Abstract
In this article I re-examine the tenets of the transformative paradigm as explained by Mertens in various publications. Mertens suggests that the transformative paradigm (as she names it) encapsulates the positions of researchers who question positivist/postpositivist- and interpretivist/constructivist-oriented approaches, which to date have been ascendant in the field of social research. She argues (following critical theorists) that researchers embracing a transformative paradigm as an alternative explicitly bear social justice issues in mind so that their inquiries become intertwined with a political agenda and are action-oriented towards generating increased fairness in the social fabric. In the article I consider her arguments and I add additional angles to them with reference to a number of authors (including myself) advocating critical systemic thinking-and-practice and advocating Indigenous systemic approaches. I consider some implications of the revised understanding of the transformative paradigm (and its relationship to “other” paradigms) for operating as a researcher.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Mertens is here placing her discussion in the context of doing research toward program evaluation—but her statements can be seen as applying to all forms of research as she questions the distinction between “evaluation” and “research” (1999, p. 5).
She states that this can otherwise be called the “scientific method paradigm” (1999, p. 4).
Mertens qualifies this by stating that “mixed methods designs that use both quantitative and qualitative methods can be used in any paradigm; however, the underlying assumptions [that researchers are bringing to bear] determine which paradigm is operationalized” (1999, p. 5).
It is worth mentioning here that I have added the word ecological systems because Midgley (1996, p. 21) is concerned that the term human emancipation as often used within CST and other critical theoretical texts might deprioritize our thinking around ecological well-being—or what McIntyre-Mills terms social and ecological justice (2008, 2014). It is not clear to what extent Mertens too takes ecological considerations into account when speaking about social justice.
In relation to natural scientific inquiry, Davis argues (following Wheeler, 1982) that we can be said to be living in an “observer participatory universe”, in which “we are the ones who … first establish the iron posts of observation and then weave the brilliant tapestry of reality between them” (Davis, 1997, p. 277). Drawing on a range of examples, he shows how the world can manifest itself in alternative ways, depending on how we weave the tapestry.
They argue that it is with this understanding of the relationship between observer and observed that Christakis and Warfield (also influenced by authors such as Ozbekhan and Churchman) developed a “systems approach for influencing the stream of world events” (2013, p. 425). See also Christakis’s (2004), Christakis and Bausch’s (2006), and Bausch and Flanagan and Christakis’s (2010) discussions of structured dialogical processes for furthering this aim.
Lather (1986) is well-known for using the term catalytic validity as one way of defining how research processes can attain validity other than through the search for “truth” as representation of some posited realities). She argues that research can never be a “pure” description/explanation, purified of researchers’ concerns (1986:64). Furthermore, it is never neutral in its social consequences. She points to the importance of recognizing “the reality-altering impact” of the research process (1986, p. 67).
This understanding of the way in which social meanings are constructed is congruent with the trusting constructivist position as spelled out by Romm (2001a, 2002, 2010). It is also consistent with Lincoln and Guba’s point that “the meanings we associate with any … tangible reality [as we experience it] or social interaction … determines how we respond” (2012, p. 12).
References
Ali S (2010) Silence and secrets: Confidence in research. In: Ryan-Flood R, Gill R (eds) Secrecy and silence in the research process: feminist reflections. Routledge, London, pp 245–256
Bausch KC, Flanagan TR (2013) A confluence of third-phase science and dialogic design science. Syst Res Behav Sci 30:414–429
Bawden RJ (2011) Epistemic aspects of social ecological conflict. In: Wright D, Camden-Pratt C, Hill S (eds) Social ecology: applying ecological understanding to our lives and our planet. Hawthorne Press, Stroud, pp 52–63
Bishop EC, Shepherd ML (2011) Ethical reflections: examining reflexivity through the narrative paradigm. Qual Health Res 21(9):1283–1294
Chilisa B (2012) Indigenous research methodologies. Sage, London
Christakis AN (2004) Wisdom of the people. Syst Res Behav Sci 21(5):479–488
Christakis AN, Bausch KC (2006) Co-laboratories of democracy: how people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future. Information Age Publishing, Greenwich
Cram F, Chilisa B, Mertens DM (2013) The journey begins. In: Mertens DM, Cram F, Chilisa B (eds) Indigenous pathways into social research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 11–40
Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Davis J (1997) Alternate realities: how science shapes our vision of the world. Plenum, New York
De Zeeuw G (1996) Three phases of science: a methodological exploration. Working paper nr. 7. Centre for Systems and Information Sciences, University of Humberside, United Kingdom
Dick B (2014) Action research. In: Mills J, Birks M (eds) Qualitative methodology: a practical guide. Sage, London, pp 51–65
Dillard CB (2006) When the music changes, so should the dance: cultural and spiritual considerations in paradigm “proliferation”. Int J Qual Stud Educ 19(1):59–76
Eser O (2014) Meaning in the vortex of intervention and translation with a focus on international diplomacy. Turkish Stud 9(6):379–387
Flanagan T, Christakis A (2010) The talking point: creating an environment for exploring complex meaning. Information Age Publishing, Charlotte
Flood RL (1990) Liberating systems theory. Plenum Press, New York
Flood RL (2001) The relationship of “systems thinking” to action research. In: Reason P, Bradbury H (eds) Handbook of action research: participative inquiry and practice. Sage, London, pp 133–144
Flood RL, Jackson MC (eds) (1991) Critical systems thinking: directed readings. Wiley, New York. 347 pp
Flood RL, Romm NRA (1996a) Revisiting plurality: diversity management and triple loop learning. Syst Pract 9(6):587–603
Flood RL, Romm NRA (1996b) Diversity management: triple loop learning. Wiley, Chichester
Goduka N (2012) Re-discovering indigenous knowledge—ulwaziLwemveli for strengthening sustainable livelihood opportunities within rural contexts in the Eastern Cape province. Indilinga—Afr J Indig Knowl Syst 11(1):1–19
Gregory WJ (1992) Critical systems thinking and pluralism: a new constellation. Doctoral dissertation, City University, London
Harris L-D, Wasilewski J (2004) Indigeneity, an alternative worldview: four R’s (relationship, responsibility, reciprocity, redistribution) vs. two P’s (power and profit): sharing the journey towards conscious evolution. Syst Res Behav Sci 21:489–503
Ivanov K (2011) Critical systems thinking and information technology. In: Haftor D, Mirijamdotter A (eds) Information and communication technologies, society and human beings: theory and framework. IGI Global, Hershey, pp 493–514
Koitsiwe M (2013) Prospects and challenges of becoming an Indigenous researcher. In: Mertens DM, Cram F, Chilisa B (eds) Indigenous pathways into social research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 261–275
Kovach M (2009) Indigenous methodologies: characteristics, conversations, and contexts. University of Toronto Press, Toronto
Kvale S (2002) The social construction of validity. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The qualitative inquiry reader. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 299–325
Lather P (1986) Catalytic validity. Issues of validity in openly ideological research: between a rock and a soft place. Interchange 17(4):63–84
Lather P (1992) Critical frames in educational research: feminist and post-structural perspectives. Theory Pract 31(2):87–99
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2003) Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In: Denzin NK, Lincoln YS (eds) The landscape of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 253–291
Lincoln YS, Guba EG (2012) The constructivist credo. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek
Mackenzie N, Knipe S (2006) Research dilemmas: paradigms, methods and methodology. Issues Educ Res 16(2):193–205. (Retrieved August 15 2014 at http://www.iier.org.au/iier16/mackenzie.html)
McIntyre-Mills JJ (2008) Systemic ethics: social, economic and environmental implications of eating our yellow cake in South Australia. Syst Res Behav Sci 25:225–248
McIntyre-Mills JJ (2014) Systemic ethics and non-anthropocentric stewardship. Springer, New York
McKay VI, Romm NRA (2008) Active research toward the addressal of HIV/AIDS in the informal economy in Zambia: recognition of complicity in unfolding situations. Action Res 6(2):149–170
Mertens DM (1999) Inclusive evaluation: implications of transformative theory for evaluation. Am J Eval 20(1):1–14
Mertens DM (2004) Research and evaluation methods in special education. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Mertens DM (2005) Research methods in education and psychology: integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Mertens DM (2007a) Transformative paradigm: mixed methods and social justice. J Mixed Methods Res 1(3):212–225
Mertens DM (2007b) Transformative considerations. Am J Eval 28:86–90
Mertens DM (2009) Transformative research and evaluation. The Guilford Press, New York
Mertens DM (2010a) Research and evaluation in education and psychology. Sage, Thousand Oaks
Mertens DM (2010b) Transformative mixed methods research. Qual Inquiry 16(6):469–474
Mertens DM (2012) Transformative mixed methods: addressing inequities. Am Behav Sci 56(6):802–813
Midgley G (1990) Creative methodology design. Systemist 12:108–113
Midgley G (1996) What is this thing called CST? In: Flood RL, Romm NRA (eds) Critical systems thinking: current research and practice. Plenum, New York, pp 11–24
Midgley G (2000) Systemic intervention: philosophy, methodology and practice. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York
Murove MF (2005) The theory of self-interest in modern economic discourse: a critical study in the light of African humanism and process philosophical anthropology. Doctoral thesis, University of South Africa
Romm NRA (1995) Knowing as intervention. Syst Pract 8(2):137–167
Romm NRA (1996) Systems methodologies and intervention: The issue of researcher responsibility. In: Flood RL, Romm NRA (eds) Critical systems thinking: current research and practice. Plenum, New York, pp 179–194
Romm NRA (2001a) Accountability in social research: issues and debates. Kluwer Academic/Plenum, New York
Romm NRA (2001b) Critical theoretical concerns in relation to development: Habermas, modernity, and democratization. In: Coetzee JK, Graaff J, Hendricks F, Wood G (eds) Development theory, policy, and practice. Oxford University Press, Cape Town, pp 141–153
Romm NRA (2002) A trusting constructivist approach to systemic inquiry. Syst Res Behav Sci 19(5):455–467
Romm NRA (2010) New racism: revisiting researcher accountabilities. Springer, New York
Romm NRA (2013) Employing questionnaires in terms of a constructivist epistemological stance: reconsidering researchers’ involvement in the unfolding of social life. Int J Qual Methods 12:652–669
Romm NRA (2014) Active and accountable social inquiry: implications and examples. Particip Educ Res 1(2):13–20
Scott J (2010) Quantitative methods and gender inequalities. Int J Soc Res Methodol 13(3):223–236
Smith LT (1999) Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books, New York
Thayer-Bacon B (2003) Relational epistemologies. Peter Lang, New York
Wheeler JA (1982) Bohr, Einstein, and the strange lesson of the quantum. In: Elvee RQ (ed) Mind in nature. Harper and Row, New York, pp 1–30
Wilson S, Wilson A (2013) Neyo way in ik issi: A family practice of Indigenous research informed by land. In: Mertens DM, Cram F, Chilisa B (eds) Indigenous pathways into social research. Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek, pp 333–352
Ethical Statement
This is to confirm that in the writing of this article I have complied with all ethical standards for the writing of a theoretical piece on, in this case, the transformative paradigm and how arguments connected with it can be developed and extended (including implications for practice). The article title is: Reviewing the Transformative Paradigm: A Critical Systemic and Relational (Indigenous) Lens
Conflict of interest
The author has declared that there is no conflict of interest in this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Romm, N.R.A. Reviewing the Transformative Paradigm: A Critical Systemic and Relational (Indigenous) Lens. Syst Pract Action Res 28, 411–427 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9344-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11213-015-9344-5