The co-conspiring methodology: An invitational approach to action research

Action research

Co-conspiring draws specifically from Participatory Action Research (PAR), coined by Marja-Liisa Swantz following her participatory research with the Zaramo North of Dar es Salaam in 1965–70 (Swantz, 2015). Swantz (2015) defines PAR as “shared research with people bringing the issues and problems to common consideration and solving and building on the knowledge of both sides” (p. 495). Fals Borda (2006) suggests that there are two motives for pursuing PAR projects. The first is a protest against the “sterile and futile university routine, colonized by western Euro-American culture” which prevents researchers and communities from discovering and valuing their own realities (p. 353). The second is to right wrongs, fight against injustice, and reverse societal struggles caused by dominant systems (Fals Borda, 2006).

I seek to extend the innovative contributions made by researchers creating knowledge through various forms of action research. As Bradbury-Huang (2010) suggests, this approach to inquiry has the potential to transform social research, making it more meaningful for communities outside of academia. Co-conspiring contributes to the “revitalization of social research”, as it exemplifies core features of action research: “its orientation towards taking action, its reflexivity, the significance of its impacts and that it evolves from partnership and participation” (Bradbury-Huang, 2010, p. 98).

Decolonizing research

As a mixed-race Latina from the Mexico-U.S. border, working with a community impacted by colonialism on multiple levels, I am interested in pursuing action research in ways that contribute to decolonization. Tuhiwai-Smith (1999) explains that “the term ‘research’ is inextricably linked to European imperialism and colonialism” (p. 1), because Western knowledge has been positioned as superior, and within this tradition, other forms of knowledge have been treated as if they were there to be discovered, extracted, appropriated, and then distributed. Cannella and Manuelito (2008) argue that while advocating for the continued practice of research is “a reproduction of the Eurocentric and American error” (p. 49), research cannot be completely rejected, and thus a re-conceptualization is necessary.

To avoid perpetuating colonialist practices, I agree that “the purposes, questions, and methods of research must be transformed” (Cannella & Manuelito, 2008). Cannella and Manuelito use Gloria Anzaldúa’s conceptualization of la mestiza as a way of embodying challenges to dualistic ways of questioning, being, and interpreting, because la mestiza can blur boundaries of identity, space, and time. A mestiza social science, then, involves research interactions that allow for the collection and analysis of data without imposing rigid structures and influence on others. Researchers do not assume that they have the right or ability to define, know, and judge others. The new focus of research is to:

(a) reveal and actively challenge social systems, discourses, and institutions that are oppressive and that perpetuate injustice (even if those systems are represented in disciplinary knowledge) and explore ways of making those systems obviously visible in society, (b) support knowledges that have been discredited by dominant power orientations in ways that are transformative (rather than simply revealing); and (c) construct activist conceptualizations of research that are critical and multiple in ways that are transparent, reflexive, and collaborative. (Cannella & Manuelito, 2008, p. 56)

Participation

While often employed to avoid the colonizing practices discussed above, participation can be a problematic concept in action research. Many action research projects center around participation, guided by the assumption that this approach is universally beneficial (Cleaver, 1999; Wamba, 2016). Researchers and practitioners often believe that participation is inherently a good thing for participants, that it helps avoid issues of power and politics, and that projects will be successful if the right techniques are used (Cleaver, 1999). While participation remains a celebrated concept, there is little evidence that it improves the material conditions of vulnerable populations, or leads to meaningful social change (Cleaver, 1999; Wamba, 2016). When participation is critiqued, criticisms of this approach often rest on the techniques used by the researcher rather than the nature of participation itself (Cooke & Kothari, 2007).

Critiquing the idea of participation itself, Cooke and Kothari (2007) argue that this approach to research can be ritualistic, manipulative, and harmful, and therefore has “tyrannical potential” (p. 14). Even when pursued with the best of intentions, projects can fall into the “paradox of participation” (Ospina et al., 2004) where action researchers meaning to use participatory and democratic approaches instead “unintentionally impose participatory methods upon partners who are either unwilling or unable to act as researchers” (Arieli, Friedman, & Agbaria, 2009, p. 275). In these cases, power remains unbalanced (Caister, Green, & Worth, 2012; Mohan, 2007), complex communities are assumed to be homogenous and harmonious (Cleaver, 1999; Mohan, 2007), and participation is treated as universal without considerations made about culture and context (Wamba, 2016). Participatory approaches may also assume that only researchers are in the position to change things about the research process and the complex community problems that research seeks to address (Mohan, 2007). In order for participatory approaches to overcome some of these challenges in action research, it is important that participation in knowledge production is coupled with action (Stoecker, 2009), that we recognize participation is a political issue (Caister et al., 2012), and that we practice reflexivity throughout the process (Cooke & Kothari, 2007).

In addition, relationship development and management play a significant role in increasing the participatory potential of research projects (Arieli et al., 2009). When research relationships are developed with intention, they can transcend self/other, insider/outsider binaries, and reverse the roles of “researcher and researched” (Mohan, 2007). Action research allows for the creation of interpersonal relationships that blur boundaries between the so-called “researchers and researched,” challenging researchers to avoid becoming neutral observers and analysts and instead engage with projects as facilitators, participants, and learners (Arieli et al., 2009). While relationships play a significant role in the success of participatory research projects, few studies discuss the process of building relationships and those that do share abstract stories with few details (Arieli et al., 2009). Co-conspiring as a research method emphasizes relationship building, and this essay will describe the process of relationship building at ECM in detail. In other words, co-conspiring focuses not on the level of participation achieved, but the degree to which key actors are actively engaging in meaningful relationships throughout.

Invitational rhetoric

Ultimately, I offer co-conspiring as an approach to action research grounded in the theory of invitational rhetoric. Invitational rhetoric is an approach to communication that emphasizes understanding as a way of creating relationships grounded in the feminist values of equality, immanent value, and self-determination (Foss & Foss, 2012; Foss & Griffin, 1995). This approach to communication asks that rhetors enter into communication situations with a willingness to grow and/or be changed by their interactions with others. In engaging with action research informed by the practice of invitational rhetoric, I am interested in examining relationship building and the transformative potential of inquiry.

While action research emphasizes creating knowledge with practitioners to effect desired change, previous literature has not expanded on the nature and development of relationships with practitioners, and the possibilities for self-change available to all involved in these projects. As I co-conspire with ECM, guided by practices of invitational rhetoric, my co-conspirators and I have developed research relationships rooted in equality, emphasizing commitment, support, and sharing. In this essay, I share this process of relationship building and the opportunities it creates for community-based research. Additionally, while action research is generally concerned with practical change outcomes in communities (Heron & Reason, 1997), my research relationship with ECM has led me to examine what can happen when I enter into the research process with a genuine willingness to be changed by the experience. I see the opportunity for self-change as one of the most significant contributions of co-conspiring as a research method, because I believe that I cannot expect the world to change unless I myself am willing to change.

Intention setting/leaving space for what emerges

Co-conspirators at ECM balance the practices of setting clear intentions for communication, shared time and space, outreach, and sustainability, but also leave space for what emerges in messy, creative, and silly ways. For example, when the concept of intentionality began to stand out as I coded interview transcripts and newsletters, and I asked Morgan about it, she explained that while she agreed that a high degree of intentionality exists at ECM this intention did not mean going in with a plan or idea of what would happen; there is a balance between intention and leaving space for what emerges. ECM’s website calls this approach an “intentionally unorganized” environment that stems from the chaos that can emerge in family-like community relationships. For people to flourish in this environment, John explains, we must learn to “expand our imaginations, take ourselves a little less seriously, and listen to others carefully,” and we must also be willing to “stretch, imagine, and step out of our comfort zones” (East Central Ministries, 2004).

ECM’s community park offers an interesting example of how intention setting and leaving space for what emerges is practiced in co-conspiring. For years an empty lot in the neighborhood, sitting directly across from an elementary school, attracted dangerous activities such as drug use—used needles could often be found throughout the space. With permission from the city, ECM decided to turn the empty lot into a community park. Instead of dictating what a park should look like and contain, co-conspirators hosted a free community dinner inviting community members to share their own ideas of what their families hoped for in a park. I facilitated one of the group discussions, and community members shared ideas such as proper lighting to improve safety, tables and benches where families could sit together and share meals, and paths to create nicer places to walk in the neighborhood. ECM hosted this dinner with the intention of creating a community park; however, they left space for ideas that emerged through group discussions. Once they were finished gathering ideas for the park, community members joined ECM to become co-conspirators who worked together over the course of several weekends to build the park themselves.

This balance of intention setting and leaving space for what emerges informs the co-conspiring approach to research. It is important to enter projects with intention, gaining background knowledge and beginning the process with some potential questions the researcher would like answered. Researchers may also rely on established tools such as interviewing, participant observation, and textual analysis (among others). However, just as importantly, co-conspiring involves opening oneself up to potential and possibility at every moment during the process. This openness involves stepping back from traditional research goals and approaches, letting go of control, and instead seeing unplanned moments in the research process as opportunities.

Building from initial observations to uncover unique possibilities at any given research site, co-conspiring is concerned most importantly with using qualitative research as a means to respond to the research “needs” of the community with which one is co-conspiring, focusing on what questions that community is hoping to answer and how a researcher’s project can help facilitate that process. The work my co-conspirators at ECM have been doing for the last 18 years lays the foundation for co-conspiring as an emergent research method. John began his work in the international district by doing a survey of the “felt needs” of community members who lived there, and found that residents identified access to healthy food as a felt-need. In order to directly respond to this need, Rhonda Newby organized a food cooperative where community members work together to sort and distribute donated food. About 100 families are able to save an average of $75.00 per weekly visit (Upton, 2016). Rather than going in with a specific plan for what community development should look like, ECM continues to respond directly to needs identified by community members, and so this approach to community development continues to be emergent in practice.

Informed by co-conspirators at ECM, a co-conspiring methodology opens space for research projects to be guided by the knowledge and experiences of community members. To perform effective community-based research, Stanton (2014) explains that “we must be willing to embrace the methodologies of the communities with which we work” (580), and ECM’s focus on felt-needs has served as the foundation for co-conspiring as an emergent research method. Learning from ECM, my research methodology continually emerges as I observe everyday practices at ECM and work alongside co-conspirators. While I am offering co-conspiring as a research method based on examples from my work with ECM, it is important to point out that the co-conspiring method is intentionally not prescriptive. Co-conspiratorial projects can, and arguably should, look different in each unique research context as guided by aspects of that unique community. Therefore, my intention for this essay is to share what co-conspiring looks like for me at ECM, but it can and will manifest differently in every space.

Focus on feelings

Another ECM practice guiding the co-conspiring methodology is a focus on feelings. At ECM, co-conspirators use feelings as a guide for imagining and creating new community projects as well as for measuring change in their community. For example, many co-conspirators, when talking about the shifting environment of their neighborhood, explain that while they have no idea whether or not crime statistics in Albuquerque would reflect this, they feel that their neighborhood is becoming safer. They feel more at ease after working with ECM and feel better about things like letting their children play outside.

Thoughts and feelings are just as important as texts and words for understanding what is happening during the co-conspiring process, because co-conspiratorial action and relationship building is guided by emotion. To incorporate these thoughts and feelings I make use of Gorsevski’s (2004) concept of a rhetorical climate, which is a sensory experience that includes what individuals perceive individually and collectively and motivates a reaction based on feelings and sensations. I look for ways to incorporate these feelings into data collection and ultimately the final presentation of my research. At the end of each visit to ECM, my field notes incorporate the rhetorical climate, noting feelings and sensations described by others and felt by me. For example, the passing of Cristina, a respected and well-loved co-conspirator, was an extremely emotional experience for the community. In a field note from the day of her memorial, I describe the celebration of her life and the emotions we experienced.

Francisco, Cristina’s husband, returned from Texas where Cristina passed away. He received many hugs and words of encouragement throughout the party. There was laughter, and there were tears. John explained to me that the other members of Casa Shalom had been covering Francisco’s mortgage, and were even trying to figure out how to help put money together for funeral arrangements. John described being deeply touched by this action, saying “we aren’t family and we are coming together to help.” He was choked up with tears in his eyes, and at the same time there was a smile on his face. The emotions at this memorial were a complex blend of sadness for Cristina’s passing, and joy for the way she brought the community together.

Being community-minded

Co-conspirators at ECM also engage in the practice of being community minded, which means thinking of the group instead of the individual, and in the case of many ECM co-conspirators, also living and working together. The practice of being community minded informs the co-conspiring methodology by asking researchers to take a step back from their individual goals and think of what the community is seeking to learn/discover/achieve. It also encourages researchers to rethink the ways they analyze data and share findings.

A co-conspiring approach to collaborative research offers new opportunities to think of the community rather than just oneself and one’s individual research goals. For example, as part of my research I went through archives and old newsletters to piece together the history of ECM. This history was an important part of the introduction chapter of my dissertation, but the text has also been useful for ECM’s redesigned website to share the work they are doing with people outside of the community. Additionally, as ECM has worked to revise their mission statement to accurately reflect future organizational directions, I have been able to assist in selecting wording that captures, frames, and presents this vision based on what we uncovered together through co-conspiring research.

Approaching research as a community-minded co-conspirator with ECM has also offered opportunities for reciprocity in common research practices like participant observation. For example, during one period of collaboration, I spent three-to-five days a week at ECM from anywhere between two and six hours a day. I would water, plant seedlings, or mix soil at the Urban Farm; work with student volunteers from Albuquerque High School; pick up donated food to bring back to the co-op; and/or help organize and clean in the main office. Basically, I helped with whatever needed to be done on any given day.

A common task was helping Bob Rowland, a long-time ECM volunteer, pick up donated food from various grocery stores in Albuquerque and deliver the food to co-ops throughout the week. Bob and I worked together to load heavy boxes of produce into the van, and members of the co-op worked together to unload the van when we dropped off the donations. Bob and I would then bring some of the donated food back to the office where Shirley Stewart, another long-time volunteer, would prepare lunch for staff and volunteers and we would all eat together and talk. These lunches highlighted the important role food plays in the community, whether it is bringing people together over a shared meal, or Shirley showing her care and affection for co-conspirators by lovingly preparing meals. This participation has not only helped with the practical needs like picking up donated food, but it has also helped me to know and understand the community more deeply and observe things that I would not have otherwise, like the important role of food in ECM’s organizational communication.

Being a community-minded researcher also involves rethinking the way researchers share findings. Mainstream academia continues to privilege publications, and scholars often share findings in ways that advance their own careers without doing anything to create change within academia or provide services to the communities they work with (Stanton, 2014). Stanton (2014) therefore advocates for sharing research findings in culturally appropriate ways, such as storytelling. Because co-conspirators at ECM engage in the activity of sharing meals as a community practice, when I completed the first phase of analysis for a project a community dinner proved a meaningful, culturally appropriate space to share my initial findings with co-conspirators and gain their insights and feedback. At this dinner, we discussed emergent themes, and co-conspirators shared what they agreed/disagreed with, what they would change, and/or what they would add. I also handed out questionnaires on which co-conspirators could write answers to these questions if they did not want to express them verbally.

My initial findings centered around the important role community plays for co-conspirators at ECM, and how they go about building community through egalitarian relationships based on support for one another and a sharing of time and resources. After I shared these findings at the dinner, co-conspirators began to stand up to share their feedback, saying that I had described things they felt for a long time but could not put into words. This sentiment was echoed through the questionnaires. One co-conspirator said, “I agree with everything that was said. You put into words what our feelings are,” and another added “Although at times we ourselves don’t know how we work, for you to say it, it is really great. I feel that it is exactly how the ministry works” (personal communication, 11 March 2014).

This led to a large group discussion where co-conspirators began to stand and talk to each other in ways that reinforced community. They explained that their community is a unique, special place and reminded each other that even if things become difficult, they must continue to work together for the community. On questionnaires, they reinforced this community discussion. One co-conspirator noted “we work for our community! That is the main point of our work here!” Another added: “I agree that the first and very important theme is community. All of us do it for love of others. We do it for the community, not ourselves.” Finally, one wrote “todo lo que hacemos, lo hacemos para compartir” ² (personal communication, 11 March 2014).

This group conversation lasted for a long time, and later, John and Morgan explained to me that they had never seen a staff or community meeting lead to that type of conversation—a conversation that re-energized co-conspirators and reminded them why they do what they do. Co-conspirators explained to me that the project was helpful for getting them to open up to each other in conversation and expressed hope that this research could potentially show what was happening at ECM to the larger Albuquerque community. One co-conspirator wrote: “I think your paper will be another means for other sections of Albuquerque to know what ECM does and perhaps help ECM even more with other projects” (personal communication, 11 March 2014).

These goals were reflected back to me in Morgan’s feedback during the community dinner:

You don’t know how meaningful, how big it is to hear you say these things, even way back two years ago. Your insight in observing and putting words to things that we have felt and believed—to hear this is so heartening and meaningful… Thank you! I can’t express how valuable your working, observing, and sharing with us here at ECM has been. (personal communication, 11 March 2014)

Building a co-conspiring community

The co-conspiring practices discussed above—balancing intention setting and leaving space for what emerges, a focus on feelings, and being community minded—lay the foundation for the practice of building a co-conspiring community, an approach to action research based in invitational rhetoric. As discussed in the introduction, invitational rhetoric is a theory of communication that emphasizes relationships based in equality, immanent value, and self-determination, and encourages a willingness to be changed by interactions with others. I offer co-conspiring as a research method rooted in equality, which ultimately offers possibilities for transformation.

The co-conspiring community emphasizes cultivating and maintaining relationships through communication, and rooting these relationships in support and equality. At ECM, making time for communication about relationships among co-conspirators is an important part of relationship development and maintenance. For example, when Morgan read a book on enneagrams, which help you to determine your personality out of nine different types, she explains that so many things about her thoughts, feelings, communication style, and way of seeing the world were brought to the surface. She asked John to read the book, and what resulted was a better understanding of themselves, which improved communication and understanding in their relationship. Additionally, as discussed above, the community dinner where I shared results created an environment for co-conspirators to discuss their relationships with one another, and this led to a strengthened sense of community. The closeness and positive working relationships developed by co-conspirators at ECM did not emerge on their own; they took time and effort to develop, and co-conspiring involves doing work to maintain these relationships as well.

Co-conspiring as a research method also involves communicating about research relationships among co-conspirators. When I asked my co-conspirators at ECM for their feedback on this co-conspiring methodology I am proposing, they explained that participating in research projects that privilege relationships based in equality is a significant difference from previous university research projects conducted in their community. John explained that these previous projects reinforced us/them divisions, while co-conspiring feels like a project “we” are doing together. Morgan added that co-conspiring disrupts the traditional hierarchies that have been constructed between researchers and community members at ECM, and that co-conspiring does not feel like research, while previous projects with the university have made people at ECM feel like “guinea pigs” and “lab rats” (personal communication, 23 June 2015). John added that the reciprocity of our relationship, offering my time and volunteer skills in exchange for their knowledge and stories, creates a degree of closeness and trust that ultimately leads to open dialogue and storytelling with greater depth:

Anyone who’s looking at a culture, a society, a community, I think it’s huge to kind of step into it and offer yourself. We’ve opened up to you a lot more just ‘cause we know you, we like you, you’re here and part of the community. It’s easier to share stories and the goods and the bads then if you were just on the outside looking in. (personal communication, 23 June 2015)

In addition to working together as co-conspirators to plan projects and analyze data, we share findings collaboratively. While research “participants” are not often invited to speak in academic spaces outside of quotations in academic articles, my co-conspirators read the defense draft of my dissertation and attended my final defense, where we collectively answered questions from my committee about major themes and findings from the project. I acknowledge that I have asked co-conspirators to reflect on our relationships, and in this essay I present what they said mostly from my perspective. My reason for this is that ECM is overburdened by more pressing matters in the neighborhood, and writing for an academic journal is not, nor should it be, a priority for the organization.

Supportive research relationships can “highlight agency and equalize power as much as possible” (Kral, 2014, p. 148). During my almost six years of collaborating with ECM, we have developed long-term friendships that are central to our co-conspiring together and showing support is one of the main ways we have cultivated and maintained a high level of care and closeness. For example, I was able to use my resources at the university to design and print posters for co-conspirators to sign during Cristina’s memorial service, and through this act, my attendance, and conversations at the memorial I was able to demonstrate support. When my father was diagnosed and treated for cancer during the final months of my PhD program, co-conspirators offered me hugs, kind words, and most importantly a place to go where I could find emotional healing through co-conspiring. This support has translated into high levels of care and closeness, which ultimately helps us to relate to one another with deeper meaning and has also enriched our findings in research collaborations.

As co-conspirators, collaborative research becomes a process that demands that we grow (Deetz, 2008) and be “changed in the process of knowing” (Streck & Holliday, 2015, p. 474). As I learn from the experiences my co-conspirators share, share my own experiences, and bring theories and ideas from the field of communication, they are open to learning from my perspective. By opening themselves up to a researcher studying communication, co-conspirators have begun to examine the ways in which choices about communication influence their ability to create meaningful community relationships and lasting social change. Due in part to the success of the community dinner where I shared results with co-conspirators, ECM has begun to hold regular staff meetings where staff members are not only able to check in with one another on various projects, but also create a space for intentional communication. These meetings have been transformative for the organization because rather than just assuming everyone is on the same page, co-conspirators are able to check in with one another about the needs, desires, and goals of individuals, the organization, and the neighborhood as a whole. Meetings also offer a space for co-conspirators to continually motivate and inspire one another to work for change in their neighborhood.

They have had, I would argue, an even more profound impact on me. As a researcher, the willingness to be changed by the research process means that my ideas and previous knowledge become vulnerable as I open my mind to new ways of looking at things (Deetz, 2008). Fals Borda (2006) argues that through PAR a researcher’s personality and culture should be transformed to “enhance his/her experiential involvement in and moral and ideological commitment to the struggle for radical change in the society in question” (p. 354). I have experienced this transformation through my work with ECM. John explains that he hopes ECM can be “a little bit of a demonstration for just sparking creative, imaginative ideas for how people can live different, act different with each other” (personal communication, 5 July 2013). By opening myself up to my co-conspirators, I have begun questioning the way I structure and organize my life and I am always looking for new ways to live out the community values instilled in me by ECM. For example, during a discussion of Casa Shalom, John posed the following question: “instead of just buying a house could you think of a cooperative, would living in community be better for you and your neighbors?” (personal communication, 5 July 2013).

When I finished my PhD program in Albuquerque and moved back to my hometown of El Paso, I was inspired by my co-conspirators to find ways to build/participate in a co-conspiring community here. A few months after the move, a housing opportunity opened up on a friend’s property and guided by what ECM has taught me about living and working in community with others, my partner and I made the decision to live in this intentional community for a year and a half. Our families shared meals and helped one other with things like childcare and gardening. This experience was truly transformative because we went from living in an individualistic environment, thinking of only our needs, to a communal environment, considering the needs of everyone in the living space.

As I open myself up to possibilities, another way I have found to co-conspire is through my graduate-level qualitative research methods course. Instead of simply teaching students how to collect and analyze data, my class partners with a community development organization to address community issues through action research. Students are gaining useful research experience, and most importantly are learning to develop egalitarian research relationships and become co-conspirators themselves. This experience has been truly transformative because rather than just acquiring and practicing a set of research skills, I have watched my students become community-minded, asking how their research can benefit the larger El Paso community, and how they can step back from their own goals and privilege community needs, desires, and/or goals. The transformative potential I experience through co-conspiring ultimately exemplifies the “sense of resolution and meaning, of joy and beauty” that Heron and Reason (1997) suggest is possible through participatory inquiry.