a social

constructivist view, where it is held that people jointly construct ways of seeing and being

in relationship with one another and in recognition of their connectedness with one another

and ‘‘the environment’’. Goduka makes a similar point when she argues that while Wes-

tern-oriented epistemologies may be inclined to devalue communal modes of thinking,

what is specific about indigenous modes of knowing is that they are intentionally com-

munally oriented. As she explains: ‘‘Communal knowledge ensures that knowledge is not

collected and stored for personal power and ownership by individual specialists, but is

rather developed, retained and shared within indigenous groups for the benefit of the whole

group’’ (p. 5). This of course implies a view of ethics, namely a relational ethic.

Chilisa describes the ethical stance embedded in a relational axiology by suggesting

that in terms of a relational axiology, research should be guided by ‘‘the principles of

accountable responsibility, respectful representation, reciprocal appropriation, and rights’’

8 This understanding of the way in which social meanings are constructed is congruent with the trustingconstructivist position as spelled out by Romm (2001a, 2002, 2010). It is also consistent with Lincoln andGuba’s point that ‘‘the meanings we associate with any … tangible reality [as we experience it] or socialinteraction … determines how we respond’’ (2012, p. 12).


123

(2012, p. 117). That is, a relational axiology expects that researchers will recognize their

accountabilities and their responsibilities (in the light of their necessary impact on social

life and on living and non-living things) and will inform their research accordingly. Chilisa

indicates that for her, as for other Indigenous authors, this implies a participatory ap-

proach—in which participants (especially marginalized ones) are part of the research at all

stages hereof. This means that they participate in the framing of research questions, in the

choice and use of methods, in the way that ‘‘findings’’ are drafted and discussed, and in the

way that meetings are held with audiences to review the findings and their import. These

recommendations for participatory research are similar to the ones put forward by Mertens

when she discusses the methodological tenets of the transformative paradigm:

The transformative methodological belief system supports the use of a cyclical

model in which community members are brought into the research process from the

beginning and throughout the process in a variety of roles (2010b, p. 472)

Mertens recommends that the various roles adopted by initiating ‘‘researchers’’ and

‘‘community members’’ (who become part of the research) are to be negotiated between

the parties. Mertens underlines that part of the cycle of transformative research is that the

various people (researchers/co-researchers/research participants) actively seek options for

‘‘social change’’ (2010b, p. 473). She notes that when research work proceeds in this

manner, then researchers can be said to be operating in a transformative spirit even if they

do not explicitly label their work by placing it in the transformative paradigm. She also

makes the point (including with reference to Chilisa, whose various works she cites) that

‘‘indigenous peoples and scholars from marginalized communities have much to teach us

about respect for culture and the generation of knowledge for social change’’ (p. 474).

Cram et al. (2013) in their introduction to the edited book Indigenous Pathways into

Social Research explain that the emphasis on relational constructs within a postcolonial

indigenous research paradigm ‘‘emanates from Indigenous value systems that recognize the

connections between people, past, present, and future, and all living and non-living things’’

(p. 16). They go on to state that ‘‘connectivity is important for the ethical basis it provides

for making decisions about research’’ (p. 16). They point out that protocols developed by

indigenous researchers in various parts of the globe have ‘‘seen the growth of indigenous-

informed (and culturally responsive) participatory research methodologies’’ (p. 18). They

cite the ‘‘growth of community-based participatory research in the United States and

participatory action research in other parts of the world’’ that is inspired by Indigenous

worldviews/paradigms (2013, p. 18). What is emphasized here is that the notion (and

experience of) connectivity forms a basis for recognizing that in whatever way people

proceed as a researchers/inquirers, the inquiry itself will serve to influence the patterning of

social life; it is this recognition that, as Chilisa puts it (2012, p. 13) ‘‘invites researchers to

interrogate their roles and responsibilities as researchers’’. And as Kovach stresses, this

interrogation can serve to prompt researchers steeped in Western traditions ‘‘to engage in

reflexive self-study, to consider a research paradigm outside the Western tradition that

offers a systemic approach to understanding [and being in] the world’’ (2009. p. 29).

Similarly to Cram et al., Kovach notes that within qualitative inquiries in the par-

ticipatory tradition (such as in participatory action research) there are already ‘‘allies for

Indigenous researchers’’, especially insofar as such research is directed towards ‘‘giving

back to a community through research as praxis’’ (2009, p. 27). But Kovach argues that

there is still room for strengthening the idea of ‘‘self-in-relation’’ (a translation of the Cree

word nisitohtamowin’’ (2009, p. 27) as manifested in research practice.


123

I now proceed to show links between these) arguments and various notions of par-

ticipatory action or active research.

Action, Action-Oriented and Active research

In this section I show how Flood unites systemic thinking with intervention/action research

and how this can be said to offer a broader definition of AR than is normally understood in

the traditional action research cycle. I indicate that systemic ‘‘action research’’ or ‘‘action-

oriented’’ research indeed connects with Cram, Chilisa and Mertens’ account of Indigenous

protocols for doing research which ‘‘stress the importance of principles such as respect and

reciprocity, the importance of elders, and cultural and spiritual protocols’’ (2013, p. 18). I

show too how this can be seen as related to Mertens’ conception of involving research

participants in various ways and in various stages of the research. I point out that terms

such as action-oriented or active allow for researchers (with participants) to operate

broadly with an understanding that research is always connected to social and ecological

outcomes. This creates a basis for choosing with participants’ ways of proceeding and

ways of making research ‘‘useful’’. Space in this article does not afford a full discussion

hereof, so I offer only some pointers.

In the course of deliberating around the relationship of systems thinking to action

research Flood makes the point (along with others) that the term systemic is preferable to

systems in that the focus is on operating with an appreciation that the social construction of

the world (of which we are part rather than apart) is systemic (2001, p. 133). Flood refers

to complexity theory (a type of systemic thinking) which, he notes, ‘‘explains that the

vastness of interrelationships and emergence in which people are immersed is beyond our

ability to establish full comprehension’’ (2001, p. 140). He remarks that one of the im-

plications of this is that ‘‘human understanding will always be enveloped in mystery’’. Far

from seeing this as problematic, Flood proposes that ‘‘once this idea is grasped, a systemic

appreciation of spiritualism then envelops the entire human experience and consequently

everything that happens within that experience, including action research’’ (2001, p. 141).

Flood criticizes a reductionist-oriented science, which fragments the world ‘‘and alienates

so called parts, for example you and me from patterns and rhythms of life in which we

participate’’ (2001, p. 142). He prefers the spiritual quality of a ‘‘deep systemic view that

pictures each person’s life as a flash of consciousness, in existence and of existence’’

(2001, p. 142). He states that such a view leads to a perception of wholeness, not of

individuals and objects’’ (2001, p. 142). He argues that a systemic view understood in this

way, ‘‘is not an approach to action research, but a grounding for action research that may

broaden action and deepen research’’ (2001, p. 143).

That is, if ‘‘action research’’ is adopted with a systemic understanding as basis, then

‘‘actions’’ are broadened as participants recognize their interconnectedness with the

mysterious whole and recognize (on a spiritual level) that what they do to others (living

and non-living) will not be without consequences for them (and for others). Nonetheless,

operating in terms of a systemic view does not imply that all participative research/inquiry

need follow the traditional action research cycle of developing plans, acting, observing,

and reflecting on consequences (cf. Dick, 2014). It can imply a variety of ways of prac-

ticing a participatory approach (as proposed by, for example, McKay and Romm, 2008).

Romm (2014) spells out this argument when she speaks of ‘‘active and accountable in-

quiry’’, where ‘‘activity’’ can take a variety of forms on the parts of ‘‘researchers’’ and

‘‘research participants’’—depending on how their various roles are envisaged. This clearly


123

resonates with Chilisa’s point that what is important is that ‘‘researchers interrogate their

roles and responsibilities’’ (2012, p. 13).

Permeability of Paradigms and Creating Space for Additions

To conclude this article I wish to offer some considerations around the ‘‘big four’’ para-

digms as well as the additions of ‘‘new’’ alternatives (that are new to Western-oriented

typologies). As indicated in my Introduction, Mackenzie and Knipe (2006) offer a pre-

sentation of the four paradigms (postpositivist, constructivist, transformative and prag-

matic) that have served as a reference point for a myriad of discussions around paradigms

in the research literature.

I have focused in this article on the transformative paradigm and shown how it bears a

close relationship to, but at the same time can be strengthened in terms of, a ‘‘commu-

nication’’ with a critical systemic approach and also with postcolonial Indigenous para-

digms. In her discussion of characteristics, conversations and contexts of Indigenous

methodologies, Kovach accepts that the four-paradigmed rubric supplied by Mertens offers

an inclusive space, which also accommodates Indigenous research practices (2009, p. 27).

Nevertheless, Chilisa (and others), in speaking about postcolonial paradigms, seem to be

wary of typologies which do not give sufficient recognition to the distinctiveness of these

alternative ‘‘pathways to research’’. Dillard expresses her reservations (as an African

American woman) regarding her approach being subsumed under the ‘‘big four’’. She

indicates that she wishes to embrace a paradigm that ‘‘resonates with my very spirit and

provides some congruence and support for the work that I do, as an African-American

woman scholar’’ (2006, p. 65). She continues:

Rather than subvert the Big Four (or worse yet, create a replicated ‘‘sub-version’’ of

the same), I seek to embrace and create a paradigm that embodies and articulates a

coherent sense of life around me, as an African-American woman. (2006, p. 65)

When explicating the transformative paradigm, Mertens cites Indigenous authors’ work

as fitting in with, and contributing to, the transformative paradigm. But Dillard (and many

Indigenous researchers) prefer to add additionals to the ‘‘big four’’ so that their positions

(including their specific understandings of spirituality and what it means to do research

with a spiritual focus) are not subsumed under one of these four, which are still seen as

overly Western-oriented. Koitsiwe, writing from the context of South Africa, too suggests

that ‘‘a new paradigm and epistemology in research is important because the global

knowledge economy is based on new and diverse ways of generating and developing

knowledge for sustainable livelihoods’’ (2013, p. 274). Furthermore, Wilson and Wilson,

both from the Opaskwayak Cree Nation in Canada, indicate that ‘‘the highlight of our

careers was to finally realize an initiative that reflected an Indigenous paradigm; one that

honored relationships in all their many forms’’ (2013, p. 340). The inclusion of Indigenous

paradigms in typologies about paradigms could create a space for further conversation

between the big four and additional pathways, and would at least not subsume them within

the transformative paradigm (unless proponents of ‘‘new pathways to research’’ are

comfortable with this).

As far as boundaries between positions are concerned, I have noted in the article that

while Mertens wishes to distinguish the transformative paradigm from, say, postpositivism

and constructivism, she also recognizes that boundaries between paradigms may be per-

meable. This is especially insofar as proponents exhibit a propensity to communicate and


123

learn from one another. I have shown, for instance, that the transformative paradigm may

benefit from appreciating the constructivist insistence that all that researchers can ever

‘‘find’’ are ways of constructing visions of realities. And constructivist-oriented authors can

benefit from the axiological tenet that Mertens offers as a basis for deciding to which

constructions researchers should feel allegiance to give more ‘‘voice’’. Meanwhile, Scott

attempts to open a space for postpositivist-inclined researchers to communicate with more

constructivist-oriented ones when she notes that:

There are very few adherents to epistemologies of objective knowledge. Quantitative

researchers are not naıve positivists. They acknowledge the role of social con-

struction in measures and are wary of quantification being seen as the equivalent of

scientific reasoning. They know better than most that ‘‘statistics can lie. (2010,

p. 233)

Once postpositivist-inclined authors adopt this position, there is room for further dis-

cussion around the tenets and application of tenets of postpositivist- and constructivist-

oriented paradigms (see also Romm, 2013). This would also concur with Smith’s sug-

gestion (1999, p. 137) that although positivism normally implies a view of researchers as

‘‘outsiders’’ who are not ‘‘implicated in the research scene’’, positivist-oriented researchers

(examining variables) can blur the lines between apparently objective outsider research

(where researchers assume a distance from the community) and insider research (where

relationships with communities are intentionally built). In an Indigenous research agenda it

is understood that involving members of communities in defining ‘‘measures’’ and in the

analysis of results (rather than seeing results as objective displays of information) adds to

the quality of the research process. What is important, she maintains, is that researchers

learn the skills and reflexivities required to mediate and work with these insider/outsider

dynamics (as she believes Indigenous research is especially geared to handle). In short, I

suggest that appreciating ‘‘new’’ paradigms (new to Western-oriented typologies) without

subsuming them under the ‘‘big four’’ is possible, as well as learning across (defined)

boundaries, to enrich all our pathways into the variety of ways of responsibly practicing

social research.

Ethical Statement This is to confirm that in the writing of this article I have complied with all ethicalstandards for the writing of a theoretical piece on, in this case, the transformative paradigm and howarguments connected with it can be developed and extended (including implications for practice). Thearticle title is: Reviewing the Transformative Paradigm: A Critical Systemic and Relational (Indigenous)Lens

Conflict of interest The author has declared that there is no conflict of interest in this article.

References

Ali S (2010) Silence and secrets: Confidence in research. In: Ryan-Flood R, Gill R (eds) Secrecy and silencein the research process: feminist reflections. Routledge, London, pp 245–256

Bausch KC, Flanagan TR (2013) A confluence of third-phase science and dialogic design science. Syst ResBehav Sci 30:414–429

Bawden RJ (2011) Epistemic aspects of social ecological conflict. In: Wright D, Camden-Pratt C, Hill S(eds) Social ecology: applying ecological understanding to our lives and our planet. Hawthorne Press,Stroud, pp 52–63

Bishop EC, Shepherd ML (2011) Ethical reflections: examining reflexivity through the narrative paradigm.Qual Health Res 21(9):1283–1294


123

Chilisa B (2012) Indigenous research methodologies. Sage, LondonChristakis AN (2004) Wisdom of the people. Syst Res Behav Sci 21(5):479–488Christakis AN, Bausch KC (2006) Co-laboratories of democracy: how people harness their collective

wisdom and power to construct the future. Information Age Publishing, GreenwichCram F, Chilisa B, Mertens DM (2013) The journey begins. In: Mertens DM, Cram F, Chilisa B (eds)

Indigenous pathways into social research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 11–40Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn.

Sage, Thousand OaksDavis J (1997) Alternate realities: how science shapes our vision of the world. Plenum, New YorkDe Zeeuw G (1996) Three phases of science: a methodological exploration. Working paper nr. 7. Centre for

Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside, United KingdomDick B (2014) Action research. In: Mills J, Birks M (eds) Qualitative methodology: a practical guide. Sage,

London, pp 51–65Dillard CB (2006) When the music changes, so should the dance: cultural and spiritual considerations in

paradigm ‘‘proliferation’’. Int J Qual Stud Educ 19(1):59–76Eser O (2014) Meaning in the vortex of intervention and translation with a focus on international diplomacy.

Turkish Stud 9(6):379–387Flanagan T, Christakis A (2010) The talking point: creating an environment for exploring complex meaning.

Information Age Publishing, CharlotteFlood RL (1990) Liberating systems theory. Plenum Press, New YorkFlood RL (2001) The relationship of ‘‘systems thinking’’ to action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds)

Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, London, pp 133–144Flood RL, Jackson MC (eds) (1991) Critical systems thinking: directed readings. Wiley, New York. 347 ppFlood RL, Romm NRA (1996a) Revisiting plurality: diversity management and triple loop learning. Syst

Pract 9(6):587–603Flood RL, Romm NRA (1996b) Diversity management: triple loop learning. Wiley, ChichesterGoduka N (2012) Re-discovering indigenous knowledge—ulwaziLwemveli for strengthening sustainable

livelihood opportunities within rural contexts in the Eastern Cape province. Indilinga—Afr J IndigKnowl Syst 11(1):1–19

Gregory WJ (1992) Critical systems thinking and pluralism: a new constellation. Doctoral dissertation, CityUniversity, London

Harris L-D, Wasilewski J (2004) Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: four R’s (relationship, responsi-bility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs. two P’s (power and profit): sharing the journey towards consciousevolution. Syst Res Behav Sci 21:489–503

Ivanov K (2011) Critical systems thinking and information technology. In: Haftor D, Mirijamdotter A (eds)Information and communication technologies, society and human beings: theory and framework. IGIGlobal, Hershey, pp 493–514

Koitsiwe M (2013) Prospects and challenges of becoming an Indigenous researcher. In: Mertens DM, CramF, Chilisa B (eds) Indigenous pathways into social research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek,pp 261–275

Kovach M (2009) Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University ofToronto Press, Toronto

Kvale S (2002) The social construction of validity. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The qualitative inquiryreader. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 299–325

Lather P (1986) Catalytic validity. Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and asoft place. Interchange 17(4):63–84

Lather P (1992) Critical frames in educational research: feminist and post-structural perspectives. TheoryPract 31(2):87–99

Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2003) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In:Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The landscape of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks,pp 253–291

Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2012) The constructivist credo. Left Coast Press, Walnut CreekMackenzie N, Knipe S (2006) Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues Educ Res

16(2):193–205. (Retrieved August 15 2014 at http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html)McIntyre-Mills JJ (2008) Systemic ethics: social, economic and environmental implications of eating our

yellow cake in South Australia. Syst Res Behav Sci 25:225–248McIntyre-Mills JJ (2014) Systemic ethics and non-anthropocentric stewardship. Springer, New YorkMcKay VI, Romm NRA (2008) Active research toward the addressal of HIV/AIDS in the informal economy

in Zambia: recognition of complicity in unfolding situations. Action Res 6(2):149–170


123

http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html

Mertens DM (1999) Inclusive evaluation: implications of transformative theory for evaluation. Am J Eval20(1):1–14

Mertens DM (2004) Research and evaluation methods in special education. Sage, Thousand OaksMertens DM (2005) Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative

and qualitative approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksMertens DM (2007a) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mixed Methods Res

1(3):212–225Mertens DM (2007b) Transformative considerations. Am J Eval 28:86–90Mertens DM (2009) Transformative research and evaluation. The Guilford Press, New YorkMertens DM (2010a) Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Sage, Thousand OaksMertens DM (2010b) Transformative mixed methods research. Qual Inquiry 16(6):469–474Mertens DM (2012) Transformative mixed methods: addressing inequities. Am Behav Sci 56(6):802–813Midgley G (1990) Creative methodology design. Systemist 12:108–113Midgley G (1996) What is this thing called CST? In: Flood RL, Romm NRA (eds) Critical systems thinking:

current research and practice. Plenum, New York, pp 11–24Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum,

New YorkMurove MF (2005) The theory of self-interest in modern economic discourse: a critical study in the light of

African humanism and process philosophical anthropology. Doctoral thesis, University of South AfricaRomm NRA (1995) Knowing as intervention. Syst Pract 8(2):137–167Romm NRA (1996) Systems methodologies and intervention: The issue of researcher responsibility. In:

Flood RL, Romm NRA (eds) Critical systems thinking: current research and practice. Plenum, NewYork, pp 179–194

Romm NRA (2001a) Accountability in social research: issues and debates. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, NewYork

Romm NRA (2001b) Critical theoretical concerns in relation to development: Habermas, modernity, anddemocratization. In: Coetzee JK, Graaff J, Hendricks F, Wood G (eds) Development theory, policy,and practice. Oxford University Press, Cape Town, pp 141–153

Romm NRA (2002) A trusting constructivist approach to systemic inquiry. Syst Res Behav Sci19(5):455–467

Romm NRA (2010) New racism: revisiting researcher accountabilities. Springer, New YorkRomm NRA (2013) Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: recon-

sidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. Int J Qual Methods 12:652–669Romm NRA (2014) Active and accountable social inquiry: implications and examples. Particip Educ Res

1(2):13–20Scott J (2010) Quantitative methods and gender inequalities. Int J Soc Res Methodol 13(3):223–236Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books, New YorkThayer-Bacon B (2003) Relational epistemologies. Peter Lang, New YorkWheeler JA (1982) Bohr, Einstein, and the strange lesson of the quantum. In: Elvee RQ (ed) Mind in nature.

Harper and Row, New York, pp 1–30Wilson S, Wilson A (2013) Neyo way in ik issi: A family practice of Indigenous research informed by land.

In: Mertens DM, Cram F, Chilisa B (eds) Indigenous pathways into social research. Left Coast Press,Walnut Creek, pp 333–352


123

Documents

Transformative paradigm (Donna M. Mertens and