Facilitating a participatory action learning action research process in a higher educational context

Abstract

Researchers facilitated a participatory action learning action research process with second year Social Sciences students at a University in the Eastern Cape of South Africa. This paper focusses on the facilitation of a participatory action learning action research process and the contribution of this to the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning of the researchers. A social constructivist theoretical framework was employed. The significance of this research is that it adds to the understanding and implementation of participatory action learning action research, the evolving perception of participation as well as ownership within a participatory action learning action research process within the relatively less studied context of sub-Saharan African and South Africa more specifically. This paper demonstrates how utilising participatory action learning action research contributed to the researchers own “lifelong learning”, particularly with regard to scholarship and collaborations in the process of knowledge production. The researchers’ critical reflections and learning throughout this process could be of assistance to other researchers who are interested in embarking upon similar participatory research projects in higher education.

Keywords

Participation facilitating participatory action learning action research process power relations reflexivity higher education graduateness

Introduction

Between 2015 and 2017, researchers at a University in the Eastern Cape of South Africa implemented a participatory action learning action research (PALAR) study. The aim was to develop their scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) as well as to address lifelong learning among their students. SoTL can be defined as:

the systematic study of teaching and learning, using established or validated criteria of scholarship, to understand how teaching (beliefs, behaviours, attitudes and values) can maximize learning, and/or develop more accurate understanding of learning, resulting in products that are publicly shared for critique and used by an appropriate community. (Potter & Kustra, 2011, p. 2)

Having the need in mind to develop our SoTL as lecturers, we experienced common challenges in the class room regarding students’ participation during lectures and an increased feeling of disconnection between the students and lecturers. In attempting to understand this increasing sense of disconnection, Boughey (2010) refers to a notion of “underpreparedness”, which she explains is often used to blame learners from previously disadvantaged South African schools, and particularly those entering higher education from schools that do not adequately prepare them for tertiary education:

[these] students, it is argued, enter higher education with various ‘deficiencies’ because of the continuing poor performance of the school system (although some people, even in the field of Academic Development, continue to cite factors inherent to the individual alone, such as ‘aptitude’). Locating problems in this way then provides a reason for us not to look at the higher education system (and teaching and learning and curriculum practices within that system) to see how and why the system itself could be perpetuating ‘structural disadvantage’. (p. 7)

In accepting her position, and in attempting to address the issues with which we are confronted, the researchers sought to engage students in a research team aimed at addressing the issue of “graduateness”. This resonated well, in our minds, with the lifelong learning perspective that Duke (1997, as cited in Breier, 2001) refers to as a propensity, or willingness and ability to continue learning and to deliberately seek educational support where self-directed learning does not suffice.

The specific focus of this paper is on the facilitation of this PALAR process and its contribution to the researchers’ learning and professional development.

Background of the study

When examining Higher Education in the South African context, the term “graduateness” is widely emphasised. This term refers to the ability of the student to transfer theoretical skills, knowledge and abilities to respond to diverse societal needs, as well as one’s own development (Barrie, 2006; Council on Higher Education, 2004; Department of Education South Africa, 1997; Tynjala, as cited in Walsh & Kotzee, 2010). Thus, “graduateness” and lifelong learning are two terms with similar underlying expectations; namely the holistic development of an individual. Based upon this, higher education should have a vested interest in developing lifelong learning skills. PALAR as a process is aimed at nurturing not only “graduateness”, but broader than that, lifelong learning.

A criticism that is increasingly directed at academics relates to their preoccupation with publishing within the confines of an “ivory tower”. Research is often regarded as the collection of data and subsequent attempts to publish. Participants in such research endeavours are often considered as a means to a publishing end, with little attention being given to their direct gain or promotion in the research process. PALAR challenges this conventional view of research by placing emphasis upon action, reflection and lifelong learning in the process of undertaking research. In our research, we aimed to focus on the lifelong learning process of our students as a direct benefit of participating in the research process.

For the researchers, the PALAR process also provided us with a channel through which we were able to develop our own professional practices, as researchers and academics. In addition, it compelled us to consider our role in promoting the notion of “graduateness”.

PALAR emphasises the action of participation and collaboration in situations where problems are being experienced (Zuber-Skerritt, 2015, p. 6, 14). This participatory process requires that facilitators assume a non-expert position with a willingness to learn from, and with, participants which, by necessity, involves uncertainty (Grobler & Schenck, 2009; Grobler, Schenck, & Du Toit, 2003; Schenck, Nel, & Louw, 2010; Swanepoel & de Beer, 2006). The discussion below describes the process we followed in undertaking our PALAR research. In so doing, it points to some of the uncertainties encountered as well as the rich learning experiences that arose from such uncertainties.

PALAR and social constructivism

Action is pivotal to the PALAR process and, consistent with a social constructivism framework, research is viewed as a fluid process which is constantly evolving and adapting. Wood (2015, p. 97) builds upon this by describing it as a “democratic, inclusive and growth-promoting process”. Through iterative processes of participatory action-learning-action-research, PALAR endeavours, firstly, to support an understanding of life challenges and, secondly, to assist in seeking context-specific solutions to these challenges. PALAR is both a research methodology as well as a theory of learning. In essence, this paradigm attempts to enhance the relationship between the researchers and participants by emphasising the necessity to involve participants in a process of action. Thus, being able to synonymously generate data, while at the same time allowing all participants to develop, learn and grow.

Social constructivism is understood as an approach to our understanding of the world in which we live and the knowledge we use to attach meaning to this world. This is influenced by power, politics, religion, economics and social factors. Our knowledge of the world is thus constructed through our interaction with others (Freedman & Combs, 1996; Richardson, 2003). Operating from this approach, the researchers reflected upon three key elements pertinent throughout our study: (1) research is a co-constructed process; (2) the impact and subsequent effect of power relations, between the researchers and the student participants; (3) the key role of the researcher in the process of knowledge creation. This contributed to the development of scholarship among the researchers and enhanced the theoretical underpinning of the research process (Barroso, 2010; Bryman, 2012; Freedman & Combs, 1996; Morçöl, 2001; Nieuwenhuis, 2007).

The processes of knowledge discovery and knowledge creation can be described as processes based on, and contextualised within, people’s experiences and social interaction. What is regarded as valid and “real” knowledge is open to interpretation and negotiation and is very much a product of social collaboration (Bryman, 2012; Freedman & Combs, 1996). It follows, then, that the execution of any research should also be a reflection of a co-constructed process. From this perspective, knowledge creation is informed by multiple perceptions and is negotiated amongst various role players (Barroso, 2010). Thus, a “final” understanding of knowledge is limited to an agreed upon notion, specific to a sociocultural context at a given time (Morçöl, 2001; Nieuwenhuis, 2007).

Reflexivity was used as a way to acknowledge and to “dissolve, the tensions, and complexities of the researcher-participant relationship” (Breier Burck, 2005, p. 242). Our reflections occurred on various levels: reflection on the research itself, the interplay between researchers, the participant-researcher relationship, the role of the researchers in directing the research, as well as the generation of the findings (Green & Thorogood, 2009).

Research design

The research design involved the adoption of the PALAR research process is illustrated by the model given in Figure 1. Wood and Zuber-Skerrit (2013) recommend this design as a means of directing and facilitating the process of action learning and action research.

Figure 1.

PALAR process. Source: Wood and Zuber-Skerritt (2013).

Although the depiction above could create the impression of PALAR as a “step-by-step” method, the process is far more iterative in nature. The research therefore does not start at one point and end at another. Instead continuous cyclical processes of action and critical reflection inform and feed into one another. However, for the purposes of this paper, the application of PALAR is described in relation to the eight steps illustrated above.

The research process ensued from a PALAR workshop hosted by the University. During this workshop, the first three authors decided to establish a multi-disciplinary research team hoping to address similar classroom challenges. Although no formal “needs analysis” was performed, informal discussions among the researchers pointed to encountering similar barriers to student learning such as poverty, students being ill prepared for higher education, poor time management, inadequate analytical reasoning, and restricted English writing and reading skills. A meeting between the first three authors deliberated on an action plan based on a shared vision. As researchers, it was hoped to develop students’ lifelong learning skills and concurrently enhance the researchers’ learning and research knowledge. These shared concerns encapsulated a problem definition which represented the first stage of the research process.

Following these initial deliberations, second year Social Sciences students were invited to participate, voluntarily, in a lifelong learning research project aimed at building relationships amongst students and lecturers, identifying and addressing challenges faced by students as well as critically and collaboratively reflecting on our learning experiences. Interested students were invited to a start-up workshop, representing the second stage of the PALAR process. This workshop was directed at getting the “buy-in” and commitment from the interested students. Thereafter students were divided into learning-set groups based on time preferences. The first three authors each took responsibility for facilitating one of these groups.

Stage three represented the project work of the PALAR process. At the first learning-set group meetings, a nominal group technique exercise was completed in which each group identified the most pressing challenges they faced during their first year at university. Challenges such as not being proficient in English, adaptation to the higher educational context, workload, finances, personal problems and peer pressure were mentioned. Further learning-set meetings were arranged by the facilitators with the purpose of addressing these challenges identified by the students and reflecting upon future action to take in response to these challenges. At the same time, the first three authors met as a research group to share experiences, critically reflect upon the process and decide upon future action.

Stage four, represented in the illustration above as the midway specialist workshop, involved a meeting with a Community Engagement member of staff, also the fourth author. The benefits of further collaborative work were recognised, particularly in the form of an “outsider-witness” of the research process. The role of the fourth researcher was to facilitate critical reflection among researchers and students. In addition, the Dean of Research was consulted as a “midway specialist” at various points in the process. His reflections together with those of the “outsider witness” fed into the cycle of continuous research, as well as methodological and ideological deliberations.

Stage five involved the continuation of the learning-set meetings during the course of the academic year. Most of the meetings centred on exploring various challenges experienced by students, identifying possible ways of addressing these challenges and reflecting critically upon the action taken.

Mirroring the years’ progress, all the groups participated in a concluding workshop, signifying the sixth stage of the PALAR process. This workshop provided a context for the students to share meanings they attached to their experiences of being part of the learning sets within the PALAR process, to unpack the skills acquired and learning that took place within the learning sets, critically reflect on their readiness to take ownerships of their own life-long learning aspirations and independently initiate, manage and control action plans evolved from the year-long group discussions.

Stages seven and eight of the PALAR process, namely the preparation and the presentation of findings, were addressed through the presentation of our findings at various academic conferences.

Sampling

Student participants were selected by means of purposive and volunteer sampling (De Vos, Strydom, Fouche, & Delport, 2011, p. 392, 394). The sample was drawn from all second year students enrolled for courses in Sociology and Social Work. The researchers reasoned that having recently completed a first year of study, second year students would be best suited to identify the existence of barriers to lifelong learning (based on their experiences) and would also be available as third year students for further engagement. In addition, as lecturers we also had direct access to students in the Sociology and Social Work departments. Snowball sampling also provided us with additional participants as students invited other students to join the research cohort. The demographic profile of the students included different age groups, ethnic groups and both males and females. This profile was not taken into account in our analysis, as the paper focusses primarily on the reflection of the researchers.

Data collection methods

The study employed various data collection methods, contributing to the triangulation of data sources and data collection methods. Data were collected through reflection journals completed by the first three authors. The “outsider-witness” played the part of a moderator and contributed towards a “second set of eyes and ears that increase both the total accumulation of information and the validity of the analysis” (Krueger, 1998, p. 70). This was done through observation as well as commentary on stories heard and group dynamics witnessed in learning-set meetings (Krueger & Casey, 2009, p. 89). Another data collection method was letter writing. The “outsider-witness” wrote letters to the learning-set facilitators (first three authors) as a method of extending the critical discussions between the learning-set facilitators and “outsider-witness”, which translated into a continuous retelling and meaning making process (Morgan, 2000, pp. 122–123). In this study, letter writing was used in order to extend the conversations of research team meetings, individual interviews and/or focus group discussions. Each letter reflected back on a specific discussion, or process, inviting the participants and researchers to re-interpret and co-interpret their stories aimed at enhancing dialogues.

Trustworthiness

With regard to the social constructivist stance, trustworthiness is understood in relation to findings that resonate with, and are confirmed by, the participants (Gibbs cited in Creswell, 2009), which in this case included the primary researchers (the four authors) and the second year students. Thus, member checking and participant validation were employed through a continuous process of critical reflection during team and learning-set meetings. The researchers also employed a variety of data collection methods to ensure the triangulation of data sources. Diverse perspectives were deliberately sought through peer examinations of the study, such as meetings held with, and document reviews conducted by, the then Dean of Research at the University.

Data analysis

All data collected during the research process were transcribed and coded. Subsequently, it was analysed utilising a thematic data analysis approach. The focus of this analysis centred around our primary research question of the lifelong learning and the application of PALAR in responding to lifelong learning needs. A comparison of data was undertaken to identify common patterns and contrasts (Shwandt, 2007, cited in De Vos et al., 2011) and a thematic qualitative text analysis process, as described by Kuckartz (2014), was followed. This included highlighting important passages in memos, reflections and minutes, and developing themes.

Presentation and discussion of findings

The findings presented and discussed below focus on the researchers’ experiences and reflections of the cyclical PALAR process and how this contributed to the researchers’ development of scholarship as well as the process of lifelong learning. This will be illustrated with both the reflections of the researchers and augmented by the voices of students where it is deemed appropriated.

Theme: Understanding and implementation of the PALAR process

Sub-Theme: Evolving perception of participation

As the researchers agreed on employing a PALAR process to address concerns about the development of their own SoTL and facilitating the notion of a lifelong learning perspective among students, we repeatedly reflected upon the concept of participation among all the participants. This participation included questions regarding the degree of participation, the impact thereof and how the participants were recognised within the research process (for example, as co-researchers or simply as participants). Thus, as the research process developed so, too, did our understanding of participation. As noted by Barbutiu (2016), the concept of participation is a complicated issue in Participatory Action Research. The idea of different modes of participation resonated with our experiences and the researchers found that it made more sense to talk about a continuum of participation, ranging between contractual, consultative and collaborative participation, than it did to talk about a static entity (Biggs cited in Babbie & Mouton, 2011, p. 66).

As noted by Van der Riet and Boettiger (2009), the complexities of participation are emphasised by regarding participatory research as “an emergent process”. Thus, how participation is engendered and fostered becomes a vital consideration in the process. For the researchers, the inherent complexities only became noticeable as the process developed. The researchers’ initial perception of participation was a process of contracting and consulting with students. The start-up workshop, for example, was aimed at getting student “buy in” to participate in the project. The aim was to make sure that it remained voluntary. But, the issue that participation is also closely linked to relations of power was something of which the researchers were continuously aware. At the outset, students were consulted on their “needs” related to lifelong learning. Reflecting on the process the researchers came to the realisation that the “need” to “develop” students’ lifelong learning was identified by the authors, rather than the students. Thus, we made the mistake of not fully giving credence to the students as co-researchers within the participatory research process. This realisation was emphasised as our own lived understanding of social constructivism developed. Although students were consulted on their “needs”, it was in relation to the predetermined topic “lifelong learning”, which was the chosen topic for research determined by the researchers. The motivation, therefore, was based on the experiences the researchers had, as lecturers of some of these students. Subsequent to this realisation, the researchers attempted to invite participation from the students by consulting them on their needs relating to lifelong learning. In reflecting on this issue of participation, the researchers had the following to say:

You know, I’d never really thought about this participation thing until it was raised it in that meeting. I just assumed that if we had the students participating and we were consulting them it was participation, but they really needed to be the ones deciding on the whole research process and their agenda to fall within PALAR, which has been a bit of a revelation to me.

We reached the conclusion that full participation from the students cannot simply be expected from the students from the outset, additionally that there is a process of scaffolding participation. Thus, there are different “levels of participation” (from contractual, to consultative to collaborative). Arguably, we did not fully understand this when we embarked upon the research. With regard to our research process, we concluded that the initial stages of the research process can be regarded as a foundational stage, which was in fact required to equip the students with skills necessary to their full participate. It should be acknowledged that this includes allocating time for the researchers to get to know the students and for them to get to know us as well as themselves. This is an important requirement necessary for a more collaborative participatory process.

Initially, students were invited to participate with our ideas in mind, which related to a topic (lifelong learning). However, through a process of critical reflection, this developed to a level where we understood the need to allow the process to be driven by the students and their needs and only then could we work collaboratively together in addressing these needs. Our project had the ambition to achieve collaborative participation (Biggs as cited in Babbie & Mouton, 2011), but at the outset we were oblivious to the different levels of participation. Nonetheless, students did find the experience meaningful and beneficial as the following quotations from the students suggest:

To me I have attended two sessions now and both of these sessions were so great to me in such a way that they make me to talk, in smaller groups of course because I am not that type of a person who feel free to talk within a group of people. But in these sessions it is not a must to talk but its willingness of a person.

A similar sentiment was expressed by another student as such:

The atmosphere of these sessions is so good because we all engage ourselves in every conversation that has been raised. Well there is a lecturer in our mix but the way we engage ourselves in conversations with her it’s like she is part of us, which is good for me. In the last session I enjoyed the fact that I got an opportunity to talk about the things that were happening to me days back and my feelings.

Thus, despite our initial understanding of participation, which adhered far more to a conventional research approach, the students nonetheless found value in the PALAR process as attested to by the quotations above. The PALAR process also afforded the students the opportunity to engage with the lecturers on issues about which they were concerned, such as language and academic writing which inhibited their lifelong learning journey. Such benefits were only possible through the critical reflection of power dynamics inherent within the traditional lecturer/student relationship. Therefore, this initial stage provided the opportunity to begin to challenge this power dynamic. For the lecturers, this stage of the research served to orientate us to the specific context of the students. This aspect will be elaborated on later.

Sub-Theme: Ownership within the PALAR process

Similar uncertainties were experienced with reference to ownership, which emerged in the course of the PALAR process. While our desire as researchers was to participate with the students as “co-researchers”, we realised the problematic nature of such a relationship. In the very early stages of the research, we allocated the position of “co-researcher” to the students. However, this very act was in fact an assertion of our own position of power (as lecturers and senior members of staff). The student participants were, thus, not in a position to choose us as their research partners, which might have implications for their sense of ownership of the process. In addition, it soon became evident that we, as researchers, were acting far more as facilitators of the research process, than “co-researchers” with the students. For example, it was the researchers who were organising the learning-set meetings, phoning and reminding students to come to meetings, arranging refreshments for meetings, setting up agendas and keeping minutes. There emerged the uncomfortable realisation that perhaps the research process was only driven by the researchers and not the students as it should be in a PALAR process. This reaffirmed the need to clarify different roles and assess the ownership of the research project by reflecting on the boundaries and expectations of all participants (students and researchers).

Despite the concern regarding ownership of the process, we observed during the course of 2016 that students attended the learning-set meetings irrespective of the fact that it was voluntary and they stood to lose nothing if they did not attend. We speculated about this seeming anomaly, considering students took very little ownership of, and responsibility for, the process. In the concluding workshop we explored this issue. Students were asked to reflect on the motivation behind their consistent attendance of learning-set meetings which amounted to at least monthly or bi-monthly meetings over a period of approximately six months. Responses from the students depicted a sense of value being attached to these meetings. The researchers’ concerns were indeed confirmed and discarded by the students where some did not see themselves in control over, or owning, the process, which should be the position in a collaborative relationship. The following quotation, elicited from a student during the concluding workshop, depicts the concern relating to ownership of the research process by the student participants:

…the strength’s our leader. The one who is most responsible for the group it is him (she) and the weakness is if she does not come up with something we don’t take initiative to come up with something

As this quotation illustrates, ownership of the process was not held by the students who also arguably did not see themselves as co-researchers. Despite this, student participants remained committed to the process and continued to attend the learning-set meetings throughout.

The realisation that ownership, like participation, is not something to be controlled by the researchers came to the fore through critical reflection on our practice. The contradictory evidence from the students reflects our uncertainty related to this crucial element of the PALAR process. Our experience has, however, generated a far greater sense of appreciation for the need to address issues that remain relatively irrelevant in conventional approaches to research. To work within the participatory and social constructivist approaches, the continuous reflection of the researchers with the student participants is important to ensure the research process remains participatory in nature and under the direction of the participants.

Theme: PALAR contributing to lifelong learning

Sub-Theme: Understanding and respecting the students’ context

After the first cycle of the research process, the researchers realised that their own lifelong learning had been enriched through the process. With reference to our own pedagogy, PALAR deepened our own understanding of the lived contexts and challenges faced by our students, which served to encourage a more empathetic and approachable lecturing stance. The researchers thus, become more cognisant that academic success is intrinsically linked to the contexts within which the students reside. For example, the lived experiences of the students’ financial challenges. This deepening understanding of the student as a holistic being was pivotal to our own SoTL.

The researchers found they were learning a great deal about, and from, the student participants. The following quotation from one of the researchers emphasises this point:

I’m learning so much from the students, I now know some of the challenges that my students face. Financial, social, family there are so many challenges. However, the one that comes up again and again is financial difficulties. I never truly thought before about how such difficulties would impact academic success. This revelation has made me a better teacher, more understanding, more patient; I now approach my classes in a different way.

The learning, referred to in this quotation, related to revelations that emerged during the learning-set meetings about the importance of finances in the lives of the students. While always aware of it as matter of concern, the learning-set meeting discussions revealed the extent to which financial challenges impacted negatively upon class attendance and progress. For many of the students, finances ranked as the number one “academic” concern. Other concerns included socialising and peer pressure, as opposed to the more expected challenges of academic performance. For the researchers, the needs identified served to sensitise the researchers, additionally emphasising the need for compassion and understanding when dealing with students.

The need to take the students’ holistic context into consideration also became apparent through the learning-set meetings. Rather than focusing on “academic” issues exclusively, students expressed the need for belonging and acceptance, which impacted upon their academic performance. It was mention, for example, by one of the female students in a learning-set group discussion that “people starve to get their hair done…”. Another concurred by saying that “you isolate yourself because you feel inferior when your hair has not been done”. Such needs are not always taken into consideration by lecturers, but constitute an important concern on the part of students.

In response to the realisation that it is important to understand the students holistically and provide students with an opportunity to voice their personal experiences, one of the lecturers developed a questionnaire while in the process of this research, to actively implement the findings. Reading the responses was an emotional experience for the lecturer concerned as these mini-life stories held painful and heart-warming experiences. By eliciting such experiences, the lecturer was able to relate to her students with far more compassion and understanding than she had done previously. Indeed, the PALAR process and the critical reflection it necessitates brought home to her the realisation that the “disconnection” she experienced between herself and the students, had in all probability more to do with her aloof and professional relationship with the students than it had to do with the students’ “underpreparedness”. Based on this, and in keeping with Boughey’s (2010) observations on “underpreparedness” mentioned above, she has made a deliberate effort to engage with her students on a far more personal note, revealing aspects of herself she would otherwise never have done and engaging with her students as firstly, people, and secondly, learners. Without the critical reflection and the implementation of intentional strategies to change, the disconnection between herself and her students would in all likelihood have continued.

Sub-Theme: Collaborations in the process of knowledge production

The process of critical reflection arguably leads to the production of new knowledge and meaning making. One aspect of this knowledge emerged from the collective need of the researchers to distance themselves from more traditional/positivist approaches to research. As one researcher commented:

I have experienced much more from my group in terms of their development and their insight than I expected. I just realised what this whole action learning process and participatory process is, you have to let go, you must not control because by controlling you’re inhibiting learning and that is something that I learned. So if you can facilitate learning in such a way that everybody’s strengths emerge there is so much more that can happen and learn from each other.

Such insights suggest that collaboration in the PALAR research process allows for the production of new meaning and understanding. For the researchers, this entailed the enhancement of our own learning process, such as the way we facilitate classes.

In keeping with the social constructivist paradigm (Kim, 2014), the production of knowledge is not seen as an occurrence, but rather as a lifelong learning commitment to the process of deepening one’s own understanding. In our research context, the researchers represented different disciplinary knowledge systems, which enriched knowledge production through discussions and reflections, by realising that the way knowledge is constructed is collaborative.

Working as a team of researchers from different disciplines opens a whole new world for me. I enjoy the research discussions so much – and now understand what it means that PALAR is a process that also develops the researcher…

In this context, the researcher is referring to the opportunity to work with researchers from different disciplines within Social Sciences and realising it serves to embed the social constructivist approach as it relates to the different pillars of the universities core business of teaching and learning, research, and community engagement. All these pillars can be grounded in the social constructivist paradigm as they feed into one another in continuous processes of collaborative knowledge production.

Sub-Theme: Safe environments for development and participation

Under this sub-theme two main issues emerged with reference to safe environments, namely, safe environments where students felt a sense of belonging and safe environments among researchers for genuine and authentic connection and engagement.

Safe environments for students

The learning-set groups clearly provided a context in which students developed trust and affirmation. As such, they provided a safe environment in which to address issues of vulnerability and inadequateness held by the students. One student commented that “being part of PALAR gave us the sense of belonging”. For the researchers, this comment and similar ones highlighted how successful the process was in bringing students into a more supportive relationship with their peers. Building upon this sense of belonging that was fostered, another student noted that, “…being in the group, it helps you to express yourself…being here to learn (to)…manage your timetable. It’s like we are being coached for…the years to come.”

Operating within this safe environment fostered positive dynamics amongst the students. As previously noted, these included feelings of trust and affirmation. One student explained this as follows: “The reason why I am here is because you find you (can) express yourself sometimes you are afraid. For me it is to be able to say something in front of people”. The familiarity amongst the students in the learning sets developed throughout the year. Many of the students reported that they would greet and see each other on campus. One student noted that he felt more confident to greet members of different cultural and racial groups, who he had met during the research process.

Safe environments for researchers

The researchers were of the opinion that the PALAR process enabled them to engage with one another as learning took place by reflections and continuous dialogue. As noted by one of the researchers: “I really feel that I can express my thoughts in these discussions we have without being criticised, I enjoy debating these issues and learning together”. The participatory paradigm that was jointly decided upon by the researchers enable us to ensure that all the researchers felt “equal” and were embarking on a process of learning together. One of the researchers made a statement by saying:

this is the first time I feel comfortable and safe to discuss my ideas in a research group. I think it is because we respect each other’s opinions and I feel through this process we got to trust each other.

Another researcher mentioned:

… I can’t believe that I have been working in isolation for such a long time. This research project has also allowed me to develop to ask questions in an environment where you feel that you will not be criticized if you are not perfect

Concluding remarks

This paper sought to trace the researchers’ experiences and reflections of facilitating a PALAR process, within the higher educational context. This learning could assist other researchers seeking to embark upon a PALAR research process with students in the higher educational context. For the researchers, utilising PALAR contributed to their own “lifelong learning”, particularly with regard to scholarship and collaborations in the process of knowledge production.

The level of participation in the PALAR process should thus be viewed as an ongoing process that challenges boundaries, dependency, ownership and the sustainability of such research orientations. The idea, then, that participation requires nurturing and support, consistently scaffolded over time, is essential to the PALAR process. Only then can we address the power disparity between lecturer and students. Within this context, students felt safe enough to face their own vulnerabilities and challenges which inhibited their own learning. PALAR provided a good approach for students to develop a belief in their own abilities whilst learning from and about others, changing their perceptions of not only themsleves, but so too others. As such, it would appear that the PALAR facilitated student “graduateness” by affording students the opportunity to openly and trustfully co-discover, with the lecturers and peers, ways to optimise their own lifelong learning. The impact and effect of power relations was also addressed in this study by the creation of safe environments for the students as participant, as well as the researchers.

Lastly, the role of the researcher that is pivotal in the creation of knowledge was clearly emphasised throughout the study where, with continuous critical reflection, the co-construction of knowledge was evident. Both the students and the researchers concurred that the process had contributed to their own development.

When the facilitation of a participatory process among students in a higher educational context is envisaged the following considerations can be recommended:

It is important to create safe spaces where both the researcher/s and participants can express their opinions and negotiate meaningful interaction. This is vital for the success of such a research project.

Participation is a challenging term which needs to be carefully unpacked; this needs to be done from the outset of the research project.

Despite some of the difficulties and uncertainties experienced and discussed in this paper, the PALAR process, in our case, afforded us invaluable opportunities to critically reflect upon our assumptions and practices and enhance our process of lifelong learning.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

All participants in the research as well as the research mentoring received from Prof Gideon de Wet (Dean of Research).

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts 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: Funding was received from the University of Fort Hare, Govan Mbeki Research and Development Centre (GMRDC).

Author biographies

Ulene Schiller is a senior lecturer in the Department of Social Work and Social Development, University of Fort Hare, South Africa.

Penny Jaffray is a lecturer in the Department of Sociology, University of Fort Hare, South Africa.

Tamerin Ridley is a counselling psychologist in the Student Counselling Unit, University of Fort Hare, South Africa.

Cuzette Du Plessis is an academic manager in Community Engagement, University of Fort Hare, South Africa.

References

Babbie

Mouton

(2011). The practice of social research (South African edition). Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.

Barbutiu

S. M.

(2016). Challenges of participation in cross-cultural Action Research. International Journal of Action Research, 12(3), 224–247.

Barrie

S. C.

(2006). Understanding what we mean by the generic attributes of graduates. Higher Education, 51, 215–241.

Barroso

(2010). Introduction to qualitative research. In LoBiondo-Wood

Haber

(Eds.), Nursing research: Methods and critical appraisal for evidence-based practice (pp. 95–108). New York, NY: Elsevier.

Boughey

(2010). Understanding teaching and learning at foundation level: A ‘critical’ imperative?. In C. Hutchings & J Garraway (Eds.), Beyond university gates: Provision of extended curriculum programmes in South Africa (pp. 4–7). Retrieved from https://www.cput.ac.za/storage/services/fundani/beyond_the_university_gates.pdf

Breier, M. (2001). How to bridge the “great divide”: The dilemma for the policy and practice of Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) in South Africa. Perspectives in Education, 19(4).

Breier Burck

(2005). Comparing qualitative research methodologies for systemic research: The use of grounded theory, discourse analysis and narrative analysis. Journal of Family Therapy, 27, 237–262.

Bryman

(2012). Social research methods (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Council on Higher Education. (2004). South African Higher Education in the first decade of democracy. Pretoria, South Africa: Council on Higher Education.

10.

Creswell

J. W.

(2009). Research design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed Methods Approaches (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage Publications.

11.

Department of Education South Africa. (1997). Education White Paper 3. A programme for higher education transformation (Government Gazette No. 18207). Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printers.

12.

De Vos

A. S.

Strydom

Fouche

C. B.

Delport

C. S. L.

(2011). Research at grass roots: For social sciences and human service professions (3rd ed.). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

13.

Freedman

Combs

(1996). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York, NY: Norton & Company.

14.

Green

Thorogood

(2009). Qualitative methods for health research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

15.

Grobler

Schenck

(2009). Person centred facilitation: Process, theory and practice (3rd ed.). Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford Press.

16.

Grobler

Schenck

Du Toit

(2003). Person-centred communication: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford Press.

17.

Kim

M. S.

(2014). Doing social constructivist research means empathic and aesthetic connections with participants. European Early Childhood Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 538–553. DOI:10.1080/1550295X.2014.847835

18.

Kuckartz

(2014). Qualitative text analysis: A guide to methods practice and using software. Marburg, Germany: Sage.

19.

Krueger

(1998). Moderating focus groups. Retrieved from https://books.google.co.za/books?id=mEyfgfg1nDcC&pg=PA70&lpg=PA70&dq=second+set+of+eyes+and+ears+that+increase+both+the+total+accumulation+of+information+and+the+ validity+of+the+analysis%E2% 80%9D&source=bl&ots=gSWX_JHOdr&sig=tLqnXisaNjhO1KIkJBB80PF0b_U&hl=en&sa=X&ved=ahUKEwiFn6uo7OnZAhXlB8AKHXBWD58Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage& q& f=false

20.

Krueger

R. A.

Casey

M. A.

(2009). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research (4th ed.). London, UK: SAGE.

21.

Morçöl

(2001). What is complexity science? Postmodernist or postpositivist? Emergence, 3(1), 104–119. Retrieved from http://courseweb.edteched.uottawa.ca/pop8910/PDF%20Files/Complexity%20Morcol%20paper.pdf

22.

Morgan

(2000). What is narrative therapy? An easy-to-read introduction. Adelaide, South Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.

23.

Nieuwenhuis

(2007). Introducing qualitative research. In Maree

(Ed.), Firsts steps in research (pp. 46–68). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik.

24.

Potter

M. K.

Kustra

(2011). The relationship between scholarly teaching and SoTL: Models, distinctions and clarification. International Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5(1), 1-20.

25.

Richardson

(2003). Constructivist pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640.

26.

Schenck

Nel

Louw

(2010). Introduction to participatory community practice. Pretoria, South Africa: Unisa Press.

27.

Swanepoel

de Beer

(2006). Community development: Breaking the cycle of poverty (4th ed.). Lansdowne, South Africa: Juta.

28.

Van Der Riet

Boettiger

(2009). Shifting research dynamics: Addressing power and maximising participation through participatory research techniques in participatory research. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(1), 1–18.

29.

Walsh

Kotzee

(2010). Reconciling “Graduateness” and work-based learning. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 4(1), 36–50.

30.

Wood

(2015). PALAR for community engagement: The postgraduate voice. In Kearney

Todhunter

(Eds.), Life Long Action learning and research: A Tribute to the life and pioneering work of Ortrun Zuber-Skerrit (pp. 93–109). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense publishers.

31.

Wood

Zuber-Skerrit

(2013). PALAR as a methodology for community engagement by faculties of education. South African Journal of Education, 33(4), 1–15.

32.

Zuber-Skerritt

(2015). Participatory Action Learning and Action Research (PALAR) for community engagement: A theoretical framework. Educational Research for Social Change (ERSC), 4(1), 5–25.