Eight Criteria for Quality in Systemic Practitioner Research

G. Simon
{"title":"Eight Criteria for Quality in Systemic Practitioner Research","authors":"G. Simon","doi":"10.28963/1.2.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper describes the rationale and context for eight key markers of quality in qualitative systemic practitioner research. The criteria are designed for systemic practitioner researchers who are researching from the position of practitioner-at-work. The criteria include Systemic Practice, Methodology, Situatedness, Relational Ethics, Relational Aesthetics, Reflexivity, Coherence, and Contributions. They build on existing criteria for quality developed within the fields of post-positivist qualitative research and professional practice research by embedding them in systemic practice theory, activity and values. Distinctions are made between practitioner research and research about practice, and between positivist and post-positivist research. This eight-point framework brings together existing systemic methods of inquiry which recognise the importance of understanding context, movement and relational know-how. The paper proposes that systemic or relationally reflexive practice is already a form of collaborative inquiry or action research in which any action, research included, inevitably contains intention and acts as an intervention. While working with people in small and immediate systems, systemic practitioner researchers are critically reflexive in understanding how local issues are connected to wider socio-political systems and discourses.","PeriodicalId":422770,"journal":{"name":"Murmurations: Journal of Transformative Systemic Practice","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"12","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Murmurations: Journal of Transformative Systemic Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.28963/1.2.5","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 12

Abstract

This paper describes the rationale and context for eight key markers of quality in qualitative systemic practitioner research. The criteria are designed for systemic practitioner researchers who are researching from the position of practitioner-at-work. The criteria include Systemic Practice, Methodology, Situatedness, Relational Ethics, Relational Aesthetics, Reflexivity, Coherence, and Contributions. They build on existing criteria for quality developed within the fields of post-positivist qualitative research and professional practice research by embedding them in systemic practice theory, activity and values. Distinctions are made between practitioner research and research about practice, and between positivist and post-positivist research. This eight-point framework brings together existing systemic methods of inquiry which recognise the importance of understanding context, movement and relational know-how. The paper proposes that systemic or relationally reflexive practice is already a form of collaborative inquiry or action research in which any action, research included, inevitably contains intention and acts as an intervention. While working with people in small and immediate systems, systemic practitioner researchers are critically reflexive in understanding how local issues are connected to wider socio-political systems and discourses.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
系统从业者研究的八个质量标准
本文描述了定性系统实践者研究中八个关键质量标记的基本原理和背景。这些标准是为系统从业者研究人员设计的,他们从在职从业者的角度进行研究。标准包括系统实践、方法论、情境性、关系伦理、关系美学、反身性、一致性和贡献。它们建立在后实证主义定性研究和专业实践研究领域发展的现有质量标准的基础上,将其嵌入系统的实践理论、活动和价值观中。实践者研究和关于实践的研究、实证主义研究和后实证主义研究之间存在区别。这8点框架汇集了现有的系统性研究方法,认识到理解背景、运动和相关知识的重要性。本文提出,系统或关系反思性实践已经是一种合作探究或行动研究的形式,其中任何行动,包括研究,都不可避免地包含意图和作为干预的行为。在与小而直接的系统中的人们一起工作时,系统实践者研究人员在理解当地问题如何与更广泛的社会政治系统和话语联系起来方面具有批判性的反思性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Becoming a Vehicle of Knowledge Creation: How Autopoiesis Changed My Practice A Letter from the Future to Ourselves A Letter from the Future to Ourselves Towards anarchy? Decolonising Management. Reflections of a Human Resource Practitioner from the Global South
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1