writing anything else, they return this piece to all the co-researchers for their responses, critique, and eventual approval. If any changes are suggested, those are made and rechecked with the person who made the suggestions until everybody is satisfied with this section.
Methodological Aspects of the Process
Once they have the dialogues piece done, the facilitator starts with this section that in more traditional settings is called ‘the methodology’. Janice DeFehr describes DSI as ‘… situationally-driven, rather than methodologically-driven, uniquely local, rather than located “out there” and applied’ (2008, pp. 314–315). In other words, the students in this section describe the different moments of their inquiry process. The choices they made, how did they do it, and the rationale and theoretical underpinnings of their process.
Cynthia, when responding to the transcription of our conversations for this article, shares with us the following reflection: ‘After reading the first paragraphs of our conversation about relational research, I think that it is a free process, that everyone is building on it. I would like to emphasize the word freedom, which I think is a major difference with the traditional methodology, as mentioned by Carolina, in which there is a structure already established. However, it makes me think if, in order to carry this process, people should feel and live this freedom’.
The Introduction
In this section, the students describe the initial intentions for this inquiry, and the aspects of their daily practice and/or their personal life that motivated them to do it. They usually go back and read the first writings they shared with their partners when they were trying to define the research question(s) and describe even their first set of ideas. They also explain how the question(s) got transformed during the inquiry process and the rationale for that transformation whenever that happened.
For example, Carolina shares with us how she was very clear about her topic being the experience of living with a son or daughter with a disability. However, something happened along the way that almost changed her focus. She explains it as ‘… one of the parts that most impacted my life, was motherhood. So when my son was born, I wanted to talk about all those things that are not said, when you have a child … also, I said, at this time, I hear about disability, but what I really want to respond is about motherhood. In the end, although it is not as expressed as such, the topic of the thesis finally had a broader vision of an identity that arose at the moment that I never thought that it would appear when I started, that is being a mother’.
It is also in this section where the students describe who the co-researchers are, what were the ethical agreements they had for this inquiry at the beginning as well as the changes that such agreements went through and their causes. They talk about the time it took them from beginning to end, and briefly describe the contents of each chapter or section.
The Learnings
In this section the students describe what they learned during the entire process: the personal and intellectual transformations they went through; the aspects of the process that were the most challenging; how the context in which they facilitated the process shaped some aspects of it; what were the aspects that in retrospect they could have done differently; what learnings they could incorporate into their professional practice; and any other comments that they deem necessary.
Once they consider that the entire manuscript is complete, they return the entire piece to the participants for further reflection. The participants could, at this stage, suggest changes, additions, and further comments. We remember a thesis where after completing, the student gave it to the co-researcher to read, and in response, he got 11 pages writing of what the whole process meant for this individual. After talking with his thesis advisor, they decided to include the piece as the last part of the thesis.
Conclusion
There are many ways to approach relational research. Kenneth Gergen, in his article on research as future forming (2015), invites us to explore new routes, new ways to understand our daily practice.
The most productive route in this case is not to embark on a disjunctive, imaginary world – a world of inquiry beyond the reach of contemporary researchers. Rather, it would seem more promising to examine current and emerging practices with future forming potential. If such practices can be illuminated in terms of this potential, a new consciousness may be germinated. New and more potent practices may be stimulated. In certain respects, then, the present offering may serve as a mid-wife to a movement in the making. A voice may be given to an otherwise unarticulated sensibility, thus giving form and function to future undertakings. (p. 305)
Reflecting on Gergen's words, we would like to suggest that dialogic practices, being in psychotherapy, education, organizational development, or research, are creating a new way of approaching the complexity in which we are living; it is through dialogue that we will create the future for the seven generations to come. We have seen already results of these practices in vastly different projects like Imagine Chicago conceptualized and facilitated by Bliss Browne (1998, 2002, 2005, 2009) based on Appreciative Inquiry; the work of Jakko Seikkula (2002, 2003; Seikkula et al., 1995) with Open Dialogues when working with schizophrenic patients that has extended beyond Finland and the rest of Europe, to the United States and Latin America; and the dozens of projects developed by members of the International Certificate of Collaborative-dialogic Practices (ICCP) in 18 different countries.
We think it is fitting to close this offering of our inquiry practice, aware of the continuous changes happening as new voices and reflections join, with the voice of Carolina.
After having read what me and Christian and Cynthia said, I am left thinking that for me, relational research is a living, generative, relational process of mutual discovery, framed by freedom and uncertainty in each of the participants, which hits us and transforms us. A unique process for each one of the inquirers in each one of the inquiries that he/she gets engaged in. Therefore, it seems that we can speak of processes of dialogical inquiry rather than relational research as that which is done in a single way. The ways, the approaches, will be decided by the same participants during the emerging process. I am also thinking about the therapeutic aspects of dialogue, and therefore, about Dialogic Social Inquiry. Even if this is not part of the intentions, it seems to be one more of the responses of this transformational process.
Note
1 The Kanankil Institute is a postgraduate institution located in Merida, Yucatan, Mexico. Founded in 1999 it offers Masters programs in Psychotherapy, and Families and Couples Therapy. The whole curriculum is designed from a socio-constructionist and a collaborative-dialogic perspective. The founder, the administrators, and most of its professors, are Taos Associates.
References
Anderson, Harlene (1997). Conversation, language and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. New York: Basic Books.
Anderson, Harlene (2009). Collaborative practice: Relationships and conversations that make a difference. In J. Bray and M. Stanton (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of family psychology (pp. 300–313). New York, NY: Wiley.
Anderson, Harlene (2012). Collaborative practice: A way of being ‘with’. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 10, 1002.
Anderson, Harlene (2013). Collaborative learning communities: Toward a postmodern perspective on teaching and learning. In B. J. Irvy and G. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of educational theories (pp. 515–527). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
