Table of Contents
Having discussed 10 dialogue methods for integrating judgments, we turn now to four methods that are useful for understanding particular aspects of a problem—namely, visions, world views, interests and values. A dialogue method addressing each of these is described, illustrated and discussed in this chapter. The methods are: for integrating visions — appreciative inquiry; for integrating world views — strategic assumption surfacing and testing; for integrating interests — principled negotiation; and, for integrating values — ethical matrix.
We use vision here in the sense of a mental view or image of a goal that does not yet exist in place or time. Visions are important in research in terms of the overarching aspirations that a particular study seeks to contribute to. Integration is important for developing a shared vision or for accommodating different visions. For example, as we discussed earlier, within the same study, some researchers could have a grand vision such as alleviating national poverty, while others could be focused on improving employment opportunities for a particular group.
As with all the specific methods, we suggest that a method for integrating visions is used only when this is particularly salient in the research integration process. For many research questions, the issue of accommodating different visions will not be particularly important and a broad integration method, such as those outlined in the previous chapter, will be more than adequate. Sometimes, however, ensuring an understanding of the different visions of the research participants is essential to moving forward on integration and in such cases the method described here can be particularly useful.
Dialogue methods focusing on visions can also be helpful in setting an overarching vision, especially when this might motivate and direct the activities of the research team. For example, rather than the research just being conducted for its own sake, there might be a higher goal that the research can contribute to. Research on improving integrity systems in policing, for example, can be construed in terms of improving policing operations narrowly or as enhancing the role of policing in contributing to the rule of law in a democracy.
The research integrator would be expected to identify that integrating visions was salient to addressing a particular research question. Sometimes this would be evident before the dialogue process started; at other times, it would become clear once the process was under way. They would then take the lead in organising the dialogue to integrate visions. The purpose is generally to align the overarching goals of the members of the research team and the stakeholders to help them work to a common outcome, or at least compatible goals, in order to smooth the path of the research and its implementation.
We found one method for integrating visions: appreciative inquiry.
World views or mental models are the underlying assumptions about how the world works that guide our understanding and actions. In a research integration context, the world views of those involved in the research are likely to include assumptions about the problem being addressed and the research process.
In terms of the problem being addressed, there could be differing assumptions about the importance of various aspects of the problem and the roles of diverse actors. For example, in a research project about heroin overdoses, there could be different assumptions about the role that drug-using peers can play. Some of those involved in the research might assume that peers were generally present at an overdose and would take action if they knew what to do. Others might assume that most overdoses occurred when someone used alone and, in any case, even if someone else was present, they would be more likely to run away than to render assistance. These differences in assumptions play out in terms of the stakeholders included in the dialogue and the questions asked of them. In the example presented, one group would argue for heroin users to be included in the dialogue and would ask about their actions in the case of an overdose, whereas the other would see these stakeholders and that question as irrelevant.
In terms of the research process, there could be differing assumptions about the purposes of the dialogue, the importance of various aspects of the process, whether or not consensus should be reached and what should be done with the results. For example, some participants might assume that everyone involved had an equal standing, that reaching consensus was crucial and that the relevant decision makers would act on the results. Others might assume that the judgments of more powerful groups had greater salience, that there just needed to be a show of consensus to end the process and that decision makers would be presented with the results to consider along with other inputs. If such differences in assumptions were not made explicit and were not resolved, participants might find themselves at loggerheads, without really understanding why.
Identifying differences in assumptions is often a positive rather than a negative experience. It can be energising to realise that others view the world differently and it can open up a broader range of possibilities for understanding and action. For example, if one group of participants in a dialogue had the world view that young people were responsible for their own alcohol consumption and another assumed that drinking was greatly influenced by availability, advertising and the actions of licensees, bringing them together could provide a richer understanding and a multi-pronged action strategy.
As with the other specific aspects of research integration, the research integrator would be expected to identify that integrating assumptions was salient to addressing a particular research question, either before or during the process. They would take the lead in organising the dialogue to integrate assumptions. This could be used to enrich the conversation or to remove stumbling blocks.
We found one method for integrating world views: strategic assumption surfacing and testing.
Interests are what motivate us. Making a profit, personal advancement, concern about those less fortunate and a desire to protect a piece of wilderness are all examples of interests. Such motivations provide the reason why stakeholders and researchers choose to tackle a particular problem. As well, there are interests for becoming involved in a particular research project. Individual researchers could be motivated by the chance of publication, access to a specific data set, the opportunity to work with a particular individual and so on. For community groups, decision makers and other stakeholders, interests in becoming involved in the research could include wanting to see a problem gain legitimacy, ensuring that their point of view is heard or wanting to see something done about a problem.
Interests are important for research integration because conflicting interests can prevent progress from being made on an issue. Resolving such clashes in motivations can be essential for research to lead to effective decisions and practice-based change.
Negotiation is the usual method for resolving divergent interests, but many forms of negotiation are about one side winning at the expense of the other. These are not consistent with the aim of dialogue to ‘jointly create meaning and shared understanding’ (Franco 2006:814). One form of negotiation, however—principled negotiation—stands out as different and is consistent with the aims of dialogue.
Principled negotiation is the only form of dialogue for integrating interests that we have come across to date and is therefore the only method dealt with here. While it was developed as a conflict-resolution tool, integrating interests using principled negotiation can occur before conflict comes to a head. For example, it can be useful early in research when an understanding of different motivations can be used to shape the details of the research and the rewards for the various research participants.
The research integrator would be expected to identify, as with the other specific aspects of research integration, that integrating interests was salient to addressing a particular research question, either before or during the process. They would take the lead in organising the dialogue to integrate interests.
Values are the moral stance that underpins the research. We use a definition from The Oxford English Dictionary (1989): ‘the principles or standards of a person or society, the personal or societal judgement of what is valuable and important in life.’
Values are important in research integration because, as with visions, world views and interests, appreciating differences in values can enrich the understanding of the research question, as well as identifying potential or real sources of conflict.
The importance of accommodating different values in research of real-world problems is becoming increasingly recognised. In the area of natural resource management research and practice, for example, Lockwood (2005) described methods for including values in environmental choices. Further, a project on ethical tools funded by the European Union (<http://www.ethicaltools.info/>) set out to improve ethical assessment ‘by broadening the values considered and/or stakeholder involvement’. The researchers in that project were particularly concerned about the ethical issues involved in the introduction and application of new technologies in agricultural and food production and pointed out that it was unlikely that a single ethical tool would be adequate for a full ethical assessment—a point also made by Lockwood (2005). One of the tools to which they point is the ethical Delphi, an application of the Delphi technique to ethical issues (Millar et al. 2007).
The research integrator would be expected to identify, as with the other specific aspects of research integration, that integrating values was salient to addressing a particular research question, either before or during the process. They would take the lead in organising the dialogue to integrate values. This could be used to enrich the conversation or to remove stumbling blocks.
We deal here with one of the methods the European Union researchers recommended: the ethical matrix. They also pointed out that the consensus conference and the Delphi technique could be modified to deal with values.