英语论文网

to critics that target the methods, who may be prone to falling into the 'ruts' of old traditional positivist approach to investigation of phenomena, moulded upon natural science pedagogy. Such approaches fail to recognise the dynamic nature of society, and social relationships that organise social life. A central pillar of participatory methodologies, whose principles and logic is premised upon qualitative research methods such as in PRA and PLA among others, is that reality is holistic, multidimensional, and ever-changing; it is not a single, fixed objective phenomenon waiting to be discovered, observed and measured in a quantitative manner. On the contrary, participation allows for an understanding of '€|.the perspectives of those involved in the phenomenon of interest, to uncover the complexity of human behaviour in a contextual framework, and to present a holistic interpretation of what is happening' (Merrian 1998, p203)
Additional intellectual missiles fired against participation questions claims of reliability and validity of data originating through participation. However, Merrian (1998) observes that internal validity and reliability in participation can be enhanced through triangulation- use of multiple investigators, multiple sources of data, or multiple methods to confirm the emerging findings; member checks- taking data and tentative interpretations back to the people from whom they are derived and asking them if the results are plausible; and participatory or collaborative methods- involving participants in all phases of the research. Merrian (ibid) argues that reliability, in the sense of the physical sciences, refers to the extent to which research findings can be replicated, and assumes that there is only a single reality, and implying that repeated applications will produce the same results. Yet social relationships present complex realities that are simultaneously dynamic, variable and contextual in time and space. Therefore, tests and statements on validity and reliability would rely on different criteria, but are, however, methodically and practically ascertainable in participatory methodologies.
Lincoln and Guba (1958 p.288, in Merrian 1998) in this sense suggest thinking about 'dependability' or 'consistency' of results obtained from data rather than demanding outsiders get the same results in different situations. For them the important question is; are the results consistent with the data collected? Triangulation, as argued here, '€|is not aimed merely at validation but deepening and widening one's understanding' (Olsen 2004: 1)
Tyranny and 'Orthodoxy'
Gaventa (2004) attributes some of the deserved criticism of participation as tyranny to how specific institutions took advantage of the popularity of RRA and later PRA by conducting 'rigid, mechanistic and unimaginative' application of participatory approaches from above. The implication here seems to be that such institutions did not necessarily use these approaches in 'responsive, dynamic and flexible' manner, therefore raising not only ethical and methodological questions, but also questions of rigour. Regarding the criticism by Kothari and others equating participation with tyranny, Wakefield et al (2008), a proponent of participation admits that participation become 'cult-like' in lack of reflection on both principles and practise. Indeed he observes that:
'participation became attractive to entrepreneurs who adopted the la